Talk:3.5e Campaign Settings

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Use: should this be re-organized?[edit]

Right now I see the CS's on D&D Wiki as being very unusable, for a couple of reasons. First the very good CS's are mixed with the very bad ones (ones that have not been as thought out or finished). This alone makes it hard to find one that interests a DM without a lot of looking. Another problem is that it takes a while to understand what each CS is about, a lot of wasted time. It's like sifting many grains of sand for the golden grain instead of only sifting a couple grains for the golden grain. Also there are so many bad CS's on D&D Wiki that one gets discouraged trying to find the right one, so discouraged they may even stop looking for the golden grain of sand. So, because of all these reasons, I propose an organization change.

  1. I think this page should be made to use a dlpc environment, with or without a table.
  2. I think CS's should be organized in 11 (or 6) organizational categories with the purpose of determining how well made a certain CS is. If this is to happen this page would be organized entirely by their rating on a scale of 1/10 (or 1/5) with another space for unrated CS's. Stubs (minus Wikiworld) would be 1 and pages like the Wikiworld would be around a 10 (usable).

What do you guys think about this idea? --Green Dragon 16:02, 25 April 2007 (MDT)

Certainly it needs to be re-organised, and I also painfully note that the big campaigns such as Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms aren't here. We really need to generate some BIG articles on the campaign settings so that people can quickly orientate themselves to places like Eberron.
--SMK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:17, 4 May 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts.
Forgotten Realms, Eberron cannot be on this site as they are not OGL. This site does not act like Wikipedia in that a short blurb about a certain CS is present. D&D Wiki actually hosts the CS's. Sorry. Anyway, what do you think about my organization idea above? --Green Dragon 09:35, 4 May 2007 (MDT)
I think it is a very good idea. I was considering something like this myself since, as you point out, it is difficult to find the complete (slash good) settings through the bad. Weeding out all the stub settings is a very good idea. If we decide to rank the settings (which I am actually not that enthused about doing... a good ranking is hard to do) it should probably be on a scale of 1 to 5 and not measure balance, but rather comprehensiveness/completion. The process could be overseen both by the admins and by the authors themselves (when they go back and add a lot of stuff, they can upgrade the category themselves through a dplc or whatever). I'd suggest probably:
  1. Very minimal pages. Stubs.
  2. Some sparse information, but large amounts of material missing.
  3. Some information in most categories; information may sometimes be sparse.
  4. Complete in certain aspects, but lacking in others. Ex: Lots of material on religion, but not as much on geography.
  5. Very comprehensive in most aspects.
The main problem I see it that not all campaign settings necessarily need all the information. Thus, I'd propose that we figure out the major areas that a CS needs material for, and only judge those categories. Thus, for example, to be comprehensive a CS would need a lot of material on things like religion & gods, life in the world, at least some history, some geography, and places where significant changes from the traditional settings are marked (for example, if orcs are civilized or special rules for base classes, etc.). Other things, though, like NPCs, should not be judged; they are important to some settings (for example one that details a certain volcanic plain home to nomadic bands, where the leaders and shamen are quite important to the setting), while they are not in others (for example settings that have a large framework, eg continents and kingdoms, but leave much of the more detailed information to individual dms). Uh... those are my thoughts for now.
To recap, I think that 1) move the stubs was good, and 2) a rating system would be okay, but should measure completeness/comprehensiveness rather than "balance" or other terms that are less meaningful when applied to CS, and 3) that the categories (if measured with a rating) should only examine the categories that are universally important to a CS, but should not judge the CS just because the other smaller, ancillary categories are under-represented.
EldritchNumen 16:37, 8 May 2007 (MDT)
Here's some examples. I'd probably give:
  1. Most of the stubs fit here. Very little information (if any), or only details one area (eg history or geography) in a mediocre way.
  2. Hellas - some useful information, but lots missing.
  3. Desperado Desert - has an outline of much information about the setting, but most of the information is more of an outline than a full description.
  4. Age of Titans - Mostly complete, though many aspects could be expanded upon. Very nice setting. Six Gods Setting - very full rules on characters, many rules on religion, lacking in geographical and historical information. In the vein of these previous two, also Carallion and Lands of Blamakar.
  5. Endhaven - Still largely in development, but has a large amount of information already on many topics.
EldritchNumen 16:59, 8 May 2007 (MDT)
I agree with all the points you stated above. A 1-5 scale should work that does not rate balance but rather rates completeness/comprehensiveness. To get this to work a couple things need to be done...
  1. A template for each rating needs to be made—one that will explain what each number means (or one that can encompass them all)
  2. This page needs to be organized for "Non-Rated" and then a rating scale via categories made (dlp at the moment, maybe a dlpc environment later)
  3. CS's need to be rated...
I think after this gets done the CS's on D&D Wiki should become a lot more useable. I hope we can get this to work. --Green Dragon 22:51, 8 May 2007 (MDT)
Okay, I worked on a template for this... How does Template:Campaign Setting Rating look? Please improve it if you see anything that needs to be changed. --Green Dragon 22:51, 9 May 2007 (MDT)
I'll start adding the template to pages, and we can update this main page whenever. –EldritchNumen 00:50, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
I've added the template to all the pages, but it doesn't seem to work... I think there might be something wrong with the switch. I've been typing in this: {{Campaign Setting Rating|3}}, for example, and it doesn't show up right (so a few of the pages I put it ratings for just so when we updated this main page we could see if it worked). In any case, someone will have to look over the template... am I inputting the rating wrong? If so, what is the correct format? Or is the template skewed somehow? Thanks! –EldritchNumen 01:16, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
The problem was that I made it work for field rating, not field 1. I now changed it to field 1 so one does not need to pipe it and then type rating. The template should now work how you want... --Green Dragon 11:05, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
Ah. Well, in either case, this seems to be a bit easier (less typing, at least, and we don't really need the field to be rating since there is only one field (it should be obvious what the contents of field one are). Thanks for changing it; I totally spaced and didn't notice that the field was rating instead of one. Thanks! –EldritchNumen 12:18, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
I rated the CS's with the (moderately subjective) system, but I don't claim my rating to be infallible. They should suffice, though. Now we need to figure out a dpl system to separate the pages out (should be pretty easy to write up quickly...). –EldritchNumen 14:52, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
I just added a basic dlp environment, and I hope it works. It is based off rating. --Green Dragon 22:45, 10 May 2007 (MDT)

Well Done![edit]

Thanks to everyone who helped out reorganizing this page. It is much, much more usable now! :)EldritchNumen 20:55, 10 May 2007 (MDT)

I agree, thanks around. Anyway, do you think it would be good to put a cherry on top of this and make it a dlpc environment? If it were to be one each CS would be present with a link and a short blurb advertising it being present. Is this a good idea, or would it be too much work or make it more confusing? --Green Dragon 22:43, 10 May 2007 (MDT)
I think it might be lateral movement. Most people who will use these will be able to tell with a simple click whether they want to use the CS (most have an intro blurb, anyway). I think the nature of a CS is that it is a bit more complex than an entry would sum up. Some settings would benefit (for example, Hellas could say "Adventuring in the Ancient World") or something, but most are just going to end up as generic sword & sorcery descriptions... which I think aren't that useful. The current environment seems to work pretty well. Other thoughts? –EldritchNumen 00:14, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
I cannot think of anything else that could really make this page better at this moment... --Green Dragon 22:31, 13 May 2007 (MDT)

Source Book[edit]

It seems to me that a source book is its own category. A good example of a source book is the LotR setting or 800 CE. Both draw from existing settings with extensive literature, and present it for use as a game resource. Do we want to treat these differently?

I see many possibilities for source books. As I work on 800 CE, I see source books possible for Slavic, Teutonic, Celtic, Arthurian, and Arabian Nights settings. Each of them represents a distinct category of resource that we do not need to continuously re-invent. I also see period source books as a draw to the wiki. Where people may not add to a personalized setting, they may may feel more free to add to a sourcebook.--Dmilewski 07:06, 21 September 2007 (MDT)

Hm... Do you feel they should be treated differently? --Green Dragon 23:11, 23 September 2007 (MDT)
Yes. The expectation of a sourcebook is different. They rely on a body of knowledge far beyond that which comes from a custom setting. They act more as reference works than as setting writeups. If one is "abandoned", someone can come along and continue developing it. As there is existing material, these can often be developed faster, broader, and more in depth than a custom setting.
Most importantly, the settings are already known, and so the settings do not need a rating. We already know that they are 5's, even if the setting is not developed into a 5 yet. --Dmilewski 11:04, 25 September 2007 (MDT)
The only question left is—should these be rated and still added to normal CS rating categories? --Green Dragon 23:08, 27 September 2007 (MDT)
I think they still need a rating, based on how complete the background it is based on is, how easily this background can be accesssed from each page, and how well the CS represents the world on which it is based. --Sam Kay 05:03, 21 October 2007 (MDT)
I agree. --Green Dragon 22:26, 21 October 2007 (MDT)


I added a Sourcebook category. We had enough sourcebook-like material to make this its own category. --Dmilewski 10:56, 25 September 2007 (MDT)

Homebrew Content within WoTC Campaign Settings[edit]

Have sourcebooks ever been published that discuss integrating homebrew content within a WoTC setting (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Othtim (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.

Sign your posts, Othtim! Anyway, my expansive library of books has nothing of the sort in it. However, there is doubtless a column somewhere or a book I don't have that does deal with that. -- OptimizationFanatic 20:22, 18 April 2008 (MDT)
If you see an unsigned post, you can copy the name and paste it into an unsigned template. I put in this one as: {{unsigned|Othtim}}. I usually check who didn't sign their posts too in the history tab, and it is helpful to other users joining in the conversation :-). --Aarnott 09:09, 19 April 2008 (MDT)


Should we keep the CS's that don't even have fluff? Some CS's have just been a page name and have had no actual development. --Sabre070 16:58, 13 November 2008 (MST)


Why is this linked to 4e? This should only be 3.5e.. I didn't think you could use 3.5e material in 4e? If a campaign setting is compatible with both then let categories put it in both. If not then separate them. --Sabre070 05:40, 30 November 2008 (MST)

Technically speaking, the CSes can be used in either 3.5 or 4E. It is true, however, that many of the currently existing CSes were built around 3.5 and use rules from that system. Nonetheless, the majority of the material is either descriptive (and so transfers nicely) or can easily be replaced with 4E mechanics. This master list, though, should stay linked to both 3.5 and 4E. —EldritchNumen 22:27, 1 December 2008 (MST)

Add New[edit]

This may sound conceited, but I can honestly say it is purely in an effort to help the wiki become better.

Could alternative "Add New" pages be added? I've been working on the pages, preloads, and intros for personal use (out of frustration when I saw the current preload for making a campaign setting) and I'd like to share them with the rest of the wiki on this page.

First, I stole the layouts from all the campaign settings rated 4 or 5, then merged and winnowed out sections and categories to compile them into a single layout, then I converted it into a preload, which both the basic main page preload is based off of and my own campaign setting is based off of. I've been changing and updating both to make them better, and I think the preload is now generally useable.

I have basic format pages that are made to link from the main page and have a basic layout and guidelines. I also made an alternative layout that some people may prefer.

The pages I've made so far are Create New Campaign Setting and 3.5e_Campaign_Settings. I plan on making pages for setting NPC, setting items, setting spells, and several other setting-specific things. Let me know what you think, both about these pages and about adding them to the Campaign Setting page. -Valentine the Rogue 14:58, 25 January 2009 (MST)

Campaign Maps[edit]

For those needing help creating campaign maps, I highly recommend Campaign Cartographer 3. I can do very basic things, but many advanced people have made amazing maps with it. A great resource is the Cartographer's Guild Forum where you can ask for help or mapmaking services. Just a quick informative FYI.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:53, 11 February 2009 (MST)

I can also create some maps for those interested. I have don some nice map im proud of. --Lord Dhazriel 13:57, 11 February 2009 (MST)

Rating System[edit]

Though I think that our system is good (judging on how complete a CS is on the wiki instead of how "good" it is), I was wondering if a better name may be in order? Instead of a system for rating, perhaps benchmarks for completeness or comprehensiveness. Thoughts?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:13, 1 September 2009 (MDT)

Actually I agree; or we could make it use templates (and figure out how to make that work best). Your thoughts? --Green Dragon 23:11, 11 November 2009 (MST)

Adapting a Setting From a Video Game[edit]

Is it allowed? I would like to adapt the "wizardry 8" game to D&D's fantasy standards (technology removed, more material added, etc.) The company it is from, Sir-Tech, has been out of business for about 7 or 8 years now. --Aristocles 22:30, 11 November 2009 (MST)

Of course! If they still have copyrights on the information remember to use Template:Copyright Disclaimer. --Green Dragon 23:10, 11 November 2009 (MST)
Cool! Thanks. I don't know if they exist or not, but I'll make sure to add that to the bottom just in case. --Aristocles 23:27, 11 November 2009 (MST)

Organizational Structure[edit]

What are peoples thoughts on changing the organizational structure of this page to match 4e Campaign Settings (using the improving, reviewing, or removing system)? --Green Dragon 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What about some combination of the two? A two-tiered page, top being "Rated and Complete" settings(or "Rated and Playable", as nothing is ever truly complete), and the bottom being "In-progress or incomplete" settings (any campaign rated below a 2, or 3, gets put in the in-progress section). Also, to keep things a little neater I suggest we implement a 3 column page (as the 4e settings have) so it doesn't take an hour to scroll to the bottom. --Badger 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel like our current system allows for the most easily navigable and understandable to the basic and/or new user. It doesn't encourage rating due to liking/not-liking something, which is good, and it is simple to follow. That is just my 2 cents.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   02:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This (the current version) is the same way the Modern campaign settings are set up, and I agree; it's a TON easier to navigate. 4's and 5's you can pretty much use as is, 3's take a bit of work but are doable, and 1's and 2's you might as well not look at until they are finished. If you have a binary system (improving, reviewing, removing vs. not improving reviewing removing), besides being a bit unclear to a new user, does not indicate any sort of degree of doneness. JazzMan 02:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Page Title[edit]

Recently I have put a great deal of effort into making sure all pages are linked to the corresponding version. However when I came to this page, even though when your making a new campaign setting it automatically has it as 3.5e, not DnD, all pages posted with 3.5e have an extra 3.5e thing at the end, meaning this page is titled wrong, and pages with wrong tags are considered right.

Hopefully this can be fixed, then I can make these 3.5e rather than DnD. Thanks.--Vrail 03:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wooo I figured it out for you. Now it should hide the "DnD Setting" as well as the "3.5e Setting". When you are done, I can change it to just hide the 3.5e Setting, so that it's obvious when something is under the wrong identifier. JazzMan 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. I'll start moving some pages! :)--Vrail 17:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, just finished moving all the pages (a lot of work btw). I'm pretty sure I know how to change it so only 3.5e tags are hidden, except I'd rather not accidentally screw up the page, so I'll leave that to you. :D--Vrail 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I think I got it. Amazing job moving all those pages!!! JazzMan 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol, thanks. It's good to know that my work is being appreciated... Or at least recognized. :P--Vrail 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!