Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr_Miscellany 10-06-07, 08:33 PM	...there, I said it. The Realms forums are majorly flawed and have been for several years because they’re not oriented more towards Forgotten Realms Dungeon Masters. Sure one could point to the five (six, if you count the FR Forums FAQ) sections of the Realms HQ Sub Forums and say all the topics a Realms DM might need to talk about are contained therein. But I think that is precisely the problem because this puts more emphasis on the topic in a 'general' way, and not from the perspective and standpoint of how an RDM will work with or approach that topic. In the interests of finding topics and not seeing repeats of topics, I’d wager any WizO worth their title will say it’s better to keep things streamlined. They’d say it’s not good to have two possible areas where the topic of monsters, magic items and iconic Realms NPCs might come up. I would respond to such that the base priority of a WizO is not in keeping with the base priority of a Realms Dungeon Master, much less the products that are the D&D game and the Forgotten Realms. First, let us recognize that up until now the FR (and all WotC Forums) have been part of a marketing website that is www.wizards.com*. Let us also recognize that the D&D General Forums are similar to the Realms Forums in that they cover all the same topics as the Realms Forums do (although they divide them up a bit differently). However, the General Forums are different because they have sub forums dedicated specifically to players and Dungeon Masters (What's a DM to Do? (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24), DM Rules Counseling (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=536) and What's a Player to Do? (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=48)). It’s this last that I think is lacking on the Realms Sub Forums and needs to be added. The current structure of the forums lends itself to endless debates about old vs. new on any part of the Realms that’s changed over time (whether by sheer dint of timeline advancement or the advent of new editions of the game): Cosmology, the supposed ‘feel’ of one set of rules vs. another, etc... These debates don’t help RDMs or Realms Players. In fact, they hold them back by reinforcing negative stereotypes about the setting and current rules sets. The structure of the Realms Sub Forums should change just as WotC’s website is changing. Just as WotC intends to move away from pure marketing, by allowing gamers (whether player, DM or both) to have their own ‘space’ online and to post their own personal gaming content, so should the Realms Sub Forums be adjusted to allow a greater emphasis on rules, mechanics and free-to-do-what’s-needed Realms DMing so that Realms Dungeon Masters can have a forum dedicated to the fun work (not an oxymoron, really!) of building Forgoten Realms Campaigns (regardless of what game rules edition they use) without fear of having Realms-nazis and older edition fanatics butting in and ruining their threads with off-topic whining and ranting. The almost team-oriented, ‘look at what other fans are doing’ approach WotC is trying to build up on its website should not skip the Forgotten Realms. I hope that the Code of Conduct will be amended to allow WizOs the leeway to issue warnings for people that disrupt this creative process. I also hope internally that WotC instructs its forum moderators to help shape the Realms Sub Forums to be more conducive to the creative sharing and posting of custom gaming material that RDMs write for their home campaigns. :whatsthis *This is the first big clue for those of you wanting to solve the mystery of why we can’t talk about the novels on these forums, btw.
sillaric_culdanin 10-06-07, 08:41 PM	Wow, most heartily seconded here. As a Realms DM I can say with utmost honesty that I rarely post anything of substance in terms of questions about running the Realms for the reasons you mentioned. There are a number of great loremasters here and their efforts are incredibly appreciated (by me at least) but the forums should be divided in a way that allows both the expansive lore and the reality of truly running the Realms to shine independent of one another.
Rauric 10-06-07, 08:41 PM	It would be cool. A place where you could ask advice and get kind responses. A place where you could talk about how to kill off certain NPCs and not get shouted down as a heretic. A place ect, ect... It still could be a good idea all joking aside.
Mr_Miscellany 10-07-07, 04:18 PM	For those of you out there....what would you like to see change? Any other suggestions? :::: I think it would be cool to have a Cities section where they set up a sub-forum for Realms cities, then RDMs post cool NPCs, places, encounters and whatnot from their campaigns that they've used with some success. Each person could format their post at the top with what edition they were playing under, time period, etc...so people can quickly search through and find things relevant to what they themselves are doing. Of course I'd just read 'em all anyway. ;)
Dark Wizard 10-07-07, 04:26 PM	I sub-forum set up with the express rule of keeping out major debates and focused on creation of fan material could be a good idea. However, it would have to be moderated more than these boards are. About as much as the WizOs are shifting all 4E threads to the 4E forums.
