I was reading through the Too Many Settings thread the other day, and some of the posts there inspired me to wonder if there was a way to sort various campaign setting threads.
It would be easier to review settings if I knew in advance what stage of development a setting was in. Sometimes, I have enough time to read through a long, fully-developed setting, but at other times, I'm just passing through, so I want to head straight for a newly-started setting without sifting through thread after thread of things that I don't have enough time to review.
I suppose the easiest way to do this would be to encourage people to use some sort of naming convention for campaign-setting threads. A thread devoted to brainstorming ideas for a setting might have a name that starts with "Brainstorm:" or the such, while other threads might use other terms to indicate how close they are to being finished products.
Or perhaps the site could have a campaign setting registry. It could keep track of all campaign settings, listing each one alongside its stage of development, genre, amount of reliance on house rules, and the such.
Does anyone have other suggestions for sorting or otherwise searching through threads to find campaigns in particular stages of development or otherwise belonging to particular categories?
Back on the WotC boards, when I first founded the CBG, I suggested that we may want to design a standard format for guild settings. Now, everyone wouldn't be required to follow the format, but it could help newcomers and also help the review process.
Perhaps it's about time this idea get a second look? If a standardized format is used, it may be possible to look over early development of the setting first (as in early development and ideas would be it's own section).
@Xeviat: I tried to bring up the uniformed format idea, and the response was anything but enthusiastic. Most people who come to these forums have at least some idea of what they want and would probably feel constrained by such an idea.
In relation to the point though, I use two threads for Godswalk(my setting), and Xathan has followed my pattern. A thread in the homebrews forum which is titled by the setting name, and a forum in Campaign elements and design where review and dicussion is rampant. This doesn't really help you judge a setting by completeness, but it is very useful for finding out what someone wants help with.
A suggestion I just thought of would be to post a general idea of your setting's progress along with it's name when putting it up for the drawing. Maybe say your setting is in need of fine-tuning, a complete review, or maybe you need help with a specific concept.
Just my thoughts...
I always figured "Homebrews" was for settings in their final stages. "Elements/design" was for games in their new to less-than-final stages.
@ Velox: Nah. It gets pretty mixed up which is which, really. I always figured Elements/Design was for feedback/blurbs, while Homebrews was for organized posting with good layout.
As for the original topic, I agree one would be nice, but I think it should be pretty freeform. Perhaps the creator just assigns it a number on a scale of 1-10 on how done he feels the setting is, and maybe a wordcount as well to show how long it is.
Quote from: Velox121I always figured "Homebrews" was for settings in their final stages. "Elements/design" was for games in their new to less-than-final stages.
The trend that I've noticed is that "Homebrews" deals with comprehensive overviews of worlds while "Elements/design" focuses on small pieces of settings, with that being the primary distinction between the two. It does help sort things out a bit ("Elements/design" is usually a quick read), but "Homebrews" still shows a wide range of possible stages of development for its settings.
Plus, it would also be nice if there were a way to sort through settings by genre. Of course, that's much harder to do, so I doubt that that will ever come to pass. Just finding a way to quickly determine which settings are preliminary and which are almost done is complicated enough.
EDIT: Being able to sort through threads can also be handy for other reasons. Sometimes, it is helpful to compare and contrast similar settings to determine what elements of each work well. For example, if there were a way to quickly isolate all fully-developed magitech settings, then everyone in the mood for reviewing fully-developed magitech settings could look at them side by side without having to sift through magitech brainstorms and pseudo-historical horror settings and other unrelated threads.
Quote from: Xathan, Last Of The FallenPerhaps the creator just assigns it a number on a scale of 1-10 on how done he feels the setting is, and maybe a wordcount as well to show how long it is.
Maybe a percentage for how 'done' the setting is. And a word count never hurts.
I think we could come up with a system for this. Adding some title in square brackets to the thread-name of a setting in the Homebrew forum would be a big help IMO. Possible stages could be "brainstorming", "laying out basics", "basics finished", "establishing fluff" , "establishing crunch", "finalizing", etc. Let's throw out a few ideas first and then see what we can make out of them.
