Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tarkisflux

Pages: [1]
1
General Legend Discussion / Re: Worlds' End Discussion: Fair Trial (8/9)
« on: August 23, 2013, 11:59:06 PM »
So, moment of truth: what's the preference of the first two, Cathexis or Fair Trial?

Fair Trial, and that's true of everyone I've shown them to as well (though to be fair, it's a group of people rather biased in favor of gonzo/ridiculous games).

2
The current system already allows you to use interrogations and negotiations. An interrogation is typically a different enough context to stand alone, and you just use it when needed. The negotiations I'm still not sure when you use, as their basic case seems to be covered by the social encounters already, but you can utilize them alongside the social encounters as well. You are claiming the advantage of incorporating options that already exist.
No, I'm claiming that a lack of redundancy between options is an advantage and also that rules consistency between layers is an advantage. With this you do not learn the token generation and spending rules for the social encounter setup and also Negotiation, and you do not have to decide which you want to use each one on a case by case basis. That you could use Negotiation with the social encounter system is an actual negative from a rules mastery (two substantially different systems to learn) and transparency (no clear guidelines as to when one or the other is appropriate) standpoint. Having 1 well defined, rules consistent system to get what you want is a positive compared to having 2 overlapping systems with different rule sets.

That said, my plan is to tweak the grant and groundwork options, remove ultimatum, call it done, and then abandon it to obscurity. It's adequate for what it was intended to be, pushing everything into the skill game rules, but there are problems I don't see solutions for. I can't find a solution to the "all-in" bidding problem that I'm happy with, and the refunding is really weird in retrospect. It's not really more complicated than Interrogation, but it's arguably more complicated than a social entry point needs to be. Further simplification just turns it into a new Negotiate option though, which I'm unhappy with for other reasons.

So Happy Failure to me :D! Time to move on to optioning up the social encounter system instead (assign value to tokens, bring in the negotiate and interrogate options). Which brings me back to...



The dynamic in a normal social encounter is trying to get people to agree to something, gaining and trading various abstractions of your political capital. You may belying to people, manipulating them, figuring out their vulnerabilities, you may honestly negotiate with them, or try to strongarm them into it, but the basic dynamic is the same. The social encounters covers that. Interrogation works under a completely different set of assumptions. For one, it is inherently asymmetrical. You are trying to get information out of them, but they are not trying to get anything out of you. Even in your party example, the other person is just engaging in a conversation, whilst you have an ulterior motive. You enter an interrogation with a completely different set of goals and methods than a normal social encounter. It works as a skill game because it is so different that a different ruleset become more appropriate. Maybe that is a drawback of the current social encounters, that they are not well suited to that type of interaction.
That distinction doesn't work very well. I don't disagree that Interrogation is inherently asymmetrical, but it's certainly not that way because of the goals of the two sides. One of your examples from up the page was a one-sided affair where you throw some points at a guard who doesn't want anything to do with you. If he doesn't want to let you pass and you don't let him go about his duties until he's dealt with you (because you'll kill him or whatever), that's not much different from not wanting to give you some information. Extract's "tell me what I want to know" is just a specialized case of demand's "do this thing for me", and concessions are just you accepting someone's counter offer to protect them or whatever in exchange for the information. You can model extract, stall, and concession with either the social encounter system or Negotiate pretty straightforwardly.

For another example of how close they are, you could do formal surrender talks against a battered kingdom with it if you replaced the Extract list with the Demand list from Negotiate (the values map extremely well). You have an army and are winning the war but want to not just crush them for whatever reason and they want to survive, so you force them to the table and try to take them for everything they're worth. You can lie to them (and they to you), you can entrap them, and you can certainly leverage them because you have a big army. And if you don't have a peace deal after 6 action rounds the people don't see it as legitimate and keep fighting a guerrilla war or whatever.

The asymmetry in Interrogation comes from the fact that one party has the other over a barrel. Even if they're not using leverage, they're in a position of strength represented by their bonus token each round and their target's inability to walk away. It's focused on information in the writeup, but it works pretty well for any coerced demand where pressure could cause the target to break and do something misleading or otherwise unhelpful. And it's full of really useful negotiating options, because it is a negotiation over a piece of information. The threat of force and the possibility of breaking are the only things that make it different.

