I know there are threads where usefull stuff is defined, like IIEE and so on.
AND we have the GNS eassay and so on. This is usually the thing pointed to when a suggestion for a vocabulary comes up.

I feel, however, it's not *really* all that helpful. Especially to newbies. I wouldn't bring this up unless I had a new idea how to make it work.

What I'd like to see is a new feature on this site.

This feature would let you look-up definitions. If you typed GNS you'd get a basic definition as well as (moderated) comments, PLUS links to the best threads and articles.

Members should be able to post new definitions, post links and additional comments.

As some things have alternative names (as IIEE), those would be listed and linked to as well.

You should also be able to read who was the originator (to know who to discuss the issue the best with), when it was defined and some more stuff like that.

In a sense it would work a little like the resource library. I can take responsibility for writing up a spec and maybe do some programming as well if people think this would be a good idea

Basically I envision something like this:

I type: Gamist

I get:

Gamist (alternative names: G)
First defined by: Ron Edwards
Originally appeared in: The GNS Essay
Basic definition: fjeifie ije fiejwfojieijfoiewjf oie oi
fiejfew oijfoiejfoie owjfiejoeij fejoiewj wfew
Reference articles and threads:
The GNS Essay
Another Thread
A third thread
Other comments
Pale Fire: I think yada yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda
Box12398: Or you could also say yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda

Pale Fire wrote: This feature would let you look-up definitions. If you typed GNS you'd get a basic definition as well as (moderated) comments, PLUS links to the best threads and articles.

I like this idea, and I have two suggestions that might help a little. One, the person listed as "first defined by" should be the one to write the entry for that term and the one to moderate the subsequent commentary. This would distribute the work (unfortunately not enough, since Ron and, let's see, who else... ah! -- Fang... would be swamped, so perhaps that rule should only apply to new terms introduced henceforth), and it would also have the beneficial side effect that having to create and maintain such an entry would be the rightful price of introducing a new term.

(On the other hand, a new-term tax paid in actual cash toward Forge expenses might be even more beneficial. Would $5 per syllable be fair?)

As for the backlog of existing terms... Christoffer, why don't you "assign" me one term to research and write the entry for. If others also willing to tackle one term to be assigned to them by Christoffer also say so here, we can make a start. (Then, if that works out, I'll consider doing one more...)

Christoffer, understand that by assigning me a term you'd also be agreeing to take on the unpleasant task of reminding and prodding and cajoling me (any everyone else you assign a term to) to complete the work.

- Walt

Hi there,

Oh please, if someone could get this started, oh please ...

One very solid attempt was stalled a while ago, which I feel pretty bad about; the screwup involved server changes and lost files and similar stuff. Perhaps Walt's suggestion is a way to get this project going.

Oh, and lots and lots of people would be primary sources. Mike Sullivan would be the guy for Illusionism, Mike Holmes for Participationism, Paul Czege for protagonism and "deprotagonize," and there are many more. Fang and I are indeed Term-Monsters, but we're not alone.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Oh, and lots and lots of people would be primary sources. Mike Sullivan would be the guy for Illusionism, Mike Holmes for Participationism, Paul Czege for protagonism and "deprotagonize," and there are many more. Fang and I are indeed Term-Monsters, but we're not alone.

Mike,

Yes, it was Paul Elliot - I always do that, must be the double "L" or something. Dammit.

My take on Transparency, Immersion, "story," and a few others is to tell the truth: "These terms have been intractable throughout multiple discussions, or redundant relative to existing terms, and you can see the threads here, and make your own choices about it." I'd include Dramatism in this list with some reservations, as Gareth Martin's re-construction of it was very interesting to me.

Other good candidate term: Congruence, which is Walter's, I think.

Best,
Ron

As long as we're talking ideal...the ideal would not be to create a glossary that was the "final authority" because then (as with ye old faq attempt) we'd spend a zillion hours argueing over what minutia was going to be included in the "official" definition.

Better would be for each entry to be a summary of talking points (the format suggested above seems a reasonable place to start).

Different definitions for a term can be handled simply by 1), 2), 3) etc. with some attribution to principal commentors.

I think a "readers digest condensed version" of the threads where the topic is discussed will be more valuable than a strict "glossary" for all but the most basic terms.

