Restarting MitP?

[Amechra]

What would it take to restart Magic in the Playground?

[Grinner]

You'd first need to actually tell us what it is. Magic: the Gathering? Then you'd need to tell us what happened to it. And only after these things are done can we move forward on whether or not it should be resurrected, and how to go about correcting the problems that resulted in its demise.

[Amechra]

Oh, sorry.

As far as I remember it, it was a big collection of homebrew. Basically, whenever someone posted homebrew, you'd also set up a poll, about whether or not the homebrew was well received enough to be stuck in the big ol' MitP thread.

The ultimate result would be that the homebrew would be compiled as a PDF, and (hopefully) published.

The original MitP was specifically for homebrew monsters, though it would be possible to do it with other stuff (base classes, PrCs, magic items, etc, etc).

This happened back in the days when community projects where the shiznit (you had two iterations of MitP, Swampgrass, Tears of Blood... I'm not sure if Hourglass of Zihaja counts...)

[Grinner]

Okay. Yeah. I could go for that.

We would need to figure out how licensing would work (100% OGL, mechanics only, or not even bother) and drum up some interest. Including pictures would be nice, but unless talent in the Art and Crafts subforum is willing to donate their work, that might not happen.

I know how to use publishing software (Scribus), so I might be able to do the compilation. It would probably be better if someone with knowledge of LaTeX did it, though.

[inuyasha]

I can make high quality homebrew quickly, so I coudl certainly contribute my talents of brewing :D

[Grinner]

I can make high quality homebrew quickly, so I coudl certainly contribute my talents of brewing :D

Excellent. We'll need seven spells, three prestige classes, and a new subsystem with base class by tomorrow evening.

Chop, chop.

[inuyasha]

Excellent. We'll need seven spells, three prestige classes, and a new subsystem with base class by tomorrow evening.

Chop, chop.

If I really wanted to, i could do that (except for the new subsystem part, im not that good yet

[smoke prism]

I could make some homebrew for this.

[qwertyu63]

I don't have a lot to say here, but if it helps you can plunder my Planeswalker PRC.

[Grinner]

I could make some homebrew for this.

Okay. Cool. Just make things as you normally do, get the community at large to iron the kinks out, and then drop a notice in this thread.

I don't have a lot to say here, but if it helps you can plunder my Planeswalker PRC.

Looks good. So....I'm not sure how this should work...Amechra, could you start an index in the first post of homebrew to be included (with the author's name)? This thread can serve as the discussion thread, and once a piece of homebrew has been vetted, it can be added to the index. Once the thread fills up or dies, we can work on compiling it into a PDF.

[Jormengand]

Maybe do the colour alignment system? (So you get a primary and can have a secondary colour, meaning that paladins must be primary white and secondary nothing or blue, and they get smite black. Barbarians must not be blue, but monks must be primary blue. Druids must be green or colourless. Clerics must have their god's colour as either of their colours, and so on.)

[Admiral Squish]

I like this idea. So, just, every time you post homebrew, include a poll for people to vote if it should be included in MitP. But then, you'd have to come up with a threshold for inclusion, like yes votes must exceed 20, no votes cannot be >1/2 yes votes?

[Grinner]

I like this idea. So, just, every time you post homebrew, include a poll for people to vote if it should be included in MitP. But then, you'd have to come up with a threshold for inclusion, like yes votes must exceed 20, no votes cannot be >1/2 yes votes?

I've been trying to come up with a fair way of doing that. I'd rather not autocratically include everything that's been PEACHed, but we don't exactly have a reliable voting population. With the threshold, something could very well be excluded just because too few people were voting.

Perhaps a time limit is in order? The creator would post notification of the homebrew to the thread. After a certain period of time (say, three days?), if more people voted "Yes" than "No", then it would be marked for inclusion and added to the index.

[Eldan]

Does it have to be new homebrew? Because I'm a really slow brewer. I usually have big projects that I add to over months and years.