Lord Karsus 10-07-07, 11:26 PM	*This is the first big clue for those of you wanting to solve the mystery of why we can’t talk about the novels on these forums, btw. -It's no mystery. There used to be a Novels section, but it was erased. I can provide a link to the 'explanation', if you like.
Mr_Miscellany 10-07-07, 11:50 PM	-It's no mystery. There used to be a Novels section, but it was erased. I can provide a link to the 'explanation', if you like. PM me, if you wouldn't mind? I'd love to read it to see just how accurate it is. ;) ::::::::::::::: LK, any changes you'd like to see to the Realms Sub Forums to help Realms Dungeon Masters out?
Lord Karsus 10-07-07, 11:54 PM	LK, any changes you'd like to see to the Realms Sub Forums to help Realms Dungeon Masters out? -Specifically, I don't really think about sub-forums are really necessary. I do wish, however, that all of the 4e speculation and such would die down, so that we can all go "back to business"- "business" answering technical FR D&D queries, and debating various subjects. Worrying, or the lack thereof, about the future of the setting is fine, but, personally, enough is enough already. -I'll send that PM your way.
MarkusTay63 10-08-07, 12:10 AM	Those are excellent ideas, Miscellany, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. I don't want to bring any of the negativity into yet another thread, but the Realms, they are a'changin'. The sub-forums about "Whats a DM to do?" would work in the future, but creating ones about cities that might not exist in a few months is counter-productive. I would like to see something like this after 4e is implemented, becasue then we will have a better idea about what kind of sub-forums will be viable.
Straploknight 10-09-07, 08:42 PM	I guess you guys missed the memo about the super secret DM only sub-sub forum?
Lord Karsus 10-10-07, 08:18 AM	I guess you guys missed the memo about the super secret DM only sub-sub forum? -Did we? Great... -...Did you know that it's my policy to kill the messenger?
Straploknight 10-11-07, 09:46 AM	-Did we? Great... -...Did you know that it's my policy to kill the messenger? Hah, lucky for me there is no spartan hate pit nearby :P
Keahi19 10-11-07, 10:33 AM	Well I agree, its kinda hard to talk about what to do as a DM if the world is changing. Unless you don't care a hoot about it. *Shrugs* Either way the game I DM is in an entire other plane of existence, so the change only matters to me for other reasons. But it would be nice to get some basic business done on just how to be a good DM in general.
Mr_Miscellany 10-12-07, 08:05 PM	I'd like to see a sub-forum dedicated to people's actual campaigns, with an emphasis not on just "what's going on" in their games, but on the how's and why's of what people changed, modified or added to their Realms Campaigns. Sort of like the "How Do You Customize Your Realms?" thread, but with the understanding that people are going to keep coming back to their thread about their Realms Campaigns with updates and anecdotes about decisions they've made, are going to make, and will likely reverse....all in response to player behaviour, the game rules, etc.... :)
Keahi19 10-15-07, 02:53 PM	Ok now that does sound awesome. I am on board with that 100%. Now how do we get it to the people who would actually put it into practice?
Mr_Miscellany 10-17-07, 09:22 PM	I think the best way to go is to write an honest to goodness paper leter and send it via snail mail to WotC. We'd have to keep to the point by talking only about what we look to the Realms Sub Forums for in the way of services/usability, and how that expectation/want isn't being met by the forums as they stand now. Anyone have any suggestions on who to address the letter to?
ORC_Paradox 10-17-07, 11:42 PM	Why don't the DMs use the current forums? That's more or less how they've been set up. DMs can discuss people and places, classes races and monsters, Magic Deiteis and the Cosmos, and combat arms and armor in the appropriate forums. So, what's stopping them? ;)
Mr_Miscellany 10-18-07, 02:10 AM	I belive it is becuase those forums are not specifically about the Realms. While those forums could readily play host to what we're talking about here, they are separate enough to be truly 'separate'. :)
ORC_Paradox 10-18-07, 03:42 AM	Not really, they actually ARE Realms specific boards. "Faerûnian People & Places" is the full title for the board. The same could be said about the other boards. The DMs are just choosing not to post there. There's already a Class board on the D&D side. The class board here is for FR. :D
Mr_Miscellany 10-18-07, 08:07 PM	With respect, you're missing the point. Those forums aren't pointed at Realms Dungeon Masters. Yes, much of what's considered 'on topic' for that sub-forum is information DMs will consider when running a campaign, but the nature of that sub-forum makes it open to everyone. That sub-forum isn't about RDMs talking to other RDMs. It's not set up for them (nor is there any notes from the WizO's saying, "Hey, keep it to DM talk, please.") and so it's not as useful, as anyone can chime in with their 2 coppers, which (depending on the topic) will usually derail a thread. Realms Dungeon Masters need a place in the Realms Forums that is dedicated to them, so they can find help to work through their Realms-related campaign issues without all the static that naturally comes from the other regulars around here who don't really care that people are looking for help (instead only that they be able to hammer away with their opinion on all the hot-button topics again and again). I don't mean to sound disrespectful to you WizO_Paradox, I just frankly don't believe the current setup of the Realms Sub-Forums promotes active discussions between Realms Dungeon Masters. If anything they're IMO (unintentionally) set up to dissuade RDMs from posting here...that is, they might post once or twice, then fail, then at worst not come back here or at best stick around but not seek campaign advice here. You can't run a game without a DM. :)
ORC_Paradox 10-19-07, 03:36 AM	I don't mean to sound disrespectful to you WizO_Paradox, I just frankly don't believe the current setup of the Realms Sub-Forums promotes active discussions between Realms Dungeon Masters. It doesn't sound disrespectful at all. :) What we've tried to do is avoid duplicate boards from appearing. It encourages going to other forums than hang around just one. For example, "Would you let all your characters have Cleave as a free feat" isn't really Realms specific, and should probably go on the other boards. Now, if the DMs don't step up and post DM discussions, then it's the DM's fault there aren't DM oriented threads. If people don't want to discuss their favorite colored dice, you can't make them no matter how bad you want to talk about dice. So if there are more DM oriented threads, we could look at it and say "We should consoladate them all on one forum. But, what if a DM forum was made and there were very few or no posts? It might be big at first, but if it slows down to the point where there's maybe one post a week, we might have to get rid of it. At least, that's how I'd look at it. We've had forums come up out of nothing before, after all. :) Now, having said that, you don't need to write a letter if you feel there's a need for it. Just let the CM team know about it since WizOs aren't the ones to make such decisions anymore. :)
johnkretzer 10-19-07, 11:21 PM	I don't get it. I mean I have seen some of what you are talking about. Though I see mostly alot of opinions on why such a move is not a good idea etc. Personaly if I have a idea for a twist on the Realms I would perfer negative comments by those 'Realms-nazis'( again I'll ask you to not use nazi in descibing somebody who has a strong feeling about a game...as nazi has RL meaning) then the people who tell me it is "OK it is your game you can do whatever you want..." I mean the only reason I come here seeking advice is to get both sides of the issues not just one. Those who just post insultingly or annoying well that is why we have the ignore feature. And they tend to become well known. Also I am curious how you would go setting up a DM only boards? I mean how would one prove that he is a DM? Or what about people like me who both play and DM?
sillaric_culdanin 10-20-07, 04:43 AM	Generally John, I think the idea would be an honor-system of sorts. There are many many regulars on the Boards that are incredibly well-versed in the Lore and History of the Realms but are very open about the fact that they neither run nor play in the Realms. The problem with that is that to a Realms DM (someone like both you and I) advice on running the Realms from an 'arm-chair general' so to speak, isn't as useful. The goal of specifically and clearly seperating out the sub-forum would be to lessen the number of thread derailment as people pop to say, "YOU DID WHAT? THAT'S A SIN AGAINST ED GREENWOOD! IN ED'S REALMS THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN!" and other things of that nature. Please no one take offense... I love Ed and his creation and say a silent thanks to his briliance every time I get my new FR novels and sourcebooks from Amazon (I used to get one treasure trove each month... but now WotC bizzarrely releases things three or four times a month). Not sure if this helps to clear things up at all, or not. I for one love Mr. M's idea and would jump at the chance. Mr. M, we could try something like that on the forums as is. Maybe we could try posting threads here or in the appropriate sub-forum fronted with something like: [RDM Only] Mask stealing the Darkness portfolio from Shar... story ideas wanted. Or [RDM Only] Need help integrated Fortress of the Yuan-ti into a Realms campaign. If we completely disregard any posts that aren't productive then maybe people that don't have anything useful to say we eventually learn to stay out? What do you think?
GothicDan 10-20-07, 06:24 PM	I think this is already at work. Every DM operates on different standards of what he feels is best for his game. I, personally (when I do have the time to run games, and players) combine equal parts: A) Player desire B) Personal desire C) Consistency Having DM-only boards would limit discussion, yes, but limitation of discussion is, in my opinion, a terrible thing to do, and everyone has different opinions on what they want as a response when they post something, as John pointed out above.