The idea is to allow interested parties get up to speed quicker than they could sifting through old threads right.

One question I have: Do we have any software that can do this right now or do we have to write something new? If the latter, what stuff are we playing with? What databases, what serverside stuff and so on?

On the other hand depending on how flexible the resource library scripts are, maybe the stuff handling that could be adapted to run the vocab?

I was thinking of something automated to that there wouldn't be someone who would have to keep up the maintainance him or herself. This is not just because of laziness. It also ensures it can keep on running even if the person responsible takes a time out from posting or something like that.

Hi Christoffer,

You might be surprised at how much maintenance an "automated" system requires. For instance, between server hiccups and various who-can-read-it problems, the Forge kicks Clinton in sensitive places at least once a month ... which is really often for something that isn't a job, especially if you consider that he monitors it almost daily. For example, all entries into the Resource Library have to be checked to make sure they're (a) active links and (b) not abusive, and that's just one small function.

A fully-automated "vocabulary database" would become a serious problem - a confused or contentious definition is just as easy to input as a solid "reference" one. A completely-reviewed databased would require ... well, reviewing, and that's plain and simple labor.

I'm still hoping we come up with something that works well, but it's not going to be a simple, whip-it-up service that we've been overlooking all this time.

Best,
Ron

Here's my concept for a glossary that wouldn't be that hard: a system consisting of matches from terms to links. It would be a simple mapping where term X can found first found in thread Y. (And clarified in threads Z1, Z2, and Z3.)

Does that sound like something useful? If so, I will put effort into it.

- Clinton

Guys,

Why don't we just make a WIKI? For an example of what I mean, check out the Fudge Wiki on the Phoenyx server:

http://fudge.phoenyx.net/


Each person could add whatever they wanted, even to the point of listing terms and hoping other people will come along and define them. WIKI's are really the ultimate web-collaboration tool, and I think one would be absolutely perfect for this kind of project.

Just an idea.

Later.
Jonathan

That was attempted once (Wiki). But it never got off the ground for various reasons.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: That was attempted once (Wiki). But it never got off the ground for various reasons.

Jonathan,

I appreciate the Wiki idea - it's a good one and has merit.

The reason it didn't work out before, and I don't think it's the right one now is that it basically creates another forum. When a glossary is codified - which should happen some day - it needs to be a static, not dynamic, thing.

Ron and Clinton,

What about just using a forum (in the sense of the phpbb data object, not in the sense of an active discussion process) as the glossary display mechanism? Each "thread" could cover a single term, starting with the main definition and continuing with additional commentary added as posts. The forum would have to have the following characteristics:

- Displays threads in alphabetical order of topics rather than by most recent posts

- New topic and posting privileges limited to designated moderators (so discussions about definitions would have to take place in other forums or in private, with the glossary moderators posting only signficant developments to the glossary "threads").

If that can be done with the current system, it would appear the easiest plan. The work of moderating and of building the definitions is a separate issue, of course.

And the whole issue is moot unless more people than Mike (thanks, Mike!) offer to write one.

- Walt

PS In all fairness I should mention that although Fang is a terminology fiend, he consistently enters his specialized terms as links, which is a great help. (The only problem with that method in general is that when others take up the same terms, they tend not do the same thing, understandably.)

First Ron: Having built and maintained web stuff including automated programs, I know you have to have maintenance. But that is little compared to if one guy had everything in a textfile on his computer and every time there was a change, people would mail him, then wait until he made the necessary updates to db. Those things get delayed, that's my experience. A person who just had an idea of something to write is much more likely to take the time to update stuff, than a maintainer who probably has a lot on his/her mind at the time.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Here's my concept for a glossary that wouldn't be that hard: a system consisting of matches from terms to links. It would be a simple mapping where term X can found first found in thread Y. (And clarified in threads Z1, Z2, and Z3.)
Does that sound like something useful? If so, I will put effort into it.

wfreitag wrote: In all fairness I should mention that although Fang is a terminology fiend, he consistently enters his specialized terms as links, which is a great help.

Le Joueur wrote: When you set up a forum, you make a vocabulary file; it automatically links any future instance of that word to your glossary.

