PDA

View Full Version : Militant Order of Cuiraécen



Beruin
09-28-2007, 02:47 AM
Discussion thread for Militant Order of Cuiraécen (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Militant Order of Cuiraécen). If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

Beruin
09-28-2007, 02:54 AM
Okay, I just started here, it's my first try with the wiki and there's not much here yet - and some things are still wrong from using other templates/Boilerplates.
However I really wanted to add a table for non-landed holdings as a template, you know with the headings
Holding - Level - Province/Ratings - Domain/Ruler
but I just couldn't get this darn thing to work.

Please help! (and explain what you did, so I might learn a bit)

As an afterthought, I really think we need a template for non-landed domains, at least I couldn't find one. However, as should be obvious I know next to nothing about creating wikis, so I definitely can't do this.
Any takers?

Sorontar
09-28-2007, 03:33 AM
The tables that normally indicate holdings for provinces etc use a {{Domain/Begin}} template and a {{Domain/End}} template call. The first template sets the headings and defines the table styles and supposedly uses another style as well (but I can't find that one). The second just closes the table off.

cf. http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Template:Domain/Begin
cf. http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Template:Domain/End

So if you want to set your own headings you will either have to write your own {{Holdings/Begin}} template or manually cut and paste the relevant stuff from the {{Domain/Begin}} one. For instance:



{| {{BRWiki: Domain/Table}}
! Holding !! Level !! Province/Ratings !! Domain/Ruler
|-
||Joe's Taverns || 2 || Roesone || Ghoried/Joe
|-
||Josie's Haberdashery || 3 || Roesone || Roseone/Josie
</noinclude>
|width=5|
|}


See this in action at http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/BrWiki:Sandbox/2

However, people so far have generally just used the domain style, even if it gives information about holdings not related to the organisation/individual being discussed in the article. What is it that you want that this style won't show? Or is it a matter of clarity and relevancy?

For more help on understanding BRWiki tables, see http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Help:Table

Sorontar

Beruin
09-28-2007, 04:05 AM
Thanks Sorontar, that helped. I tried a few things you mentioned, but just couldn't get them to work right. Well, still learning..

As for the format, I believe this is clearer and it removes unnecessary clutter from the table (i.e. guild holdings for a temple). This makes it clearer, especially for larger non-landed domains stretching over several realms

kgauck
09-28-2007, 10:31 PM
I prefer the clutter. The format used the BoP has too little information. I prefer to use the realm format for all organizations because you can see at a glance who the domain interacts with, not just who has title to the land.

Beruin
09-29-2007, 02:11 PM
I should've put " unnecessary clutter" in quotation marks I guess, of course the information is not useless. However, my reasoning for preferring the format for other holdings - used not only in BoP, but also in the atlas and the other regional books - is that it's easier to see the geographical spread of a particular non-landed domain over several realms and to notice where it is strong and where weak.

That's usually the first information I want to know, whether as player or DM. To then see with whom the domain interacts, I'd consult the relevant realm entries.

Should we do a poll to keep the format consistent in the wiki or is this not that important?

AndrewTall
09-29-2007, 08:36 PM
I prefer the clutter, but would suggest highlighting the temple column to show it more clearly. Or given I don't know how to highlight on a wiki table, putting the temple stuff in bold.

I'd note that the temple may well hold law and / or guilds so a simple column either mixes up holdings or misses out 'non' core holdings for each organisation

kgauck
09-29-2007, 08:51 PM
I do think consistency is important. Each domain should navigate like every other domain.

I like the idea of being able to see the geographical spread of temples, but I generally find that its just as easy with the standard format as it is with the limited format. As long as the standard format follows a sensible geographic order (rather than being alphabetical or random) its pretty easy to see where a domain has sway.

I would also like to see maps. I think the perfect map would use the icons from the Gorgon's alliance to denote where and how big a holding is, but I suspect the introduction of Microprose's efforts would prove a stumbling block for the IP issues.

Magnus Argent
09-30-2007, 01:13 AM
IMO, a realm table should contain data pertaining to one realm and a domain table should contain data pertaining to one domain.

They serve two different functions: a realm table shows all of the provinces within a realm and lists the regents who rule the various holdings within that realm. A domain table shows all of the holdings within a domain and lists the rulers of the provinces in which those holdings reside.

Neither table depicts the 'whole picture' but at least thanks to wiki we can easily cross-reference the two.

kgauck
09-30-2007, 02:34 AM
Why should there be two functions for tables of what are two very similar types of organizations?

To broaden the question, why should the format of a landed domain and a priestly domain, be different, especially if a priestly domain and a guild domain are formated the same?

I contend that all domains should have the same format, and use the same template. Whether they have provinces is really immaterial to how a domain should be presented.

Magnus Argent
09-30-2007, 05:26 AM
I agree that all Domains should have tables that use the same format. But i also judge Beruin to be correct when he says that we do not currently have such tables. What we currently have are tables populated with Realm data. There only time these tables show a complete picture (e.g. depict the holdings of an entire Domain) is if a Domain just happens to be contained wholly within the confines of one Realm.

For example, Roesone's holding table shows the entirety of Marlae Roesone's domain.

In contrast, Talinie's holding table does not show the entirety of any regent's domain.

Now, many of us know the campaign setting well enough to know that we need to look at Boeruine's holding table in order to see the Thane's temple holdings there but a new player who is visiting our site to learn about Cerilia would not know this.

Look at it from the perspective of a new player who just joined his first Birthright pbem campaign. What if the DM instructed said new player to create his domain sheet based on the information posted here on the Birthright.net wiki section? He's playing Guilder Kalien. Or Torelle Anivaras. Or Mheallie Beiron. Or the Mhor. I don't see any table that gives all of their domain holdings. I happen to know which realms each of those character's Domains extend into but a new player would not.

