Citadel's Future Plans

1. Citadel's Future Plans

   #1

   My thoughts have been "I wish I could create Game-specific versions of my subs." since I love mechanics.  I'd personally love to add D20 and Rolemaster versions of my subs in a format that would not get me beat up here :)
   
   
   
   

2. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #2

   *starts beating up valadaar*
   
   ...oh wait, we don't do this around here. :D
   
   
   I think Stubs might do just the thing that you want - you could write up the stats, and link them into a sub, so people could click on them and see them with the rest of the sub - or not click and just ignore it.
   
   That is if there will be Stubs and if they will work that way. :)

3. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #3

   I'd almost see them as alternate 'views' - one could access the system agnostic view (traditional Strolen) or the game-specific view.
   
   

4. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #4

   I think this would be feasible... A "system" plug in... At the beginning it is system-less, then you click that CoC tab and voila... CoC stats ready for you to use!
   
   If we created some sort of system converter,  the author could do the specifics for one system and the system would convert to other systems... These subs would be marked with the label "System stats available".
   
   Good initiative valadaar!
   
   Strolen? Youse others?

5. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #5

   Now that supposes that stats can be actually easily converted from one system to another... which I _strongly_ doubt.
   
   It also reeks of making people do some work on a submission twice.
   
   As for on-site support for game-systems, allow me to play the MoonHunter card, and remind that there's like a gazillion of various game sytems and rules out there, and we would have to decide which to take, spend the time adapting to them, and then more time bickering about the other cool ones that are not supported.
   
   
   To me, this whole thing can only work if we avoid attachment to any particular system (not to speak of our express desire to be systemless). If there is a subtle way to add stats to a submission, without forcing it on anyone, then it might work.

6. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #6

   oooooooh...a system's hack. stubs (which I never thoroughly understood). I have been enlightenened a little bit by their possible usefulness and how they might fit together. A stub is a plugin of some sort....or something.
   
   It could be possible to make a sort of template that will allow anybody to create a Rolemaster Plugin, and another person could create a Palladium plugin, etc. The author can then choose to use one of these Plugin templates to put in stats and attach it.
   
   or something.
   
   An idea is building itself (more than one) but I have family and no time to pursue it right now.

7. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #7

   I'm not sure about a conversion - though an interesting idea to be sure, nor am I advocating making anyone do anything.
   Personally I'd like to fill in the details for games systems I am interested in and associating them with the non-specific sub.  Yes this would mean additional work, but I'd like to have the option rather then get torn into for mentioning game stats.
   
   I think choice of 'game system' would be up to the author, if they chose to do it at all.  Perhaps others could submit 'stubs' for their own pet systems associated with a main sub (perhaps with the original author's permission). Eg. Someone could create a COC version of Tohm Bones - a system that I know nothing about, and associate it with the orginal.
   
   In some systems, you may have to substantially alter the sub to fit the game universe - which is why I like the stub idea.  Any game-specific version would ALWAYS be secondary to the Agnostic version for visual presentation and 'tree depth' (How many clicks to get to it).
   
   
   
   
   
   

8. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #8

   Strolen:
   Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
   -Thomas A. Edison (1847 - 1931)
   ;)
   
   manfred:
   You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"
   -George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950), "Back to Methuselah" (1921), part 1, act 1
   :p
   
   I like valadaar's idea.

9. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

   #9

   But I would still say you need to submit an Agnostic version first and not simply post a systems-specific one only.
   