Mr_Miscellany 10-20-07, 10:00 PM	What do you think? Sillaric, I think that’s an excellent summary. I believe you’ve explained things far better than I did. For the Realms Sub-Forums as they stand now, [RDM Only] or possibly just [RDM] is a great way to make it clear who’s doing the asking, and also answers John’s question about how we identify ourselves. That way (well, hopefully) people will realize they’re about to click on a thread pertaining to campaign questions and ideas and respond/behave appropriately. I think we’re going to have to help each other out if we decide to do this and certain of our threads get trolled. The more of us that report problems, the more likely the WizOs are to respond. I wonder if this approach is how the P.E.A.C.H. acronym I see around here caught on? ::::::::: In response to Dan’s/John’s comments: I don’t believe the fact that people can have varied standards on what they are looking for in terms of responses will be harmed by an RDM calling out that they’re looking for other DM’s opinions (or at least DM-type advice). Nor do I believe ‘limiting’ discussion is by its nature bad. We all naturally decide what threads we’re going to respond to just by reading thread titles to see if they interest us. If I identify myself as a Realms Dungeon Master in my thread topic title, then all I’m doing is giving more information in the title to help people decide if they want to respond or not. If that ends up turning away people that don’t DM or who might only be interested in the topic when discussed in a more general manner, then where’s the harm? ::::::::::::: It just occured to me that by posting [RDM] in thread titles, us RDMs here on the boards can begin to recognize each other and network more here in teh forums, to our mutual benefit.
Dark Wizard 10-20-07, 10:11 PM	It just occured to me that by posting [RDM] in thread titles, us RDMs here on the boards can begin to recognize each other and network more here in teh forums, to our mutual benefit. This is probably the most feasible method to achieve what you're talking about. However I don't believe a tag like [RDM] should serve as a specific ID of individuals who have established their exclusive self-contained network within the boards. Instead, have it worked like the P.E.A.C.H. tag, which simply identifies the predefined critical feedback style the OP wishes to be used to evaluate his/her concept within the specified thread. This is more open in that it's not promoting an unenforceable elitist club of self-declared RDMs.
johnkretzer 10-20-07, 11:12 PM	I agree the RDMs tagline is propably the best way to go with what you want.
Mr_Miscellany 10-21-07, 02:11 AM	This is more open in that it's not promoting an unenforceable elitist club of self-declared RDMs. I think you're over exaggerating things. RDMs finding other RDMs and knowing to look for each other by that tag line doesn't promote elitism, it promotes (a form of) networking. It allows us to be able to PM each other, as well as dialogue openly on the forums, all in the name of bouncing ideas and improving our Realms Campaigns. I'd turn on people in an instant if things ever got so bad that RDMs were considered by the silent majority to be as bad as some of the lore-only people can be on these forums. :::::::::::::: Long term, Realms DMs still need their own sub-forum.
johnkretzer 10-21-07, 02:23 AM	I think you're over exaggerating things. RDMs finding other RDMs and knowing to look for each other by that tag line doesn't promote elitism, it promotes (a form of) networking. It allows us to be able to PM each other, as well as dialogue openly on the forums, all in the name of bouncing ideas and improving our Realms Campaigns. I'd turn on people in an instant if things ever got so bad that RDMs were considered by the silent majority to be as bad as some of the lore-only people can be on these forums. :::::::::::::: Long term, Realms DMs still need their own sub-forum. Who would you consider qualified to join this RDM network? I mean I really can't think of what you are talking about here. Most of the trolls I can ignore. Also sometimes the lore-only people bring a prespective that sometimes DMs don't see. Or players can bring a wonderful p.o.v. to these issues.
sillaric_culdanin 10-21-07, 02:34 AM	John, I kinda feel like your being difficult for no apparent reason. If you don't feel that this would be useful to you (even though you've made it clear you are an experienced DM that could IMO benefit from this) why continue to argue against M, who is in support of it? Your points are perfectly valid about certain perspectives being valid, but lore-only opinions that are completely negative don't add to a discussion. I have nothing but respect to Dan and LK in terms of Realmslore, but I know neither has run games in the Realms (meaning they don't have the direct experience of combining the mechanics and lore across the tabletop). Please don't take that as me picking on either of them, I'm not, I'm just using them as an example because they have a well-known presence and reputation around here. On the flip side I would love it if people like Gray or Old Sage (or you or msatran for that matter if you were interested) who are open about the fact that they run current long-running Realms games would see the [RDM] tag and jump in to take a look. If you don't like whats involved don't post... but the idea is that responses like, "You have Cyric ascendant? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of! Mystra should just kick his lunatic behind back to Pandemonium (or wherever he lives on the Tree)!" There are no credentials needed to enter [RDM] threads other than being an RDM AND/OR being willing to engage in useful and productive discussion... if you are not an RDM OR you are not willing to be productive or useful then your presence wouldn't be welcome so posting would be the equivalent of trolling. That's my take on it.