3
General Legend Discussion / Re: Questions about the rules, thread #2!
« on: July 13, 2013, 08:01:38 PM »
Q68: Did Legend retain the 'Aid Another' action or something equivalent? I can't find anything relevant in the pdf searching for the terms 'aid', 'assist', or 'help' despite random bits here and there about party aid (like the DC 50 line on page 145)... but my search fu may be weak today :-\

4
Down a computer for a few days, if not longer (borrowing one for this quick drop in), so I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to reply to this properly. It gives me some time to sit back and reexamine it though, which is nice. And if nothing else, the idea of discreet bid amounts for the regular game might work as a starting point for moving the finer negotiation options down and adjusting the intrinsic value of tokens.

One last thought before I go though...

I don't even think it is fair to consider interrogation part of social encounter stuff. It is a very different type of interaction.

I think that Interrogate is a lot more like the regular social situations than the dark side of the word implies. Interrogation doesn't have to be overt and it doesn't have to be painful. Pumping someone for information at a party? It's basically an interrogation where they get wise to your attempts and leave (or you're otherwise interrupted, or whatever) after 6 action rounds. Leverage wouldn't be torture but it could well be threats or blackmail. Interrogate is really a lot like negotiation, except that you're pushing people and they might break or you might run out of time before things are concluded. And sometimes the concessions you make are promises to not do annoying or terrible things to the other side, which they certainly want but it's not often a positive development. The focus on information and coercion leaves out a lot of other social activities that are well modeled along the same lines.

5
It rather sounds like you are against it in principle actually. You want social defenses to be involved in the game (except Interrogate for reasons that are not clear to me), and they are explicitly not involved in the skill games. You want an organic build up with narrative prompts, and the skill games are explicitly post-hoc where everyone rolls all of the selected skills and the person with the highest total gets to describe what they did to earn the token (if they want to). You like the open raise / re-raise nature of the social encounter system, but the bidding skill game is explicitly blind and simultaneous. I'm not sure what part of the skill game you're actually not opposed to in the social cases.

I strongly disagree with the assertion that this does not handle things at least as well as the social encounter system, at least in part because it's not designed to replace that system by itself. In it's most basic form, the progression looks like this:

Do "X" -> Yes / Yes but (negotiate) / No / Why? -> Please? / Please and... (negotiate) / I'll make you (interrogate) / Why you should / Just do it already

At its core, it's a system for resolving "Do X: Y/N" questions. If you use negotiate for complicated requests, it expands to cover all of the same options as the social encounter system. You can't really just use negotiate by itself, since it doesn't cover any really simple requests or outright refusals and you don't get to carry points around afterwards (though that's certainly fixable).

Now, I could shave a couple of options off of there to make it more simple, but the concern was that it would be also more boring and not involve any strategy or bluff. And as previously stated, I could shave off the refunds to simplify things a bit more on top of that. These things reduce complexity and push people into the other games more readily, ending this phase even more quickly, but I don't know if they're any more fun. And I'm pretty sure that these changes wouldn't really matter to you, because the core of the skill game mechanic seems to not do what you want out of social bits while your your preferred (and current) system does.

Which is fine of course. I'm not particularly attached to this setup (really, my defense of it is more to try and figure out where exactly it's failing aside from structural differences between the systems... and I'm still not seeing that). It may be the case that people just prefer the structure of the social encounter game over the negotiate skill game. And if that is the case, I wish I'd gone the other way with it and worked on moving the interrogate and negotiate stuff down into the social encounter system instead of trying to bolt on the missing bits to turn Interrogate and Negotiate into a full social encounter replacement.



Edit:

It's homebrew. You can't mandate that all homebrew be as good as core Legend material or better.
When it is trying to replace it, yes, that is the standard to which I will hold it. Why should anyone replace the official system with a worse alternative?

I second this. If this doesn't do what you want as well as official systems, you should absolutely take issue with it. I wanted token portability between games, unified token acquisition and spending mechanics, and similar actions between each phase of the skill game while still achieving the same ends and I still don't see how this doesn't give those things. Whether the implementation is good or bad, if you don't like those things as much as you like the open and more free-form social encounter system (in short, you prefer the social encounter system to the Negotiate skill game) then this is going to be a terrible idea for the game.