   Have to hold to some principals! :)
   
   

10. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #10

    Nice quotes! :)
    
    The thought of adding rules to the site has been here several times, pondered upon, and rejected. Now if we'd have some "plugin" submissions that people can attach to their posts, and visitors can view or ignore as desired, that would have a more general usefulness than simple stats... but they would be possible, and probably not frowned upon by jaded myself. ;)

11. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #11

    My idea:  Even though a large number of you seem to be leaning towards the "Stub" route, I think something even simpler (for the general posting populace, don't know if it'd be easier for you Strolen) would be to allow us/teach us how to include the html stuff for the expanding text like what gets used to shorten submissions in codexes and the explanations of the different choices in the Scholar's Canvas.  The things that look like this:

    >> Random Text

    and when you click on them they end up looking like:

12. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #12

    Well, the idea of Stubs was to achieve even more, but you do have an idea here!
    
    How could we not think of this... just allow people to add their own content that will expand and hide on the user's whim. This won't even require dynamic loading of content.
    
    
    As for html code, I think all that is needed is a special linking tag - actual Stubs could be an extension of this.
    
    So you would write in the submission's text:
    [@Random Text]Random gibberish that was hidden, but isn't now
    I like pie[/@]
    - or something, the engine would take care of the formatting. Only the Random Text bit would be visible at first, then you'd click etc.
    
    Finally, the downside you are mentioning is no downside to me.
    
    
    What do you think, Strolen?

13. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #13

    I have been reading this thread with great interest, waiting to see if you come up with anything. I have family in so only have moments.
    
    The [@Random Text] is not a bad idea but its implementation takes a little bit to work out. You can't just do a simple string replacement because then you have to expect the user to put in the beginning and ending marks perfectly. If there are any mistakes or the end is forgotten then the page will be all messed up. So it will have to be a somewhat complex regular expression replace (preg_replace) to put it all together.
    
    Not sure if that will be easier than getting the subs together and using them as automatically hidden or writing the regular expression. :)

14. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #14

    The reason I like the stub idea is you can place things like the OGL license along with the sub.

15. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #15

    Another example I didn't think of, but definitively, you'd just make a single Stub, and could add it to any number of your submissions. Good one!  :up:
    
    You could make one also for submissions bound to your world - with a short summary and a set of links, for example.
    
    ---
    
    Tech talk:
    
    Implementation... tricky I guess. You could also detect the number of correctly formed beginning tags and ending tags, and if they differ, just not do the string replacement.
    
    If I count it right there will be three types of in-submission links/pseudolinks:
    - the classical link [ID|sometext]
    - dynamically linked in submissions (typically Stubs) [@ID|sometext] ?
    - hidden expandable text [@sometext] blahblah blah blah blah [/@] ???
    
    The first to be formatted as usual, the other two with >>sometext or the like.
    
    The second can degrade gracefully to a normal link if needed, the third could be just shown in a sub, if the formatting went wrong... but I'd rather avoid making users write, and then keep looking if they got it right the first time.
    
    The question of the precise look of the tags is now getting important... how to make them simple and easy to use? I am all for a better example. Interface designer types... anyone out there?

16. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #16

    Using tags to enter information is easiest for Strolen, but at a great risk for the citadel. Most roleplayers are intelligent types, but introducing tags like these might be an open invitation to disaster.
    
    More technically sophisticated solutions would separate user and code, allowing them to enter text in floating textareas that would be anchored in the main text body with unique IDs. Of course such a sophisticated solution means lots of coding, lots of debugging and taxing Strolen more than he already is. I doubt that we want that.
    
    So what do we do?
    Manfred's approach is logical, but incurs the risk of strangely formatted code and bugs galore. My alternative is user-friendly and safe, but introduce an overwhelming amount of development time for coding, debugging and refining.
    
    A third alternative is not to allow entering such information when writing the sub, but to allow adding comments AFTER the sub has been completed. The user could mark a position in the text in which he wants to insert comments, and then insert what he wants. Even sound and other media could be inserted in thus a manner. The new text/sound/picture would be saved in the database as an attachment to the original sub.
    
    

17. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #17

    How about a differently presented 'scroll' type entry, perhaps graphically (font,etc)  set apart from normal scroll entries?
    
