Talk:4e Campaign Settings
From D&D Wiki
Organizational Structure[edit]
- Discussion moved from User talk:Green Dragon#4e Campaign Settings. --Green Dragon 11:21, 14 January 2011 (MST)
This page is terrible in comparison to the 3.5e campaigns page. This may be because of the more 3.5e campaign settings, but for the sake of the community even attempting to create a 4e campaign they should have a suitable forum to do so in. Having a stub page, almost a redirection page, like this is neither encouraging new campaigns nor giving proper exampling of the existing ones. --Celen Joad 2:50 January 15 2011
- Hello again. I was overlooking the 4 edition Homebrew settings, under campaigns, and am frankly a little annoyed. I find it a little irritating that the 3.5e homebrew page is so very organised and sorted, whilst the 4e page is not. Also, my campaign setting is 4 Edition, but I cannot get it to appear under the 4e Homebrew settings, nor get change it's location in any way from 3.5. I have managed to change the name by moving the page, but that's about it.
- I was wondering when, if ever, we could expect to see these pages updated to the standard of the rest of the site? I would gladly do it myself, but naturally I am unable to do so because it is protected from editing. I presume this means only admins and mods can edit it. I have created a template here that was based off the old 3.5 edition template for linking.
- Again, I would gladly help in any endeavour to get the 4e pages up to the same standard as the 3.5e ones. --Celen Joad 3:17 January 15 2011
- I find that a method which divides those which are usable and those which need some improvement by using the improving, reviewing, and removing templates is better than alternatives developed so far.
- For most settings the only advice received is one of the five templated advices, being "This is a very minimal page, most likely a Stub. Please help expand this.", "This has some sparse information, but large amounts of material are missing. Please help improve this.", "This has some, but often sparse, information in most categories. Please help improve this.", "This is complete in many aspects, but information is sparse in a few categories. Please help improve this.", and "This is very comprehensive in most aspects.".
- A method using the improving, reviewing, and removing templates can only be done with advice present. What I mean is that a setting cannot be arbitrarily and/or incorrectly rated. This catch is not present with a rating system.
- A method using the improving, reviewing, and removing templates can be standardized as well, if it a problem like those on other pages (formatting, for example). It can also be specific to the setting. Specific advice can result in a better setting as the problem is not generalized and can be fixed as a specific.
- Thoughts? Why this method does not work well with regard to 4e settings, of course, is the discussion. --Green Dragon 11:21, 14 January 2011 (MST)
- It is true, the 1-5 rating system really only explained comprehensiveness of the campaign against usability, but often is the case that those around 1 were unusable and those around 5 were. Maybe a combined system, wherein say 1-3 is used instead:
Rank Level of Detail Description 1 Improving, ect. The currently improving, reviewing or removing Campaigns 2 Useable Campaigns with little information, but still useable come here. 3 Comprehensive Campaigns with medium to a large amount of information come here, internally ranked via a 1-5 detail rating.
- And Rank 1 are the campaigns currently undergoing improving, review or removing, which would be at the top of the page, with the ranks descending as to better expose the lower ranked campaigns. It allows DMs and Players easier choice of detail in the campaign they're playing, and still exposing the campaigns of lower ranks. Also, the 1-5 rating could be used in tandem with this rating; if a campaign is ranked comprehensive or useable, the 1-5 rating of how comprehensive can be used, again helping the DMs and Players choose a level of detail. As to why this system doesn't work for 4e? Well, from personal experiance, the 4e campaign doesn't exactly scream finished. Clicking on one of the many campaigns will show useable campaign data, but the amount varies. If there is no ranking system, then there is no way to determine the level of detail in the campaign is right for you without having to go through every single one, which can get a bit tedious. Celen Joad 16:29, 14 January 2011 (MST)
- 4e Deities has a method over the improving, reviewing, or removing templates, however it comes from the content.
- What do you think about trying something like 4e Classes with a description which gives a direction?
- The reason I am saying this is because the improving, reviewing, or removing method should be all-comprehensive. Those without one of the templates should have no reason for them (to note I have not been doing this, since them no deviation would currently be present as they all need work). Those with one of the templates are not complete in one way or another.