6
I get that the social encounter system does its job well. It has some problems similar to 4e skill challenges where you don't want non-specialists contributing in most contentious cases (on second thought, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the legend skill and bonus and everything else changes to make that statement with any degree of confidence, even if the possiblity does still worry me based on its individual check/counter check mechanic), but it has nice narrative prompts and does a pretty good job of modelling the back and forth of conversation while providing depth and cost to those exchanges. I rather like it even, but (and I'm going to say this in italics because it seems to be getting lost a lot) I dislike having two systems that do the same thing. I wanted one of the two systems to be replaced with something more like the other, and decided to go this route. It may have been a poor choice for preference reasons

The returns thing is sort of necessary actually since this is much more binary than the other skill games. If you're asking for something ridiculous you need a 4 point win to get it, but if you only get a 1 point win you're in a worse relative position without gaining anything. In the other games you gain something minor, but here you don't and without the returns you take a hit. I'm not sure I'm happy with the "all in" strategy it tends towards, but I don't see how to avoid punishing winning by an insufficient amount otherwise. I suppose it could disappear and just be that extra incentive to use one of the other non-binary games when you aren't making an easy request or have a bunch of tokens saved up though.

Your example is somewhat flawed in that groundwork is a terrible option when you have the upper hand, though it being a terrible option when you have the upper hand is pretty much the opposite of intended. If you were the underdog and used it with 3 while your opponent did whatever for 6, their bid would be reduced by two to 4, and they'd win by 1 with 2 tokens in their pool unspent, setting the two sides to 3:0. Which actually makes it a poor option for the underdog too because it doesn't gain them anything. Yeah, I'll probably rework it into just allowing you to make an additional check against a skill not chosen for the action round so you can maybe grab another token.

7
Yeah, this is supposed to replicate all of the stuff of the old system with the mechanics of the rest of the systems. So the 'little at stake, go quickly thing' is intentional and a feature, not a bug. If I wasn't getting the same things out of this as the base social system it would be a failure as a replacement. Feeling like the old system leads to a more interesting exchange is a reasonable objection, and not one I'm necessarily disagreeing with. I just don't agree that the interesting system is worth the increased complexity of different but still sort of interlocking systems.

You say that the old works better than this, but I'm not actually seeing how. I see the same results with slightly different inputs, where the inputs match other related skill games instead of not, the tokens gained in it are acquired in the same manner (and have the same value) instead of not, and you can transition to one of them relatively easily. I see an extremely similar results table that doesn't require substantial relearning from the other skill games, though that's hardly a point in its favor if you're not going to use the other games. So aside from the fundamental differences between the skill games and the older social system mechanics (and the preferences that come along with those), I'm not seeing where this works badly.

Also, refuse stuff is in.

8
But now its 1 thing for the entire challenge, when the normal method can have an arbitrary number of demands. You can change your demands, try to secure a small concession before pushing for bigger ones, you can see how many tokens are being staked on a demand to decide whether its worth resisting at that level of investment. You can try incrementally increasing your demand to pressure someone into it slowly.

1 rather straightforward thing, or you drop into the skill game designed for an arbitrary number of demands where you can change them, offer up concessions in exchange for securing your own things, and so on. It's not as if this can't handle that sort of situation, it just leans on the Negotiation game to do so because that's what it's for and it's trivial to refluff it for non-formal negotiations.

You've basically described the Negotiation game with an open bid and 1 round (and no hornswaggle). And that's fine, but it seems to make that skill game entirely redundant, which is part of my problem with the current status of things. I don't see the point of the redundancy or the different mechanics.

If its going to be a deeper game, why not just do that game in the first place?

Because not everything needs a back and forth? Some things you just ask for, pay a bit of social token currency (possibly allowing the other side to save up to use against you later on) and call it done. The depth here isn't in a single game, it's in how the game impacts multiple games and the relationship between the participants.

This may unify mechanics, but it strips out most of the nuances from the current system and doesn't do anything to make it more interesting. Its also much more complicated, the normal social system is rather simple. I could run it right now without even glancing at the rulebook. This I would need to keep track of what winning bids does for each amount, for each action. The system was simple but had some meat to it. This is complex and lacks that meat. From a role playing perspective, the old system encouraged you to use various skills to make different types of interactions,and role play it out. This turns it into wheedling or ultimatums. Ultimately, it just seems more boring than the current system.