[Admiral Squish]

I've been trying to come up with a fair way of doing that. I'd rather not autocratically include everything that's been PEACHed, but we don't exactly have a reliable voting population. With the threshold, something could very well be excluded just because too few people were voting.

Perhaps a time limit is in order? The creator would post notification of the homebrew to the thread. After a certain period of time (say, three days?), if more people voted "Yes" than "No", then it would be marked for inclusion and added to the index.

I like the time limit idea. Perhaps we combine that with the proportional limit on yes v. no? I mean, more yes than nos could just mean the creator's the only one who voted. We want some way to ensure the work's actually quality material.

Okay, how about this. When a homebrew work is finished and polished nicely, and you want to put it into MitP, you submit it to the MitP thread. Then we have a council/board/committee/thing of experienced brewers/reviewers who then vote on if the work should be included, over the next three days or a week or some period of time. Maybe they can also suggest last-minute changes, if they're neccessary. (Like "I like the creature, but you miscalculated the HP and saves. I vote Yes, if the problems are fixed.)

I suppose the question comes down to if you want this to be an all-inclusive compendium of everything the playground makes, or if you want to raise the standards and include just the best stuff the playground makes.

[Grinner]

Does it have to be new homebrew? Because I'm a really slow brewer. I usually have big projects that I add to over months and years.

I don't see why it can't be older stuff as well.

Okay, how about this. When a homebrew work is finished and polished nicely, and you want to put it into MitP, you submit it to the MitP thread. Then we have a council/board/committee/thing of experienced brewers/reviewers who then vote on if the work should be included, over the next three days or a week or some period of time. Maybe they can also suggest last-minute changes, if they're neccessary. (Like "I like the creature, but you miscalculated the HP and saves. I vote Yes, if the problems are fixed.)

But who? They would all need to be reliable, regularly-posting members with expansive knowledge of D&D 3.X and also vested interest in this project. The people that I think meet those qualifications are very few.

I suppose the question comes down to if you want this to be an all-inclusive compendium of everything the playground makes, or if you want to raise the standards and include just the best stuff the playground makes.

Judging by the amount of homebrew this forum churns out (discounting all of the class fixes), my vote is on the latter.

[Admiral Squish]

But who? They would all need to be reliable, regularly-posting members with expansive knowledge of D&D 3.X and also vested interest in this project. The people that I think meet those qualifications are very few.

Well, you'd probably want to ask for volunteers, or seek out people who you know have done a lot of homebrew in the past. It probably wouldn't be a huge group, but I imagine it would be easy enough to round up a half-dozen or more.

Judging by the amount of homebrew this forum churns out (discounting all of the class fixes), my vote is on the latter.

I second that sentiment. Getting your material into MitP should be an accomplishment.

[Grinner]

Well, you'd probably want to ask for volunteers, or seek out people who you know have done a lot of homebrew in the past. It probably wouldn't be a huge group, but I imagine it would be easy enough to round up a half-dozen or more.

Well, it would probably be easy to get them to sign on, yes, but keeping the party alive is always much harder.

For time-limited public voting, what if we imposed a minimum majority for acceptance? Each homebrew would need at least two-thirds or perhaps three-quarters yes votes?

[Amechra]

Wow. There has been a lot of discussion.

I would say that the whole "voting by committee" idea sounds like the best one; part of the goal for the whole project should be to get homebrewers to try their best to get things awesomely polished.

Also: if a judge submits homebrew, they cannot vote on it. Kinda an obvious caveat, but it has to be there.

[Eldan]

I like the time limit idea. Perhaps we combine that with the proportional limit on yes v. no? I mean, more yes than nos could just mean the creator's the only one who voted. We want some way to ensure the work's actually quality material.

Okay, how about this. When a homebrew work is finished and polished nicely, and you want to put it into MitP, you submit it to the MitP thread. Then we have a council/board/committee/thing of experienced brewers/reviewers who then vote on if the work should be included, over the next three days or a week or some period of time. Maybe they can also suggest last-minute changes, if they're neccessary. (Like "I like the creature, but you miscalculated the HP and saves. I vote Yes, if the problems are fixed.)

