Template talk:Design Note

Redundant?

I'm not sure what this template is for; It seems to be used to replace to the Template:Design Disclaimer, but honestly, I don't think there's any need for it to. It seems like this was born from the discussion on Template talk:Design Disclaimer, judging from the time period, but it didn't seem like it warranted an entire replacement template to be rushed out unilaterally. --Jwguy (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It uses the standard message box formatting, shows immediately what sourcebook ("You'll need the Epic Bestiary for this") or guideline is being used, inline on the left (instead of up in the top left, as hidden text, underneath boilerplate text). It can also be used for a general "designers note" ("This is based on this other thing", "I did it this way because X")

Specific examples:

• Ettercap, Spiderkind (4e Creature). It uses a new skill and a new monster type. This is explained in the sourcebook. If you are using the sourcebook, it itself is not a "deviation from standards".
• Fary (5e Race). Flight and Tiny or Large size are not "deviations from standards". They are mechanics that exist in 5e, they are not forbidden by the "creating a race" section of the DMG. 3e, 4e and 5e have all had officially published flying PC races. These aspects might be trickier to balance, but that's a different issue.
• Companion Characters (5e Other)/Rummele cites the original design.

In other words, a page with a Design Note can be dropped into play with the same amount of consideration as any other homebrew page, providing you are using the supporting material.

Legitimate uses for the Design Disclaimer:

• Slave (5e Background) is a "deviation from standards" as it breaks from what the DMG says a background should include.

The DM and Player need to double-check that this content is OK for them, moreso than the other "standardized" backrounds we have. Marasmusine (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I admit, I still think they could wrap into one, but I can see you've got an idea here, and you seem to have cause and purpose with it, so I guess it's worth a shot.

As an aside, I happened to like the fancy design I made, myself. Personally, I was trying to avoid cluttering pages with screen-wide boxes, myself. =( --Jwguy (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

All while this was going on, that banner was in my mind, it is really nice. But I had to take a step back and think about function and information. Marasmusine (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jwguy since we can make the text on DD parameter dependent. Would this fit with your vision Marasmusine? --Green Dragon (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, I preferred it as a messagebox. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2017 (MDT)

If I had to compromise, I'd say put the image on the left and left-justify it. I dunno. I'm thinking of the WotC books where they use highlighted boxes and sidebars to draw your attention to design matters (e.g. 5e DMG p. 238) I just want the information. Marasmusine (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2017 (MDT)

Wait, the image is the "design disclaimer" image? I tried to be clear on the difference between a design note and a design disclaimer. Marasmusine (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2017 (MDT)

Please, define the intended usage for "note" and "disclaimer" here. Its a pretty image for what I am seeing. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (MDT)

If you are knowingly breaking the rules, use a disclaimer.

If you want to highlight that you are using such-and-such a guideline or such-and-such a sourcebook, or you want to credit a source (if you are adapting the work of another user), use a design note.

As I mention above, Slave (5e Background) is a good use of Template talk:Design Disclaimer, because it knowingly breaks from the "designing a background" rules in the DMG.

A race that can fly doesn't break any rules, but it is worth highlighting. Use a design note to link to the guide on flying races.

A page that is a supplement for (and requires the use of) a sourcebook just needs a link to that sourcebook. The page doesn't break any rules with respect to the sourcebook. Use a design note.

If I want to say "this 5e monster is based on this 1e monster that appeared in Dragon magazine", I don't want a "design disclaimer", I just want to highlight it in a "boxout", which is why I had the Design Note in a messagebox. Marasmusine (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2017 (MDT)

As someone who has used this template a few times, I agree with Marasmusine's stance here on the difference between "design note" and "design disclaimer." I've used this template on a few pages which use an official variant rule most campaigns wouldn't use (example: fire rod). I think this kind of content deserves a different format than something which intentionally goes against official guidelines entirely. - Guy (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2017 (MDT)

I haven't used either template, but I know why they both exist separately and think that it worked better the way it was before. Maybe it's not as "pretty" as a fancy image, but function should always come over form.--GamerAim (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2017 (MDT)--GamerAim (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2017 (MDT)

I liked it the way it was before :( — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 00:23, 5 July 2017 (MDT)

Jwguy is it possible for you to create an alternative image please? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2017 (MDT)