This isn't any more complicated than the other skill games IMO, and the winning bids largely match the winning bid numbers from those games. You can level the rest of those concerns against those skill games as well. So I'm sort of wondering why those games seem to get a pass while this one doesn't. Actually, do they even get a pass, or would you just use the social system in place of Interrogation and Negotiation?

I'll get the Refuse thing in shortly, but I don't think it'll make the idea much more palatable to you. Which is fine really, I'm not sure I'm sold on it either. I just want things unified where possible, and it may make more sense to go the other way with these things in the end.

9
It does lose the social defense thing, but they're irrelevant in all of the skill games. It's basically being sacrificed for a unified mechanic. I actually prefer it the other way, but it's more work and people seem pretty happy with the token levels seen from this approach (from my extremely limited chat foray a while back).

You do get to hear this request before starting. It's part of the mechanics that the request is placed before the game even begins, so you should be able to hear it and reply before deciding how to respond. Second paragraph after the header. I can make that more clear though.

3 Options is just as many as Negotiation. I agree that it's a bit thin, but I don't think it needs to be particularly deep on its own since it has mechanics for moving into deeper games that better cover those areas. As for groundwork being pointless, yeah, it pretty much is after the first couple of rounds in a fresh encounter. It's supposed to not move things forward and give you some time to build up tokens. In a game where the participants are bringing in tokens from previous encounters it might not even delay things, just make them more expensive.

I actually have a set of Refuse winning bid actions in my notes, but I seem to have forgotten to actually flesh them out. Turning the request down flat and shutting off discussion at the cost of some social currency is a thing that should happen and was planned for, and then I forgot :-/. I'll write that up and put it in for reals post fireworks.

10
The social non-combat encounter seems a bit at odds with the later skill games, and it’s been bothering me since I read them all together in the 1.0 release. They both use tokens and you’re supposed to be able to drop from the skill games into the social encounter, but the generalized social encounters make checks against their opponent’s DC instead of the player’s DC and don’t use the tokens in the same [Action round] bidding way. And the offer / counter offer design seems a lot like the demand / concession setup of Negotiation. Roll that all together and I feel like they form a non-unified mechanic for achieving social goals, where you need to know two different sets of rules and behaviors instead of just different options. It’s not a big problem, certainly, but it’s one that bugs me.

While it would be pretty easy to rewrite the skill games to use opponent/terrain DCs like the general social encounter setup, it results in larger token pools to play with for one side or the other and is a lot more work. Instead of doing all of that, I just want to bring this outlier into the fold instead. And so I present this generic social encounter replacement:

Persuasion

Type of skill game: Bidding
Number of Skills Chosen per Action Round: 2
Skill List: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Perception.

The Persuasion skill game is useful for modeling informal social requests, favors, and the general building of relationships between groups. It works as a lighter version of, and gateway into, the Interrogation and Negotiation skill games.

Each Persuasion skill game begins with a request, a goal that the initiating side wishes to see completed. This may be as simple as convincing the other party to pick up the tab for dinner or a more involved cessation of hostilities. Requests are generally categorized as moderately inconvenient or significantly inconvenient, the exact meaning must be determined on a party by party basis. A party always has the option of not participating in the Persuasion skill game, which has the same effect as ending the game by walking away (described below).

The actions in Persuasion offer various methods of getting the other party to agree the request, or for the other party refusing or acquiescing in various ways. More complicated interactions including counteroffers or forced compliance can be achieved with actions that change the skill game to Negotiation or Interrogation, with both parties bringing their tokens into the new game.

Unlike other social skill games, the persuasion skill game can occur simultaneously with combat; the most common requests are “surrender” or “stop the violence”. An [Action round] is resolved after every 2 combat [rounds] in these instances. If one side is obviously ‘winning’ the encounter, they gain an additional 1 token per [Action round]. Some bidding actions are not available in combat, however.

Persuasion ends when the request is resolved, when neither party makes a bid and the request is effectively dropped, or when one party walks away. Resolving the request or electing to not bid ends the skill game on an amicable note, and both parties retain any unspent tokens which  may be spent on future Persuasion, Interrogation, or Negotiation attempts. Walking away does not end the skill game on a friendly note. The party that walked away loses any tokens acquired during this game, as well as half of any retained from previous games. It also sends a message to the other party that simple persuasion is unlikely to succeed in the future.

