Talk:Second Darkness campaign traits

Bull! There is no "crunch" on the page regarding the Second Darkness traits! I'd like an explanation as to how you can write a "summary" of traits without including at least a small amount of game information. It isn't like you can simply paraphrase the published fluff for the trait and call it good. It's a GAME MECHANIC...ergo, it MUST include some mention of the game and how it affects said game!

I think the main issue here is that aside from articles about publications and authors, articles on the wiki are meant to be "in-world". Articles about traits and feats and the like are outside of those bounds. It may seem a little arbitrary, and perhaps it is. The truth is that we need to do a better job of conveying what types of articles are appropriate for the wiki, and cleaning up the old stuff that is inappropriate. I'm sorry if you feel slighted by the deletion template. I suspect that Heaven's Agent put it on there to keep you from wasting your time as much as anything. I also hope you won't judge us too harshly. The project is still fairly new and policies and procedures are coming together slowly. We have a lot of ideas, but they aren't all organized as well as they might be. I hope you'll stick around and think about contributing again in the future. Also, feel free to contact one of the admins or post on the forum if you have any questions. --Aeakett 00:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll chime in as well, as I was the one that flagged the article to be considered for deletion.

The primary reason I flagged the article is because it is an article about game mechanics, first and foremost. Game mechanics are a great way to further describe aspects of the setting, and we do use them at times. However, even when we do include such content it's extremely limited in scope, and usually confined to infoboxes.

The focus of this article is a game mechanic, and as you pointed out Darth Gator, it can be extremely difficult at times to document their flavor without referencing the rules they relate to. That said, it's what we have to strive to do. Folks living in the setting would have never heard terms like "saving throw", "morale bonus", or "attack rolls"; as one of the primary purposes of this project is to serve as an in-setting reference, we need to exclude such terminology from the body of articles. If we can write a full article while doing so, great. If not, maybe the flavor would be appropriate as part of a different article. If even this isn't feasible, then perhaps we should consider that such content might not have a place within the scope of this project.

Ultimately, I am sorry if I offended you by flagging this article as I did. As Aeakett stated, you're welcome to comment further here, via out Talk Pages, or on the forums; the deletion template isn't meant to be a death sentence for an article, but serve to generate a discussion about the content. I hope you'll consider sticking around, help us come to a resolution on the matter, and ultimately improve upon the project. -- Heaven's Agent 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If this will help, I try to write any article as if it were an entry in a encyclopedia that my players could find (and the have found scattered pages of it here and there). Unless the page I am writing is about a sourcebook, then i make sure that it is something a level 20 PC may have written in the world and submitted to the pathfinder lodge... - just givign you my mindset when writing Cpt kirstov 02:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the rule, that this is all to be "in setting", then there should not be any options for articles describing feats, skills, traits, flaws, etc. It is impossible to describe these things without getting into "crunch". In fact, the people who inhabit the Pathfinder setting wouldn't have a clue what you meant if you said, "You have the 'Fools for Friends' Trait", or, "You have the Improved Initiative feat." The word "Feat" itself would be unknown in this context.

There needs to be a delineation between "in character" articles and "out of character" articles. Of course, I am **NOT** advocating a regurgitation of crunch. If you'll look at my original article, you'll note I did not mention ANYTHING specific, simply a generalization so anyone interested in gaining a broad overview of the Second Darkness traits would be able to do so. I in no way infringed upon Paizo's ability to sell material, nor did I detract from their product, as theirs is CLEARLY superior to the brief summary I posted.

I suppose if the article needs to be deleted, so be it. I still think it's the wrong decision, but I'm not in charge here. I'm not offended, I just don't understand why the site has blank links if we aren't supposed to write articles for them. And I maintain that there is no reason to have *EVERYTHING* be "in-world". Why not offer players a single, catch-all, summarization of the things they might want to know about Pathfinder? Then, if they want to use what they find here, they still have to go find the source material. It isn't like you could use the descriptions I posted of those traits to build a character, you know?

In regards to writing these articles as if a 20th level character had written them as an ecyclopedia article, How? How would a 20th level barbarian describe the power attack feat for a research publication? He wouldn't, because he doesn't think of it as something specific he can describe. He would simply say, "I swung my axe as hard as I could, and I chopped the gobo in half."Darth Gator 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all moot now. I deleted everything I wrote. Darth Gator 02:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems the discussion happened while I was away and has now reached a conclusion, but I did want to address one particular line. Darth Gator, you mention that it is misleading to have a page full of red links for articles we don't really want. I completely agree. We have been debating whether or not to keep the Character Options portal at all, and I think this incident has illuminated why we should remove it. The task of maintaining a comprehensive guide to Pathfinder canon is difficult and daunting enough, and to mix crunch in there, even in description only, is just something that is beyond the scope of this particular project as it currently stands. That said, there are other sites with use both the OGL and Paizo's Community Use Policy to reprint as much crunch as they can. Perhaps one of these would be a better place for what you were attempting to include (and what we had originally attempted to do before the scope of the project was clearly defined for us.) I do want to reiterate what was said above though, that if you disagree with a wiki policy or even the scope of the project, everything is open for discussion. We're not trying to be draconian on anything, but as admins, it's our job to enforce and administer the guidelines and policies determined by the wiki community as a whole. And you're a part of that community, so feel free to start any discussion you wish. Sorry your first experience on the site was one with so much intensity. It's not all like that, I swear. -- yoda8myhead 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reset indents

I have added the {{Delete}} template to Portal:Character Options. All discussion regarding the purpose and future of this page should be conducted on its [[Talk:Portal:Character Options|Talk page]].--yoda8myhead 03:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)