Changes to FCDB utility rating?

[Catodon]

I would like the communities thoughts on the below.
I have noticed that setting specific conversions poll well on the FCDB even though they are only useful to a small minority of FC players. Unlike Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft is a toolkit for designing and running almost any kind of fantasy or even historical setting. I suggest amending the Utility portion of voting to emphasise consideration of whether the article could be used in diverse settings. This should be applied to all article types, not just species and classes. With the sliding scales employed in Fantasy Craft the utility of items at various character levels is less of a concern than it is with 3.5 or Pathfinder.

My own scale for utility is:
5 stars: could be used in all settings able to be portrayed in Fantasy Craft even historical non-magical ones.
4 stars: able to be used in human only low magic settings such as Pirates of the Carribbean or Conan's Hyborian age.
3 stars: could be use in traditional literary settings such as Middle Earth where magic is less common and the diversity of intelligent species is low.
2 stars: able to be used in a typical D&D style world with lots of magic and very many intelligent species
1 star: only useful in a specific setting, unlikely to be acceptable beyond the world for which it was designed.

Veector the moderator of FCDB is watching to see how this discussion goes.

For reference the current utility description is given below
Utility
This refers to how well the submitted content will be useful throughout many different game situations and levels. For feats, this is an evaluation of how useful the feat is over the full span of a character's career. For spells, this refers to how useful the spell is at the level it is acquired versus how useful the spell is at higher levels. For races or classes, this is an assessment of the usefulness of the race or class abilities versus game situations in which the ability would likely be used. For example, a race which has a +10 bonus to Haggle only when dealing with Gelatinous Cubes may be very useful in specific campaigns, but on the whole the ability may be too specific to benefit most games.

    * A 1 star rating in this criteria indicates the content is not very useful to or usable in most games.
    * A 5 star rating in this criteria indicates the content can be dropped into any game and gain adoption by players and gamemasters alike.

[aegis]

I must say I really don't see the point of the utility rating. If a game option is limited in its use, it is somehow quite obvious. It might be mentionned somewhere if you like, but I don't understand why there should be a rating for that.

[Morgenstern]

I'd be a bit concerned that it gives the impression something superbly crafted for a particular setting is less valuable than something generically bland. It sort of actively discourages integrated flavor text/fluff.

Wouldn't what you're describing be a "portability" rating?

[Catodon]

I must say I really don't see the point of the utility rating. If a game option is limited in its use, it is somehow quite obvious. It might be mentionned somewhere if you like, but I don't understand why there should be a rating for that.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out a method whereby the articles in the database that are the most use to the most people are more highly rated. The idea is to increase the usefulness of the FCBD. 

(though as the author of intelligent mice as PC's I'm shooting myself in the foot)

[Catodon]

I'd be a bit concerned that it gives the impression something superbly crafted for a particular setting is less valuable than something generically bland. It sort of actively discourages integrated flavor text/fluff.

Wouldn't what you're describing be a "portability" rating?

Portability is a good label.

I really enjoy reading good creative fluff but value is context dependent.
If you are trying to help people find something they can use then something superbly crafted for a particular setting is less valuable than something generically bland.

Also:
Fantasy Craft the game is valuable to me because it is generic but the writing is not bland, it is clear concise and a joy to read.

What would also be good is some way for fans of specific settings to find good material crafted for that setting.

[ludomastro]

Perhaps we should use portability as a rating tool from the POV of FC in general.  It helps avoid the downgrade of well written but very specific stuff.

Also, sub-dividing the DB for setting specific information might work.  "Hmm, oh look, they have a section on Spelljammer.  Did they convert the hamsters?"

If you were able to use both, that would be the best from my personal POV.

[Morgenstern]

I really enjoy reading good creative fluff but value is context dependent.

If you are trying to help people find something they can use then something superbly crafted for a particular setting is less valuable than something generically bland.

Unless the context is they want to use that setting or one like it. If I'm preping for a Usagi Yojimbo game, a collection of animal-themed Origins is THE tool I'm looking for .

I guess my instinctual concern is that any scale that reads vertically (1-5) implies 5 is better than 1. I think portability is a horizontal spectum (narrow purpose-to-broad purpose) and I tend to value both ends over the middle. The qualities you prize in text from the core book material is IMO as much mechanical clarity as it is portability, and there is already a proper vertical scale for mechanical clarity.

Maybe it would help if the writers were offered a box to fill in to indicate if they were trying to provide setting-specific or portable content? Just brainstorming here.

[aegis]

I really enjoy reading good creative fluff but value is context dependent.
If you are trying to help people find something they can use then something superbly crafted for a particular setting is less valuable than something generically bland.

What would also be good is some way for fans of specific settings to find good material crafted for that setting.

Then I would recommend a tag rather than a rating. I agree that generic material and setting-specific material could be highlighted, but I would prefer to see that as a feature.

[pawsplay]

I don't see that portability has a direct relationship to utility. If I can't use something, it doesn't matter how good it is. But if it's perfectly suited, it's irrelevant how many other settings it doesn't work in. I think this would be handled better through some kind tagging process or a multiple choice button.

[Sletchman]

Just put a "Setting Requirements:" line in that is required in all submissions.  For truly generic and totally portable material you can just put "None" in there.  For something that only works in a specific setting you can put "Designed for [Blah - Link]."  Put that line somewhere nice and visible, and let the creator put some fluff in so any readers can see if it'll work in their setting.

Just a thought.

[Catodon]

Perhaps we should use portability as a rating tool from the POV of FC in general.  It helps avoid the downgrade of well written but very specific stuff.

Also, sub-dividing the DB for setting specific information might work.  "Hmm, oh look, they have a section on Spelljammer.  Did they convert the hamsters?"

If you were able to use both, that would be the best from my personal POV.

The combination covers not only setting specific but also how portable generic items are. For example my Magic Mice PCs are generic but would not be acceptable in many setttings. I still favour a vote system for this but...
Rather than a 1 to 5 numbered portability rating a drop down menu to vote with?
The numbers are still there and can be averaged but they are hidden behind labels. for example:

My own scale for utility is:
Universal could be used in all settings able to be portrayed in Fantasy Craft even historical non-magical ones.
Low Diversity able to be used in human only low magic settings such as Pirates of the Carribbean or Conan's Hyborian age.
Low Magic could be use in traditional literary settings such as Middle Earth where magic is less common and the diversity of intelligent species is low.
High Magic able to be used in a typical D&D style world with lots of magic and very many intelligent species
Setting Specific only useful in a specific setting, unlikely to be acceptable beyond the world for which it was designed.

[pawsplay]

My own scale for utility is:
Universal could be used in all settings able to be portrayed in Fantasy Craft even historical non-magical ones.
Low Diversity able to be used in human only low magic settings such as Pirates of the Carribbean or Conan's Hyborian age.
Low Magic could be use in traditional literary settings such as Middle Earth where magic is less common and the diversity of intelligent species is low.
High Magic able to be used in a typical D&D style world with lots of magic and very many intelligent species
Setting Specific only useful in a specific setting, unlikely to be acceptable beyond the world for which it was designed.

Middle Earth really isn't Low Magic, even if magic is less ubiquitious than in the Forgotten Realms. I would rename what you call Low Magic to Low Diversity, and what you call Low Diversity to Legendary Magic.

[paddyfool]

I agree with Sletchman that voting by people other than the author isn't really needed on this, but an author submission of the intended portability might be handy.  A drop-down for the author including a long list of options, along the lines of those you've included, would be good, but I'd be tempted to add one:

Niche settings would cover homebrew which is likely to be used only in settings with fairly specific characteristics (e.g. a Balloonistry Basics/Mastery/Supremacy tree; quite a lot of settings would not have airships, after all).

[Catodon]

My own scale for utility is:
Universal could be used in all settings able to be portrayed in Fantasy Craft even historical non-magical ones.
Low Diversity able to be used in human only low magic settings such as Pirates of the Carribbean or Conan's Hyborian age.
Low Magic could be use in traditional literary settings such as Middle Earth where magic is less common and the diversity of intelligent species is low.
High Magic able to be used in a typical D&D style world with lots of magic and very many intelligent species
Setting Specific only useful in a specific setting, unlikely to be acceptable beyond the world for which it was designed.

Middle Earth really isn't Low Magic, even if magic is less ubiquitious than in the Forgotten Realms. I would rename what you call Low Magic to Low Diversity, and what you call Low Diversity to Legendary Magic.

I really like the name changes