Persuasion Action Set

Because the goals of the parties are potentially different, the actions available to each are different.

Wheedle: After making a request, a bit of coaxing may be all that is needed to get it granted. Wheedling is a good tactic if you expect your request to be granted, but a poor one if you expect it to be refused.

Grant: When a request is made of you, you can simply agree to it. This represents an acceptance of the request regardless of how inconvenient or dangerous it might be, and regardless of the opposing bid.

Refuse: Refusing to do a thing is a time honored tradition that dates back centuries, whether you actually don’t want to do it or just want to make them work for it.

Lay Groundwork: Either side may spend time laying groundwork for a later move. This time is often spent detailing or questions whether the request is fair or necessary for either side. When you bid this option, you may immediately roll an additional skill for the [Action round] from among those not selected for the round. If one of your checks is high enough, you gain a token as normal. The Lay Groundwork action is intended only to delay resolution, leaving time to allow additional tokens to be gathered and spent on a later action. The bid of the opposing side may still resolve the request if their bid was high enough compared to yours, however.

Interrogate: If the requesting side is capable of forcing an answer from the other party, physically, politically, or otherwise, they may move a normal Persuasion to an Interrogation. This option is not available in open combat, though it may be available after a foe has been subdued. If you fail to win the bid but otherwise meet the force conditions, you may still force the target into interrogation. If you elect to do so, both your bid and the target’s bid are invalidated for the [Action round], and your target gains 1 token. Token pools from the Persuasion are carried over into the Interrogation.
 
Negotiate: Either side may move a normal Persuasion into the back-and-forth of a more thorough Negotiation in an attempt to reach a more nuanced resolution of the request. Negotiate is a good option if you expect your request to be refused, but may be a poor one if you expect it to be granted. This option is not available in open combat, though it may immediately follow a cessation of hostilities or be introduced during a lull in the fight. If you fail to win the bid, you may still force the target into interrogation. If you elect to do so, both your bid and the target’s bid are invalidated for the [Action round] and you must grant them a significant concession but non-dangerous concession. Token pools from the Persuasion are carried over into the Negotiation.

Persuasion Action Table

Wheedle
Bid was won by 1: You successfully convince the target to honor a moderately inconvenient but mutually beneficial request over their refusal or delaying. If the request is significantly inconvenient or somewhat dangerous, you instead recover 1 token for use later.
Bid was won by 2: You convince the target to honor either a moderately inconvenient if somewhat dangerous request or a significantly inconvenient but mutually beneficial request. If the request is significantly inconvenient but not mutually beneficial, you instead recover 2 tokens for use later.
Bid was won by 3: You convince the target to honor a significantly inconvenient but not dangerous request. If the request is significantly inconvenient and somewhat dangerous, you instead recover 3 tokens for use later.
Bid was won by 4: You convince the target to honor a significantly inconvenient and somewhat dangerous request.

Refuse
Bid was won by 1: You successfully refuse a significantly inconvenient and dangerous request without social fallout. The requester loses this Persuasion and may not continue trying to get you to honor the request, though they may try again after a period of reflection so long as they offer a significant concession. If the request is not significantly inconvenient or not somewhat dangerous, you instead recover 1 token for use later.
Bid was won by 2: You successfully refuse a significantly inconvenient and non-beneficial request without social fallout. The requester loses this Persuasion and may not continue trying to get you to honor the request, though they may try again after a period of reflection so long as they offer a significant concession. If the request is not significantly inconvenient or is mutually beneficial, you instead recover 2 tokens for use later.
Bid was won by 3: You successfully refuse a significantly inconvenient request or a moderately inconvenient but somewhat dangerous request without social fallout. The requester loses this Persuasion and may not continue trying to get you to honor the request, though they may try again after a period of reflection so long as they offer a significant concession. If the request is not significantly inconvenient or not somewhat dangerous, you instead recover 3 tokens for use later.
Bid was won by 4: You successfully refuse any request without social fallout. The requester loses this Persuasion and may not continue trying to get you to honor the request, though they may try again after a period of reflection so long as they offer a significant concession.

Lay Groundwork
Bid was won by 3+: You recover any tokens that would cause you to win the bid by more than 2.

