FANDOM


Members with levelsEdit

Hmmm, interesting BadCat... not sure how I feel about it... the page looks nice... the cats... hmmm... could be helpful... or be a lot of work... so would Do'Urden, the organization, have level cats if they had, for example, 8th level clerics as members in 2e... so the page would go under Clerics of 8th level (2e)? - Darkwynters (talk) 05:09, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

It was something I was experimenting with, I just stopped for lunch and chores for a while, hence I left it hanging. I'm still trying different approaches, and planned to start a conversation about it when I had some ideas. I might as well do that now. :)
I realised that, although we have classes and levels for specific, named NPCs, we don't have something similar for generic NPCs, which would be useful for GMs. Say, a random, unnamed member of Waterdeep's City Watch gets involved, what level and class is she? That kind of information is often buried in sourcebooks, monster manuals, and adventure modules, and generally hard to find out on a cursory search. So, I wondered if we could include it here.
This wouldn't include named, specific NPCs, btw. Just the redshirts and mooks of the organisation. :)
So, my ideas:
  • Put class & level in with the ranks and titles table. It's neat and tidy and correlates nicely. However, I felt that the class and level information should go in the infobox, as it does it in the Person template, and as all crunch does. Putting it anywhere in the main article would bend the "no crunch" rule too much and blur that division.
  • An appendix section for crunchy stuff. Also neat and tidy, but could set a precedent for growing quantities of crunch.
  • Insert a Template:Person in a section of an Organization page (as I currently have here) with class tables for each level of NPC. It's quick and simple, but it would distort pages too much if the infoboxes clash (a long one will push a second infobox further down the page).
  • Expand the options of Template:Organization to include the class*, ref*, and rules lines from Template:Person. This is probably the neatest and most reliable option (I was just about to work on it), but may make Template:Organization too big and unwieldy.
  • Develop separate pages for unnamed NPCs, just like regular named NPCs. For example, Unnamed City Watch patrolman with its own infobox for stats, sections for uniform, description, equipment, pictures. Then another like Unnamed City Watch sergeant with all the same. And so on. Or, instead of unnamed, call them "Generic". This increases the workload and spreads information around, but doesn't really change any existing practices.
And yes, I thought it would be nice to have generic NPCs appear in the categories. Say you look for 1st-level fighters and see they're Watch patrolmen and such. Or you look for inhabitants of Waterdeep and see that, of course, Watch captains are among them.
I'll leave it for now, but thoughts anyone? — BadCatMan (talk) 06:07, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

This is a lot to soak in... but I am beginning to like your ideas, my friend :) - Darkwynters (talk) 22:36, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

I like the Person template with subheadings for each edition, but if the infoboxes clash, there's no rule set in stone that says the {{class table}} has to go in an infobox. You could put it in the text just like you did the rank/title table. If we need to redesign it to make it look good outside its native habitat, that can be done also. Carry on :) —Moviesign (talk) 02:20, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I've tried a few options:

  • User:BadCatMan/City Watch (Waterdeep)/1: Class and levels are integrated into the table. As I said above, this pushes crunches into the main body of an article, which I'm reluctant about doing. It looks neat, but gets rather messy with more than edition of stats.
  • User:BadCatMan/City Watch (Waterdeep)/2: Two separate infoboxes, Organization and Person. As we discussed above.
  • User:BadCatMan/City Watch (Waterdeep)/3: I've merged the class, level, and refs line Person into Organization. This turns out fairly neat, but could get quite lengthy and complicate with multiple editions of stats for multiple ranks and kinds of members.
  • User:BadCatMan/Generic City Watchperson (Waterdeep): That is, a page for a generic member of an organization, or of a rank of that organization. It's kind of like a creature article. We can include different stats with different editions, variations in equipment, uniform, titles, lists of members, all specific to that etc. I think this could work rather well, especially for larger or more detailed organizations.

Looking at various older sources, there seems to be a lot of specific information for different levels of the City Watch and other groups: a Watch-wizard branch; kits for regular Watch, Watch officers, and Watch-wizards; and lore specific to each. Given the possibilities, I'm thinking the Generic NPC article option would be cleanest and most adaptable. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:51, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

BatCat, I think Waterdeep 1 is blah, number 2 looks clean... 3 could get a little messy, but does look nice... and I LOVE your fourth option... mainly, because I think having organizations in the inhabitants categories is completely weird:) But having generic "NPC" pages, like the Creature pages, makes sense and would fit nicely into the inhabitant categories. - Darkwynters (talk) 21:31, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
The Person template has more fields that would be usable for a group member than the Organization template, so I like 4 better than 3. Option 2 is also workable. Are you still going to have the external table of Rank and Title? —Moviesign (talk) 02:20, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
Cool, I'll go with the Generic NPC pages then. I'll keep the table of rank and title, since it's distinct from stats information, and can include pay and such. I don't intend to fully detail the Watch, however. I just wanted to output all lore from the comics. I might put some more to form a model for this, however. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:31, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
Those Generic City Watch sergeant (Waterdeep) pages are looking very good and I support this move. Though I'm not sure about the naming of the page, wouldn't Amlar be a better choice of name? I'm also abit iffy about the 'generic' title, would just Waterdeep City Watch sergeant (generic) be better?--Eli the Tanner (talk) 13:43, May 9, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. They're still kind of prototypical, so I appreciate input. First, I wanted the purpose of the page to be clear from the title and when it appears in a category. "Amlar" or "Armar" you might take as a person's name, but "Generic City Watch sergeant" leaves the reader in no doubt. Then the reader can just pick the sergeant of the City Watch of Waterdeep. Later, I'll make redirects for the "armar", "amlar", "civilar", etc., titles. Second, I followed the formats that other wikis use for unnamed/unidentified characters, such as Unidentified clone trooper pilot. The word "generic" could go anywhere, but putting it at the front means all the generic NPCs will be grouped together for easy reference. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:49, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

Proposed minor title changeEdit

I propose this article be moved to City Watch of Waterdeep, mirroring how other articles on Waterdeep-specific subjects are titled (North Ward of Waterdeep, Dock Ward of Waterdeep, etc.). There are many organizations named the "City Watch" in other settlements across the Realms, so this could also apply to them. Any objections? --Ir'revrykal (talk) 07:25, March 7, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. City Watch of Waterdeep could imply the proper name is "City Watch of Waterdeep", which isn't true, though I'm not sure anyone could make that error from the article. And by the same token, we could also rename North Ward of Waterdeep to North Ward (Waterdeep) for consistency (I don't know why they got "of Waterdeep" in the first place). I'm not sure it's a necessary change. It'd be a lot of effort and piped links would still be required to it. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:06, March 7, 2019 (UTC)
Fair points, though "City Watch of Waterdeep" is used in Power of Faerûn, Death Masks, a string of Greenwood-authored web articles on the Watch, and probably elsewhere. Of course, "Waterdeep's City Watch" is also used in several sources. However, if it will lead to confusion about the proper name, perhaps a parenthetical is the best way to disambiguate. --Ir'revrykal (talk) 09:51, March 7, 2019 (UTC)
For what its worth I think using the parenthetical with Ward article would be preferred as well. Ruf (talk) 14:55, March 7, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.