- Do I feel terribly strongly about this? With more input, as desired, we of course could do something like include a rating in the description (your idea). I just do not think there is enough input right now. To note the current method has been shown to work (see also pages like Genothrope (4e Race)) and I have not seen any problems (for example settings with no reason for the rating, or fake ratings classes produce occasionally). Thoughts? --Green Dragon 18:33, 14 January 2011 (MST)
- 4e Deities has a method over the improving, reviewing, or removing templates, however it comes from the content.
- What's different about that page and this one? At any rate, a campaign setting is significantly harder to complete than a deity. I'd wager that most deities on this site are fully complete, where as maybe a handful of CS's are complete. A binary system ("complete" vs. "incomplete") is not very helpful for something that has such a wide range of variation. A 3-group system might work (complete, incomplete but usable, and incomplete and not usable), but I still prefer the 5-point system, hands down.
- What do you think about trying something like 4e Classes with a description which gives a direction?
- That's nice, but I think it's a separate discussion. The descriptions (when they exist...) don't really tell you how usable a campaign is.
- It seems that you are worried that a 5-point system is arbitrary. Of course it is! But we shouldn't be sacrificing usability in order to have everything easier to determine. There's nothing stopping us from fleshing out the 5 levels to be more precise, if that's what you are worried about. JazzMan 18:46, 14 January 2011 (MST)
- I have to agree with Jazzman831; a campaign setting requires more detail when it comes to sorting. Deities and classes are but one entity, but campaigns contain a whole slew of deities, classes, options, history, bluntly an entire world in them. How developed that world is requires more than just a short description or category; a ranking system. Celen Joad 19:35, 14 January 2011 (MST)
- Sure, someone implement something then. Although I do recommend using the improving, reviewing, or removing templates in some way (as recommended above). --Green Dragon 20:17, 14 January 2011 (MST)
- I'd love to, but the campaign settings page is locked to prevent editing. I'm not sure who has the permissions to do so. Do you know who could help us do this? Alternatively, you could let me or Jazz edit the page. Celen Joad 22:03, 14 January 2011 (MST)
- Well, as I suggested, we could have one of the ranks as this Improving blah blah. That way we use both systems. Or, we could just have a notation or something saying that the page is currently in need of or is improving blah blah. Could you unlock the page for me on your reply, and I'll get started right away? Celen Joad 00:02, 15 January 2011 (MST)
- I believe that our five point system in use already is perfect. It prevents people placing a Campaign into a rating based on liking it or not liking it, and only takes it at wiki-completeness. Of course, I've already got quite a bit listed here about how I use it. Hooper talk contribs email 00:11, 15 January 2011 (MST)
- So should we implement a 1-5 rating system without the Improving, Reviewing or Removing template suggested by Green Dragon? Celen Joad 00:32, 15 January 2011 (MST)
←Reverted indentation to one colon
- It is done. The page has been reformatted to the 3.5 ratings style, and the existing campaigns moved to the non-rated section. However, I am unsure how ranking one of these up would affect the page, so could someone rank one of these for me? Preferably mine, that way I can mess around until it works without affecting the other campaign settings without the author's approval. Mine is the LAI campaign setting. Celen Joad 07:46, 15 January 2011 (MST)
- I figure yours is about a 3 ("Some, but often sparse, information in most categories"). Really you are sort of the opposite (thorough information in a few categories), so I figure it balances out. You have more than "some sparse information [with] large amounts of material missing" but not quite "complete in many aspects with sparse information in a few categories". You'll see that the instance I add the "|3" parameter to your CS, it instantly jumps up into the 3-rated CS heading.
- And Hooper, I think your page needs to be made official somehow. That is a really great guide for rating CSs. JazzMan 09:32, 15 January 2011 (MST)
- For the breadcrumb we want to use Template:4e Campaign Settings Breadcrumb with categories since it works on subpages and can be included in specific setting breadcrumbs easily (the other could not).
- There is no need to make everything 4e specific, so I made this just use the things we have been using on 3.5e Campaign Settings. If one wants just the 4e ones they can either check this page or make a quick dpl. --Green Dragon 11:35, 15 January 2011 (MST)
