Forgotten Realms Wiki talk:No crunch

I agree, but would like to make a note of this: "FR-wiki should be allowed to contain crunch such as character level, character class, spell names and basic magic item properties (for the purposes of comparison)". I think we should keep that in mind if we are to be doing any active crunch-editing.

I would also ask that references to non-magical item properties (should we ever add them) be allowed so as long as they are just descriptive and dont delve into the rules etc.

Johnnyriot999 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while and there's no objections so I'll move this over to policy. Fw190a8 04:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm Dan Rather and I approved this message, sorta, kinda, not really.. *Stamp of Cabal approval* Zerak-Tul 15:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Necross: Question: Why any crunch at all? Will it not spoil alot (unnecessarily) to write exact character levels on NPC:s?
 * In most novels it's impossible to tell different characters level, because most of the authors take a rather broad artistic-license in what characters can and can't do in any case. And most characters only have classes/levels/statistics created well after they first appeared in novels, so generally it has little impact on novels, and not much can be spoiled in that way. Zerak talk 20:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and welcome to the wiki Necross, you can sign your comments by adding four tiddles ( ~ ) at the end of comments :) Zerak talk 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Novels? I´m mainly talking about the RPG products. Think its fun to introduce an NPC and everybody know his/her level? I thought such information was called to "spoil" and should be avoided. Know what I mean? Necross 20:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as the FRCS lists several well-known NPCs full stats, it's somewhat common knowledge, and it'd be highly impractical to add spoiler warnings - another example would be that we'd have to put a spoiler on Cyric, because he was not a good untill after the Gods War, and people who have not read the novels will not know how he became a god. Zerak talk 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. But I´m still against spoiling levels. It´s in most cases totally uncalled for - simply writing that a NPC is an archmage or legendary warrior would do, whether he/she is level 25 or 26 only concerns "munchkins", IMHO. BTW, thanks for welcoming me. Is there a "tutorial" for this place somewhere? I don´t know alot about writing wiki, and even though I tried to browse around here alot, I don´t really know what articles that are ok. For example, is an article like "Narma Haever - Owner of The Sundered Shield, a tavern in Nesmé (in 1372)" (with a ref) anything, or am I expected to write long esseys? Necross 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, if levels are not included, it becomes difficult to tell whether the article is describing someone who is low-level, such as 3rd level, or high-level, such as 19th level. I suppose we could discuss some kind of system such as describing 'level' in bands like '1-5', '6-10'... but that seems complicated. The primary aim of the wiki is to help people find things like precise stats in the source material, and in my opinion, if someone vaguely remembers reading about a 20th-level elf called D-something, having a level on the article will help them narrow their search.


 * I do appreciate your point about the possibility of players visiting the wiki and finding out about NPCs you have just introduced, but I think that is a minor concern, because many DMs will create the majority of their NPCs, rather than using 'out of the box' ones, and any NPCs the players meet should be of appropriate challenge rating for their party, something which is a function of level and a number of other things, so it's possible a 5th-level human mage would be appropriate for a party of four 7th-level players, if the mage has a Staff of WtfPwnage +30 (sic) or something. Players knowing the level alone often won't be enough to gain an unfair advantage. Fw190a8 10:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn´t make any sense to me. Isn´t the english language rich enough to differ a 3rd lvl from a 19th lvl without stating the actual levels? And if the "primary aim of the wiki is to help people find things like precise stats in the source material", why are there no exact page refs? Also, I think WotC idea with having stats on NPCs in their products is so we can use them "out of the box". So should not the wiki help this? (I know alot of DMs that think using NPCs "out of the box" is very handy. I myself for example enjoy it alot.) About this "any NPCs the players meet should be of appropriate challenge rating". Why?! Haven´t you introduced a high-lvl NPC which it wasn´t the idea the party would battle? The partys attitude to NPCs is coloured by what they know. Some NPCs might want to hide their actual power. And so on. Necross 12:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I am against any sort of crunch at all. However, for me this is just a matter of style. I would prefer any of my own content which I add to articles to be void of game statistics as much as possible. I'd much rather talk about a power wizard who is said to have mastered mighty outerplanar magics, than mention an 18th level Wizard with the Gate spell. This is just my style though, and the way in which I tend to do things.--Perikles 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Necross, there are specific page references (please see Cormanthor for an example of this), but it is difficult enough to get contributors to reference their work, let alone reference page numbers, so this will take some time to put into place throughout the wiki. I accept your point about the benefits of hiding an NPC's level, but would this not also extend to hiding the NPC's class, or date of birth, or birthplace, in case the players can glean some kind of advantage from this knowledge? If so, where is the line to be drawn? Previously, I had thought it was drawn in the correct place, although this most recent debate has opened up the issue again. Fw190a8 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)