Talk:System Reference Document (Evaluational)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Votes on Style's
Style 1 Style 2 Style 3 Style 4 Style 5 Style 6 Style 7 Style 8
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
--Voxen --Dmilewski --EldritchNumen
--Green Dragon
--Blue Dragon


The first three styles are attempts to partially integrate the supplemental rules with the core rules. The fourth, has them completely separate (this one most resembles And the last one has the supplemental rules fully integrated with the core rules. —Sledged 14:58, 23 October 2006 (MDT)

Since styles 1 and 3 don't have any votes, I've deleted them. If anyone would like to take a look at them, they can be accessed through the history (2006-10-27 12:32:37).Sledged 12:28, 30 October 2006 (MST)

Styles 4 and 5 deleted as well. (2006-10-31 11:52:24).Sledged 16:09, 30 November 2006 (MST)

Bye-bye, 7. (2006-11-30 17:11:48).Sledged 20:21, 4 December 2006 (MST)

Style 1[edit]

Style 2[edit]

While I like style #2 quite a bit (because it differentiates the material), the additional content isn't diverse enough to really warrant the space it's given. I.e. Psionics has its own space anyways, as do the deity rules. However, I think the additional content should still be seperated on the individual pages (e.g. the Classes page has a core classes column and a Psionic classes column). Voxen 00:43, 25 October 2006 (MDT)

Style 3[edit]

Style 4[edit]

This is by far my choice. The content is easy to access and close together. This does not mean that a space between the columns would be bad (I believe the opposite), but this does mean that all of the content is ready to be clicked and not straining on the eyes. I believe that everything should be categorized and clearly separated from everything else, and this does this. --Blue Dragon 21:50, 26 October 2006 (MDT)

Agreed. EldritchNumen 14:34, 30 October 2006 (MST)

EldritchNumen, does this mean you put your vote onto this Style? --Green Dragon 22:48, 30 October 2006 (MST)
Yes. I find the other styles (especially 6 and 7) divide the content in silly ways; it is frankly not useful to classify any material as either "player" or "dungeon master," since both players and dungeon masters (or people who are primarily one or the other) will often view the same material but for different purposes. So segregating that material is not as useful as categorizing it by the content rather than the audience (which, as I pointed out, is not tremendously useful). EldritchNumen 13:41, 4 November 2006 (MST)
In your opinion, is their a way to fix either style six or seven to make it better? --Green Dragon 10:49, 5 November 2006 (MST)
Actually, see below... -EldritchNumen 23:37, 20 November 2006 (MST)

Style 5[edit]

Style 6[edit]

Are all the items in the correct sub-categories? --Green Dragon 10:59, 27 October 2006 (MDT)