Dark Wizard 10-21-07, 02:38 AM	I think you're over exaggerating things. RDMs finding other RDMs and knowing to look for each other by that tag line doesn't promote elitism, it promotes (a form of) networking. It allows us to be able to PM each other, as well as dialogues openly on the forums, all in the name of bouncing ideas and improving our Realms Campaigns. It's still impossible to enforce, yet it implies anyone who uses it is qualified to some extent according to some criterion, but there is no way to check. You find these people by merit anyway, by the previous feedback they give to other similarly themed topics. You don't need an RDM tag to PM other posters or discuss DM-planning with them. In the end it will serve little function and hopefully not changed into a set up for something unforeseen. I think it is more important to not just identify the people but the topic and the way the OP wishes the topic to be discussed. An RDM tag in your signature is a passive thing while an active PEACH style tag is telling everyone to be aware of the preferred rules of discussion for that specific tread. If you use the RDM tag in an active way it becomes a PEACH style tag anyway so the RDM as an identifier of individuals is mostly redundant. I'd turn on people in an instant if things ever got so bad that RDMs were considered by the silent majority to be as bad as some of the lore-only people can be on these forums. I think you're over exaggerating on that also. I think that says about as much on this concept as you do on the type of Realms fan you're using as a bad example.
sillaric_culdanin 10-21-07, 03:00 AM	I agree that the sig wouldn't be as useful (unless they have myspace-style groups as part of Gleemax... that might be very cool). With regard to M being dramatic... I have to back him on how crazy people on these boards can get. The problem is that people feel that since its a public forum that they feel some obligation to show off their brainpans in the form of encyclopedic knowledge of Realmslore and history for no better reason to feel superior... either to the OP or to the designers. It is remarkably prevalent and very discouraging to those that don't post 15 times a day.
Dark Wizard 10-21-07, 03:19 AM	I agree that the sig wouldn't be as useful (unless they have myspace-style groups as part of Gleemax... that might be very cool). Then it might work, it needs something more than a simple tag, a bit more substantial. With regard to M being dramatic... I have to back him on how crazy people on these boards can get. The problem is that people feel that since its a public forum that they feel some obligation to show off their brainpans in the form of encyclopedic knowledge of Realmslore and history for no better reason to feel superior... either to the OP or to the designers. It is remarkably prevalent and very discouraging to those that don't post 15 times a day. I've seen plenty of times where one of the encyclopedic posters merely gave a fact in a very dry, terse, neutral manner and the OP or some other person gets very defensive and confrontational about it, even when they asked specifically for that detail. Feels about the same on both sides. I would like to think I stay out of most of those incidents, mostly because I'm not super-knowledgeable about the Realms and I do want most answers given me to be concise and direct.
sillaric_culdanin 10-21-07, 03:30 AM	Hmmm... maybe this time we should agree to disagree. I for one welcome concise, dry and neutral. What I don't welcome is the use of terms like 'stupid', 'idiotic' and 'pointless' when feedback, not a useless judgement of the idea was asked for. That's just my personal experience though... yours has obviously been very different.
Dark Wizard 10-21-07, 03:44 AM	I think it's a lot rarer than most feel, but the bad experiences have a strong tendency to linger. A lot of it is misunderstanding of what the OP wants and what the responders can give, which is why I feel a PEACH style thread notice might be a good direct way to set up some quick ground rules to keep most of the problems down. The "stupid" type comments have picked up a bit as of late, but we know what brought that on. As much as I've seen the fact-people get out of hand, I've seen as many instances of the other side being just as bad, but that's just me.
