Rules edits?

[tex]

So as I understand it the rules for WTactics are here:

http://wtactics.org/wiki/index.php?title=Quick_Rules

Even though I know the ORC isn't the final version of the game, I suggest that new folks, and probably everybody, would benefit if the text was put through a substantial edit for clarity and ease of learning.

Anybody mind if I tackle that? It'll help me learn the rules which is probably the first step for developing the game.

[aspidites]

Go for it. The beauty of wikis is that edits can be reversed if unappreciated. The general rule of thumb here has been if the edits don't change the semantics of the original text, then it is ok to commit without asking for previous permission.

[Q_x]

I think it's worth pointing out, that you can actually divide your work, tackling a section at a time, so that we can review it easier later - if reviewing would be needed at all

In general - at leas this is my personal POV - FLOSS communities rely on people finding jobs for themselves, so worry not. Rules are pretty much snowdrop's child, I guess he'll have the last word here.

[tex]

Rules are pretty much snowdrop's child, I guess he'll have the last word here.

That's a big reason why I asked, actually. : ]

[aspidites]

Rules are pretty much snowdrop's child, I guess he'll have the last word here.

That's a big reason why I asked, actually. : ]

Again, if the semantics of the rules are not changing, he won't care. From personal experience, I can tell you that he appreciates any kind of edits that help the language sound more natural, fluid, or clear. The best thing for you to do honestly is just email him with your proposed edits, as that seems to be the best way to guarantee a prompt reply (from me actually, as well).

[snowdrop]

Sorry... orc orc... work work... Been busy as hell these days....

"if the semantics of the rules are not changing"

....then go for it. What needs to be kept intact is the "logic" and meaning/intent of the rules. If that's untouched then you haven't changed the rules, you have helped to express them in better ways.

appreciates any kind of edits that help the language sound more natural, fluid, or clear.

Yes, indeed. As native almost-swede-but-not-so-much my english-skills are limited and there are bound to be a zillon errors, unclarities and whatnot in the rules. Edit ahead.


Note: If you on the other hand want to do rule changes, then that is not the place to do them. First we'd need to discuss them in forum, then we'd, rather sooner than later, have to playtest. Then it would be meaningful to discussing stuff for real.... but this won't happen until we more or less complete the abilities list in wiki + associate each ability to either a faction or make it general.

[tex]

Okay, I'll get started then. Same semantics, different presentation, aiming at clarity and ease of teaching for new contributors.

[snowdrop]

Okay, I'll get started then. Same semantics, different presentation, aiming at clarity and ease of teaching for new contributors.

Ease of teaching for new players.

The rules document is primarily for them, and, keep in mind that what you have there will be the extended/detailed rules, and not the quick ones as suggested somewhere. Quick ones will be written later on when we have nailed the rules, and accompanied by videos. All that said, clarity can still be improved and language as well.

[tex]

Ease of teaching for new players.

But, the ORC says it's not aimed at players . . . ?

These rules are, in their current state, only intended for developers . . .

Edit: I don't think it matters much in terms of what I'm trying to do, though.

[snowdrop]

I see it's my confusing wording....

In their current state they are mainly intended for the devs to work with. The devs goal is however to create rules that players understand, so while the devs are the target while they are being created, it is all done for the players, as is the game in general. Once they are done and "stable" we will remove that notice.