The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Fan Made Sourcebooks [discussion]
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Tools -> Fan Made Sourcebooks [discussion] Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cheshire wrote:
Hrm...

Maybe even

Galactic Datapad 1: Something Somethings

Galactic Datapad 2: The Others Things


I don't know....those sound like that they'd be more suited for the Netguides...what do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4586
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shootingwomprats wrote:
Whill wrote:
There are now multiple fan communities making GGs with overlapping numbers so numbered GGs are meaningless now.

I thought WRP was the only one doing GG's and we have tried very hard to make sure that the numbering is correct.

GG 13: The Phantom Menace
GG 14: The Dark Side
GG 15: Attack of the Clones
GG 16: The Old Republic
GG 17: Cyborgs & Cybernetics

We are currently working on GG 18: Rogue One. Daniel is working on Scoundrels which we are unsure if going to be a galaxy guide. It will probably be released as a source book, like the SWRe source books have.

How is the numbering messed up?

Here we go again... We have a TPM sourcebook, not a numbered. For many years (while GGs 14, 15 and 16 were produced), GG 13 was not used because of the mythical GG for Scoundrels in case it ever turned up. The mystery was only recently solved here that it never was a full-fledged GG. It was in development, the unfinished product got put on line, and then it disappeared for many years. During that time I was the one that suggested let's stop reserving that number and instead use 13 that for a proper GG for TPM, with the idea that GG 17 would be for RotS which is partially produced. Scoundrels can be whatever if a GG ever comes out. Then the prequel films would have the same pattern they did in the official series of the first 3 odd GGs (13, 15, 17). Some people liked the idea, while others were holding out for the Scoundrels GG being 13.

Then the finished product of GG 17 Cyborgs & Cybernetics just showed up on Facebook one day. I had never heard of it before it was released there. I'm the one who posted that news here for the first time, and no one else here seems to know anything about it. Was GG 17 a WRP release? If so, why didn't you bother notifying us that it was even in the works? We were all blindsided. The whole reason TPM was going to be 13 was because AotC already was 15 and RotS was going to be 17. If 17 is used for something else, then 13 no longer needs reserved for TPM.

If GG 17 was not a WRP release, then these GGs are just coming out whenever someone makes them and there is no numbering system. And how did WRP get the exclusive control over GGs anyway? It seems to me that anyone anywhere at any time can make one and put whatever number on it they want. Thus, the numbers are meaningless.

I feel there is no point to having any numbered series no matter what you call them: galaxy guides, galaxy guidebooks, net guides, whatever. Just make a "this" book and a "that" book. OR just put whatever number you want on it. Numbers don't matter.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On a different note, which sourcebook has the species Mikkian? I ask this because I recently watched The Clone Wars episode "Unknown " that had the twins Tiplee and Tiplar. The species looked intriguing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Site Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 4586
Location: Columbus, OHIO, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We just watched that same episode last night.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Error
Captain
Captain


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 680
Location: Any blackberry patch.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was under the impression that GG18 was going to be Revenge of the Sith, which has been re-picked up and is being worked on by myself and a few others. I mean the numbering really doesn't matter, but that's the flag I thought Thiago was flying before he got too busy to finish it.
_________________
The only words of explanation you need for any concept in the entire Star Wars universe are the words Science Fiction and Space Opera.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Error wrote:
I was under the impression that GG18 was going to be Revenge of the Sith, which has been re-picked up and is being worked on by myself and a few others. I mean the numbering really doesn't matter, but that's the flag I thought Thiago was flying before he got too busy to finish it.


Logically, I agree with you. However, with the GG: Rogue One closer to completion than GG: RotS, I think the latter will probably be #19.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Forceally
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 473

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just so that everyone is up to speed, the final version of the LotFSB is close to completion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just OOC, how often has any author used information "cut and pasted" from Wookiepedia, and if so, how did they attribute each such instance of such a "cut and paste" to be covered by Wookiepedia's use of the CC-BY-SA?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Telsij
Commander
Commander


Joined: 07 Dec 2016
Posts: 275

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Treefrog wrote:
Just OOC, how often has any author used information "cut and pasted" from Wookiepedia, and if so, how did they attribute each such instance of such a "cut and paste" to be covered by Wookiepedia's use of the CC-BY-SA?


I try to never use out-and-out cut and pastes, and instead use the wook only as research and will always list it as a Source. If I ever do use its text, it is rarely without significant alternation, due to the (imho) often less-than-stellar quality of writing found in many of its articles, though I do love the wook as an invaluable informational resource. However:

In editing recent collabs and finding large blocks of wook text, I will almost always rewrite the text to more palatable standards and then state, after the list of sources, something like: "Original text adapted from X by Y" or "Text adapted from X" depending upon how many or how few original sources the revised text was cobbled together from. If I make minor textual additions in editing, while maybe adding a paragraph or more of original content, I will list wookieepedia and whatever else, and then state, "additional text by X".

Generally, I have actively tried to discourage the use of block pastes, due to the inconsistent quality of writing, its existing ready availability online, as well as lack of overall attribution -- oh, the internets! -- but I do know that time constraints will often force folks' hand.

