Albeit a little less sheepish here, Dave...

faro wrote:Not a problem, IMHO, since many tens of thousands of people are enjoying a relatively safe, open community as a result of that work which would almost certainly have turned out in a less positive manner had I not rolled up my sleeves at the right time.

That puts you as a man of integrity and a builder of community. High marks from this Ovis.

Back in 1995 there wasn't a good quality RPN Calculator for Windows. The one that came from Microsoft was not even a good algebraic one, IMO. I went out and bought a 32-bit compiler (not cheap at the time) and put in 500 hours writing, debugging, getting alpha and beta testers and put together Excalibur - a free 32 bit RPN calculator for Windows. I've maintained this free product for 15 years now - answering emails daily and adding features as requested. It remains free (though server bandwidth was starting to become a problem, so a few years ago I started asking for $5 donations of which the user community responded and came through for me).  It's amazing how much better the world is when people do the right things for the right reasons.

-Dave

faro wrote:That's a fair number of d/loads on your util even from a casual browse around the sites on the current version. Was that fun, too?

I'll admit, I do like seeing Excalibur mentioned on other sites or reviewed. I think the userbase is around 8000 now (a guess based on emails, a fraction of the downloads of which I know many try and don't continue to use, etc). The emails I get are very positive - nice to wake up in the morning, get a cup of coffee and read through them to start my day.  I guess in that sense I didn't do it for 'free' - we all get something back proportionate to what we put in.

I take that back... with a little luck we get back something far greater than we put in. And I don't mean that in the sense of leachers (people that put in almost nothing and take what they can scavenge... fu*k leachers!).

-Dave

ashmire13 wrote:
Thats more like it. Spot the deliberate mistake on this one

http://rpg.geekdo.com/rpgitem/47801/modron

I tried to add a correction last night, but it only allowed me to add the 'RPG' amendment as 'The Judges Guild Journal (Magazine)'

Now thats not to say it can't be done, as I am not a computing genius, but when you can't add JG as the accurate description of the RPG section, it frustrates...  

The Judges Guild Journal (Magazine) entry is only for the Judges Guild Journals... i.e. the 25 (IIRC) issues that bore that name.

All 25 of those (we only have 3 currently in the system out of the 25 - would love help!) plus the remaining Judges Guild products that weren't part of the Journal are listed under the Judges Guild publisher. JG isn't an RPG - there is no 'game' there as there is with "Dungeons & Dragons" - they are a publisher. When you look at the Judges Guild publisher, you see all the products they have in our database. What RPGs they belong to is solely a function of what was contained in a particular issue. If an issue had scenarios/articles for D&D, AD&D 1e and Villains & Vigilantes, it will link to all three of those parent RPGs.  In this way, someone can know what games a particular issue covers (we also list the Table of Contents - and in the new Magazine system coming soon we'll be able to search/sort those) and a person coming from, say, Villains & Vigilantes can find out which magazine/journal issues and modules contained material for their beloved game.

We can create a 'series' container which can collect various JG products into groups (for example, we have a G-Giants series, a B-Basic series, etc)... but it doesn't make much sense to have one overall series called 'Judges Guild' when it would just be a duplicate of what's listed under the 'Judges Guild' publisher.

We remain, as always, open to suggestions on how to better categorize the Judges Guild material.

-Dave

ashmire13 wrote:But currently, I can't add Judges Guild as the RPG at all. Its all 'Dungeons & Dragons'..

Right. Because Judges Guild isn't an RPG.  All magazines, modules and scenarios in our system are linked to the specific RPGs which are covered in the given magazine/module/scenario.  There is no Judges Guild RPG because there is no 'game' called Judges Guild. The Judges Guild products are grouped by publisher: i.e. Judges Guild.  We can create containers for a subset of Judges Guild products... as we have for the Judges Guild Journal (the very specific set of 25 issues). If there are other logical groupings (think... G1, G2, G3) we can create containers for those. But they all remain JG products.

I value your opinion, Dave, and would love some direction on how you would group them.

-Dave

FormCritic wrote:First article I read was the DUNGEON magazine rankings of the 30 all time greatest adventures.

We riffed on the Dungeon list here way back in late 2005 ... and the natives weren't too impressed then, either:

http://bit.ly/ckwWMW

Personally, I thought it was a pretty solid list, overall. But I really disagree with some of the methodology — grouping many modules into one super-module, for instance. Also, I don't think any 3e stuff had had enough time to become "classic" enough to make a list that was allegedly for the top 30 items ever. 3e stuff should not have been eligible at all.

I would like the super modules excluded in general. If there were additional material (TOEE, ...), that may make a difference.

Having never cracked a Queen of the Spiders, I'm not sure what additional material is there. I happen to be keeping an eye out for a reasonably priced one.