My first post, and I really must say I'd personally greatly appreciate such a glossary of terms. I grew up on the well known games such as AD&D, Star Frontiers, Top Secret, Marvel Superheroes, etc..sure they were great at the time, but I always felt something was missing. I get the feeling that something can be found at The Forge, but I get lost in terminology and mention of different mechanics. I'll surely wade through it until I get it all, but a glossary fo some sort would certainly help speed that process up a bit.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Jonathan,

I appreciate the Wiki idea - it's a good one and has merit.

The reason it didn't work out before, and I don't think it's the right one now is that it basically creates another forum. When a glossary is codified - which should happen some day - it needs to be a static, not dynamic, thing.

Ok, so if everybody just started adding definitions willy nilly this would be a bad thing right?

Not necessarily. First such a glossary would need to distinguish between "official definition" and "working definition". Since this is the Forge, and the Forge is run by Ron and Clinton, only Ron and Clinton should be able to institute something as an "Official" definition.

Anything added by the rest of us would not be official. If there is no "official definition" (as there would unlikely to be for a term like Immersion" then all submitted definitions would be labeled "working definitions". If there IS an official definition, then all submitted definititions would be labeled "dissenting" or "minority" opinions.

After all the purpose of this excersize isn't really (and shouldn't be) to carve in granite some sort of official Forge lexicon. It SHOULD be to condense dozens if not hundreds of threads in a way that allows new readers to get up to speed. If there are 3 different working definitions for the term Immersion and they are all different and all attributed to certain users thats not a bad thing that renders the glossary "useless". That's a good thing that means new readers will now know everything we know from just having a long thread where those definitions were hashed out, only they won't have to search for and read the entire thread to get there.

So a new comer could pull up "Simulationism", find Ron's "Official Definitions", find a couple of "dissenting opinions" and know that whatever issue they were about to raise has already been covered...because their opinion has already been acknowledged in the lexicon. If they then wish to start a discussion about it, we're all saved from rehashing the same ground to bring new users up to speed.

That to me would be the best use for such a glossary. It would grow in time as people who realized there was a certain term they were using would create an entry and add their working definition to it. There wouldn't need to be a huge and ultimately futile attempt to reach total consensus as their was with the failed faq attempt.

Think GNS/Forge Cliff Notes as opposed to dictionary, IMO.

Very good suggestion Ralph. That makes sense!

Okay, we all seem to be pretty much in the 'yeah' mode together.

So.

How do we get started?

More importantly, why don't we start today?

And as a secondary issue, a few of us have said, "yeah, I'll do a word," who will (or wants to) despense those to us? Likewise, shouldn't we have a separate running conversation about what words should or should not be put into the glossary? Without some guidance, the glossary would have no reason not to turn into a full dictionary covering every conceivable word.

Let's not start with the 'I wanna do this word, approach' expectation. After the first few choice words get going, nobody will want to do the 'hard work' with the less than choice. We've got to have a steady stream of 'give a word' people and a 'leader' to dispense the words or I see this project foundering quite quickly. (Don't get me wrong, a list of 'who wants these words' might be quite desirable, but there has to be 'teeth' to the system; perhaps if they don't get snagged off the 'most wanted definitions' list in a coupla weeks, they can be assigned.)

Let's not forget 'victory conditions.' How will we know when we're 'mostly done' (you can never really finish this project like this). Staring into the maw of 'so many to do' without even the vaguest idea of what 'done' would look like will get intimidating in the long term. (I've been there.)

Lastly, do we need a 'Glossary' Forum?

Okay, that's my bit. Now, "What's my word?"

Fang Langford

Well, to me it seems the starting place is deciding on the technology that makes it possible...is that WIKI...i don't know. Never used it. Once there is a place for entries to be entered (the way you can with the Resource Library), than people can go an browse and put up their own entries.

That seems to me to be the starting point.

Ron and I are discussing what we're going to implement, and will let you know early next week.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Ron and I are discussing what we're going to implement, and will let you know early next week.

I'm still interested.

In fact, I've been pretty close to deciding to step into the word-dispensing role (knowing that that also, as I said to Christoffer, requires being the progress-haranguer, and probably leads to being sucked into other editorial functions as well). I'm just waiting to see what the target format will be.

- Walt

I'm just waiting to see what the target format will be.

For what it's worth, I like Christoffer's original proposed format better than any of the suggested variants.

Paul

I'm pretty much waiting to hear what software solution Clinton and Ron will decide on. Like I said if there is programming to do I could volunteer for that.

I just found this thread today, and am not necessarily an expert on anything, but I would love to lend my energy to the project.

It would be great for new-comers, and also, I think, would help focus discussion in general. This would also help in the handing on the baton Ron asked for in the "Lots of Folks on the Forge" thread. If we can all direct people to the glossary, none of us has to either feel like an Authority on a term to define it, or take the time and energy to write, yet again, a description of a term, or find the links that pertain.

Forge Glossary, go, go, go!

--Emily Care

Very interesting. I don't feel competant to do a word, but my job category included "dictionary editor," so I would be willing to help in any way I could.

Having only recently stumbled upon this thread I thought I'd try to answer some questions while posing one. That question being: Is this the sort of entry (it's cyclopedic) which you had in mind Pale Fire?


The GNS Theory

As outlined by Ron Edwards in his essay, “GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory”, a essential underlying premise native to basic role-playing methodology that refers specifically to the styles of actual play. Per the GNS model these styles of play are trefold and defined as follows:


Gamism (Gamist): That style of role-playing which stresses direct competition amongst players. Per Mr. Edwards this approach is primarily defined by the setting of victory conditions, such as those typically found present in table top war games or traditional board games.

Simulationism (Simulationist): That style of game play typified by the assumption of predefined roles for the purposes of in-game exploration of roles, sometimes in the pursuit of set objectives. Mr. Edwards defines this objective as being focused upon “Exploration as the priority of play” in relation to “the internal logic and experiential consistency” of the game world being explored.

Narrativism (Dramatist): That style of role-playing in which story telling takes precedence over all other aspects of game play. This method of role-playing is plainly described by Mr. Edwards as being “expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme” and as set within one of the classic milieus of the literary genre. (IE: Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy, etcetera.) However, being a game, the basic principles of the Pulp genre seem to also be a necessary integer of the formulae. Thus there is usually some form of conflict and conflict resolution involved in the story telling process, of which the players are often directly made a part.



Mr. Edwards original article may be accessed in full here. Articles pertaining to this trefold model of role-playing can also be found here “Styles of Roleplaying“ while other related articles may be found here “Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice" and… This is just a beginning, more links can be added once located.

Sample entry provided by: Kester Pelagius




Creating an entry like the above can be rather simple. 1st step is to identify the word/concept to be defined. 2nd step is to locate the originating source and paraphrase using your own words. Which, of course, does require one to know what sort of terms The Forge dictionary/encyclopedia should have. I chose the obvious. :)

So I second (or is it third?) the motion for the creation of a master lists of terms which need definitions created for them. Until then let me know how you would like me to reformat the above. Did I leave anything out? Are there better links available?


Kind Regards.

Chris, I think the first posting pretty much explained what I was thinking of. It has to be a short definition followed by references and comments. The problem with the GNS eassay is that it's hard to grasp. There are numerous posts explaining things in detail. It would be great not only to have the definition but also links to places where it is defined and elaborated on, so you don't need to have people explaining the same thing over and over again.

Pale Fire wrote: Chris, I think the first posting pretty much explained what I was thinking of. It has to be a short definition followed by references and comments. The problem with the GNS eassay is that it's hard to grasp. There are numerous posts explaining things in detail. It would be great not only to have the definition but also links to places where it is defined and elaborated on, so you don't need to have people explaining the same thing over and over again.

Kester Pelagius wrote: If all you want is hyperlinks wouldn't it be easier to set up a dynamic boolean search installed to allow visitors to search the entire site for specific terms, catch phrases, etcetera which provides up-to-date links?

Gamist (alternative names: G)
First defined by: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Originally appeared in: frp.advocacy FAQ
Basic definition:
fjeifie ije fiejwfojieijfoiewjf oie oi
fiejfew oijfoiejfoie owjfiejoeij fejoiewj wfew
Reference articles and threads:
The GNS Essay
Another Thread
A third thread
Other comments:
Pale Fire: I think yada yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda
yadda yadda yadda
Box12398: Or you could also say yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda
yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda

Emily, when I wrote "First defined by" I was thinking mostly that this would be Forge members. That would mean that the person credited could be contacted at the Forge for further discussion and so on.

