Should the Fauna and Flora sections be reorganized?

[avisarr]

I often find myself hunting for a specific animal or plant in the Fauna/Flora sections and can't find it simply because I can't remember if it's a grassland predator or a mountain predator. Or whether it's a desert flower or an arctic flower.

Is anyone else having this problem?

I'm beginning to think maybe the Fauna and Flora sections should be organized in a different way. Either to replace the current system (they are currently organized by terrain/climate/region type) or perhaps in addition to the current organizational scheme.

So, any opinions or requests? I can think of a couple of possible alternatives. Here are the choices as I see it:

1. Leave the Fauna and Flora sections alone.
2. Organize Fauna into one massive alphabetical list of animals. Do the same with plants.
3. Organize Fauna into broad categories of habitat: beasts of the sky, beasts of the land, beasts of the water.
4. Organize Fauna into broad categories of species: birds, reptiles, mammals, insects, magical beasts, etc. Flora would be organized into something similar... perhaps trees, bushes and plants, grasses, flowers, fungi moss and lichens, etc.

Right now, I'm leaning toward number 4. Seems like it's easier to remember that a torgat is a reptile rather than a forest dweller. yes? But before I start making huge alterations to the Fauna and Flora section, does anyone want to chime in with comments or concerns? Can anyone think of a better way to organize the Fauna and Flora sections?

And if you have any requests, nows the time to be heard.

[Delbareth]

I think that the actual classification is essential. It is the only way to know what character may encounter if they travel through Ahtabi desert or Saphir Main.
In the other hand, you're right. There is some problems. Isn't it possible to do a page asking which classification is wanted?
- Classified by terrain type
- Classified by creature type
- Classified by alphabetical order / No Classified
etc...

[blackfire83]

Delbareth has good points.

The current system is an absolute must for when you are running a campaign and need to quickly find things that the adventurers would run into in that specific area.

However, I'm with you in that it's oftentimes hard to find what you're looking for. I've tried several climates several times to find what I've wanted.

So my vote would end up  being for #4, but I think the old way is important too. Can we have both? Have our cake, and eat it, too?


-Dan

[avisarr]

Yep, I agree. Let's do both. I'm not sure exactly how I'm going to reorganize things, but I'll set it up so that you have multiple ways of finding stuff - by name, by creature type, by terrain type, etc.

[sid6.7]

i'd go with #3....sky land water...

[Kristian]

I like it hte way it is now, but I also think there should be a way of looking for the animal or plant you want alphabetically.

[phaeton]

Alphabetically would be nice .. even if it is a page of links that point to the existing regional pages. I can see reasons for accessing by name or by region ... so .. why not do both?

[tanis]

I would like it if however you do it, you subdivide by continent, because sometimes I forget that something lives on, say, Aggradar, and "encounter" it on Ithria or something like that.

[Spence]

Wouldnt a seperate page with an alphabetical list of the creatures with their names being links to their current locations be easier?  Then people could have their cake and eat it too...

[Kristian]

...which is always nice.