Maptools Documentation Suggestion

[PillBox]

Over the past few days I have slowly been getting into the more advanced side of macros. I have had to refer to a lot of tutorials/documentation, but this information is scattered all over the place.

I started compiling various pieces of documentation from the forums for my own use. I am sure other people would like to find documentation in one place.

So, I have entered what I have basically just copied and pasted (and formatted for an table of contents) into google docs. As this can be shared by various people for editing/viewing, I was wandering if it would not be better to enter all new documentation into google docs (only have a few people with editing capabilities). That way, whenever new features are added the existing document can be edited, keeping the information in ONE place. From google docs this can be saved in various formats (HTML, PDF, DOC, Open Office etc), and then hosted on the net.

Current documentation : http://docs.google.com/Edit?tab=view&do ... _3c9kmm4cq

If you would like to have access to this document for editing, please PM me and I will add you to the list.


Note : This documentation is incomplete and needs a lot more information added

[Azhrei]

I just hopped over there and that looks like a great start!

If others think this looks good, perhaps we can link to it from the docs page of the main site?

[BigO]

There are other documentation efforts underway, the most recent of which is the thread started by Orchard. You should talk to him to make sure you're not duplicating effort.

Your doc looks great by the way.

[PyroMancer2k]

I think you guys should start a wiki site. That way people can update it as they see fit. And odds are their would be less need to be as coordinated. Sure you can limit the edit access to people you trust from the forum so some random passer by doesn't screw with it.

[PillBox]

I think you guys should start a wiki site. That way people can update it as they see fit. And odds are their would be less need to be as coordinated. Sure you can limit the edit access to people you trust from the forum so some random passer by doesn't screw with it.

Thats how google docs works - online, and only editable by people with the correct access. While you are editing the document it tells you who else is editing at the same time - pretty handy that.

[Full Bleed]

Very cool Pillbox.

Thanks for doing this!

[PillBox]

If you guys have links to any documents that are not covered, please let me know.

[RedDog]

That is great Pillbox! Thanks for putting that together.

[Azhrei]

I agree that a wiki would be better, but it requires someone to act as administer and such. GoogleDocs will be much simpler in that regard and almost as effective.

[Jalella]

That s great work. Of course I was really looking forward to finding something like that!
About the decision which tool to use for further documentation: since the developers would be the people who will do the real documentation (because they are the ones knowing exactly what is available and how it works), I suggest to let them decide which is most convenient to them. A wiki would be great of course, but any other way will be highly appreciated.

[Benz72]

Just a thought...
Since there is organizing going on, would a catalog/index or macros be feasible? break it down by Game/edition/function or someting like that? If people are looking to avoid effort duplication then maybe having a consolidated place to post and look for macros would be helpful.

[Rumble]

Just a thought...
Since there is organizing going on, would a catalog/index or macros be feasible? break it down by Game/edition/function or someting like that? If people are looking to avoid effort duplication then maybe having a consolidated place to post and look for macros would be helpful.

My only hesitation for this (or concern about doing it in a useful fashion) is that the more complex macros - while limited in how they do things because there's only so many ways to do something - are going to still be very idiosyncratic, based on the exact property sets used by a token, the exact way you want to display things, and the level to which you want to automate.

For example: Pyromancer's fully managed token is an awesome collection of material, based on a specific set of properties and processes.

I have a complete setup for D&D 4E, but it's based on the properties I decided should be there, which don't follow any real specification (except that they have things like HP and such). For instance, my character tokens don't include Abilities or Ability Modifiers. I switched to using "monster-style" character sheets for PCs a while back, and so things like attack bonuses on powers are just precalculated, rather than assembled from something like StrBonus+Proficiency+Feat+Enhancement.

In other words, I don't use StrBonus or anything in my macros, so (while they're still on the tokens) they're not relevant. On the other hand, that would break Pyro's setup.

So it's probably better to approach this from the campaign perspective - and have each author document his or her own campaign setups.

[Benz72]

I agree that author notes are important to make macros useable and relevant, but that does not preclude them from being gathered into like groups and shared to and from a convenient location.
Don't want to threadjack any further... just hoping to drop an idea in the lap of someone with more computer savy and initiative than me.

Thanks