I like this idea a lot (I just responded to the Cabal's thread on this topic). There are a lot of options we could do with this. Are we thinking just a few ranks (1 - 3), or a much larger-scale system?
It will be hard to give hard and fast guidelines, so I think maybe 5 would be the maximum realistically achievable, though you could add as many special denominations as you like (for example, we could decide on a few abbreviations here so everyone can make a general genre statement in his thread title). Suggestions:
HM/MM/LM: high/medium/low magic
Ho: horror
PA: post apocalyptic
HF/LF: high/low fantasy
don't forget HT/MT/LT: High/Medium/Low Tech
Perhaps an idea is for people to test out these ideas with various settings. We should state where they think some settings fall according to their rating. For example, Turin, could you state an example of a setting that falls into each of those catagories.
HM Forgotten Realms
MM Greyhawk (?)
LM Orden's Mysteries, Tasothilos and many other homebrews here
Ho Ravenloft
PA there are a few of those on the WotC-boards that already bear this title in their name
HF Forgotten Realms (?)
LF I'm not even sure this is a proper designation so I judge myself unqualified to give an example
HT Sulos and Eberron are on the lower end of this, anything using d20 Modern or Future would be on the higher end
MT standard DnD, including Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Orden's Mysteries, etc.
LT can't think of any
Was this what you wanted?
QuoteHM Forgotten Realms
MM Greyhawk (?)
LM Orden's Mysteries, Tasothilos and many other homebrews here
Ho Ravenloft
PA there are a few of those on the WotC-boards that already bear this title in their name
HF Forgotten Realms (?)
LF I'm not even sure this is a proper designation so I judge myself unqualified to give an example
HT Sulos and Eberron are on the lower end of this, anything using d20 Modern or Future would be on the higher end
MT standard DnD, including Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Orden's Mysteries, etc.
LT can't think of any
Rather than tack specific settings to the examples lets try a more general approach.
HM: All people know of and have seen magic in everyday use.
MM: Magic is common enough that most people know of it
LM: Magic is mysterious and not well understood.
HT: Victorian era technology and beyond
MT: Roman era through the Renaisance
LT: Before the Roman era
I don't think other themes like post apocalyptic, high fantasy, or horror preclude one another so they shouldn't really have a specific designation. A setting could be all three, just as easily as it could be none of the above. only definative and measurable variables should be part of the setting designation.
-Nasty-
But it would make a nice addendum. Not necessarily a definitive term, but something like Post Apocalyptic or Horror does give a reader an idea of what to expect, so while it wouldn't be as clear cut or important as those you've specified, it'd probably be worth adding.
Perhaps you should mention Genre, for Post Apocalyptic or Horror or what not. Basically, if the Genre is anything but basic fantasy, then it should be mentioned for better organization.
QuotePerhaps you should mention Genre, for Post Apocalyptic or Horror or what not. Basically, if the Genre is anything but basic fantasy, then it should be mentioned for better organization.
The genre will almost certainly be apparent within the core ethos statement (it should be anyway). I'm just trying to keep things from getting too complicated.
Imagine I listed Sulos like this:
SULOS (MM/MP/HT/HF/Ho) Would people even know what the heck I was talking about? Medium magic, medium psionics, high tech, high fantasy, with a smattering of horror. It seems clumsy, and I doubt people would grasp the abreviations right away.
Perhaps we could put a sticky in the homebrew forum entitled
Homebrew Posting Guidlines. It could include a template for a core ethos. If everybody who posts a new homebrew follows the same template for their core ethos we could have an up front (and universal) format for determining such things.
Maybe something like (mind you this is super basic)
1. Theme: The genre, look, and concept of the setting
2. Tone: The feel of the world (oppressed, fatastic, mysterious, etc)
3. Magic: The role and frequency of magic in the setting
4. Tech: The role and advancement of technology in the setting
5. Other: Various other concepts, systems, and ideas key to the setting (like pact magic, psionics, incarnum, and so on)
-Nasty-
nate's got the best idea so far, I think. We can still use abbreviations inside of those, but I think each of those topics should be explored.