On a related topic, for our upcoming Rogue One Galaxy Guide, we drew heavily from the Visual Guide. Pablo's writing there was great and although we have still adapted and altered the text to varying degrees (re-arranging paragraphs, adding text, rephrasing completely, etc), we include whatever page or pages from the Visual Guide the text is drawn from. So at the base of Jyn's entry, for example, I have:

Sources:
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story film and Star Wars: Rogue One: The Ultimate Visual Guide. Stats and additional text by [Telsij's real name]. Biographical text adapted from Star Wars: Rogue One: The Ultimate Visual Guide (pages 34-35).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1223
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Telsij wrote:
I try to never use out-and-out cut and pastes, and instead use the wook only as research and will always list it as a Source. If I ever do use its text, it is rarely without significant alternation, due to the (imho) often less-than-stellar quality of writing found in many of its articles, though I do love the wook as an invaluable informational resource.


Dear effin' CHRIST on a sh!ttim wood crutch, is this ever true. Editing the LotF fanbook is a Herculean task just because of this alone. The Wook is a very valuable informational resource, so much so that I couldn't edit the LotF fanbook without its summaries of the novels (it's been a decade since I read the books), but the writing quality of the Wook articles does leave quite a bit to be desired sometimes. Alot of the text of the LotF fanbook first draft, while it's not quite a direct cut-and-paste from the Wook, does have such similarities that you can tell that much of the text came from Wookieepedia articles. Not that I blame Treefrog at all for using Wook text for his first draft; he had to start somewhere and summaries of the same novels are going to look similar in any case.

I'm hoping my own meager writing contributions in editing this book will 1) make the book easier to read without setting off all the grammar nazis of the world (including myself) and 2) make the text different enough from the Wook articles so it doesn't look like Treefrog and I were lazy and just cut-and-paste Wook text into the book. The fans deserve better than that.

EDIT: But yeah, copyright issues are a concern for Treefrog and me. The stuff from the Wook shouldn't be a problem if the two of us cite everything correctly. The problem is, I found a gorgeous picture of what I think is the planet Adumar, but it's not cited by the Wook at all. I think it's a fanmade pic, but it looks so well done, I couldn't believe it didn't come from the Wook. And I have no idea how to contact the people on the forum where I found it. Crying or Very sad
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:
Telsij wrote:
I try to never use out-and-out cut and pastes, and instead use the wook only as research and will always list it as a Source. If I ever do use its text, it is rarely without significant alternation, due to the (imho) often less-than-stellar quality of writing found in many of its articles, though I do love the wook as an invaluable informational resource.


Dear effin' CHRIST on a sh!ttim wood crutch, is this ever true. Editing the LotF fanbook is a Herculean task just because of this alone. The Wook is a very valuable informational resource, so much so that I couldn't edit the LotF fanbook without its summaries of the novels (it's been a decade since I read the books), but the writing quality of the Wook articles does leave quite a bit to be desired sometimes. Alot of the text of the LotF fanbook first draft, while it's not quite a direct cut-and-paste from the Wook, does have such similarities that you can tell that much of the text came from Wookieepedia articles. Not that I blame Treefrog at all for using Wook text for his first draft; he had to start somewhere and summaries of the same novels are going to look similar in any case.

I'm hoping my own meager writing contributions in editing this book will 1) make the book easier to read without setting off all the grammar nazis of the world (including myself) and 2) make the text different enough from the Wook articles so it doesn't look like Treefrog and I were lazy and just cut-and-paste Wook text into the book. The fans deserve better than that.

EDIT: But yeah, copyright issues are a concern for Treefrog and me. The stuff from the Wook shouldn't be a problem if the two of us cite everything correctly. The problem is, I found a gorgeous picture of what I think is the planet Adumar, but it's not cited by the Wook at all. I think it's a fanmade pic, but it looks so well done, I couldn't believe it didn't come from the Wook. And I have no idea how to contact the people on the forum where I found it. Crying or Very sad


What's really frustrating about the whole Wookieepedia, copyright, and the previously unknown subject (to me) of the CC-BY-SA, is that my coauthor and I specifically included a disclaimer in the hopes that that would protect everyone involved.

Evidently, the CC-BY-SA has strict rules about this sort of thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see that there hasn't been much movement on this thread, so here's a juicy one:

The final version of the Legacy of the Force Sourcebook, Version 1.4:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/o70ctbzazdjsxjx/Legacy_of_the_Force_Sourcebook_-_Version_1.4_%5BFinal_Version%5D.pdf

I hope you enjoy it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1223
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congratulation, Treefrog, on finishing a labor of love 10 years in the making. Cool Mr. Green Very Happy

EDIT: Also, I've added the Legacy of the Force Sourcebook into my Google Docs for an additional source for download. Just follow the link in my signature to the Public D6 Star Wars folder(s).
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Treefrog
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 184
Location: West Wisconsin, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To supplement Sutehp's comments, here is the link to the absolute final version 1.5:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/e515z0l4gveh9cr/Legacy_of_the_Force_Sourcebook_-_Version_1.5_%5BFinal_Version%5D.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Tools All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44  Next
Page 41 of 44

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0