| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| questing gm |
Posted - 27 Aug 2021 : 14:35:57
I'm curious has anyone prep for their session/adventure/campaign by just using the FR wiki alone? That you were able to detail out one urban center (from hamlets to cities), one dungeon location (be it an actual dungeon or wilderness fraught with danger and treasure), and maybe 3 other NPCs, just by picking and choosing from the FR wiki alone without making anything up, regardless of region (obviously some are more detailed than others).
I've preferred reading my lore and using details from the books/supplements that I have to prep, so I got curious if anyone has been able to do the same without access to those, and want to know if there's any difference. |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 08:14:04
It used to have weird fanon, now it seems to have some sort of edition wars...
...and the Doomtard Doomguard raider. You know, that obsessed creature who wanders around wikis and changes EVERY verb to past time, no matter how ridiculous it is. |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 07:44:24
quote:
Originally posted by questing gm
How does one go about becoming one of these invested editors to contribute to the wiki?
Easy, just click "Edit" and bang, you're an editor! But, some common tips and the ideal process:
Make a FANDOM account so you can set preferences and track your edits, and so we can contact you to discuss issues and give advice. This also lets you cut back FANDOM's advertising.
Use the Source Editor, as it's the best way to learn wiki code and how it all works. The code is simple and easy to pick up; Candlekeep's is harder. It also has a Preview option for testing edits. The Visual Editor is only good for correcting typos and often messes up links, code, and templates.
Start small and slow, so you can pick things up and make sure it works. Fix some typos or make corrections until you get the hang of the interface and code. Check out the code of other pages to see how things work. Then, when you're confident, add some minor lore to some articles. Make sure it has a reference, with the citation templates you'll see on existing pages. Get to know templates, anything in {{_}}. The infoboxes and citation templates are the key ones.
Once you've got the hang of things, trying making a new page on a small topic. We have auto-fill options for the common ones that you only need to fill out, or you can copy the code of a similar page and adjust it as you need. Also check out the category system and which can be added to a page. After that, you can take on a larger project, such as a longer page or exploring a set of topics. (Too many newbies dive into something huge, go hard early, don't leave a chance for us to discuss with them, make a mess of it, and then disappear, leaving half-finished projects and the rest of us to clean up.)
Do ask other editors for help, to propose an idea, or ask if a plan is okay. You can use the wiki's Talk, User Talk, and Forum pages for that. If something doesn't work, another editor will fix it up in short order and you can then see what they did.
Write like a Faerunian sage compiling an encyclopaedia on the past: neutral tone, in-universe, and past tense. It can be dry, but you can have some fun with it, with dramatic elements, clever turns of phrase, or jokes if they fit the concept. Never copy from the sources, always rephrase in your own words.
Reference everything. It could be half a sentence, or a single word if need be. Every bit of distinct information must be fact-checkable.
In the end, research should be the hardest part. For big projects, I compile all the information in a Word document, with the article text, dot-pointed sourcebook text, colour coding, and citations. It's best to focus on a specific topic and try to integrate information from different editions in a fair way. We have no edition bias, 1e is as valid as 5e, though the later editions get the last word by default. Everything is just a different point of view at a different date and we get it all to agree where possible. Eventually, you'll learn footnotes to explain discrepancies and errors.
And that's how you become a keeper of the Forgotten Realms canon.  |
| questing gm |
Posted - 31 Aug 2021 : 04:56:23
quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan
The FRW's coverage is very dependent on us editors' interests and habits over the years. We write up lore as background for our players and campaigns and on things we find interesting, which can be quite eclectic: lesser-known places, mundane things, favourite stories, things that catch our attention. I actually encourage that, because it's better we enjoy it and get something out of it than it be a chore for someone else. Other topics are generally covered in tangents to personal projects or are things that need to be cleaned up or developed prior to an upcoming release to avoid future hassle. Some editors plough through a lot of stuff, others are more targeted. We also have projects encouraging work on things like spells, monsters, and locations (the last three years), but again they depend on editors' preferences. So our coverage is scattershot and many key areas are lacking. Generally, we're not too interested in the Sword Coast or the gods, and I'd say our purpose is not to rewrite 5th-edition sourcebooks for fans who already have them. Yet it keeps growing incrementally better.
...
The FRW is supporting information, collated to save browsing several different sources. I would always encourage readers to look up the sources for themselves, for fact-checking and context, for the crunch we don't cover, for their own entertainment value, and to support the original works and their writers. But I also know most readers won't have those sources or won't bother and take the wiki as its own kind of canon. We just try to offer the best-quality substitute we can and hope our interests match. 
How does one go about becoming one of these invested editors to contribute to the wiki? |
| SaMoCon |
Posted - 28 Aug 2021 : 12:43:25
It depends on how much lore you want and your players expect to have in your game. The source books aren't even enough in some cases because the original authors were either not interested or weren't allowed to put fully realized notes into print for many areas. The wiki also pulls material from errata, novels, Dragon Magazine articles, computer games, Twitter messages, and other creator communications as well as listing some contradictions in the source material between official products with any "official" explanations. The wiki is a valuable resource for quickly looking up information and is way cheaper than attempting to purchase the library of printed lore (most of which has been out of print for decades). |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 28 Aug 2021 : 09:32:51
quote:
Originally posted by questing gm
I'm curious has anyone prep for their session/adventure/campaign by just using the FR wiki alone? That you were able to detail out one urban center (from hamlets to cities), one dungeon location (be it an actual dungeon or wilderness fraught with danger and treasure), and maybe 3 other NPCs, just by picking and choosing from the FR wiki alone without making anything up, regardless of region (obviously some are more detailed than others).