johnkretzer 10-21-07, 03:47 AM	John, I kinda feel like your being difficult for no apparent reason. If you don't feel that this would be useful to you (even though you've made it clear you are an experienced DM that could IMO benefit from this) why continue to argue against M, who is in support of it? Your points are perfectly valid about certain perspectives being valid, but lore-only opinions that are completely negative don't add to a discussion. I have nothing but respect to Dan and LK in terms of Realmslore, but I know neither has run games in the Realms (meaning they don't have the direct experience of combining the mechanics and lore across the tabletop). Please don't take that as me picking on either of them, I'm not, I'm just using them as an example because they have a well-known presence and reputation around here. On the flip side I would love it if people like Gray or Old Sage (or you or msatran for that matter if you were interested) who are open about the fact that they run current long-running Realms games would see the [RDM] tag and jump in to take a look. If you don't like whats involved don't post... but the idea is that responses like, "You have Cyric ascendant? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of! Mystra should just kick his lunatic behind back to Pandemonium (or wherever he lives on the Tree)!" There are no credentials needed to enter [RDM] threads other than being an RDM AND/OR being willing to engage in useful and productive discussion... if you are not an RDM OR you are not willing to be productive or useful then your presence wouldn't be welcome so posting would be the equivalent of trolling. That's my take on it. I am not trying to be diffitcult here, and overall I agree with Mr. Miscellany view on somethings in regard to this subject. I am trying to find out though what he does consider to be disruptive to a thread. I mean take your above example of the Cyric Ascendence thread. Sure that is evidently not very helpful. But what about a post that states things like... "While I personaly don't think this would be a good idea here is what might be some responses...." goes on to list possible consequences or holes in the idea. Is this helpful? Or is this disruptive? I mean it can definitly be called negative. I have seen posts like this devolve a thread into a flame war. Why because people (rather they be RDMs or lore-only people) Have responded with to them with such fevor it is not even funny, because it is not the way they see it. Though I think I'll stop commenting on this thread as it seems that I am disrupting this thread with my p.o.v. and I think I am on Mr.M ignore list anyway due to some comments he made about the people who don't like changes and my comments back to him. So good luck in this.
sillaric_culdanin 10-21-07, 04:52 AM	John, I'm very sorry. I must have given you the wrong idea with the wording of my post... I don't feel you're being disruptive... just argumentative and I didn't see why. If you have issues with Mr. M from before, I'm sorry... I didn't know. With regard to your example, it depends. If someone posted their idea of Cyric in ascendance in their campaign and the story behind it and asked to have the story judged from a continuity or quality standpoiint then a response that details theoretical 'holes' in the idea (and notice that I didn't forget the consequences part) would probably be useful. On the other hand, if the OP posted in an attempt to say, get ideas for a BBEG in his campaign or maybe some of the BBEG's cronies and the Cyric Ascendant part is just in the background then poking holes in the OP's Cyric Ascendant backdrop is just useless, biased negativity for the sake of expressing distaste in a particular character. I'm sorry if it seems like I picked Cyric to poke at you, I didn't as I don't have particularly strong feelings about Cyric either way... but I know he's a sensitive issue for you. I for one would appreciate your input in any RDM threads I start as long you didn't bring your distaste for 4e and for the direction of the 4e Realms into it, because your prespective as a fellow DM can be exceptionally useful.
sillaric_culdanin 10-21-07, 04:59 AM	DW, Hmmm... you make a great point and I agree with using the PEACH style header as the best answer ATM. That said, if there was an entire sub-forum for that purpose it would alleviate the need for the header and it would decrease the possibility of your thread getting shuffled down on a busy day on the Boards (but one wherein a lot of Realms DMs weren't present). With regard to 'other side' being bad, I assume you mean overreactive and I can't disagree. I was more referring to those in the middle ground (and once again I'm speaking from the admittedly narrow perspective of personal experience) that honestly post hoping for useful feedback and get rude words in response. Maybe I was raised differently, but stupid is a mean word to me and I'd much rather someone swear at me than insult my intelligence. Such is life though.
Reneshat 10-21-07, 06:48 AM	I don't think it would be difficult to handle the RDM thing, as long as the emphasis was on the method of the discussion, and the topics discussed rather than the people involved. Obviously people like John or Mr. Miscellany would have more weight than, say me (who has never been able to get the players for a FR game) when it comes to ideas, but I see no reason why players, or even wannabe DMs like myself wouldn't have helpful and constructive things we could say. I realize that Mr. Miscellany didn't mean that people that wanted to take a positive part of the conversation would be kicked out if they weren't running a game, but I think this is an important distinction. The RDM header should say that this is a discussion about application in a game, not necessarily the Lore or the value of the Lore itself. This obviously isn't as optimal as what he was hoping for, but if we start to see a lot of use out of these threads, it would be a lot easier to argue for the sub-forum so that things are better organized. Rich Baker doesn't want there to be any support for Realms DMs.