I suppose the question comes down to if you want this to be an all-inclusive compendium of everything the playground makes, or if you want to raise the standards and include just the best stuff the playground makes.

That's the thing, though. I don't think I've ever "finished" a homebrew. It's all open-ended projects. Hm. I'll go digging to see if I find anything.

[Admiral Squish]

Well, it would probably be easy to get them to sign on, yes, but keeping the party alive is always much harder.

For time-limited public voting, what if we imposed a minimum majority for acceptance? Each homebrew would need at least two-thirds or perhaps three-quarters yes votes?

True enough, but that's always the case.

I like two-thirds majority. It's gotta be better than 49/51, but it's not way too hard to get material approved.

Also: if a judge submits homebrew, they cannot vote on it. Kinda an obvious caveat, but it has to be there.

It does need to go into the rules somewhere.

That's the thing, though. I don't think I've ever "finished" a homebrew. It's all open-ended projects. Hm. I'll go digging to see if I find anything.

Well, surely there's something that stands alone, or at least could stand alone.

[Tanuki Tales]

Just make sure that you run this by Roland or one of the other Mods to be safe. These kind of proceedings usually get nixed because of all the drama they can devolve into.

[inuyasha]

hmmm....guys....this is an awesome thing. Ive been working on a project, huuuuugeee huuuuuugeee project....should i unveil it early? Although its nowhere near "finished" it is full of monsters

[Eldan]

Well, surely there's something that stands alone, or at least could stand alone.

Heh. Probably not. This thread just made me dig out a thread from 2009 and continue working on it.

[Debihuman]

Oh, sorry.

As far as I remember it, it was a big collection of homebrew. Basically, whenever someone posted homebrew, you'd also set up a poll, about whether or not the homebrew was well received enough to be stuck in the big ol' MitP thread.

The ultimate result would be that the homebrew would be compiled as a PDF, and (hopefully) published.

The original MitP was specifically for homebrew monsters, though it would be possible to do it with other stuff (base classes, PrCs, magic items, etc, etc).

This happened back in the days when community projects where the shiznit (you had two iterations of MitP, Swampgrass, Tears of Blood... I'm not sure if Hourglass of Zihaja counts...)

If it is fan-based pdf, OGL compliant, and for free, then I'd be up for it. Otherwise, it's a lawsuit in the making and I'd have to decline.

Debby

[Network]

If it is fan-based pdf, OGL compliant, and for free, then I'd be up for it. Otherwise, it's a lawsuit in the making and I'd have to decline.

Debby

Well, selling the final product is not a break of the OGL (kind of the opposite, in fact), but I suppose the issue you mention is more with the homebrewers themselves.

As for the rest, I can always contribute to the project. I'm not a prolific homebrewer yet, but I can get stuff done if I have time to spend on it.

[Admiral Squish]

Honestly, I doubt we'd be able to sell it if you can get access to all the individual pieces of brew for free just by looking through the forum.

[Network]

Honestly, I doubt we'd be able to sell it if you can get access to all the individual pieces of brew for free just by looking through the forum.

Well, technically, everything that is OGL can be distributed freely as long as it has the notice, yet 3rd party publishers made money out of it. I greatly doubt the price of the books only accounts for the artifacts and the fluff.

[Grinner]

Honestly, I doubt we'd be able to sell it if you can get access to all the individual pieces of brew for free just by looking through the forum.

And more importantly, who would take the proceeds? Rich*? Let's just keep it simple, yes?

Debby brings up a good point though. The homebrew in question has to be original, based off of extant OGL material, or used with permission.

I guess we should get some preliminary rules down...I'll do that now.

*That's actually not a bad idea. He's the one paying for the show, after all.

[Debihuman]

I agree that Rich should get the proceeds if this project comes to fruition. I am still leery of other people being able to stick to OGL compliance. People will have to supply the proper citation with all their homebrew if they use someone else's material (i.e. a feat or special ability may be Open Content but we still have to cite to it in the OGL).

Debby