Databasing the rules

[heirodule]

The news that they were databasing the rules was one of the more encouraging things about 4e I've read. I suppose its necessitated by the DI, but it should go a long way to avoiding some of the bonehead mistakes (3e versioned Summon Undead in a 3.5 product) that i've seen and make updates to rules smoother.

Love to see the schema for D&D

thoughts?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, I think it's long overdue. Having one standardized version of every monster, etc., should mean fewer dumb goofs (not that WotC was as bad as some publishers) and once something's corrected in the database once, hopefully it won't be too cumbersome to print corrected versions in the next printings of books. This all depends on how they build the files they send to the printers -- if they pull the most recent version of each rules bit from the database each time, it'll make each printing theoretically more error-free than the last. I will certainly buy later printings if there's a significant amount of updates.

 

[helium3]

I was mildly shocked that 3.0 and 3.5 rules weren't in some kind of database. I mean, it's not like Database's were newfangled technology in 1998-1999. I mean sheesh, ever heard of Microsoft Access?

 

[Michael Morris]

Microsoft Access....



You're joking right?

Either use MySQL or fork over $900 to uncle Bill for MSSQL but Access can only handle the tiniest of small business db's. It isn't suitable for any project of real scope.

 

[gizmo33]

Either use MySQL or fork over $900 to uncle Bill for MSSQL but Access can only handle the tiniest of small business db's. It isn't suitable for any project of real scope.

The size of the data for the rules is pretty small. It would be cool if there were a million spells but there aren't so far as I know. Access is sufficient for the amount of data, I think the more likely problem with Access would be multi-user issues. Keep in mind though that anything (including Access) is an improvement over nothing.

 

[Festivus]

It's a bit more than $900 for MSSQL licenses on a internet facing server (or a web server that hits it). Closer to $5800 per processor.

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=877955

 

[Michael Morris]

It's a bit more than $900 for MSSQL licenses on a internet facing server (or a web server that hits it). Closer to $5800 per processor.

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=877955

And execs at MS wonder why MySQL has a 60% market share.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Microsoft Access....



You're joking right?

Either use MySQL or fork over $900 to uncle Bill for MSSQL but Access can only handle the tiniest of small business db's. It isn't suitable for any project of real scope.

MySQL... I hope you're joking! Obviously, Oracle or DB2 would be the cream of the crop, but the cost is outrageous unless you are a mid- to large-size corporation. If you're on a budget, it doesn't get much better than PostgreSQL .

MySQL/PostgreSQL Comparison