Going to be giving me flash backs of doing peer reviewed intel papers.
Here's another Fan Grimoire from the Iron Bound Tome Ars Magica Blog. They're pretty great overall, IMO.
It's a wiki on wikidot. In theory, I'd expect anyone with a wikidot account to be able to edit, though I haven't actually tested this.
Anyone can edit, yes. I've just stopped updating/correcting it.
In terms of location for the new spell grimoire - I think a google docs sounds great for collaboration. After it's done you might want to link the file from a more-permanent link, such as putting a link in the Grimoire thread in the forums. Of course, you can also upload anything you want to the spells-wiki, or put a link in there too.
I also do think that having a central g doc where we can store and review (through comments and notes) the various spells is a good way to start.
A while ago I've started contributing to a project that aim to have a central database of ars characters. We also created an Hermetic Grimoire and a non Hermetic Grimoire with various spells and stuff but it's very short given that few people were contributing.
The project is here: GitHub - GuillaumeDIDIER/Ars-Magica-Characters
It is based on Markdown (a markup language natively supported by github, so easily modified)
Google doc's is going to be quite painful when the project grows. Of course, if you have a hard core of google fans (or word processor fans maybe) to drive it, just go for it and never mind me.
Any version control system (github or otherwise) will give better provenance and better opportunities to catch and revert inadvertent changes. A plain text source format will be a lot easier to edit into a consistent layout later.
I just discovered the existence of the grimoire PDF because of this thread. I'll follow this work with great interest.
A couple years ago I began working on a spell database, and it grew into something else (there is much much more than spells nowadays). I'll share with you a standalone version of this database that should work in any browser, I found it very handy on a tablet or laptop. I still have to update it with the latest erratas unfortunately.
If there is any interest into this let me know.
Here is the link : Standalone spell database file (and more)
(click the top left logo to open and close the menu)
That is true. Something like github could really help in case the project grows too much.
I agree with you that if we have to think big, maybe storing everything in a repo using plain text (and markdown), while organizing everything in folders and subfolders, could be the way to do it (but it is more difficult to start).
I don't know if using github (or something like it) and a markup language could be a sort of a barrier for people that want to contribute, not everyone know how to use these tools.
Whatever you choose, it will be a barrier to some. Whoever wants to manage the project just has to choose whom to bar ...
Another option might be to have a web frontend linked to a firebase/atlas/other database where anyone can submit or search for spells with pdf generator to give you a nice file with all the content?
This way you can have an alternative interface for your reviewers to verify content.
Bit more work, but maybe something that could be done while spells are being collected? The code repo would still be github, but means less folks would need to worry about the technical aspect.
For now, I am working on compiling the spells from the various threads on Atlas Forums, and will be sending a request to Iron Bound Tome, to add their spells, and will be adding some spells that I created myself.
Am making two google docs, one for spells, and one for enchanted items, so the two projects are separate. Once I have the files filled, I will be willing to extend rights to others to comment on the spells suggested, so that we can make sure they actually work.
I'm always happy to help review and comment on spells others have made, though my home saga is quite certain I'm too harsh on some interpretations.
Yeah, I am quite harsh on some rules interpretations.
For something centralized to work in all sagas, being harsh is generally the better side to be on. If people review spells too leniently, there is a good chance they won't be allowed in many sagas.
I am with Callen on this one. Things in a shared grimoire should be judged as harshly as possible against RAW. I know on my own personal material I call out if something is a HR or even based on the not harshest interpretation of RAW in individual spells and effects.
It is possible that a few spells and effects which are not harshly adhering to RAW could be allowed in as a "result of experimentation" but those should be put to a vote among the reviewers.
I'm also of the opinion that there are spells in RAW that - if they didn't exist in RAW - wouldn't work if a magus designed them. Crystal Dart comes to mind.
Agreed. When interpretations of rules/canon of an RPG are too generous or lenient, then people start not wanting to use the resource.
- Non-standard RDT-based spells should have their own section
- Non-standard RDT-based spells should be mixed with the rest, and have an index that marks them
- Non-standard RDT-based spells should be mixed in, and not be specially marked
That is a good question. I definitely think any spells that have Virtue-required RDT should be marked as needing such - Like Faerie Magic for Fire duration spells.
Do it the same as RAW: Non-stardard spells are mixed in with standard spells but clearly marked as such in their descriptions. This reduces the amount of sections needed and allows all spells of the same TeFo to be grouped together alphabetically.
Doesn't he have a tool which allows ordering and indexing in different ways from a single source? That's a pity.
I did not vote, because I did not understand the question.
- Mystery-dependent skills should be kept separate IMHO. They are unavailable to most magi, and can easily swamp the main list. The same, I think, should go for secret House spells.
- So-called special RDT should go in the main list. I cannot think of an example; they were commoner in 3ed.
- Unique spells, like whispering winds should go in the main list.
- There is a case to separate dubious rules interpretation; that is spells that arguable require a house rules to justify the «Non-standard RDF».
Whatever the sorting; the most important thing is that every spell is clearly marked with any special requirements and assumptions.
Without knowing which of the four kinds of non-standardness @Red-Shadow-Claws has in mind, I cannot vote ...
@loke , My understanding of the question is the primary question was your first case, guidelines or RDTs locked by virtues. 2 which are possible by any magus should be in the regular list and 3, including things like Aegis of the Hearth, also belong in the regular list. I am unsure your distinction with 4 since I think dubious rules interpretations should not be part of this spell repository as it requires particular house rules/interpretations.