Friday, February 23, 2018

The Wiki Begins to Move

So, with working on it all morning, I have shifted 70 pages onto the wiki, mostly index pages.  Everything that I've worked on thus far is associated with Player Characters ... and so it will go for quite some time, as I have hundreds of spells to take from Wikispaces to Blogger.  As well as many sage abilities.

After I get all the Player Character Material across, I will start working on Combat.  Then, probably, Trade & Equipment.  By then, the back of the task will be broken.

Right now, the wiki all works, all the links should be sound (though probably there's an error here or there).  The way I've done it, a reader will notice that the original wiki and the new blog are interchanged completely, so that movement back and forth is seamless. There shouldn't be any dead links along the way.  That's the goal, anyway.

There were lots of places on the past wiki that did lead nowhere.  Projects that weren't finished, spell lists that still had spells that weren't written yet ... I do tend to change from project to project, without worrying about whether or not I'll come back to something. Eventually, I always do.  If there are five 4th level druid spells without descriptions, or nothing at all for 5th level spells and higher, its because this is work that doesn't need doing right away.

I haven't gotten a comment on the blogger-wiki yet, and I'm not surprised.  I deliberately wrote a harsh rejoiner on the comments field:
Comments are welcome; however, the content on this blog is not purposed for critical evaluation. Comments are strictly limited to errors in text, need for clarification, suggested additions, link fails and other technical errors, personal accounts of how the rule as written applied in their campaign and useful suggestions for other rules pages.
All other comments will be deleted.

Let's face it; we all know what the internet is.  I'm absolutely interested in receiving comments, and letting the site be somewhat open in that way ... but I want useful comments, along the principles upon which the wiki is built.  I don't care how some other game system solves a problem, or what people "feel" about a rule, or anything that isn't hard business on the matter.  I do want any comment that says, "link such-and-such doesn't work" or pointing out a spelling error.  Once I fix the error, I can then remove such comments.

Other comments, I hope, will stand the test of time.  I'll just have to see.


Ozymandias said...

If I take your meaning, there's a difference between "personal accounts of how the rule as written applied" in the reader's game and "what people feel about a rule."

For example, when I applied the stunning rule the first time, I noticed a distinct reaction from the players: eyes widened then narrowed, brows furrowed, and mouths agape as they considered the implications. And I could go into further detail, especially if the rule as written produced a different game effect than might be indicated by the text on the Wiki/blog.

Do I understand correctly that this would be an example of a useful comment?

Alexis Smolensk said...

Still pretty touchy-feely.

I'm looking for feedback like, "Where a creature gets two attacks, I understand that it takes one-quarter damage to reduce the creature to one attack ("partly stunned"), and one-third damage to stun the creature altogether. There's nothing here that says which attack is removed in a partly stunned situation. Is it the main attack or the secondary attack?"

In other words, I'm looking for the sort of points an engineer or a scientist would ask ... details for structure and function, rather than user behaviour (such as you proposed Ozymandias).

Vlad Malkav said...

Hello Alexis,

I just tried to post a comment, on the Experience page. As there hasn't been, at no moment, any UI element asking me who I was, I'm not sure it is working properly.

Maybe that's why you didn't get any comment yet ?

Alexis Smolensk said...


I answered a comment there just yesterday. Seems to be working normally.