EPIC?

[Anonymous]

if only for checking that people with an IQ lower than that of a goldfish can comprehend the text...)

That sums up the Avenger crew as well

Rog.

 

[pasuuli]

MJD, I've read some of your stuff; you're a very good writer. Maybe a lot of structure chafes you because... well because you know what you're doing.

I'm just thinking that, if that's so, well then there's no surprise you find the structure in some Traveller stuff confining and bothersome. For total amateurs like me, though, it really helps to have it there when I need it. Combat especially. I can't blow things up to save my life -- I have to read rules. Yeah, simple helps a LOT, but I also need the structure for when the players do something I don't know how to handle.

I'm not a very experienced GM, so this kind of stuff is helpful. It's stuff for those of us who can't write well.

 

[MJD]

That's a fair point. A strucutred system is a big help when you're finding your feet.

I was on a coaching course a while back and resented having a standard-format coaching system rammed down my throat (I have 20 years experience, which is about twice as much as the guy teaching the course)., but it was probably useful for the new guys.

So yeah, like I said - it might well work for you, but I didn't like it. *I* found it just a bit too inflexible, someone else might like the support offered by that stiffness... if you follow me.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Common process: teach a structure, ensure that the learners understand it, allow them to question it, then when they put it into practice they can adapt/change/discard it as they see fit once they have explored it.

For those with lots of writing experience (MJD, for example) a fixed structure would be terribly restrictive; for someone just starting out writing, have a framework to work to can be usefull and help to provide focus. Eventually that person may accumulate the same level of writing expertise/experience as someone like MJD - at that point they wouldn't necessarily need a structure/framework to guide them.

 

[MJD]

I MUST say that I do subscribe to the Real Men Use Outlines theory of strucutre, ie you MUST create one for anything you write. But it can't always be the same strucutre....

 

[dmccoy1693]

That's a fair point. A strucutred system is a big help when you're finding your feet.

Not only that, a standard structure is good for ease of use, despite experience. As a D&D/d20 player, I gotta tell you the different styles of stat blocks are increadibly annoying. There's the paragraph style that WotC used in the beginning of 3.5, the sectional format that new WotC books use (takes up an entire column on a full page, but its alot easier to read), and the 1001 varieties used by 3rd party publishers. They can't use EXACTLY the same stat block as WotC since that may or may not infringe on trademark.

In 4E, WotC said they'd put a standardized statblock in the SRD so that way all 3rd party companies can use the exact same stat block. I gotta tell you, that would make like a TON easier as a player.

Granted adventure writing is different, but standardization in general would make things easier on players.

A good example of how a lack of standardization is bad: Paizo is getting the whole of my d20 dollars right now simply because I like their stat block (and their adventures are kick ass, but that's a different story). If everyone used the same stat block, then I'd only have quality directing my purchases instead of presentation first and quality second.

 

[pasuuli]

Makes sense, but EPIC is the same kind of thing as the old MegaTraveller 'adventure nugget' format, and really any adventure done that way is perfectly understandable. EPIC may package it better, I don't know.

On the other hand, if you mean standardization as in "this is how to write adventures for Traveller", then that's great for most adventure writers -- they can publish or share and others know what to expect. And it's a win for we who are buying adventures.

But on the gripping hand, some writers really do know what they're doing, in which case they shoudn't be slapped for not using EPIC. EPIC is not an excuse for fascism but rather a help for most of us.

 

[Traveller]

It probably won't include those things, but that would be a nice OGL thing for someone to produce quickly... :wink:

You have to be careful about Product Identity and copyright. Unless the creator of the EPIC framework releases it as Open Game Content, we shouldn't be using it.

Now, that being said, it is entirely possible that the copyright holder for that framework could release it today under the OGL, even without a Traveller SRD, so long as it included a copy of the Open Gaming License v1.0A and referenced itself in Section 15.

Since I don't own the copyright, I can't do it.

But I imagine that Marc Miller could (unless that belongs to someone else).

The EPIC system as used by QLI is my design and it's free to be used by Mongoose if they want.

 

[dmccoy1693]

The EPIC system as used by QLI is my design and it's free to be used by Mongoose if they want.

Are you releasing it as open for any publisher to use or are you simply allowing Mongoose to use it (and include it in the SRD, if they so choose)?

 

[dmccoy1693]

But on the gripping hand, some writers really do know what they're doing, in which case they shoudn't be slapped for not using EPIC. EPIC is not an excuse for fascism but rather a help for most of us.

There should be no penalty if a publisher chooses not to follow standardization; it should simply exist for ease of use.

Like McDonalds, whether you like their food or not, their food is standized and you know the exact quality of food is going to be the same no matter where you are. Now if you pass the Vincentown Diner, you could take a chance and stop, but you don't know what they serve, let alone what the quality of food is like.

Same idea. While a standized format will not ensure quality of the adventure, it will allow for simplier integration into the game, ease of reading, etc.