Low/Med/High: New Categories?

1. Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #1

   I want a "low level" / "high level" / "all levels" sub-category for plots and locations!
   
   Seriously, to be considered a 5 we often resort to the "wow effects" of "high leveldom". This is well and nice, but sometimes people just want something quick and easy... for their starting adventurers.
   
   What say you?

2. Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #2

   I'm for the level sub-category!

3. Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #3

   Hmm... plots sound like it, but locations?
   
   How exactly would these be tied with the existing categories? (And I am not even going into the controversy of low-level / high-level vs. low-magic / high-magic or low-power ... you get the idea. :) )
   
   
   But you have reminded me now of something else - there is a freetext for this sort of thing!

4. Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #4

   Easy enough: You use the sub-categories (major, minor, desert, water... those sub-categories).
   
   Sure, we could dive into the myriad definitions of difficulty. We could split hairs, then atoms, then quarks. Or we could just do a "easy, normal, hard" thing. It works for nearly everyone else. why should it not work for us?
   
   Perhaps even better than sub-categories would be a new divider entirely, perhaps to be applied to every category there is. Beginner/easy/low lever - intermediate/normal/mid-level - expert/hard/high-level could be three such dividers.
   
   Freetext is associated with so much else and, to be honest, I think it is too loosely defined to serve in that regard. We need something easily gotten. Snatch and grab! I want a beginner GM article: Wham bam thank you ma'am! So, I want a mid-level adventure: There you go, it is one click away!
   
   Quick, easy and without the anti-intuitive freetext detour.

5. Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #5

   I am still undecided, although I see your point and I am usually all for more sorting/viewing options.
   
   Many of the submissions are just ideas though with no classification and I am wary on doing another pigeon hole to subs that just don't fit anything. Easy/Normal/Hard/Any....yet another Any category where a majority of them will end up falling.
   
   I am still leaning towards the freetext where those few subs that fit, exactly, one of those specific levels can be placed.
   
   Which goes back to our freetext discussion, IMHO, in which we need to find other ways to utilize those user created categories.
   
   Not saying no, just not saying yes if you wanted my plain answer to the thought. (PS, by now I have moved this discussion to its own thread.)

6. Re: Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #6

   I have a couple of problems with this.
   
   More work for Strolen when he could be making Settings or Links.
   
   It creates a third subtype to search through, the listings are all two now. Unless it can be made three for all of them, I don't like it asthetically.
   
   It creates TOOOOO MANY things to variate and search through.  Mutliplies the variations by 3! or 6. While I can see the why, it will really just cause too many problems.
   
   My biggest one? Too subjective. Very Subjective. What is one for me, will not be one of you. We all have different opinions on what is what.  While I could moderate my personal views to match a more general one, a) why should I? and more importantly b) will others? So the coding that I would apply would be radically different than most.. given various opinions.  And everyone will code to their view of the world, so the high level gamers would come out with very different ratings than people who like low level games.
   
   (Let us not go through the game system levels, as what is simple to an Exalted Player would be Moderately to a D20 player, whould be hard to a RuneQuest or GURPS fantasy Player...)
   
   Things will be misrated all the time, because their view of low/med/high is different from others, (including the majority of people). Everyone will code as they see fit. While the coding might "average out" over time, most of it is going to be so different that it will make it worthless as a guide. Once enough things are misrated or not rated consistantly, then the rating system becomes useless. Thus time and effort will be invested for NO GAIN.
   
   We have a hard enough time keeping things straight with our specific categories. Certain people get a little odd in their coding. Their posts are now lost into the wrong categories where nobody who is looking for "that sort of thing" is ever going to find them. 
   
   Sure we have fixed some of them, but it is all catch as catch can.  As Manfred will attest, as he has gotten the Free-Text Referee bug like I have, editing takes forever. I can attest that the drive to be a category referee only lasts soooo long before you throw up your arms and go NEVER AGAIN.
   
   So the organizational system has to be designed to NOT REQUIRE constant moderation. Note: the categories were specifically made concrete as a design consideration when Citadel 2.0 went live. I would like to keep in tune with that one.
   
   So please. NO SUBJECTIVE CATEGORY LISTINGS PLEASE.
   
   And as for alternate options:
   While Free-Texts could be used, eventually you get the same problem that we have with the category issues:  People's different opinions.
   
   Now if you want to make and moderate a codex of these things... Beginner Plot list, A medium plot list, a tough plot list, then do so with my blessings. 
   

7. Re: Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #7

   I think I agree with Moon, this sounds good on the surface, but it would be practically unworkable.  There's enough problems defining what is "high" level or "low" level in small groups all using the same system, it would only get exponential in a community the size of the Citadel, as mult-system as it is.
   
   I do like the idea of codices aimed at particular difficulties.  It would be easier to create, maintain, search, and would probably have things that just about everyone agrees on.  And you don't even have to wait for the UberCoder to make it.

8. Re: Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #8

   I... I think I agree with Moon too!
   Would've been nice though. If it could be made to work in some regard. Freetext and codices don't do it for me. Still: Moon has all too valid points.

9. Re: Low/Med/High: New Categories?

   #9

   There are Starting Adventures, for instancex!  :up:

10. Re: Low/Med/High: New Categories?

    #10

    What about a permanent positioning for "starting adventures" in the "Sections" list of links on the right hand side of the main site? It could be just below "Random Generators"...
    
    Then those who wanted, probably defaulting to the admins, could add suitable submissions to that codex.
    

11. Re: Low/Med/High: New Categories?

    #11

    I would not equate it with difficulty - I see this as a way to avoid the whole ("This sub is nice, but it is too powerful.." ) comment.
    
    I would suggest an optional Low or High level tag.  Medium would simply be assumed otherwise.
    
    Low would be for submissions deliberately intended for low-magic campaigns, while High would be for the reverse. 
    
    Just my thoughts...
    
    
    
    

Bug Reports · All categories · Guildhall