Quote from: HinterWeltWell, 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

I personally would be OK writing like that.  If folks don't think it detracts from the flow of the writing too poorly, that would be ok.
 
I hate to be so bloody wishy-washy, but I guess I can see the merits to both formats.  I feel it would be less cluttered in such a fashion, and if we're already described him in the bio, we're already going to list some of the skills and abilities that set him apart, right?

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI personally would be OK writing like that.  If folks don't think it detracts from the flow of the writing too poorly, that would be ok.
 
I hate to be so bloody wishy-washy, but I guess I can see the merits to both formats.  I feel it would be less cluttered in such a fashion, and if we're already described him in the bio, we're already going to list some of the skills and abilities that set him apart, right?

But see, the cool thing about this format would be that you do not NEED to add something, just describe. If you come to a point where you find yourself describing something you believe need to be qualified, then just use our qualifiers.

Yes, it might effect the flow of your prose but I think the benefit outweighs it. With a table, or statblock, you end up with a blank space if you do not have any skills. It will be "blank" becuse it does appear in other bios. So, with this method, you just qualify your skills and the reader is queued to look at the appendix. Using tags, you make it adaptable to different scales and systems.

It seems like an elegant solution to me but, believe me, I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltBut see, the cool thing about this format would be that you do not NEED to add something, just describe. If you come to a point where you find yourself describing something you believe need to be qualified, then just use our qualifiers.
 
Yes, it might effect the flow of your prose but I think the benefit outweighs it. With a table, or statblock, you end up with a blank space if you do not have any skills. It will be "blank" becuse it does appear in other bios. So, with this method, you just qualify your skills and the reader is queued to look at the appendix. Using tags, you make it adaptable to different scales and systems.
 
It seems like an elegant solution to me but, believe me, I am open to being convinced otherwise.
 
Bill

OK, this makes sense to me.  Generic descriptors not forced, but used in text where appropriate.  I think that's a pretty sensible move, but like Bill, I'm not shutting the door on this.
 
How about our other participants?  Pundit?  Do you feel like that would hamstring you?

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.

For starters, because if you're a non-historian you might not even know some of these people exist to wiki them. You might know who Augustus Caesar was, you might even have heard of a dude called Livy so you could wiki him; but did you ever hear of Polio? Marcellus? Sextus Pompey? Maecenas?

Second, they will be in a format that helps you use them in RPGs, unlike wikipedia. They will say: "in year xx you would find Gaius Anonymous doing y in z place, and he could connect to your PCs like so...". I think a lot of gamers might find that useful.

Shit, if you got ME to do a sourcebook for any of the Roman imperial dynasties, in this format, by the end you'd have more than half of anything you'd really need to run a roman campaign.  And the other half is what you could easily get from a wiki or a history book.

RPGPundit

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

And you'll note that the "attributes" I proposed were not really attributes that translated directly into typical RPG stats.  They would be more useful in telling you how to roleplay said NPC than in what his actual mechanical stats were.

RPGPundit

I have set up a private forum on the HinterWelt site for posting the actual manuscripts.
http://www.hinterwelt.com/HWEForum/

Go over there and register then let me know and I will add you to the Historical Cast forum.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI have set up a private forum on the HinterWelt site for posting the actual manuscripts.
http://www.hinterwelt.com/HWEForum/

Go over there and register then let me know and I will add you to the Historical Cast forum.


Bill

Done!

Quote from: Zachary The FirstDone!

You're added!

Ok, just to check here, is Hinterwelt actually going to publish these? If so, of course, it makes sense that they would host the forum. If not...

So, Hinter, is this your way of confirming that you're going to be doing the publishing?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, just to check here, is Hinterwelt actually going to publish these? If so, of course, it makes sense that they would host the forum. If not...

So, Hinter, is this your way of confirming that you're going to be doing the publishing?

RPGPundit

I do not mean to presume but I thought that was the understanding. I have not come up with a contract yet with Zach (or any other authors) but we can hammer that out either via emails or in the private forum.

That said, I have no problem continuing the public discussions here. I just could not upload the outline file nor did I think it was a good idea to put our manuscripts up on a public forum.

Again, I defer to Zach's thoughts on this. I have no problem publishing this. I bring to the table:
1) an account on RPGNow/OBS
2) an account on YGN
3) Print experience (HinterWelt is primarily a print company with 15 titles in print)
4) access to international distirbution

All that said, if Zach or others are against it I will hold no hard feelings and do as much or little as requested. Clash mentioned being taxed but you could get similar experience with Flying Mice.

Bill

Hey, i think its a fine idea, though flying mice would be just as fine an idea, but yes; I think clash is probably a bit overwhelmed, given that he's doing several projects, one of which is FtA! and we don't want that delayed more than it needs to be, after all.

Ok, so which project is going to go ahead first? The Civil War project?

RPGPundit

Yeah, Clash is awesome, but he's admitted that he's booked solid right now.  I respect HW and Bill, and am happy to work with them.
 
As to what project's going first, with this template, we should be able to work on several projects.  I'm starting with the Civil War, as its my concentration and where I'm most comfortable, but assuming our outline/template is/gets firmed, we should be able to proceed with more than one writer/compiler, right?

Civil War Navy. The brown water Navy on the Mississippi and tributaries, and the blue water navy patrolling and enfocing the blockade. Ironclads. Shell guns in wooden ships. Damn the torpedoes. The Huntley and other practical submarines.  Sailing a monitor in heavy seas. Why does no one ever mention the Civil War Navies?

-clash

Quote from: Zachary The FirstYeah, Clash is awesome, but he's admitted that he's booked solid right now.  I respect HW and Bill, and am happy to work with them.

Thanks, guys! If I couldn't handle it - and I can't just now - I can't think of anyone better than Bill.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceCivil War Navy. The brown water Navy on the Mississippi and tributaries, and the blue water navy patrolling and enfocing the blockade. Ironclads. Shell guns in wooden ships. Damn the torpedoes. The Huntley and other practical submarines. Sailing a monitor in heavy seas. Why does no one ever mention the Civil War Navies?
 
-clash

Oh, you know it's on my list, baby.  Porter.  Semmes.  Farragut. It's gonna happen.
 
I've actually started and stopped an RPG based on the Civil War several times--maybe this will give me the oomph I need to git er done.