Nasty Nate: We'd also have to come up with definitions for those terms(High Magic, High Fantasy, etc.). Additionally we'd also want to add a part to it about the amount of house rules/optional supplements used to power the setting. Some settings are a bit more core rules based than others(which could easily affect which ones people look at). A possible alternative would be to have a single short hook sentence, sort of like what WotC did when they were choosing Eberron in that contest a few years back.
Quote from: Ishmaylnate's got the best idea so far, I think. We can still use abbreviations inside of those, but I think each of those topics should be explored.
Care to help me make the template Ishy?
-Nasty-
QuoteNasty Nate: We'd also have to come up with definitions for those terms(High Magic, High Fantasy, etc.). Additionally we'd also want to add a part to it about the amount of house rules/optional supplements used to power the setting. Some settings are a bit more core rules based than others(which could easily affect which ones people look at). A possible alternative would be to have a single short hook sentence, sort of like what WotC did when they were choosing Eberron in that contest a few years back.
Almost completely agreed. I don't think those little hook sentances really suffciently sum up a setting though. I think Eberron's was something like
a world of pulp noir action adventure, or something along those lines. Eberron was nothing like what I had envisioned after reading the hook though.
What else should be added to the core ethos template?
-Nasty-
Yeah, I'll help, but I'm really only available from after 5:00 PM until around 10:00 PM EST on most nights (not even all nights).
That's okay. I'll email you a rough draft, and maybe you can spruce it up
-Nasty-
Something worth adding, IMO, would be the degree of core used: are we talking everything core is good, or limited, or none?
Core Ethos Template
Theme:
The first aspect of the setting that should be established within the core ethos is the general theme of the world. The theme should include descriptions about the genre of your homebrew such as horror, post apocalyptic, war ravaged, and so on. You should address geography or environment issues that play important parts within the setting (if any), such as subterranean, desert worlds, or multiple suns and no nightfall. A few general concepts about the setting should also be a part of your theme, like collapsing empires, lost knowledge, or gods that walk among mankind hidden among them.
Tone:
The second aspect of the setting that should be established within the core ethos is the general tone of the world. Unlike the theme which describes how the world looks, the tone describes how the world feels. Some good examples of tone include tyrannical oppression, the optimistic turning of an age, or god fearing people that go to any length to please their deities. The tone deals mainly with the underlying emotional state of the people who live within the world, and how they react to, and feel about the things around them.
Magic:
Magic is part of D&D, but the role magic plays in this setting specifically should be explained. Some things that should be addressed include how powerful, influential, and common are the forces of magic actually are within the world. It is important to put magic in context with the common people of the setting as well; have they only heard hushed whispers about magic, or is it something fundamental to their daily lives. If any additional sources of magic drawn upon, other than those presented within the core rules, they should also be mentioned. Additional supplements like the Expanded Psionics Handbook, Tome of Magic, or Incarnum that play important roles within the world should be explained in the context of the world. Likewise if any core systems have been removed, mention them and explain why.
Technology:
Every civilization makes use of technology of some kind or another. In the core ethos there should be some kind of acknowledgement made to the level of technological advancements made within the world. While the default D&D world has technology that falls somewhere between the Dark Ages and the Renaisance in terms of armor, weapons, sailing, construction, and so on. Not all settings are this advanced, and they may not have developed heavier armors like full plate, or weapons like crossbows. Other setting may have gone beyond this point and heavy armors are no longer used due to the prevalence of superior firearms. Some may have even begun using alternate forms of technology without any historical parallel, like dimensional gates, symbiotic living weapons and armor, or androids. Make sure to describe the kind of technology your settings makes use of.
Alternate Rules:
You should also describe within the core ethos how close or how far you have deviated from the core rules. Some settings stay as close the core as possible; they use the core races, core classes, and the same combat mechanics. Others completely deviate from the core using entirely new races, classes, spell casting systems. Most fall somewhere in between. Make sure to give a brief run down of the alternate rules systems that have been used within the setting. Usually a few new feats or a couple spells wonâ,¬,,¢t require any mention. However if in your setting there are completely different races, new rules for armor class, and there are no cross-class skills, itâ,¬,,¢s a good idea to address the changes up front in your core ethos.
How does that look?
-Nasty-
That looks perfect Nasty.
Darn, that's great and all, but I had more than my fair share of trouble summing up my core ethos the way I did, let alone ascribing to a new template...
Will this be mandatory, or merely recommended?
Just recommended. Or the settings already posted could be grandfathered in. I'll revise my core ethos though if this gets stickied. I wouldn't want to be hypocritical now would I?
-Nasty-
Looking good here. So will this be combined with or replace a system of abbreviations to be used in your setting's title?
Quote from: TúrinLooking good here. So will this be combined with or replace a system of abbreviations to be used in your setting's title?
Exactly. I don't think this system requires the abbreviations, but if we still want to include them, that will work too.
-Nasty-
Hmm. I really like the idea of a sticky where people can post a quick summary of their settings, and someone should look into the idea.
On the other hand, a sticky like that will quickly become like the Rogue's Gallery: multiple pages with lots of wordy posts in no particular order. It's nice to read through to get a feel for what's on these boards (which I like), but it's not particularly conducive to sorting dozens of threads into groups.
I'm tempted to volunteer to make a thread that includes links to settings arranged into various lists (such as "high-tech settings" and "horror settings", with a link to each setting appearing in every group to which it belongs), but I'd have no way of keeping such an index up to date. In particular, each setting's stage of development will change radically over time, making that almost untrackable in an index-type set-up.
I agree Meeps, maybe I can sticky one and as everyone adds their campaign, I can place links to their actual thread and/or site.
Oh another note, I think when we're reviewing these campaigns that we should be as utterly objective as possible. Different people review in different ways, but none of you guys want to hear me say over and over again, "Well, I'm tired of elves, so since you're using them, I can only rate you as a 4-out-of-5" or something similar. Rates, rankings, and reviews should be based on the campaign's originality, flow, coherence, structure, and implementation of optional and/or advanced rules. Just my couple pennies' worth there.
I hadn't really thought of the template sticky as a place for everyone to post their core ethos with a link to their thread, but that actually seems like a good idea too.
I had originally thought of the sticky like a posting guideline. I was hoping everyone who posts a setting could open with their core ethos, and you could get a good feel for the setting within the first few paragraphs.
I actually like the former idea better. I do not think however that it would become a huge ten page thread; we're still a small community. Ishy could copy the core ethos (of those who express a desire to be included) and post a link to the main thread right after it. Does that sound like too much work? I'm not sure.
-Nasty-
I don't see much value to being objective. Trying to be objective when reviewing something that is essentially art (if, for convenience, I can define art here as being an expression of one's creativity) and by definition subjective seems pointless, and would IMO only make the review cold and emotionless. I don't think anyone is going to rate a setting (as in your example of assigning a number between one and five to a setting). If they do not give reasons for the rating, it will be useless to the creator, and if they do, I for one as the writer would only care for the reasons and not for the final value (so if the reviewer wants the presence of elves to negatively influence his rating of my setting, he can do that as long as he states this clearly). Am I making sense here?
Túrin
Sounds pretty clear to me Turin. I feel largely the same way.
-Nasty-
On the other hand, Ishy has a point when he says it wouldn't be terribly constructive to post a review that says "I don't like elves, so I don't like your setting that has elves in it."
For example, steampunk isn't my thing. On the other hand, I shouldn't just look at the Sulos setting - which has many steampunk elements - and say little more than: "I don't like steampunk, so rewrite everything." Instead, I should try to suggest ways to make Sulos a better steampunk setting. (I had actually argued for wider-spread instrialization in Sulos; not because I like wide-spread industrialization, but because it made sense for Sulos.)
That's what I think Ishy was getting at when he encouraged people to be objective: don't slam the Italian restaurant just because you'd rather be eating burgers. Just give them suggestions about how to make better pasta.
Yeah, Meeps got it right.
I'd hardly call that objective, but I see your point. I think we basically feel the same way, but word it differently.