Quote from: McrowIf you say Hadrian was a good horseman and george was a skilled horseman. who is better or what does "good" or "skilled" mean when generating stats?

And of course no matter how you work it, you will still have someone claiming that your take was Wayyyy off, and that George and Hadrian's horsemanship skills were much worse/better then your take or that JFK was nowhere near as good in his oration as Mark Anthony. At which time you get to point at said person and laugh at their fatbeardedness.

I think it would clutter.  The point is, this isn't an RPG system sourcebook, it is meant to differ from a "history book" in the sense that its organized, put together, and written in a context that is designed with gamers and their interests in mind.   That's what we need it to do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point, and I think Pundit's point, was if it's written up as a statblock, people will treat it as a Fudge statblock, in a Fudge supplement, not generic descriptors. Written in line, it looks much more generic. People tend to treat statblocks as written in stone, while in-line text is something to be interpreted.

-clash

Clash,
I am not proposing a format for the skills and abilities. I am proposing a way to map to any system. You do not want fudge, fine. We drop it. Don't like the terms, fine, change them. Want to come up with your own ranks, fine. However, I think the key point is to agree on terms and the number of ranks.

That said, it's Zach's ball. If he doesn't want any stat reference then I say drop the whole thing. Forget about Stats. Forget about ranking those stats and write a generic history book. Small vignettes of historical figures. I would suggest plot hooks but that plays too close to stat blocks as well. Don't tell the GM how to run his game, just give him the raw data and let him figure it out.  I wouldn't make a supplement like this but I am all about doing things like adventure seeds, character seeds, easy translation to other systems and setting meat.

Zach?

Bill

Quote from: cnath.rmAnd of course no matter how you work it, you will still have someone claiming that your take was Wayyyy off, and that George and Hadrian's horsemanship skills were much worse/better then your take or that JFK was nowhere near as good in his oration as Mark Anthony. At which time you get to point at said person and laugh at their fatbeardedness.

Oh, I can't wait. Just wait until I get reviews from my fellow Civil War buffs, ripping the product and explaining how I never should have given John Bell Hood a "Fair" in Intellect! :rolleyes:

Quote from: RPGPunditI think it would clutter.  The point is, this isn't an RPG system sourcebook, it is meant to differ from a "history book" in the sense that its organized, put together, and written in a context that is designed with gamers and their interests in mind.   That's what we need it to do.

RPGPundit

Emphasis mine. That is what trying to do. The problem is we differ in our definitions. Let me say, I at least, am open to other ideas. This is Zach's idea and his vision. I will take my lead from him. If he wants no system references, then we have none. If he only wants stats, then so be it. I am just proposing something that will allow us to tap into existing customer bases as well as make the book more useful overall.

See Mike's post. He states it much better than me.

Bill

Quote from: cnath.rmAnd of course no matter how you work it, you will still have someone claiming that your take was Wayyyy off, and that George and Hadrian's horsemanship skills were much worse/better then your take or that JFK was nowhere near as good in his oration as Mark Anthony. At which time you get to point at said person and laugh at their fatbeardedness.

This goes without saying. I actually avoid statting historical figures in my games entirely. I discuss them, weave them into plots but never stat them since you inevitably end up with what I call the "Thor Syndrome". This is where players feel a deep seated need to kill and take the stuff of anything with stats.

Reviews will be fun. :rolleyes:

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
I am not proposing a format for the skills and abilities. I am proposing a way to map to any system. You do not want fudge, fine. We drop it. Don't like the terms, fine, change them. Want to come up with your own ranks, fine. However, I think the key point is to agree on terms and the number of ranks.


Zach?

Bill

I agree, its not about system, but agreeing on a scale. In the end thats all it is, I used fudge because it was a good example. You can change the terms to anything you want as long as they are used across the board.

