Style guide

[chiisu81]

Starting a thread for the style guide.

[jdn2006]

"FIf you need a copy of the mentioned fonts, please PM or email Solomoriah and/or chiisu81 and we'll help you out!"

Any guidance on referring to new monsters, magic items, etc. within the text? Or a field guide or other existing resource? i.e. "Within the stone hollow underneath the fifth chair is a Potion of Walking Through Stone (see New Magic Items)" or "Crazy Cricket (see Basic Fantasy Field Guide #999)" or "Within the stone hollow underneath the fifth chair is a Potion of Walking Through Stone (see New Magic Items)" or "Crazy Cricket (see Basic Fantasy Field Guide #33)"

[chiisu81]

Re-uploaded R3 with that spelling correction, thanks!

I know we normally like to note at the beginning of a work if some (or all) monsters come from the Field Guide, etc. but I don't know if there's a standard that we should be including each time it's mentioned. I'll let Solo chime in on that.

[SmootRK]

Personally, I think that any additional material (monsters, spells, items, etc) ought to be included in an appendix to the module, just like the old modules from that game we all know. Perhaps the Field Guide can be an exception to this... not sure, I could deal with it either way.

Certainly anything that is a variant should be included in such an appendix. For instance (just hypothetically), a module includes a Bisren npc except these Bisren are more like Moose Men in this writer's game... certainly needs to be clearly described like a new monster for this module.

[Solomoriah]

I don't suppose you guys are familiar with RFC terminology?

You MUST indicate that your adventure needs specific publications beyond the Core Rules (such as the Field Guide). You MAY so indicate for each item/monster. You SHOULD indicate items or monsters that are detailed at the end of your work, each time such things appear.

MUST = well, must.
MAY = you can if you like, and we'd like that
SHOULD = if you don't, we'll probably end up doing it for you, so why not go ahead and make our lives easier?

You are not required to do things to make the reader's life easier, but if it doesn't cost too much, why not go ahead and do it?

[kerc]

I really with I could edit ODT files on a Chromebook!

[Solomoriah]

ODTs can be uploaded to Google Docs, and Google Docs downloaded as ODT; but the Core Rules are too complex for Google Docs, unless they've upgraded recently.

[chiisu81]

Personally, I think that any additional material (monsters, spells, items, etc) ought to be included in an appendix to the module, just like the old modules from that game we all know. Perhaps the Field Guide can be an exception to this... not sure, I could deal with it either way.

Certainly anything that is a variant should be included in such an appendix. For instance (just hypothetically), a module includes a Bisren npc except these Bisren are more like Moose Men in this writer's game... certainly needs to be clearly described like a new monster for this module.

Yes, I would say that any new and unique (to that document) monsters, items, etc. absolutely MUST be detailed at the end of the document in a relevant "New Monsters", etc. section.

If the document is using items as-is from the Field Guide, etc. then they don't need to be included as a new monster, just merely have the GM reference that relevant supplement.

[Solomoriah]

I'll make an exception right now for modified monsters, i.e. those who are mostly like something in the book but not exactly. Skeletons with shields, for example, or urgnolls (gnolls that regenerate like trolls, i.e. the gnoll equivalent of an urgoblin). There is no need for a detailed Core Rules/Field Guide monster entry for one-off monsters of this type. The same goes for some custom magic items; a key that casts knock on a lock when it is touched to it, for example, does not need a detailed "New Magic Items" entry either. (One of my players has such an item. I do recommend a low limit on the number of charges it can hold.)

[Clever_Munkey]

Second bullet point first page; FIf should just be If.

The rest of the document looks clean.

[chiisu81]

That was fixed last month with R3. Re-downloaded PDF just to make sure.

[Clever_Munkey]

Indeed it was.

Well it looks perfect then.