• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

Organization

B

BigSkyRPG

Member
So after watching videos from several of the users on here, I'm still trying to decide the on the best way to organize Article content in the Mechanics Reference.

For instance, lets focus just on Dangers/Creatures. DAPlunk recommends creating source entries and then organizing them by source (Monster Manual, Tome of beasts, etc.). You can then browse to the source to find your manual.

Is there a way to catalog your Dangers/Creatures by putting them all in alphabetical order and then creating tags for the source and any other tags that I would want to search by?

For instance, run a search on Monster Manual tag to return all monsters from that source. Run a search on undead tag, to return a list of all undead monsters?

I'm still learning Realm Works and I want to decide upon a consistent strategy before I start inputting everything.

Thanks for any comments, in advance!
 
There's a few ways to do this. I'm still happy with putting everything under the book. What I would do if I did it again (which i will) is to tag all the creatures with the following:

Source Book
Creature Type
Create Environment
CR Level
Etc, etc

Then you can search on tags and basically search on anything you want to.
 
Organizing by book is one choice.. but if you want all related things (which may be added through multiple books) in one list (such as Feats or Spells for D&D and Pathfinder), then organizing by book is not as desirable. Indeed.. the Paizo "Pathfinder Reference Document" can be considered one "book" with the contents of multiple volumes in it. While the on-line version is broken out by book.. it is an extra hassle sometimes to need to remember which book a Feat or Spell was introduced in... it is easier to have an alphabetical list of them consolidating all books.

Note: The D&D and Pathfinder spell lists put "Greater X" and "Improved X" spells with the main name (ex. "Lesser Planar Binding" is listed as "Planar Binding, Lesser"). Providing both versions with the "Manage Names" functionality works well until you group them in "A", "B", "C" topics in the navigation hierarchy. Because the aliases all ed up under the parent, "Lesser Planar Binding" is not found under "L", but is under "P" if you put "Planar Binding, Lesser" there .. although it will sort to the top of all the "P" entries.
 
daplunk said:
There's a few ways to do this. I'm still happy with putting everything under the book. What I would do if I did it again (which i will) is to tag all the creatures with the following:

Source Book
Creature Type
Create Environment
CR Level
Etc, etc

Then you can search on tags and basically search on anything you want to.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, btw your videos are great. I know that RW will auto link your content so that in and of itself is cosmically awesome; however, I can see myself using rw to also prep encounters and research, etc., in addition to creating a world atlas. Therefore, I would imagine I should just tag everything by how I would search, etc.

Creating your own tags, etc.. is ok for importing/exporting correct?

You don't see any other drawbacks other than what was mentioned by organizing alphabetically, do you?
 
Ok my suggestion would be to take a look at the way they have setup the 5e game system currently and even consider waiting. They have announced that large changes are coming to the 5e game system in the next 1-2 weeks. This could change the answer for you.
 
daplunk said:
Ok my suggestion would be to take a look at the way they have setup the 5e game system currently and even consider waiting. They have announced that large changes are coming to the 5e game system in the next 1-2 weeks. This could change the answer for you.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks bro. I was just reading that huge post from Rob in the other forum where he was discussing this. I think I will resist the urge and wait a little bit.
 
I just put all my monsters in alpha order under dangers. I use tags to sort by type, challenge rating, environment, and other attributes that I find important.

Same with spells.

I find that I do a lot more categorization by foldering in with topics than I do with articles. I just browse, search, and reference them differently.
 
MNBlockHead said:
I just put all my monsters in alpha order under dangers. I use tags to sort by type, challenge rating, environment, and other attributes that I find important.

Same with spells.

I find that I do a lot more categorization by foldering in with topics than I do with articles. I just browse, search, and reference them differently.
Click to expand...

Did you structure them under a main topic like A,B,C,D,E, etc.. or did you name them so they all are ordered alphabetically in one long list?
 
BigSkyRPG said:
Did you structure them under a main topic like A,B,C,D,E, etc.. or did you name them so they all are ordered alphabetically in one long list?
Click to expand...

One long list. I do use aliases so for some the same monster may appear more than once in the list. Like Eye of Grummsh will also appear as Orc - Eye of Grummsh.

If I start importing the entire MM, Volo's Guide, Kobold Press's Tome of Beasts, etc. (assuming I can buy from the content market), I may want to create contains: Beasts A, Beasts B, Beasts C... etc. Just so I don't have to scrool so much. Then again, that is what search is for. :-)
 
The long lists type of layout is one thing that gets my OCD twitch going, lol. My preference is having everything organized within containers and if need be, sub-containers. I organize that way more for aesthetics, I like seeing my topics/articles in a compact format.

There's really no "right" way of organizing your information, I've had to change my strategy several times and I'm sure I'll end up changing it many more times until I find what works for me. Though, I am super grateful to all those who shared their videos with us, as they gave me an insight into how others do things and good starting points. If not for those videos, I'd probably still have an empty realm :eek:
 
For something like an orc specific prestige class I either wouldn't have an entry at all, too much work, or if I intended to have the PC's encounter a lot of orcs I'd have it be contained by the orc topic.
 
You know... If I was to remove all the content... I'm pretty sure we could get away with sharing the articles with just the names. This would save people a fair bit of work.

As far as monsters go I have the following entered:

MM, Volo's, Fifth Edition Foes and Tome of Beasts
 
mazzy said:
The long lists type of layout is one thing that gets my OCD twitch going, lol. My preference is having everything organized within containers and if need be, sub-containers. I organize that way more for aesthetics, I like seeing my topics/articles in a compact format.
Click to expand...

Ah, if you really want to scratch that OCD itch, use tags. :-)

With something like monsters, once you have hundred of them, no amount of foldering is going to be satisfactory. You'll use search to pull them up by name or will want to filter by CR, type, environment, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top