As a buyer of RPGs, I'm not sure why i'd want to buy something that (if I'm that worried about historical accuarcy)I can't just simply google or wiki for. Part of the idea of gaming supplements is to take some of the work out of the GMs hands, I don't see how just reciting history in PDF form would do that.

Quote from: HinterWeltClash,
I am not proposing a format for the skills and abilities. I am proposing a way to map to any system. You do not want fudge, fine. We drop it. Don't like the terms, fine, change them. Want to come up with your own ranks, fine. However, I think the key point is to agree on terms and the number of ranks.

Bill

Understood, Bill. Unlike Pundit, I don't care whether the Fudge descriptors are used or not - they're as good as any other - but whether the form is a statblock or written into the text - and really only for the skills and abilities, which vary greatly between systems. The attributes as statblock is fine with me. Your "JFK" thing, in other words.

My point was only that when gamers read a statblock, it becomes fixed in their minds, and less open to interpretation. This is a habit that's hard to break. By writing the skills and abilities in-line, it just seems more open to interpretation. Writing attributes/stats as a statblock on the other hand is fine. There's less of them, and they are more uniform in most games.

-clash

Quote from: McrowI agree, its not about system, but agreeing on a scale. In the end thats all it is, I used fudge because it was a good example. You can change the terms to anything you want as long as they are used across the board.

As a buyer of RPGs, I'm not sure why i'd want to buy something that (if I'm that worried about historical accuarcy)I can't just simply google or wiki for. Part of the idea of gaming supplements is to take some of the work out of the GMs hands, I don't see how just reciting history in PDF form would do that.

Well, in defense of that approach there are some products that are littel more than reprints of public domain works but they also have game references in them (usually d20).

Whether it looks cluttered or not is how we lay it out. I guess I am envisioning a set of reference tables which I could probably fit on one page. I am not talking about an all invasive structuring of the product. I am talking about what happens in technical writing all the time. Standardization of terms and measures. When writing a cook book you do not make up your own measurements unless it really does not matter. You do not say "1/2 of my cookie jar", you say "1/2 cup". Unfortunately, we do not have a universal measure in the game world (although d20 comes close).

And just as another point, it sounds like we will have several authors. Setting up some scale would be helpful in terms of standardizing the products across several authors. Again, system does not matter, it is about using the same terms and scale.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point was only that when gamers read a statblock, it becomes fixed in their minds, and less open to interpretation. This is a habit that's hard to break. By writing the skills and abilities in-line, it just seems more open to interpretation. Writing attributes/stats as a statblock on the other hand is fine. There's less of them, and they are more uniform in most games.

-clash

yeah, it does not have to be a statblock, you could do like zach said any bold or caps the term just so it stands out or something. Really, you don't even have to do that as long as you are using a set and ordered list of descriptors. Doing that my screw up the text flow a bit, but its that or a statblock.

Quote from: flyingmiceUnderstood, Bill. Unlike Pundit, I don't care whether the Fudge descriptors are used or not - they're as good as any other - but whether the form is a statblock or written into the text - and really only for the skills and abilities, which vary greatly between systems. The attributes as statblock is fine with me. Your "JFK" thing, in other words.

My point was only that when gamers read a statblock, it becomes fixed in their minds, and less open to interpretation. This is a habit that's hard to break. By writing the skills and abilities in-line, it just seems more open to interpretation. Writing attributes/stats as a statblock on the other hand is fine. There's less of them, and they are more uniform in most games.

-clash

No argument there. We would want to use a table if we wanted to impress it as "game content"; i.e. fix it in the readers mind as a reference. I have no problem with in line descriptions of skills and it might even work better since you may have a figure who has nothing worth noting as an exceptional skill;i.e. he was in the right place at the right time. Inline, you can leave this area undefined and not have an "empty" table.