I've preferred reading my lore and using details from the books/supplements that I have to prep, so I got curious if anyone has been able to do the same without access to those, and want to know if there's any difference.
Well, I have. But then, it was with articles I wrote myself to use the lore later in my campaigns. Compiling background information for my characters and campaigns was why I got into wiki editing. I found it's very handy to have all the lore on a topic on a single page at my fingertips, rather than searching through several books every time I need something, and be able to show that to players when needed. But I still tend to open a book before realising it's probably on the wiki.
The FRW's coverage is very dependent on us editors' interests and habits over the years. We write up lore as background for our players and campaigns and on things we find interesting, which can be quite eclectic: lesser-known places, mundane things, favourite stories, things that catch our attention. I actually encourage that, because it's better we enjoy it and get something out of it than it be a chore for someone else. Other topics are generally covered in tangents to personal projects or are things that need to be cleaned up or developed prior to an upcoming release to avoid future hassle. Some editors plough through a lot of stuff, others are more targeted. We also have projects encouraging work on things like spells, monsters, and locations (the last three years), but again they depend on editors' preferences. So our coverage is scattershot and many key areas are lacking. Generally, we're not too interested in the Sword Coast or the gods, and I'd say our purpose is not to rewrite 5th-edition sourcebooks for fans who already have them. Yet it keeps growing incrementally better.
As an example, my last project was amethyst dragons, both as groundwork for Fizban's Treasury of Dragons and my psionics project, but going over Eldenser and Amaeraszantha in detail are too big a task to take on right now. Previously, I wrote about the Downunda Patisserie in Ravens Bluff because it's Australian-themed and I thought it was quaint. Before that, I've worked on Neverwinter and the Neverwinter MMO as movie groundwork and to preserve information ejected from the game. I did other things for need or interest. But I want to get back to Cormyr for my campaign and the Murder in Cormyr novel.
So, yeah, you could use the FRW entirely for campaign prep, but only if you're running campaigns in the same areas we are or in somewhere like the Kuong Kingdom of Kara-Tur.
The FRW is supporting information, collated to save browsing several different sources. I would always encourage readers to look up the sources for themselves, for fact-checking and context, for the crunch we don't cover, for their own entertainment value, and to support the original works and their writers. But I also know most readers won't have those sources or won't bother and take the wiki as its own kind of canon. We just try to offer the best-quality substitute we can and hope our interests match. |
| PattPlays |
Posted - 28 Aug 2021 : 03:03:58
Image searching old maps on a search engine can net you maps with locations not shown elsewhere, often showing up from a single DRAGON magazine article and mentioned nowhere else.
Also, search unique terms should be dropped into Candlekeep's search engine for a quick check on how popular the term is here. If you get a hit on one of the "Questions for ???" threads, make a unique search into a search engine to see if you can snipe the direct page without Ctrl F spamming over every page of a thirty page thread.
Lots of people have Obsidian Portals and Blogs with their home campaigns on them or playing published adventures. These personal archival pages are a smash hit for a DM's interpretation of something, which might be what you want to see more than just what the published material said sometimes. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 28 Aug 2021 : 02:18:44
I rely on the Wiki's references to gather sources, then I go to the sources for the information I need. I think you could use the Wiki as your only resource, but I have found that the articles are almost never comprehensive enough for my tastes, and they often restate material in a way that leaves me scratching my head, in which case I have to go to the source material to find out what was really said.
Unfortunately, I don't think it makes a lick of difference to my players. I could slap Forgotten Realms names on Eberron lore and most of them probably wouldn't know the difference. |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 27 Aug 2021 : 20:54:45
Agree with Gary. I often start with the wiki, but as great as it is, the folks who work on it only have so much time, so I often use it as just a starting point. Often it catches things I forgot like a stray Dragon article or web article I forgot about or a video game reference etc. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 27 Aug 2021 : 18:27:01
As with anything, the sourcebooks, articles, novels, and tweets are all open to interpretation. I use the FR wiki to point me toward the sources, and i read the wiki myself to see others interpretations but there is nothing quite so good as reading the original source for myself to find some nuance or flash of inspiration. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 27 Aug 2021 : 17:52:49
I'll add that the wiki can be useful because their best articles gather info from large numbers of sources that could be easy to miss, including online supplements and even Ed's tweets and answers here on Candlekeep.
Then again, you need a bit of luck--if your area is covered by a good article, then you're set. If the article covering your area isn't complete, then your best bet is to go straight to the sources. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 27 Aug 2021 : 17:39:11
One thing to mention is to look at the dates for the references so you can see when that information is applicable. If your campaign is set in the 1300's, what is listed there is very likely valid. If you are in the late 1400s, I would expect quite a bit of that to change but what is there SHOULD give you an idea of which way to go. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Aug 2021 : 16:09:41
Assuming the topic was in there, the wiki should be enough -- unless you want a lot of information. In which case, then start looking at the listed references. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 27 Aug 2021 : 15:56:20
-I'm sure you could, though obviously the more the level of detail you want to include in your game, the more you would need to reference the actual books that get the info. |
|
|