We could maybe changed that to "Suggested by" and only provide the attribution if it's a) well established and b) is a forge member willing to have her/his name there. That would fill the same role.

Pale Fire wrote: We could maybe changed that to "Suggested by" and only provide the attribution if it's a) well established and b) is a forge member willing to have her/his name there. That would fill the same role.

Greetings,


So, from what I've been reading, I am not certain what peoples thoughts are about the actual sample entry I posted. So let me expand:

It took a little under 15 minutes to compile, not including the search for the links. All this talk about avoiding arguments talking "about" the information in a negative way is fine and dandy, point well taken even, but it really doesn't tell me much one way or the other. Just point me to the pertinent information and a cyclopedic entry will follow.

Of course, you know us tempermental authors...

Should I invest another 15 minutes to flesh the entry out and make it a proper cyclopedic entry?

Or should I just wander off into the dark forest and find a nice barrow mound to sleep in?

Don't go burying yourself yet, young master. I'm sure the silence regarding the content of your definition is quite a positive thing. If anyone had problems with it, you'd have been corrected, politely but firmly already, I am sure.

Anyway, the issue with your entry is form, not content. (And if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected.

Kester Pelagius wrote: Gamism (Gamist): That style of role-playing which stresses direct competition amongst players. [T]his approach is primarily defined by the setting of victory conditions, such as those typically found present in table top war games or traditional board games.

Emily Care wrote: Don't go burying yourself yet, young master. I'm sure the silence regarding the content of your definition is quite a positive thing. If anyone had problems with it, you'd have been corrected, politely but firmly already, I am sure.

Anyway, the issue with your entry is form, not content. (And if I'm wrong, I'm sure I will be corrected.

Kester Pelagius wrote: Gamism (Gamist): That style of role-playing which stresses direct competition amongst players. [T]his approach is primarily defined by the setting of victory conditions, such as those typically found present in table top war games or traditional board games.

Could be followed by:

Suggested by: Ron Edwards
Source/First Appeared in:“GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory” by Ron Edwards
Reference Articles and Threads:
GNS Essay
“Styles of Roleplaying“
“Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice"
More links here.
Other Comments:
etc.

--Emily Care who hangs her head in shame for not noticing that Kester had already referenced the Three-fold Model....

Kester Pelagius wrote: I would like to expand it into a proper cyclopedic entry....

I think these terms have to be hard and fast and iron clad. Without having defnitive terms all discussions willl disolve into semantic arguments.

Also:
1. The entries should avoid regular language whenever possible. Just as story-oriented is stricken, so should be "creation of story."

2. Some hard-core terms are generally misleading (Simulationist which doesn't pertain to the simulation of anything ... Dramatist about which no one can truly agree). In these cases the disagreement or confusing nature of the language needs to be simply noted.

3. This will prevent certain types of discussions--but that's happening now. Can I "Create story" without narrativist gaming? Is an adventure about "Assault on Mt. Everest" 'railroading' because the plot moves up and down? All of these questions can be answered without debate by the encyclopedia--and should be.


My answers would be:
a) Yes--because in the general sense story is created by any act of play. In the specific sense, no--but that's using a non-standard intuitive definition of 'story' that I'd like to see removed from the lexicon.

b) No--railroading is a term for a kind of "dysfunction." A linear, imutable plot is not railroading if no one involved dislikes it.

-Marco

Greetings,

Going over what Emily Care, Seth L. Blumberg, and Marco had to say in recent posts I have one comment. There’s a lot of great brainstorming going on here!

Let me just preface my comments by saying my idea for an cyclopedia entry is really something apart from this, but which could be used in conjunction with it. That and I wanted to find out what sort of direction this was going to go. Too, I saw so many posts requesting info about GNS that, well, uh….