I will ask you Clash, am I being clear at all? I feel like I am coming across as trying to subvert this effort and want to make sure people know I am just trying to share what has worked for me. I don't want this to be a "HinterWelt Product". I just trying to say, we need a standard across several authors so our readers can view one product to the next without feeling they are reading unrelated material.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltNo argument there. We would want to use a table if we wanted to impress it as "game content"; i.e. fix it in the readers mind as a reference. I have no problem with in line descriptions of skills and it might even work better since you may have a figure who has nothing worth noting as an exceptional skill;i.e. he was in the right place at the right time. Inline, you can leave this area undefined and not have an "empty" table.

I will ask you Clash, am I being clear at all? I feel like I am coming across as trying to subvert this effort and want to make sure people know I am just trying to share what has worked for me. I don't want this to be a "HinterWelt Product". I just trying to say, we need a standard across several authors so our readers can view one product to the next without feeling they are reading unrelated material.

Bill

You're being clear, and I agree with you. What you just wrote above answers all my problems agreeably. I do agree it needs a standard set of descriptors, whether Fudge or not. It was me that wasn't being clear, mostly I think because I read the Pundit's objections as being inline with my own, when they weren't. I think I was coming across as being disruptive, when I was just trying to help. If so, I apologize.

-clahs

Perhaps it would be benficial to design as sample statblock employing simply the main stats, then one including several key skills as well ("Horsemanship: FAIR, Duelling: EXCELLENT"), so we can sort of see how they look.
 
I'm torn here. On one hand, I want this to be a nice, thorough reference that folks get a lot out of. At the same time, I want it to retain its feel of an uncluttered, universal sourcebook.  Bottom line, I think everyone involved with this wants to make a great product, and we just have to figure out the best way to do that.  So, I guess we'll hash it out until we do.
 
And yes, reviews should be a blast.

Quote from: flyingmiceYou're being clear, and I agree with you. What you just wrote above answers all my problems agreeably. I do agree it needs a standard set of descriptors, whether Fudge or not. It was me that wasn't being clear, mostly I think because I read the Pundit's objections as being inline with my own, when they weren't. I think I was coming across as being disruptive, when I was just trying to help. If so, I apologize.

-clahs

Not at all Clash. I am just trying to get on the same page. Like I said, I do not want this to be "My" project since I view it as our (all inclusive) project.

Bringing up different points is not disruptive (and please continue to since I will also). Stating ultimatums is not. We need solutions and critical thinking. Just solutions or just critical thinking are not very helpful.

Bill

Quote from: Zachary The FirstPerhaps it would be benficial to design as sample statblock employing simply the main stats, then one including several key skills as well ("Horsemanship: FAIR, Duelling: EXCELLENT"), so we can sort of see how they look.
 
I'm torn here. On one hand, I want this to be a nice, thorough reference that folks get a lot out of. At the same time, I want it to retain its feel of an uncluttered, universal sourcebook.  Bottom line, I think everyone involved with this wants to make a great product, and we just have to figure out the best way to do that.  So, I guess we'll hash it out until we do.
 
And yes, reviews should be a blast.

Well, the thing is, and correct me if I am wrong, do we even need that? I do not think we need to map to a given skill set. I will use Iridium (because I am most familiar with it) as an example.

Say you give some civil war soldier a skill in Boot Making. I do not have Boot Making in my list of skills (at least I do not think so, maybe Leather Crafting). It does not matter. In the appendix, there would be the reference:
100%.........Pinnacle
90%............Superb
80% ............Great
70% ............Good
60% ...............Fair
50% .........Mediocre
40%...............Poor
30% .........Terrible
20%........beyond bad

the text int he book would say:
"John Little, a soldier of the Confederacy, was considered a GREAT (or great) boot maker before answering the call to war."

As the GM, I would be able to say, "Oh! GREAT boot maker means he has an 80% skill?" Now, boot making may not come into play or maybe the gorup would be in a town shortly after the war and find "The Little Boot Shop" where John Little has vital information from some other part of his Historical Cast entry.

Again, your call Zach. This is the way I see such a resource being used. It does not seem such an onus on an author.

Bill