Interrogate
Bid was won by 1-4: In addition to forcing the other party into an interrogation, you also gain the benefit of a successful Extract action as if you had won the bid by the same number of points.

Negotiate
Bid was won by 1-4: In addition to bringing the other party into a negotiation, you also gain the benefit of a successful Demand action as if you had won the bid by the same number of points.



Supporting Adjustments

Couple of other things need to be tweaked to finish things up:
  • Unspent tokens in the Interrogation and Negotiation games go into a pool to be used later. This results in a bit more tracking maybe, but you could already drop from those games down to the social encounter game and save those tokens anyway.
  • The Interrogation and Negotiation games could get a bid action to drop into the Persuasion game, but I’m not sure it’s necessary or more useful than the “just agree to change over” model they have now.
  • The Lay Groundwork action could be added to the Negotiation game as a lighter form of Hornswaggle.
  • There’s also some feats that would need adjusting, but I don’t want to worry about that without getting this out for commentary first.

Anyway, that’s what I got. I’m not as deep into Legend as some of you are, and I’d appreciate a second opinion on the merits before I put more work in. Getting it out has been nice though.

Edit: And yes, this may have been a colossal waste of my time for <reasons>. I'm pretty ok with that, though I would appreciate it if you could fill those reasons in if you believe it to be the case. ;-)

11
General Discussion / Re: Free Boards
« on: January 20, 2013, 02:10:02 AM »
There could be a minor problem with some of my stuff.  Some of my humorous entries are a bit risque.  Peek at teh spells for the Witch Doctor I posted on the AByss on this board.

Some of the graphic examples are borderline maybe (I can talk about which ones elsewhere if you like), but the ideas themselves are probably fine. We have pulled objectionable written content before, but it was really objectionable and your work isn't there yet. If you're worried about it you could skip it or put it up in subpages of your user page instead of in the main navigation. Subpages means it's probably not going to get seen by casual users, but it serves as another storage box if you wanted one. We let people put all kinds of weird stuff in there, like the one guy who has a bunch of BoEF "NPCs" stated up.

@Tark

For several years, I've been working on an uber list of ALL the spell descriptions from all official 1st-party and 2nd party 3.x content. Such as Dragonlance, Ghostwalk, FR, Eberron, WotC web enhancements, etc.

I was just about to look into either a free blog or some 3rd party wiki to post the info.

What sort of things do you guys have over there about posting a compilation of copyrighted and OGL material?

We have the full SRD posted and a whole namespace devoted to publications (because we're clever, it's the "Publication" namespace). We will delete any infringing material (and have before), but any OGL material or index/summary material is acceptable as long as it's your words and not copypasta from the text proper. So some of our "Complete X" entries have a feat or class or spell index with summaries, but plenty others don't. And other pages, like Complete Gear (3rd party publisher) or Unearthed Arcana, have OGL material appended to them as subpages (that is then included via wiki magic in OGL material lists elsewhere for ease of browsing).

If that sounds workable or interesting, feel free to pop on over to the DnD 3.x Pub Listings and take a closer look. Or you can roll your own solution along whatever lines that you think more fitting. But I strongly recommend not trying to post copyright material. Aside from legal and ethical concerns, posting copyright material is just asking for takedown notices (see Crystal Keep, the assorted Char Gen sheets that aren't floating around anymore, etc.). And then all of your work doesn't get seen. It sounds like you've put in a bunch of work already, and it would be shame to not get to use it.

12
General Discussion / Re: Free Boards
« on: January 19, 2013, 09:29:09 PM »
You're certainly welcome to bring it over if you like. It's hard to turn down more monsters after all ;). If you decide you want to, feel free to bug me or ask in the irc chat (linked on the sidebar and main page) if you need any help with the formatting.

13
Dungeons & Dragons / Re: BG/Minmaxboards gathering point (updated)
« on: January 19, 2013, 08:49:44 PM »
Hi everyone. Nice to see there's a minmax rally point where updates can be found. If anyone wanted to contact me (and wasn't looking in my other haunts), they can do so here.