    

18. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #18

    I was woken last night at 0330 by a phone call about a work issue. In the military you are responsible for you people on and off duty so I get one of my favorite off duty related phone calls. Nothing like babysitting adults. So when I was finally able to try and go back to bed, in my sleep depraved state of mind I thought of something.
    
    Stats: Don't want to use stubs for them at all however stats end up. That way you will have random stats floating around that don't make any sense alone, or at least not much. So why don't I create another text field called "Stats" and if people have stats, you fill it in, if not you don't. It doesn't take extra query, no complex checks, nothing extra really. If there are stats on a sub, then I can put them in a defaulted shrunken state, or whatever we want to do with them, so that they are available and unobtrusive.
    
    I didn't know whether or not it would be useful to be able to track what kind of stats are being used. Was wondering if freetext would even be worth using to show that it has, say, Palladium stats available. Not sure if it would matter enough to anybody to look for only submissions with stats. Personally, I would rather not draw much attention to them as they are simply a small extra to the idea of a submission and, as far as the sites philosophy is concerned, really don't add anything to the submission. But I also respect what people would find useful so, if there is a happy median somewhere, we can take that.
    
    The other thought concerning stats is consistency. If we are going to do it, I would almost prefer to have some sort of template available. Might be a little anal, but it would be nice to have the systems format for stats and follow that vs. a possible hodgepodge of different formats making the debatable stats even less appreciated.
    
    I have pretty much discarded the intext availability of hiding/showing and would prefer another form based solution over attempting user coded stuff.
    
    All of this would be in addition to stubs which I still see as an interesting idea but still unsure how to exactly implement it since the exact use of them still eludes me.

19. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #19

    Nothing like babysitting adults.

    
    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
    
    ;)

20. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #20

    To me, there is not much use for anything explicitly stat-related if it isn't useful also for others. Sorry for being the StatNazi here. :)
    
    So that got me thinking... a separate text field, that will be hidden by default. Hm, hm, hm, hmmmm... why not letting it have also a change-able title? (a simple input)
    
    
    So if you want stats, you'll write "Palladium stats" (or whatever) into the input, and then fill out the statistics into the text field, and you'll get a nice expand/shrink link with content as desired.
    
    But this could be useful for other purposes as well. Anything you'd like to "hide" with your submission, but keep it still available. For now on I can only think of puzzles or riddles, to which you would also attach the solution - I'm sure the people here can think of more useful applications.
    
    How about that?

21. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #21

    Perhaps you could add a new user preference ("Stats - Yes/No") and introduce a new tag.
    
    ie
    
    
    Blah Blah Vorpal Bite blah Blah 456hp  blal blah fuzzy
    
    
    
    And not display the contents for those who select No for stats. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

22. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #22

    could you not add a tag that places a javascript on the page to extend the text?
    
    ie: yeah blablabla
    
    would be replaced by:
    
    
    function{"yeah blablabla"}
    
    
    which would allow for a >>stats expend?

23. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #23

    Just goes back to the decision: regular expression : easily controllable and safer form.
    
    You can probably bet I will go with the adaptable form idea. Easier to control.

24. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #24

    Strangely enough, I am leaning away from Stats again...
    
    

25. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #25

    They are like a sin wave. I will probably do this still because soon enough you will have something cool w/stats that you will want to share.
    
    I will make it more generic though, as suggested, so you can label it.

26. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #26

    Any other thoughts on this one? Ended at a stand still but it has been awhile.

27. Re: Citadel's Future Plans

    #27

    Notewithstanding the discussion on Templates for different game systems - I'm not in favour of enforcing one, since most game systems I am familiar with have de facto ones already - the simplest outcome here is the addition of spoiler tags to the main subs.
    
    Another option would be perhaps sidebars - small forms which could contain the body of a stub but appear within the main sub as an image.  Main text could even flow around it giving the page a magazine-like look?
    
    

Rise of the Strolenati-Ideas/Suggestions · All categories · Guildhall