If were the new player in the above scenario, I would want to find all of my holdings for my domain in one neat, concise table.

Wouldn't you?

AndrewTall
09-30-2007, 07:55 AM
I agree that all Domains should have tables that use the same format. But i also judge Beruin to be correct when he says that we do not currently have such tables. What we currently have are tables populated with Realm data. There only time these tables show a complete picture (e.g. depict the holdings of an entire Domain) is if a Domain just happens to be contained wholly within the confines of one Realm.

Fair point. We could modify this by adding 'other realms' rows beneath the main table to reflect holdings of the domain ruler in other realms - that would solve the problem for the domain ruler.

For the guilds/etc we'd need them to have their own page - and add a column for 'ruler' then copy and paste from the various realms to create their table.

I think it might be best to add the ruler column anyway - not all realms have just the one.

kgauck
09-30-2007, 09:02 AM
If were the new player in the above scenario, I would want to find all of my holdings for my domain in one neat, concise table.

Look at the entries for the Northern Reformed Church of Sarimie or the Eastern Temple of Nesirie. These have every holding in the domain. I am absolutly amazed to see a claim that such a table doesn't exist.

Magnus Argent
09-30-2007, 09:42 AM
Look at the entries for the Northern Reformed Church of Sarimie or the Eastern Temple of Nesirie. These have every holding in the domain. I am absolutly amazed to see a claim that such a table doesn't exist.

Ah! I stand corrected. Thank you. Perhaps I missed it because of all of the unnecessary clutter.

Beruin
09-30-2007, 09:42 PM
Perhaps I missed it because of all of the unnecessary clutter.

Lol, that's a point for me I'd say. Here are two more reasons I prefer the domain format to the realm format:

- I'm lazy and I find it easier to just type up the relevant holdings for a domain than to look up and include all neighbouring holdings. For MoC, this would include nearly all of Ghoere, Tuornen and Mhoried. And granted, for Anuire you can copy&paste this information, but other regions don't have a complete realm write-up yet, so someone who wanted to work on a temple or guild there, would also have to do the write-up of several realms. I for one find it easier to work on a smaller batch at a time.

- I noted an inconsistency in the current Domain Holding Tables. Some realm descriptions group temple and guild holdings (haven't checked for sources) under the domain name or its abbreviation (i.e. Militant Order=MOC), while others use the name of the current regent (i.e. in the entry for Elinie, AM=Haelyn's Aegis, after the regent Anita Maricoere). I find this somewhat confusing and would strongly prefer the first option if we use the realm format, as regents can change, especially, when the domain in question is available as a PC realm. Both the Northern Reformed Church of Sarimie and the Eastern Temple of Nesirie use the second format and this doesn't make it easier to quickly identify their holdings on the domain table (amid the unnecessary clutter;) ).

just my two cents...

Lee
10-02-2007, 09:00 AM
In a message dated 9/30/2007 5:42:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

Here are two more reasons I prefer the domain format to the realm format:



I`m going to agree with this, I`d like to see both formats, too.

Lee.



************************************** See what`s new at http://www.aol.com

AndrewTall
10-02-2007, 03:44 PM
Re: the inconsistency in descriptive initials.

We talked about this on the moderator threads but didn't really come to a conclusion (unless I forgot it).

Some domains are dominated by the regent, some are at least popularly known by the name of the organisation. Would you call a wizard source network 'TSR: The Silver River (Erin Romiene)' or 'ERo:Erin Romiene (The Silver River)' - which do you think would have more meaning to the average man in the street?

Churches would imo probably be known by the organisation which has stood for centuries - although some might be better known for a messiah like leader. Similarly law holdings could be known for the regent 'Tannen's Band' or the name of the order 'The Imperial Guard'.

Personally I'd go for the initials of the most important party as far as outsiders are concerned to represent the holding, and always use 3 letters (it reduces the risk of duplication). Where a regent is deliberately hiding their nature I'd use the organisation name.


In terms of information for a non-realm domain write up, I'd want to know not just my seasonal income, but growth opportunities (maximum size, rival holdings) and also potential allies and enemies - so I'd want the full monty realm-style write up.

This wouldn't actually take long.

You have 2 versions of the wiki open. In one you are editing the domain, in the other you bounce in and out of realms to copy and past rows from the realm holding summary. Should be fairly easy - just copy the whole thing and cut out the irrelevant lines...

Magnus Argent
10-03-2007, 01:31 PM
Abbreviations of names are used for landed regents, guild regents, and wizards. Temples are abbreviated using the name of the organization.

I think the main point to remember is that it is best if no two regents share the same descriptive initials. The preferred abbreviation uses the first letter of a regent's first and last names (SE for Suris Enlien, DA for Darien Avan, MB for Mheallie Beiron, OT for Orthien Tane, etc) with priority going to landed regents if two or more regents share the same initials (Aeric Boeruine is AB and Arien Borthein is Bor) to avoid confusion.

Wizards are usually abbreviated using their first name (Fh for Fhileraene, Is for Isaelie, He for Hermedhie, Rg for Regien) or the mantle by which they are known (SM for Sword Mage, Sw for Swamp Wizard, Sw2 for Swamp Wizard II, TBM for Three Brother Mages).

Exceptions abound but I cannot claim to know the reasons why for some of them (Daeric Mhoried is Mh (his title is the "Mhor"), the wizards Daeric Dhoesone and Torele Anivaras are DD and TA, respectively).

As far as I can tell, temples are the only organizations whose descriptive initials use the orginazational name over the regent's.