14
General Discussion / Re: Free Boards
« on: January 19, 2013, 08:12:51 PM »
Which is the good one?

I'm partial to dnd-wiki.org (full disclosure: I am a bureaucrat there and do a lot to help run the joint, and we now have a legend homebrew section). But it really depends on what you're looking for:
  • dnd-wiki.org has some non-wiki like policies to protect authorial control to minimize undesired changes (but is still open, so it can happen), has policies to delete or sandbox (move from the main namespace into a user subpage) incomplete or poorly received work, will remove work upon the request of the author, and tends to be a bit more active in critiquing work. Work there is categorized using a system with some parallels to the tiers, but it's not tiers. I think it's the closest of the 3 to a forum setup.
  • dungeons.wikia.com has annoying advertising, narrow layouts that work poorly with large class tables and other content likely to be seen in homebrew, and basically no leadership or editors. And that last part is something that you might be looking for, since you can grab it and do whatever you want with it really, since wikia has a lot of name recognition and google rank.
  • dandwiki.com wants to be a traditional wiki, and so does not have any stronger authorial protection than the "primary contributor" defaulting for edit wars that wikipedia has. They don't really care what you post or how complete it is and do not categorize material by any metric (which has given them a reputation for incomplete or unbalanced stuff), nor do they allow listing of primary authors. They pretty much don't delete non-infringing or non-objectionable things, ever. And the site owner has some really bizarre ideas about copyright, and will complain loudly if he notices you putting your work up anywhere else under a different license. But hey, traditional open wiki.

15
Legend Homebrew / Re: Homebrew Index on D&D Wiki
« on: October 14, 2012, 05:38:30 PM »
Hello Legend homebrewers! I'm Tarkisflux, one of the admins of the wiki. I thought I'd pop in to clear a few things up.

On balance tags - These are our version of the Tiers that you may be more familiar with. I wouldn't call any of them OP or underpowered or suggest that one was better than the others because they're basically just playstyle tags. And since one of our goals was to cater to different playstyles, that meant making it clear what material was balanced against so that you could more easily find stuff that was appropriate for a game.

Since Legend is a lot tighter on the balance side, it might not even need those tags. Or it might need different tags, so that you could have the joke OP material clearly marked as such. But you don't need to worry about fitting with the balance tags we have for 3.x. Legend is a different game with different goals, and it can have different wiki bits to support that.

On 'big brother' - I think the quoted bits were misunderstood (or poorly written). They are also a bit dated now, but I wanted to clear them up a bit. The intent here is not to make people change their work, but to make sure that the balance tags are applied consistently so they remain useful. What normally happens is that someone writes something and specifies a balance for it, and someone comments why they don't think it was met on the talk page. And then a discussion happens and stuff proceeds normally, probably a lot like it would here.

If the disagreement isn't resolved, then the community might get involved and change the balance tag on the article to what is considered more appropriate. But at no point is the work changed against the wishes of the author, aside from the balance tag. And that is only done to try to keep them meaningful and consistent across all wiki content. Everything else is as they intended it. This is not used to keep material off the wiki, though there are other mechanisms for that that we can talk about if you want to. If legend doesn't have tags for balance because there aren't different applicable balances to play at, then it's probably not ever going to come up.

On authorial control - the listed author of an article always has final say over their work. We think most brewers take a bit of pride in their work and want to be recognized for it, and that gets diluted (if not turned into misrepresentation) when someone makes a substantial edit under someone else's name. We don't like it and we try to avoid it and stop it. We will also delete articles on the request of the original author, for any or no reason, so if you decide you don't want something up there anymore it can go away. The author also gets to say how much external editing they are willing to allow, which brings me to...

On open editing - While it does sometimes happen that a page will get edited in an unhelpful way, it doesn't really last long most of the time. Unregistered user edits are looked at by users and reverted if they violated the editing restrictions on the article. But these things get missed sometimes in a volunteer community, so keeping an eye on your own work is probably the best plan. There are tools available to help keep tabs on stuff. You can add pages to a watchlist and see only changes to those pages instead of sorting through all of the changes on the wiki (those pages will also be bolded on the all changes log for you). And you can set email alerts for pages when someone other than you makes an edit to them. While it is not as hands off as a forum, it doesn't have to be much more hands on either.

On moving articles - It won't happen without your express permission. This is not an "opt-out" thing, so if you don't "opt-in" and ask for help or do it yourself, it won't get done. And I don't see the wiki replacing discussion and work on these forums, particularly if people elect to use it for more finished storage instead of working bits.

I hope that clears some things up :) and addresses some concerns. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Pages: [1]