ORC_Paradox 10-21-07, 06:57 AM	I think the RDM tag is a great idea. :) It would better identify the threads, and if it looks like there's enough to warrant a separate board, the issue might be re-visited. (Having said that, just make the threads naturally. Don't spam the boards with them as an excuse to try to get another board. :D )
sillaric_culdanin 10-21-07, 06:58 AM	Very eloquently put Reneschat, thanks! That's exactly the point I think... and if you make your point with thought and care then I really don't think your opinions would be given any less weight :]. **EDIT** - WizO Paradox... now would we do that? ;)
GothicDan 10-21-07, 01:07 PM	I'd like to hail Paradox as an enlightened and fair WizO. GG! Good luck with the new forum/threads. I promise I'll post on it once I actually get enough player enthusiasm for an FR game. ;)
johnkretzer 10-21-07, 02:40 PM	John, I'm very sorry. I must have given you the wrong idea with the wording of my post... I don't feel you're being disruptive... just argumentative and I didn't see why. If you have issues with Mr. M from before, I'm sorry... I didn't know. With regard to your example, it depends. If someone posted their idea of Cyric in ascendance in their campaign and the story behind it and asked to have the story judged from a continuity or quality standpoiint then a response that details theoretical 'holes' in the idea (and notice that I didn't forget the consequences part) would probably be useful. On the other hand, if the OP posted in an attempt to say, get ideas for a BBEG in his campaign or maybe some of the BBEG's cronies and the Cyric Ascendant part is just in the background then poking holes in the OP's Cyric Ascendant backdrop is just useless, biased negativity for the sake of expressing distaste in a particular character. I'm sorry if it seems like I picked Cyric to poke at you, I didn't as I don't have particularly strong feelings about Cyric either way... but I know he's a sensitive issue for you. I for one would appreciate your input in any RDM threads I start as long you didn't bring your distaste for 4e and for the direction of the 4e Realms into it, because your prespective as a fellow DM can be exceptionally useful. Actualy you picking Cyric is a perfect example as I never much cared for the character, though even with that I can usualy give good advice in on a subject that I personaly dislike. Though I try to keep a open mind about threads asking for advice I'll be honest sometimes personal opinion comes into it. It just the nature of it. I'll try to keep it to a minium though. As for me bringing my distaste for 4th edition and the direction of the Realms I really try not to do that either to threads not about the changes. Which I think I have done a great job at. I think atleast. Also I didn't post here to annoy Mr.M. As I said it is a good idea as I have seen threads asking for advice get besieged by two people argueing lore(Though personaly RDMs and lore-only people have gotten into this about equaly). I just thinking laying down some ground rules is a good idea on how to post and on how to respond to post.
sillaric_culdanin 10-21-07, 04:10 PM	John, very good thoughts! Mr. M, care to have the honor of drafting a quick guideline here for some general guidelines regarding the [RDM] Tag? After that you and I and anyone else interested in participating in the [RDM] Pilot Program can link the rules in our sigs and point to it when the trolls or pointlessly mean people show up to derail our threads then claim ignorance of the rules. **EDIT** - Dan, I know its not really the same but you should really go over to Myth-Weavers and join the community. I realize that PbP gamaing isn't a complete replacement for tabletop but I've had some truly fulfilling experiences over there (including an Eberron game I've been running for over two years of realtime!).
