Hard magic seems like an unavoidable perspective. Once someone casts spells daily, those spells become familiar.
Tolkien avoided this problem with limited spells. Le Guine leaned into it so hard that the method became enchanting. The reader could see Sparrowhawk's point of view and start to wonder more about the rules of magic as they trickle out slowly.
When you cook well, you can eat the food.
When the bot says something, you always need to look up if it's correct. That's the 'cook a new meal from scratch' bit, not the 'taste it' bit.
You need to look things up every time, or do the taste test by asking if the bot's answer 'smells true' (which is tempting, but a bad idea).
Hamlets in Fenestra gather around towns. Outside, walled Baileys spread out like satellites.
The research isn't mature but it's good enough for basic logistics.
I didn't know centaurs could code.
Those are both manual tagging. One uses tag: sultan, the other uses [[sultan]].
And you can word-search both of them for Sultan.
Of course, if you have use for a WoD wiki, feel free to convert it. I assume Logseq will let people collaborate just as well with git.
would allow for more connectivity between notes
Databases don't have an upper limit of connections.
I'm sure both work fine, but this thing's database-first, as it's meant to deal with queries like 'Events in Belgrade, between 1200 and 1450', or 'random male name from Catalan in 1520'.
Isn't that a notes app?
I forgot that gitlab makes everything private by default. Thanks for pointing that out!
The licence doesn't appear on the page.
Itch lets you select a licence, which will help people search. Under the game, Edit --> Metadata, and select which creative commons licence (there are many).
I don't know if Google docs count as a 'source file'. It's clearly the source. Is it a file? I guess everything's a file if you go by the UNIX definition, so 'close enough'?
Licensing riddles aside, it looks great, and it's nice seeing a fast-paced intro that gets straight into what the game's about.
That's never been the case with any of the open source movement. If someone says their project is open source, then they give out files which are not the source, we would normally say that's not open source. We don't ask Microsoft if they feel that X, Y, and Z are 'the core components' of VSCodium. It's just not open source.
Providing text is good, and you might say the text files are 'open source', if they have a licence which allows modifications and so on. But you can't make closed-source pdfs out of them, and say 'this has text, which is open source, so I feel like it's open source'.
I get that it seems like a small distinction to some, but it's been an important distinction since the inception of the open source movement, and without it, we won't be able to tell open source projects from projects that have open components which people 'feel' are core.
This is what I see.