Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 254536" data-attributes="member: 2013">Re: Community standardsTo be honest, I think this is a load of crap.&nbsp; Everybody want to administrate, manage, and otherwise fiddle-faddle around going to meetings but without doing any real work.Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think there are certain things that are already well-defined.&nbsp; Feats are well-defined (if your character must spend a &quot;Feat Slot&quot; to acquire this ability, it is a Feat).&nbsp; Spells are well-defined.&nbsp; Skills?&nbsp; Well-defined.&nbsp; Monsters?&nbsp; Well-defined.&nbsp; Classes?&nbsp; Well-defined.Granted, there is some OGC that defies normal classification, but I think trying to classify everything before we start is stupid and an exercise in futility - every new d20 item that comes along tries to push the envelope a bit and establish new categories, doesn't it?I dunno, a huge database, with clearly defined tables (&quot;Creatures&quot;, &quot;Spells&quot;, &quot;Feats&quot;, etc)&nbsp; is doable and is nice to have the information in one place.&nbsp; It does get clunky when you get to the &quot;miscellaneous other stuff&quot; though.That would be nice, but there will always be those who don't agree with the person/people selected.&nbsp; How do we accomodate them?&nbsp; I don't think people will mind if you say, &quot;here is where it is catalogued and distributed&quot; but some people rankle at the idea of rating.Your project is becoming increasingly complex, here.&nbsp; Though I must say, it sounds rather like you want what the FaNCC is already trying to do (<a href="http://www.fancc.org" target="_blank">http://www.fancc.org</a> )For &quot;undercutting publisher&quot; reasons, I doubt we will see the latest and greatest in any such endeavor.I am suspicious any time anyone want to establish a single &quot;standard&quot; for databases, et al.&nbsp; As far as I'm concerned, if it can be ported among standards (say, via a comma-delimited output) that's fine with me.&nbsp; Let me do things my way - don't force me to use someone else's way that I may not be comfortable with - or that may be totally outdated two years hence.This really does sound similar to what the FaNCC has been attempting to do with &quot;fan-created material&quot; (though not all publishers' material) for the past two years.&nbsp; You really should check into them.That would be nice - agree completely here.Hmm... the FANCC holds elections for officers on a yearly basis, has considerable discussion on issues... really, you ought to check them out. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Again, I worry about calling any set of people &quot;community representatives&quot; - even the ENWorld community is not the entire d20 RPG community.Of course, this also puts the onus on the Publishers to provide more fluffy bits since all of their crunchy bits are in the database.&nbsp; And since most hardcore fans are annoyed by fluffy bits, this is self-defeating.That's for dang sure.Personally, I would love to eventually create a database where people can sew stuff together, but it wouldn't be run democratically - works too slowly.&nbsp; I would be sole custodian and decide what does and doesn't make the cut.&nbsp; If you like it, great.&nbsp; If not, go elsewhere.&nbsp; If I do it any other way, we get bogged down in &quot;processes&quot; instead of &quot;publishing stuff.&quot;--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 254536, member: 2013"] [b]Re: Community standards[/b] To be honest, I think this is a load of crap. Everybody want to administrate, manage, and otherwise fiddle-faddle around going to meetings but without doing any real work. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think there are certain things that are already well-defined. Feats are well-defined (if your character must spend a "Feat Slot" to acquire this ability, it is a Feat). Spells are well-defined. Skills? Well-defined. Monsters? Well-defined. Classes? Well-defined. Granted, there is some OGC that defies normal classification, but I think trying to classify everything before we start is stupid and an exercise in futility - every new d20 item that comes along tries to push the envelope a bit and establish new categories, doesn't it? I dunno, a huge database, with clearly defined tables ("Creatures", "Spells", "Feats", etc) is doable and is nice to have the information in one place. It does get clunky when you get to the "miscellaneous other stuff" though. That would be nice, but there will always be those who don't agree with the person/people selected. How do we accomodate them? I don't think people will mind if you say, "here is where it is catalogued and distributed" but some people rankle at the idea of rating. Your project is becoming increasingly complex, here. Though I must say, it sounds rather like you want what the FaNCC is already trying to do ([url]http://www.fancc.org[/url] ) For "undercutting publisher" reasons, I doubt we will see the latest and greatest in any such endeavor. I am suspicious any time anyone want to establish a single "standard" for databases, et al. As far as I'm concerned, if it can be ported among standards (say, via a comma-delimited output) that's fine with me. Let me do things my way - don't force me to use someone else's way that I may not be comfortable with - or that may be totally outdated two years hence. This really does sound similar to what the FaNCC has been attempting to do with "fan-created material" (though not all publishers' material) for the past two years. You really should check into them. That would be nice - agree completely here. Hmm... the FANCC holds elections for officers on a yearly basis, has considerable discussion on issues... really, you ought to check them out. ;) Again, I worry about calling any set of people "community representatives" - even the ENWorld community is not the entire d20 RPG community. Of course, this also puts the onus on the Publishers to provide more fluffy bits since all of their crunchy bits are in the database. And since most hardcore fans are annoyed by fluffy bits, this is self-defeating. That's for dang sure. Personally, I would love to eventually create a database where people can sew stuff together, but it wouldn't be run democratically - works too slowly. I would be sole custodian and decide what does and doesn't make the cut. If you like it, great. If not, go elsewhere. If I do it any other way, we get bogged down in "processes" instead of "publishing stuff." --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification