The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: dimonicAs one of the newest members, I would first of all suggest that one of the site gurus periodically test the new-user sign up process - it wasn't working when I tried (and it still didn't send me any mail - I just kept coming back until it let me in).

The other comment I would make is that the quality of a lot of the writing I have encountered (and the reason I bothered signing up) is (to me) very good - and in fact somewhat intimidating. That might account for a lack of feedback from newer members.

Hmm. Good that you put this kind of input in, dimonic. I'm wondering how the second issue could be dealt with - can new subforums be created? Maybe we could have a forum specifically for less in-depth and complex settings/works. Could be the new place for forum games and collaborations? I'm trying to think of other things that might keep people from feeling intimidated by all of the more advanced and in-depth settings and similar work that's mixed in with the small projects and infant settings that have a limited amount of work needed.

All I can add is that in my experience the members of the cbg are almost always a very inclusive, polite, and helpful group; I've never seen a new setting get maliciously criticized or taken apart by a veteran member.

If a new member is patient and polite and, perhaps most importantly, regularly posts in threads other than their own, they'll eventually get plenty of feedback, especially if they ask specific questions.

The only thing I can think of in terms of new site areas or subforums would be to have a "short ideas" or "seed" thread, where members would just post the rough beginnings of later settings.  That said, a lot of board members do that kind of thing already.

Quote from: SteerpikeAll I can add is that in my experience the members of the cbg are almost always a very inclusive, polite, and helpful group; I've never seen a new setting get maliciously criticized or taken apart by a veteran member.

I'll agree with this, but I have seen at least one member that had a bit of trouble, due to their response to genuinely constructive criticism. We've actually even gone to the point of having discussions on how to properly give constructive criticism, in order to minimize offense and maximize helpfulness as much as possible. Because of our inclusive nature though, we can't promise that everyone that signs up will be receptive to that.

QuoteThe only thing I can think of in terms of new site areas or subforums would be to have a "short ideas" or "seed" thread, where members would just post the rough beginnings of later settings.  That said, a lot of board members do that kind of thing already.

Personally, I've always used Campaign Elements and Design for this. I've found that to work for me, when I have a setting idea that I don't think is complete enough for the Homebrews forum.


As for being intimidated by the quality of work on the site... Don't. I've seen some wildly imaginative settings on here, and I've seen some that were little more than 4e with a new creature or two. I've seen settings that were so vast that the presentation required it's own thread simply so that it could span multiple posts, and I've seen some that were just a paragraph long. If you count what I've seen in chat, I've even seen established members offer something as little as "hey guys, what do you think of X?" I find that these are all equally likely to get comments of some sort. Even if your stuff is utter rubbish, just pay attention to any advice you're given, give reviews of other people's work, keep developing for a few years, and if you're as lucky as I was, one day people will inexplicably start treating your work like it's some of the best stuff on the site.

[blockquote=Roshach Fritos]If you count what I've seen in chat, I've even seen established members offer something as little as "hey guys, what do you think of X?" I find that these are all equally likely to get comments of some sort.[/blockquote]Probably more likely, since it requires less effort to read :D.

I'd prefer less subforums rather than more- as it is I have a difficult time remembering where certain things are posted even though the splits are fairly intuitive.

I think the Homebrew/Setting Elements split is sufficient for dividing "short ideas" and "seeds" (as Steerpike put it) from more involved or fully developed settings.  I've always treated CE&D as a forum for stand-alone, unpolished, or isolated bits of settings.  It's the middle ground between Homebrews, which is all about well-developed (or developing) settings, and Meta, which isn't about specific settings at all.  It seems like the natural spot for small projects.

It might be helpful to spell that out a bit more in its description, though.  I'm not exactly sure what the best phrasing would be.

Quote from: SteerpikeI've never seen a new setting get maliciously criticized or taken apart by a veteran member.

You weren't here for Rael's infamous rant against my setting.  That was an isolated incident though, and we were reconciled pretty quickly.

Quote from: Seraphine_Harmonium

Quote from: SteerpikeI've never seen a new setting get maliciously criticized or taken apart by a veteran member.

You weren't here for Rael's infamous rant against my setting.  That was an isolated incident though, and we were reconciled pretty quickly.

i do 'member that...

[blockquote=Seraphine Harmonium]You weren't here for Rael's infamous rant against my setting.[/blockquote]

I looked it up.  Whew!  Those were the rough-and-tumble old days of the CBG and no mistake!

Quote from: Steerpike[blockquote=Seraphine Harmonium]You weren't here for Rael's infamous rant against my setting.[/blockquote]

I looked it up.  Whew!  Those were the rough-and-tumble old days of the CBG and no mistake!

holy Moses that was epic (and I'm not one to throw the word "epic" around lightly)

I remember being a lurker here at the CBG and thinking that was a doozy of a thread. :)

Yeah.  It was intense.  Of course, he DID have a point.  At that time, I had a few ideas that weren't expressed all that well, and the rest was a mess of cliche cobbled together.  Ultimately, while it might have been nice to have had the critique presented less harshly, the rant was helpful.

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumYeah.  It was intense.  Of course, he DID have a point.  At that time, I had a few ideas that weren't expressed all that well, and the rest was a mess of cliche cobbled together.  Ultimately, while it might have been nice to have had the critique presented less harshly, the rant was helpful.

There's no doubt there was a lot of truth in that rant, hurtful, raw truth but truth none the less. Personally, I think Avayevnon was the better for it but I totally agree - no matter how truthful, rants typically do more harm than good.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumYeah.  It was intense.  Of course, he DID have a point.  At that time, I had a few ideas that weren't expressed all that well, and the rest was a mess of cliche cobbled together.  Ultimately, while it might have been nice to have had the critique presented less harshly, the rant was helpful.

There's no doubt there was a lot of truth in that rant, hurtful, raw truth but truth none the less. Personally, I think Avayevnon was the better for it but I totally agree - no matter how truthful, rants typically do more harm than good.

Yes.  The rare occurrence when a rant is actually helpful merely demonstrates the exception that proves the rule that rants do more harm than good.

I'm curious to see this rant now, as I can't remember it. Does anyone have a link to it?