Who Wants to Play with RPTools - Revision history

75.64.111.120 at 23:24, 11 January 2010

2010-01-11T23:24:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 11 January 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:

	MediaWiki doesn't like storing sessions across multiple computers, I see. I sympathize with you, now, Jones. It might be something you can fix, though, with an option (probably something like "cookie-based session store" rather than "database-based", but that depends heavily on how they implemented things) -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]		MediaWiki doesn't like storing sessions across multiple computers, I see. I sympathize with you, now, Jones. It might be something you can fix, though, with an option (probably something like "cookie-based session store" rather than "database-based", but that depends heavily on how they implemented things) -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]

			:: Hm.. That link above is the new ruleset? I'll take a look at it when I get some time, I always like playing with new stuff, it's just going to have to be pretty good to warrant an upgrade. I mean, the features of Foundation were enough to make me finally upgrade from their d20 vanilla, so FGII ruleset changes are not outside the realm of possibility, but migration to a whole new software suite might be a bit much. Either way, I have to do it all by hand, and rewriting charactersheets blows. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll grab it now. -gm

Slitherrr at 23:21, 11 January 2010

2010-01-11T23:21:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:21, 11 January 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Yeah, I guessed at all the points above. I really just wanted to see what the moon_mage ruleset was like, and I can't do it with the non-full copy. For the current campaigns it's probably definitely a no-go (unless the moon_mage ruleset is just that awesome), but if something were started in the future, it might be worthwhile to start it in one or the other. -[[User:66.207.92.41\|66.207.92.41]]		Yeah, I guessed at all the points above. I really just wanted to see what the moon_mage ruleset was like, and I can't do it with the non-full copy. For the current campaigns it's probably definitely a no-go (unless the moon_mage ruleset is just that awesome), but if something were started in the future, it might be worthwhile to start it in one or the other. -[[User:66.207.92.41\|66.207.92.41]]

			MediaWiki doesn't like storing sessions across multiple computers, I see. I sympathize with you, now, Jones. It might be something you can fix, though, with an option (probably something like "cookie-based session store" rather than "database-based", but that depends heavily on how they implemented things) -[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]

66.207.92.41 at 23:14, 11 January 2010

2010-01-11T23:14:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:14, 11 January 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	New FGII ruleset means having to set up everything whole cloth again, there is no easy way to transfer over. Even the slipshod job I did of updating the Wydmoor group to Foundation took me several hours of labor to do a very incomplete job. Not also a fan of switching over to a new system, which requires at least as much conversion work, plus a new learning curve for everyone (and assume the GM's learning curve is always at least 4x as steep as the players') and the matter of money already spent. It does look pretty slick, though. The fact is, I consider the "inflexability" of fantasy ground to be a plus: it's a creature designed for 3.5e, rather than being a universal toolset that one can hammer any ol' rule set into. I'm more than willing to hear arguments and considerations, but realize it's going to be uphill going. Java is not necessarily a selling point, either, for that matter. -gm		New FGII ruleset means having to set up everything whole cloth again, there is no easy way to transfer over. Even the slipshod job I did of updating the Wydmoor group to Foundation took me several hours of labor to do a very incomplete job. Not also a fan of switching over to a new system, which requires at least as much conversion work, plus a new learning curve for everyone (and assume the GM's learning curve is always at least 4x as steep as the players') and the matter of money already spent. It does look pretty slick, though. The fact is, I consider the "inflexability" of fantasy ground to be a plus: it's a creature designed for 3.5e, rather than being a universal toolset that one can hammer any ol' rule set into. I'm more than willing to hear arguments and considerations, but realize it's going to be uphill going. Java is not necessarily a selling point, either, for that matter. -gm

			Yeah, I guessed at all the points above. I really just wanted to see what the moon_mage ruleset was like, and I can't do it with the non-full copy. For the current campaigns it's probably definitely a no-go (unless the moon_mage ruleset is just that awesome), but if something were started in the future, it might be worthwhile to start it in one or the other. -[[User:66.207.92.41\|66.207.92.41]]

75.64.111.120 at 22:38, 11 January 2010

2010-01-11T22:38:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 11 January 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	-[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]		-[[User:Slitherrr\|Slitherrr]]


			New FGII ruleset means having to set up everything whole cloth again, there is no easy way to transfer over. Even the slipshod job I did of updating the Wydmoor group to Foundation took me several hours of labor to do a very incomplete job. Not also a fan of switching over to a new system, which requires at least as much conversion work, plus a new learning curve for everyone (and assume the GM's learning curve is always at least 4x as steep as the players') and the matter of money already spent. It does look pretty slick, though. The fact is, I consider the "inflexability" of fantasy ground to be a plus: it's a creature designed for 3.5e, rather than being a universal toolset that one can hammer any ol' rule set into. I'm more than willing to hear arguments and considerations, but realize it's going to be uphill going. Java is not necessarily a selling point, either, for that matter. -gm

Slitherrr: New page: I've been reading up on the documentation for the tools downloadable at http://rptools.net/. It may be worth looking into--it doesn't look quite as pretty as FGII, but it looks more stable...

2010-01-11T21:28:28Z

New page: I've been reading up on the documentation for the tools downloadable at http://rptools.net/. It may be worth looking into--it doesn't look quite as pretty as FGII, but it looks more stable...

New page

I've been reading up on the documentation for the tools downloadable at http://rptools.net/. It may be worth looking into--it doesn't look quite as pretty as FGII, but it looks more stable and potentially more powerful (without having to delve into Java to script for FGII).

On a similar vein, we may want to look into moon_wizard's ruleset for FGII. Descriptions say it is an extended version, but I can't immediately tell what additional features it has, and whether or not it is more or less stable.

http://oberoten.dyndns.org/fgwiki/index.php/D%26D_3.5E is the link.

-[[User:Slitherrr|Slitherrr]]