DungeonaDay and d20srd.org

[blargney the second]

as a developer, what Monty's doing is exactly what he's supposed to.

Duplication of data is bad, it leads to stale data (because Monty is less likely to keep his copy up to date, than the master copy at d20srd). Barring performance problems, linking is the optimal solution. You only replicate data for performance reasons. Heck, if WotC ran the d20srd site, then that's the place to link to. Since WotC failed to provide such a useful service, d20srd.org is the central repository.

A better complaint would be based on the difference between showing an encounter description with a link to the monster stats, rather than embedding the monster stats into the encounter description.

The former requires the user to follow a link, and they cannot see the all the data within one screen (or print-out). Whereas the latter, embedding the data into the encounter, means the user can print out the page, and everything they need is there.

This is a good summary of the situation. Much as I hate iframes, they'd be a simple and effective way to implement what you're suggesting.
-blarg

 

[catsclaw227]

I agree with Janx that a central repository for information is always a better idea.

Who knows, maybe Monte has a rev-share agreement with the gang at d20srd.org? If so, he has skin in the game and a reason to make sure that the site stays up. If not, then he is putting his eggs in a basket that he doesn't have control over.

Its a risk, maybe not a significant one, but there is a risk and I am pretty sure Monte weighed that risk at the onset. He's been around the block a few times, so I am sure he knows what he's doing.

 

[Remathilis]

Its also possible that its a placeholder until he can create a host for his own stat blocks. I mean, he's going to be using custom monsters, non-wizards monsters (like ToH), and statted NPCs not found on d20srd, right?

 

[Zaruthustran]

I'm intrigued by Dungeon-a-Day, but won't be checking it out since it's not designed for 4E.

What I mean by that, is that the encounters are likely to be vs. small numbers of foes, or single big monsters. In a non-dungeon that's not a big deal--you can just convert the numbers, and add a few more creatures (and/or minions). But a dungeon has fixed dimensions. I suppose you could enlarge the rooms to accommodate more foes and 4E's numerous movement powers, but at that point (new stats + new numbers of monsters + new maps) you might as well just build your own dungeon.

It's a shame because I *love* the concept. I just have no wish to go back to an old edition just to plumb a dungeon. For that sort of experience, I've got Descent.

 

[catsclaw227]

I'm intrigued by Dungeon-a-Day, but won't be checking it out since it's not designed for 4E.

What I mean by that, is that the encounters are likely to be vs. small numbers of foes, or single big monsters. In a non-dungeon that's not a big deal--you can just convert the numbers, and add a few more creatures (and/or minions). But a dungeon has fixed geometry. I suppose you could enlarge the rooms to accommodate for more foes and 4E's numerous movement powers, but at that point (new stats + new numbers of monsters + new maps) you might as well just build your own dungeon.

There's already a thread dedicated to 4e conversion.

Monte has some special boards set up, and there's an ongoing discussions on teh 4e maps, 4e encounter conversion and how to make some of the unique elements work. There's even a new fan 4e ritual. It's interesting how many of the "rooms" are actually encounter areas consisting of multiple areas.

 

[PeelSeel2]

I DM 4e and have subscribed. You could easily convert on the fly, but someone in the forum is already converting everything. This is going to be a great product.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Good to hear that a user is doing the conversion; I couldn't tell because the forums are restricted.

 

[DaveMage]

I like that he is using a definitive source for the rules like d20srd.org, but I think its kinda weird to not have it right on his own website. What happens if d20srd.org goes down or something like that? If it were me, I wouldn't want to rely on someone else's website for my pay for website to function correctly. That seems ill conceived, but its just MHO.

I think this is a good point. If d20srd goes down, does that diminish the value of the product - especially considering the delivery method? IIRC, there are no plans to do a print product tied to this, so if the idea is to use the web interface in game, the utility of dungeon a day declines without d20srd.org.

However, if d20srd.org stays up, then it's all good.

If I ran d20srd.org, I might welcome the traffic, and perhaps investigate if anyone would like to advertise on the site...

 

[JoeGKushner]

So when WoTC says people can't repeat monster stats it's bad but when Monte sends people to another site it's good?

In terms of web navigation, I'd always thought you never want the readers/viewers to leave your site as an old standard.

 

[PeelSeel2]

So when WoTC says people can't repeat monster stats it's bad but when Monte sends people to another site it's good?

In terms of web navigation, I'd always thought you never want the readers/viewers to leave your site as an old standard.

In DDI, I always open my monsters in TABS in my browser. Having a link for it is nice. No different than what Monty is doing. You hit it on the head IMO. What your talking about is an old standard. That is not meant to be snark.