Nicely intuitive. Looks promising. It's got a good visual and is nicely intuitive. I'm not sure about the exact placement of items and categorization. Give me time to think about that. --Dmilewski 11:06, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
Thanks, I also think it is good. Also, thanks for taking the time to find the correct categorization of certain items, to find the correct placment of some is somewhat tricky. I am sure I put a couple in the wrong place. --Green Dragon 11:12, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
I think this one could work well. Perhaps you can make that third column the first column instead since it's for both players and DMs.
Special Abilities are comprised of what's in the DMG and the MM, so I'd move them under "For the DM".
Divine Abilities and Feats should be split up since the abilities shouldn't be for the players. Instead move Divine Abilities either under the divine rules or adjacent to Special Abilities —Sledged 11:41, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
Done. Does this look better? Any other problems? Anything that could make it look/act better? --Green Dragon 12:00, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
I'm not a fan of the highlighting. I find it interferes with the other eye-catches. Too many eye-catches = confusing. I prefer the landing page as simple and clean as possible. The highlighting clashes with monobook. I think that marking psionics is less important than creating a clean page. --Dmilewski 12:28, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
OK.. the Psionic colors are now gone... better? Again, Any other problems? Anything that could make it look/act better? --Green Dragon 12:31, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
In all fairness, the colors used will be tailored to the skin, just like the monster and NPC stat blocks. —Sledged 19:57, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
Are you saying that the colors would go with the skin? I don't quite understand what you are saying, could you please explain better? --Green Dragon 22:55, 30 October 2006 (MST)
If look at the article page under both skins (monobook and sledged), the colors used to identify the supplemental rules from the core rules is the same for both skins. What I'm saying is that once a layout is implemented, the highlight color will not be the same. Each skin will use a different color. —Sledged 10:34, 31 October 2006 (MST)
I now see. The thing I think Dmilewski was talking about, however, was that highlighting of any kind will just draw the attention of the reader to certain items, and it will make it look not quite as good. I think it is fine without highlighting as well, even though the colors will change with different skins. --Green Dragon 18:19, 1 November 2006 (MST)
It's not the color that I'm responding to, it's the confusion caused by similar eye catches. The goal here is to guide the eye, visually, to the set of information that you want the reader to notice. The highlighted lines interrupt the eye flow. Perhaps a superscript PsonicP can be used to tag psionics. That way, you have a visual cue to psionics that is different than the visual cues being used to organize the categories. --Dmilewski 10:18, 30 October 2006 (MST)
For me it was the colors. I do not see why Psionics should be treated any differently than Divine, Epic, or Normal, they are all the same. I see no problem with leaving the Psionics normal, even though it was added to the SRD later. Distinguishing it from the others will just create a bias and quite a bit of confusion. Your ideas? --Green Dragon 22:53, 30 October 2006 (MST)
Well, whether or not you have the highlighting, the bias is already established by the fact that there are separate links to core, psionic, epic, and divine elements. In every style except 5, there are two links to races (core and psionic), three links to skills, three links to monsters (core, psionic, and epic), and five different links to feats (core, monster, psionic, epic, and divine). I personally would rather have them homogenized—one link for all the races, one link for all the feats, one link for all the skills, and one link for all the monsters—or completely separate like style 4 (whether or not there is highlighting). —Sledged 10:34, 31 October 2006 (MST)
Trying to fix.... is this better now? Are their more than 2 links to the same places still? --Green Dragon 18:01, 1 November 2006 (MST)
I've been thinking about columns. I prefer the columns as Player/DM/Other. That reflects the "natural" order of the books. PHB, DMG, and MM. --Dmilewski 12:39, 31 October 2006 (MST)
Do you mean to put the columns back to the original way (First column Player, next DM, then D&D Rules)? Or what? --Green Dragon 18:00, 1 November 2006 (MST)

I place my vote on Style #6. This style is easy to use, and can easily direct people to where they want to go. This style fully integrated Psionics, Divine, and Epic material, making it so when someone comes to the SRD they would have all the material, and all the options, in one easy to find place. This style also has general categories leading to less and less general categories, once again making material easy to find. Lastly, this style is easy to understand on the first viewing, reducing wasted time. I place my vote on this style for all these reasons. --Green Dragon 12:17, 27 October 2006 (MDT)

"Yeah" vote. --Dmilewski 12:30, 27 October 2006 (MDT)

Style 7[edit]

This one is based on style 6. I was trying to figure out what would go under general, for players, and for DMs. I ended up deciding that by default everything is for the DM, which means the "For Players" column is for both. Since the first column is also for both, I just combined them under "For Players". —Sledged 12:28, 30 October 2006 (MST)

I don't really like them combined, I think it makes it much more confusing, and harder to find what one is looking for. --Green Dragon 17:29, 30 October 2006 (MST)
How about now? —Sledged 10:52, 31 October 2006 (MST)
Better, the only problem is I do not like things like Ability Scores, etc to be on the Players list. The reason for this is no person that is looking to create a character is going to need to look at "Ability Scores", as these are basic knowledge's for all D&D Players. Pretty much our styles are the same, with only these few differences. I think we should both just edit and make Style 6 the best, deleting this style and merging ours together. Your ideas? And how exactly would we go about doing this? --Green Dragon 17:58, 1 November 2006 (MST)
What do you think about Dmilewski's idea about mirroring the layout of the rule books (PHB, DMG, Everything else)? My opinion is that I like the idea of having a "For DMs" section, but I see it including the MM (and other stuff to be determined on a case-by-case basis) with the DMG, so it wouldn't quite follow what Dmilewski suggested. —Sledged 20:59, 3 November 2006 (MST)
Go for it, if their is something I do not particularly like I will say it. --Green Dragon 12:44, 4 November 2006 (MST)
Still waiting... --Green Dragon 22:36, 14 November 2006 (MST)

I am changing my vote to this. It is very well organized, and everything is easy to follow. It is a little bit bland (no highlighting or colors), but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. --Blue Dragon 14:38, 1 November 2006 (MST)

I have considered these layouts again after having left for a while, and I like this one much better. The divisions make much more sense now (which was my original complaint), and I like the separation; the page is divided in a useful manner and manages to organize much information without looking busy. I'll vote for this. -EldritchNumen 23:40, 20 November 2006 (MST)

Style 8[edit]

One more go. I got a better feel for what Green Dragon was aiming.

The first column is self-explanatory. It's the general rule information not specific to PCs or DMs.

The second column contains not so much as rule information but lists that players would reference (e.g. individual spells and powers versus the general rules governing spells and powers).

The last column has both lists and rule information that's specifically for DMs, or details to which player's don't necessarily need access. (Players don't really need to stat out dieties or even know how to unless their characters trying to become one, nor do they need to stat out creatures unless their characters are trying to create one, become one, or they need a cohort, familiar, special mount, etc...) —Sledged 16:05, 30 November 2006 (MST)

I like this style. It seems to have resolved some of the issues I had with previous styles, e.g. that information in certain columns didn't belong only there. I like the layout of this much more. This officially has my vote (yes, this is the second time that I've changed votes. I'm basically a failure, this I realize...). -EldritchNumen 16:25, 30 November 2006 (MST)

I change my vote to this as well, this is exactly what I had in mind when I did the "For Players", "For DM's" etc. Very good job of bring the best out of style 6 and 7 Sledged. This has my vote. --Green Dragon 16:52, 30 November 2006 (MST)

This style makes it much easier to find what is being looked for. --Blue Dragon 17:33, 3 December 2006 (MST)


I must laugh. There are four votes across four solutions at the moment. I LOVE democracy. I've maintained that redesigning the SRD landing page is a tough nut of a design problem, and oh boy-oh-boy, does this ever show just how tough. --Dmilewski 07:56, 27 October 2006 (MDT)

Maybe I should throw in the current layout and see if that one gets a vote, too. —Sledged 09:48, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
lol. --Green Dragon 11:35, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
At least we can agree to disagree. —Sledged 11:41, 27 October 2006 (MDT)
Rotfl. --Green Dragon 12:06, 27 October 2006 (MDT)


So, should Style 8 be implemented? It has 3/5 votes (possibly 4/6 if Sledged casts his vote torwards this style). So to do this: first off, we need Dmilewski's approval, as he runs the SRD, then we need to assign jobs. Sadly, only the three admins that contribute (Me, Dmilewski, and Sledged) are able to edit the SRD pages, and it will be a big job. So, any ideas on when to start/how to go about this? --Green Dragon 23:05, 4 December 2006 (MST)

I approve. (I feel like a political candidate.) I'll implement what I can on the prototype, then float ideas for the stuff that doesn't fit. (Most likely, sub-pages.) --Dmilewski 05:48, 5 December 2006 (MST)
So, you would not especially like help? --Green Dragon 17:31, 5 December 2006 (MST)
Filling out the prototype page should go fast. From there, I'll have a heap of unplaced links. When the restructuring hits the sub-pages, and that's where there real work is. We need sub-pages for those section as well. THAT is where I'll want the help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmilewski (talkcontribs) 00:44, 6 December 2006. Please sign your posts!
Okay, just tell me when that times comes and I will be more than willing to help. --Green Dragon 17:47, 5 December 2006 (MST)
OK. I did a rough in. I placed what a could and I created some new pages that were obvious categories. I'm not sure how to place the remaining material. Some links seemed like they had multiple good places, and we may want to put them in multiple places. Other things still wanted their own categories to bind them up, like Psionics, Divine, and Epic in a one-stop page. I wasn't sure what you intended for spells and powers.--Dmilewski 19:09, 5 December 2006 (MST)

Implementation Tasks[edit]

Here's what I recommend.