Mr_Miscellany 10-22-07, 12:48 AM	On the other hand, if the OP posted in an attempt to say, get ideas for a BBEG in his campaign or maybe some of the BBEG's cronies and the Cyric Ascendant part is just in the background then poking holes in the OP's Cyric Ascendant backdrop is just useless, biased negativity for the sake of expressing distaste in a particular character. Sillaric, you are my after-the-fact muse. This is twice you've accurately summarized what I've been feeling about these forums, but haven't always been able to put into words. So, the above is basically what I'm hoping to avoid via the [RDM] tag and what I find to be a major problem on these forums. ::::: Beyond that, the only guidelines I'd suggest are: That people who see the [RDM] tag realize it's fine to post in such threads regardless of what their DMing experience is. People read through the topic before they post. That people structure their responses as though they're talking to a Realms Dungeon Master. That before posting, people ask themselves: Will this be useful to the OP? People refrain from side conversations or disagreements in the thread, unless it's truly on-topic or useful. Reminder: the only people who can determine what is canon and lore for any given FR campaign is the DM running it with input from their players. :::::::: For example, suppose I start a thread with the [RDM] tag is used and the subject is one where I ask for help on how to make a campaign idea revolving around a famine due to lack of food supplies for Waterdeep as fun as possible. In this example, let's say I start my post with my belief that it's always been hard for me to accept that Waterdeep can feed itself, even that the design of the city in the rules across three editions is poor because of this, so this belief sort of let me to decided to focus on the idea of a great starving city for my game. There's a lot in that opening statement that could derail the thread (and has here, in the past). But let's apply the guidelines anyway: Now, anyone can post. DMing experience doesn't matter. People should read through my post, to see what I'm talking about, as well as subsequent posts, to be as up to speed as everyone else on what the content of the responses are. If anyone posts, they should post as though they're talking to a DM and try to consider if the post can be useful in some manner. If yes (and even if only in some small way and only potentially useful) then go for it! :::::::::::::::::::::::::: So...what to do if someone avoids teh guidelines? Well, inevitably someone will disagree with my premise about Waterdeep or will take umbrage that I'd say Waterdeep doesn't make sense, so all the canon material over time is somehow flawed. They'll also probably thrown in designer's names (like Steven Schend) and proclaim that he's so great, nothing he writes is flawed. But....I won't respond, and neither should anyone else. And that's really the key part, right there. I'm not here to argue, I'm here for creative help in the form of ideas and informaiton. Nor was my (again, hypothetical) thread posted just to play host to an argument, because that doesn't help me either. It also follows that any good natured people that try to shut down teh person who disagrees with me for the sake of the thread will in fact only be hurting the main thread because they’ll have starting a side-conversation with that person that gives them an incentive to respond and further derail things. Now, if the person who disagrees with my premises would instead point to page references, book titles or useful bits of online Realmslore (with appropriate links; say from the Chamber of Sages (http://forum.candlekeep.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=30) at Candlekeep’s forums, where Ed Greenwood and other Realms Designers respond to fan questions) that show how Waterdeep keeps itself fed, or even if we dared respond to the person who disagrees to ask him/her for such information, then that's useful, because this will show me what major resources of Waterdeep I could consider as 'having been compromised' in my game to help make my plot more believable. Then they can have their moment in the sun, content that they've 'proved wrong' another supposedly lore-ignorant gamer. But who cares, so long as we get useful information out of them, right? But if we can't get the disruptive people turned around to help us out as in the example above, then non-response is really the best response. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I think sillaric should be crowned best meta-viewer of all things boards related. Sillaric with crown ------> :king:
sillaric_culdanin 10-22-07, 05:01 PM	They love me... they really love me! Hehe, just kidding of course. Guidelines look concise. I for one will be linking it into my sig as a guide for others that wish to participate in any [RDM] discussions but can't seem to understand the spirit of what we're attempting. I'll be posting my first one today or tomorrow as I have a couple issues I could use help with.
johnkretzer 10-22-07, 09:02 PM	I would add this guideline...really it is just a reminder... 6)Reminder: the only people who can determine what is canon and lore for any given FR campaign is the DM running it with input from their players.
sillaric_culdanin 10-22-07, 09:05 PM	Mr. M, John's 6th guideline is very fitting. Would you edit that in so that we can link to a single post?
Dark Wizard 10-22-07, 09:16 PM	The guidelines look good, clear and concise. It should keep the focus on the individual game being discussed rather than side discussions. Maybe drop a point in there for everyone to not only offer suggestions and criticism but be polite at the same time. It might seem like a no-brainer, but who knows.
johnkretzer 10-22-07, 09:35 PM	The guidelines look good, clear and concise. It should keep the focus on the individual game being discussed rather than side discussions. Maybe drop a point in there for everyone to not only offer suggestions and criticism but be polite at the same time. It might seem like a no-brainer, but who knows. I agree though it will probably not stop people who aren't polite normally, but it can't hurt.
Mr_Miscellany 10-23-07, 02:19 AM	John's 6th guideline is very fitting. Would you edit that in so that we can link to a single post?I agree. Done! :D
DMD 11-06-07, 03:06 PM	Good idea. Anyone actually start an RDM discussion yet?
Mr_Miscellany 11-06-07, 09:27 PM	sillaric did....it's on page 2 or 3 of the main FR forum currently.