In relation to Pale Fire’s original suggestion, sounds like what we are (ultimately) aiming at is something which will allow input by members of The Forge and provide an output that perhaps looks something like this in a master database/list (?):


{{}}

The GNS Theory (Threefold Model)

First Outlined by: Ron Edwards
Originated in: a online essay @ The Forge
Basic Definition: GNS, acronym for "Gamist Narrativist Simulationist", a titular given the model of gaming theory describing what has been identified as three basic "styles" of role-playing.
Primary Reference Articles and Threads:
Ron Edward’s GNS Essay
The Forge’s GNS Discussion Forum
"Styles of Roleplaying"
"Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice"

Comments:

{{}}


I shortened the field descriptors. If this is going to be embedded the shorter the field for the hard coded text the better. Also I put in bold text and color (green for URLs) where I thought color would be warranted, though the latter may be more difficult to code in. (A way around that might be to allow the board’s native codes to be usable in the database, though the end result might not be uniform if everyone decides to use their own colors for different things. I‘ve seen this one happen in ancient of days, in the Land of BBS.) Of course the actual end result will reside in the nimble fingers of the coders. Also I put spaces between the header and the “Comments:” section, though I am not sure the latter is really necessary.

Of course that is assuming the local coding wizards in residence decide to code something like this. In ancient of days it would require fossil drivers to allow access to the door, but I imagine it should be much easier to implement now. Right?

On the other hand a list could probably be compiled by hand in the meantime. [entering bad English accent mode] Pale Fire, old boy, I do believe that, as the instigator of this fine program that the wonderful joy of editing would fall into your hands. Eh, wot. Kipper? Toasted scone?[/exiting bad English accent mode]

(Looking at expression on Pale Fire’s face.)

(Rolling against my “Run Like a Frightened English School Girl” Skill. ;) )


Kind and Humorous Regards,

Kester Pelagius.

I'm a little confused here by the entries you wrote up Kester.

What I was thinking of was a cgi style program with two main functions:

1. Search for terms in a database to get the current definition(s) and links to relevant documents (possibly off-site) as well as forge forum postings relating to it.

2. Allow input of new terms, adding new links and revising the old, editing definitions and so on.

This program would either be written by someone (I could even volunteer to do so if Clinton or someone tells me what I could write it in. Since my language of choice is Java and I've done a lot of jsp, I'd prefer that. Pearl is acceptable but my code is a mess (although it gets the work done). Other types I'd pretty much have to read up on) or we could use some prewritten thing.

What I'm currently waiting for is Clinton or Ron to decide what software they want to run this thing on.

Editing and writing up definitions of terms is kind of uninteresting to me before we have a program working. I can accept the role of making sure everyone has something to write and nag if they don't finish it, but first there has to be that cgi program.

Ok, so sure, we could put a forum which is only definitions and stuff, but that is hideously impractical for someone who wants to look up more than one definition. I'd say make a program for it.

But as I said: I'm still waiting for the admins to decide what they want...

Hell, you wouldn't even need CGI. You could write this this up completely in ASP pages and VBscript, pulling the information out of an MS Access database (or whatever kind you wanted to use; I'm most familiar with Access). You could even add data through submittable forms and have them stuck into the database, retrievable by the next person to use it.

Hell, _I_ could set this up, with the little knowledge I've gained from CS 339 this semester. All I'd need is a list of the fields people wanted in the database and I could have it up and running as long as there was a server available that supported that stuff.

Later.
Jonathan

Greetings,

Pale Fire wrote: I'm a little confused here by the entries you wrote up Kester.

Pale Fire wrote: Editing and writing up definitions of terms is kind of uninteresting to me before we have a program working. I can accept the role of making sure everyone has something to write and nag if they don't finish it, but first there has to be that cgi program.

Pale Fire wrote: Ok, so sure, we could put a forum which is only definitions and stuff, but that is hideously impractical for someone who wants to look up more than one definition. I'd say make a program for it.

Pale Fire wrote: But as I said: I'm still waiting for the admins to decide what they want...

Jonathan Walton wrote: Hell, you wouldn't even need CGI. You could write this this up completely in ASP pages and VBscript, pulling the information out of an MS Access database (or whatever kind you wanted to use; I'm most familiar with Access). You could even add data through submittable forms and have them stuck into the database, retrievable by the next person to use it.

Greetings Jonathan,

Welcome the wonderful world of The Forge.

And if you've an old hat, well, welcome to this thread.

Jonathan Walton wrote: Hell, _I_ could set this up, with the little knowledge I've gained from CS 339 this semester. All I'd need is a list of the fields people wanted in the database and I could have it up and running as long as there was a server available that supported that stuff.

Adam wrote: Just to be pedantic, because I am - ASP is just another method of programming CGI [Common Gateway Interface] scripts.