  • <DONE>For the psionic classes page, put the wealth options in the pages of their corresponding class pages. The ditch the psionic classes page since all the classes there are also listed in the classes page.</DONE>
  • <DONE>For the epic classes use combine them with their non-epic counterparts on the same page (e.g. the content of the barbarian and epic barbarian pages will be combined into one page).</DONE>
  • <DONE>Next, roll the psionic feats into the feat rules page. </DONE>
  • <DONE>With the epic feats page move the list of feats into feats page</DONE>
  • <DONE>Put the rules governing epic feats into feat rules page.</DONE>
Do the same with the
  • <DONE>psionic skills</DONE>
  • <DONE>epic skills/<DONE>
  • <DONE>skills pages./<DONE>
Special Abilities
Magic and Psionic Items
  • <DONE>Put a link to about epic magic items in the magic items page under "Rules for Magic Items". </DONE>
  • <DONE>All the other links in epic magic items would go with links to their non-epic counterparts in magic items.</DONE>

With psionic maladies,

  • <done>the diseases, of course, should be put with the disease special ability.</done>
  • <done>Ability burn should go under combat.</done>
  • <done>And negative levels for psionic characters rule is just an extension of the core negative level rules.</done>
  • <done>Last, (and definitely not least) is the psionic subtype page (which should be linked from the creature types page):</done>
  • <done>The begining text (just before undead psionic creatures) says the same thing that the psionic creatures section says so the former can just be replaced with the latter. One is from the original psionic entry SRD, while the other is from the Psionic SRD. I would keep both in for completeness. I want to avoid editing the SRD where possible.<done>--Dmilewski 11:23, 18 December 2006 (MST)
Actually, both entries are from the psionics section of the SRD. In fact, they're in the same exact rtf document (PsionicMonsters.rtf) adjacent to each other. Other than the undead psionic creatures, there's absolutely nothing under "The Psionic Subtype" that isn't also mentioned under "Psionic Creatures," and the latter has more detail and is better organized. —Sledged 12:59, 18 December 2006 (MST)
I've learned to trust your detailed eye. Nip and tuck it. Then we get to call it a landing page. --Dmilewski 13:09, 18 December 2006 (MST)
  • <done>Undead psionic creatures can either stay where it is, go under the undead type, or both. This should be left as it is. This entry is more of a commentary on the psionic subtype than it is a commentary on the undead subtype.<done> --Dmilewski 10:59, 18 December 2006 (MST)
  • <done>The section titled Psi-Like Abilities and Feats under psi-like abilities should be moved under the "special" section of the feats to which they refer.</done>
  • <done> Psionic Versions Of Creatures under psi-like abilities should be moved to each creature it references.</done> <-- I will split these creatures out into their own separate entries. --Dmilewski 11:14, 18 December 2006 (MST)

Did I miss anything? —Sledged 14:13, 6 December 2006 (MST)

Where do we put the outside links and references? How about the list of automated pages? Other than that, the page looks ready to go. --Dmilewski 11:23, 18 December 2006 (MST)
Since they're not part of the SRD, leave them where they are under SRD links. Maybe organize them into columns. —Sledged 12:59, 18 December 2006 (MST)


Should we delete this page?--Dmilewski 18:41, 18 October 2007 (MDT)

I'd keep the talk page for historical reference, but the evaluational page can be deleted. —Sledged (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2007 (MDT)
I put in a redirect. I wanted to keep the edit history, should we be interested.--Dmilewski 13:04, 22 October 2007 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors