Difference between revisions of "General Discussion"

Latest revision as of 00:10, 1 June 2005

tcm sez: One really ought not to put information not available to our characters on the actual page itself. For example, all post-987 AD texts and events should not be included in an entry. If there is a text in the 1300s about how Alexander saved Novgorod from stampeding gryphons or whatever, one really shouldn't add this into the entries for Alexander, Novgorod, or Gryphon.

Likewise, citing sources should be discouraged for the same reasons. There is no OED in 987 AD.

If one wants to add any of this kind of information (although one really shouldn't), one should do so in the discussion page of the entry.

I understand this is an online document about a D&D game taking place in 2005, but in an effort to preserve the feel of tenth century documents (and the illusuion of the game), we really ought to follow these guidelines.

This is also why I was against putting stats into a character description. It just breaks the illusion of the game.

Obvious exceptions to these guidelines include House Rules pages and Standards pages.

Maggie sez: tcm, I have put this under general discussion as 1. it's a wiki, really, a self-regulating system and your rules on how to place entries (which affects ALL of the wiki) will probably not be in effect only because you make a page about it and 2. these are just your thoughts on what should be in an entry - so let's discuss it here on a discussion page. As far as knowledge we have that doesn't come from within the game - how do you explain your Bestiary and other posts? Reynaldo may be smart, but he's not omnipotent and though much of the information does exist in mythology, it is not known to you as a character, but as a player. (Surely, you will argue against this). Since all of this is up for discussion, let's have this discussion page here. It'll do us some good.

Also, if you do want to create a page of guidelines for creating wiki entries, don't just call it Entry, call it something like Guidelines for Creating an Entry. Using single words makes it tedious later on when we have other things that could fall under Entry.

tcm: in fact, it is known to Reynaldo (the Bestiary stuff). Rey's got a Mythology proficiency. and anything he might not know from his vast mythological knowledge, he reads in texts that exist pre-987 AD.

and, are you crazy? i thought we were supposed to use single words whenever possible. it says so in Kerry's post about how to make new entries (or whoever it was). and, out of curiosity, how is my post about Information in Entries discussion, but Kerry's post about Character Entries gospel?

Maggie sez: I think Kerry says that entries should be one-word when it comes to character names. So instead of Benevolent Reynaldo of the Great Plains, it should be Benevolent Reynaldo of the Great Plains. This works because Reynaldo is a unique result. Entry does not work as well as say Guidelines for Adding Entries as other things could be an Entry, thus making the name non-unique. The organization of the wiki fails, chaos follows and next thing we know, people say "between you and I".

Kerry sez: tcm, I disagree for several reasons. The OED is a source that is not available in the 10th cent., but it often reflects knowledge that is available then. The same goes for other works. The Shahnama has not been written yet, but the Dastan-nama, which does not exist now, was present and contained the same episodes, though in prose. Ditto for something like the Arabian Nights, which haven't yet been collected as such, but which do exist in other texts and as folk legends. Finally, many modern historical works are totally valid, as they give information that our characters might know, but which do not survive in any particular text.

Also, you should know that Mythology proficiency must have a particular mythos. You can't say it covers Norse, Irish, Greek, Roman, Arabic, Indian, etc all at once. A better idea is to have proficiency with some body of literature. Remeber that in this time all of the knowledge of Greek mythology comes from five or six texts. As such, a proficiency like "Greek Literature" is better, as it covers mythology as well as history and drama. Your languages spoken should of course limit your possibilities.

N. sez: I am with Kerry on this, although I agree with your sentiment. We should work within the realms of the 10th Century whenever we can, but there are practical limitations that stand in the way of establishing perfect verisimilitude. Short of a time machine, post-dated texts are all we have.

Maggie sez: Also, I'd like to add something that's probably very obvious, but may be worth pointing out: this is a fantasy game. Even though it relies HEAVILY on historical incidents and documented mythology, still, the DM is given the liberty to change things, well, at random, to fit the game. No matter how many 10th century texts we find, Halifax can decide to null them all only because he wanted sewn-up girls and half-octopus/half-piranha boys to rule the Americas in that time or something.

N. sez: It's not that Hal might 'null' them all, merely that those texts are 'wrong' on a particular subject. This makes perfect sense. There are many different versions of myths and texts will frequently disagree on many topics. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be read. Even when contemporaneous information is wrong, it adds something to the game when you know it. Besides, what is to say that some of the textual information we have received straight from Hal isn't false? Hm?

Halifax sez: I think tcm’s right, here. It’s one thing to use information from the Shanama, another to cite the Shanama. Why not cite the Dastan-nama instead, hypothetical as the citation may be? It’s what your character read, after all. Obviously we use on the wiki, information contained in the OED all the time (writing, as we do, in English) , but it does sort of suspend the suspension of disbelief when the OED shows up in the works cited. Such information one could post under talk, leaving the main body anachronism-free.

Except for the flowcharts. Sheesh.

tcm: in that case, i have 85 Mythology profeciencies, one for each mythos...

just kidding. i talked with Hal about this and my Mythology proficiency only covers Classical Mythology, which translates to mostly Greek and Roman. however, Rey is smart and reads a lot, and there are things you have yet to find out about his history that explains a lot of his knowledge. that is all i will say on that subject.

as for citing, i'm with Hal. cite things in the discussion page of the entry if you have to (every time N. and Kerry have asked me for proof, i have given it freely in the discussion page. i just feel very strongly that the main body should be anachronistic free. if you know that Prince Vladimir is about to marry Princess Anna, you should say it's because you heard it on the grapevine (or 'cause you helped bring it about), not because the player read it in a World History book published in 1977.

and no one has answered my question as to why my guidelines as to what should not go into an entry is merely discussion while Kerry and Maggie's what should go in a character entry is treated as gospel.

Halifax sez: I think the point of a wiki is that nothing is gospel.