| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1gamer_zer0May 13, 2008 0:32:20 | The plan is to have 5 or 6 Previous Edition forums and a full slate of 4E Forums. The question we need to really answer this week is what will they be. Current 4E Forums: Community Business Astrid's Parlor OGL/D20 Races Classes Treasure & Rewards Monsters Magic 4E Rules 4E Concerns and Criticism 4E Adventures D&Di Article Discussion Dragon Magazine Dungeon Magazine Character Creator D&D Game Table Dungeon Master's Kit Technical Discussion Dragonlance Eberron Forgotten Realms Greyhawk Other Campaign Settings Classes, Races & Monsters Magic, Deities & Cosmology Combat, Arms & Armor People & Places Eberron General FR Forum FAQs Faerûnian People & Places Classes, Races & Monsters Combat, Arms & Armor Forgotten Realms General |
| #2gamer_zer0May 13, 2008 0:36:42 | Current Previous Edition Forums: D&D Forum FAQs Regdar's Repository Future Releases Races Classes and Prestige Classes Skills and Feats Equipment and Combat Magic and Spells Psionics Monsters' Lair Deities and the Planes D&D General What's a DM to Do? What's a Player to Do? Unearthed Arcana and House Rules Campaign Workshop Epic Level Digital D&D Oriental Adventures D&D Adventures Dragonlance Birthright Dark Sun Greyhawk Mystara Planescape Ravenloft Spelljammer Alternity Products D&D Out of Print |
| #3gamer_zer0May 13, 2008 0:37:32 | The question is: What forums should be in the 4E section (we can have as many as will get good traffic) and what should be the 5 or 6 that cover Previous Editions? |
| #4moblinMay 13, 2008 3:30:26 | My take on the future DnD forums: Current edition: (Will work as a 3.5e until the release of 4e) Community Business (well it's a no brainier. Belongs at the very top) D&D Forum FAQs (Another that belongs at the top. There's a need for new content probably) Future Releases (I feel that I should be up along with the other "out of game" topics) Races (No more needed then ever, with the level dependent racial powers) Classes (What is there to say. Just needed) Skills and Feats (There will probably be plenty how home brew and questions for these two topics so it should stay) Magic (It'll be swarmed, once 4e hits with, "this is broken") Treasure & Rewards (I think that this will be all about magic items but lets see.) Monsters (Not much to say. It's needed) D&D General (The necessary "doesn't fit anywhere else" forum) What's a DM to Do? (My personal favorite, do not touch ;)) What's a Player to Do? (Players need to complain too you know) Regdar's Repository (Not necessarily by that name but I liked it's essay style OP's) Settings: (All of the announced settings gets a similar block) Eberron General People & Places Magic, Deities & Cosmology Classes, Races & Monsters Forgotten Realms General People & Places Magic, Deities & Cosmology Classes, Races & Monsters will stop before forum maintenance and return later |
| #5wrecanMay 13, 2008 6:21:48 | DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
PREVIOUS EDITIONS
|
| #6ZherogMay 13, 2008 7:08:01 | Unanswered question from the previous thread, regarding the new "Player Advice" proposed for the 4e section:Some of my community in the What's a Player to Do forum are expressing some concerns, so I'm going to bring them here. * Previous Edition HQ I'd recommend moving "General" under "Adventures." Based on past experience with the board, having a general forum first (rather than a specific topic) invites folks to post everything there. |
| #7autumn_sereneMay 13, 2008 7:43:32 | Still need to add Character Optimization: 4th Edition to the list. I guess it makes most sense under the D&D Community area? |
| #8wrecanMay 13, 2008 7:55:37 | I agree with both Zherog and Autumn_Serene's suggestions and they are incoporated into my post. |
| #9hatsumaMay 13, 2008 8:08:41 | We need a D&D general board on the 4th edition boards ASAP so that we can stop using "concerns and criticisms" as D&D general. That can't be sending a good message. |
| #10autumn_sereneMay 13, 2008 8:11:56 | We need a D&D general board on the 4th edition boards ASAP so that we can stop using "concerns and criticisms" as D&D general. That can't be sending a good message. Good point! |
| #11wrecanMay 13, 2008 8:14:03 | I made slight name changes to my suggested Eberron and Forgotten Realms boards. |
| #12seTinyMay 13, 2008 8:45:33 | I've modified wrecan's initial proposal DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
PREVIOUS EDITIONS
I combined the RPG Classifieds and Trading posts, because that is how they are now and I don't see much reason in splitting them up. This way there is only one link to the area instead of two. (It may need better sub text) I expanded the D&Di area, since at the very beginning these should be used, especially during the beta when feedback will be wanted. I moved the links to where they will be more visible. I deleted the gleemax link because it is a major area and if we are going to start linking major areas then there will be a lot of links there. I moved the off-topic tavern to the community area because it is more of a community board. GZ I know wrecan put 7 boards in the previous edition when you said 5 or 6, hopefully this won't be a problem because I do agree with the breakdown. I renamed the General to Prev Ed General instead of Third Ed. IF 6 was a hard limit then I would suggest getting rid of the classic editions forum and have them use the same 6 forums as the 3e'ers. I hope that they 6 is not a hard limit and a 7th forum can be created, so that the classic edition discussions don't get buried by the 3e discussions. |
| #42seTinyMay 13, 2008 16:21:32 | I posted my own notices to the Eberron and Forgotten Realms Boards. Why wait for CM to do it? Because it would have been better if the announcement had come from CM and not a random poster. Because it is not confirmed that they are only getting one forum. (Mike hadn't answered yet nor has he had his meeting with Michelle) Because what was posted gives no explanation, and reads like a doomsday notice. |
| #82HaldrikMay 18, 2008 17:53:48 | Not to be mean but the old structure seems less helpful. I actually never navigate thru it. I just look at ENWorld 4e News, see if anyone said anything interesting and link to Gleemax or Wizards from there. Otherwise, I dont wander far from "D&D fundamentals". Its better to call D&D fundamentals, "D&D Core". Core is more authoritative, more necessary for gaming, and more necessary for players to purchase. The "ground up" structure above consolidates the info that most D&Di users tend to care about. It needs to be in one place, so players can immediately see info that is relevant. Its stupid to make unfamiliar players need to be psychics to know somewhere out there theres a CharOp board or a Campaign Setting conversation. All relevant info for gameplay must be in Core. Also, D&Di should organize according to the exact same structure that the books organize: Players Handbooks, Monster Manuals, Dungeon Masters Guides, and Campaign Settings. Both for familiarity/recognizability - and to unify in the consumers mind that books and online are both part of the very same product, and the consumers should purchase both. Digital and paper should merge seemlessly. To encourage book players to buy D&Di, and to encourage digital Game Table players to buy books, I feel its best to put the Character Creator and Game Table services inside the "Core" section. After all, playing remotely with long-distance friends thru the Game Table will hopefully become a normal way to play "Core" D&D. I see the D&D Headquarters section as a kind of D&D editorial: including magazines, staff blogs, announcements, featured sales products, recommendations, reviews, business discussions - oh, the "cultural" stuff that may be of interest to the D&D community should go here too (will update above structure). By the way, it may be vital to 4e success to put D&D 3e absolutely in the same catagory ("Classics") as D&D 2e, etc. Yes, D&D 3e has its aficionados, and its charm, just like D&D 2e does. But the pre-4e games are now obsololete. Its time to move on. We are now in the 4e Era. |
| #83ieattrollsforbreakfastMay 18, 2008 18:35:02 | I'll post G0's latest offering for reference:• D&D HQ Not to be mean but the old structure seems less helpful. I actually never navigate thru it. I just look at ENWorld 4e News, see if anyone said anything interesting and link to Gleemax from there. Otherwise, I dont wander far from "D&D fundamentals". I disagree, I think it's more helpful to list things by more overarching topics than books. Under G0's structure we have 'Fundamentals', 'Community', 'D&D Insider' and 'Worlds'. Seems pretty intuitive to me, and it means we don't have to worry about where things that cross over multiple books should go. And what about books that aren't core or setting specific? Its better to call D&D fundamentals, "D&D Core". Core is more authoritative, more necessary for gaming, and more necessary for players to purchase. 'Core' could work, I wouldn't have an issue with that change. 'Fundamentals' and 'Core' mean the same thing, though it lining up with product descriptions makes sense. The "ground up" structure above consolidates the info that most D&Di users tend to care about. It needs to be in one place, so players can immediately see info that is relevant. Its stupid to make unfamiliar players need to be psychics to know somewhere out there theres a CharOp board or a Campaign Setting conversation. All relevant info for gameplay must be in Core. To be honest, I don't see why G0's solution doesn't meet that standard. Replace 'Fundamentals' with 'Core' and your issue vanishes as far as I can tell. Also, D&Di should organize according to the exact same structure that the books organize: Players Handbooks, Monster Manuals, Dungeon Masters Guides, and Campaign Settings. Both for familiarity/recognizability - and to unify in the consumers mind that books and online are both part of the very same product, and the consumers should purchase both. Digital and paper should merge seemlessly. But then your pigeon holing things into places they don't belong. Why would I look for Dragon Articles in a PHB forum, or technical info about the game table in the DMG forum? DDI is a separate, add-on product. Yes, it integrates with the rest of the D&D game, but it still exists as a separate entity, so deserves its own forum. To encourage book players to buy D&Di, and to encourage digital Game Table players to buy books, I feel its best to put the Character Creator and Game Table services inside the "Core" section. After all, playing remotely with long-distance friends thru the Game Table will hopefully become a normal way to play "Core" D&D. It is ridiculous to try and lump all products under the 'core' banner. DDI isn't core, it's an optional add-on like Forgotten Realms or Eberron. You don't need it to play, and it has its own set of questions, concerns etc. that requires its own area. I see the D&D Headquarters section as a kind of D&D editorial: including magazines, staff blogs, announcements, featured sales products, recommendations, reviews, business discussions - oh, the "cultural" stuff that may be of interest to the D&D community should go here too (will update above structure). The cultural stuff is what the whole Gleemax area is all about, there are dozens of forums for off-topic discussion, there's no need for another one in the D&D area. --- One thing I do like about Haldrik's suggestion is the Roleplay forum, though we do have the Character Development forum over in the RPG area. |
| #84wrecanMay 18, 2008 18:43:51 | Don't use "Core". That word has been overused by Wizards as is and is now virtually meaningless. "Fundamentals" is a much better term. |
| #85HaldrikMay 18, 2008 18:57:06 | Where Haldriks list diverges from the current list - its because in these places the current list seems less user-friendly, less familiar to D&D players, less consolidated structurally, less effecient, less convenient, less informative, and less helpful. |
| #86HaldrikMay 18, 2008 19:05:53 | I feel the buzzword "Core" is better than the lame word "Fundamentals" with too many syllables. The reason the word "Core" gets "overused" is because its a better word. I have the impression the only people who dont like the word "Core" are the people who resent the implication that they must buy all of these extra books. Of course, for the sake of profitability, WotC must encourage people to buy all these extra books and for that very reason call them "Core". Some people dont like "Core" because, for example, they dont like Psionics as part of "Core". However, in D&D 4e, the Primal, Psi, & Shadow power sources are "Core", and players should buy the *Players Handbooks* that use them. The opposite of "Core" is "splatbook". However, even a 4e splatbook like *Martial Power* should get discussed in the Core catagories - in this case, mostly in the Players Handbooks forums, especially the Classes forum. "Core" is the better word. |
| #87HaldrikMay 18, 2008 19:47:21 | ForBreakfast: DDI isn't core, it's an optional add-on. Rather WotC wants D&Di to be vital, central, and (globally) profitable. Its subscription-based income is an intentional business strategy that requires migration of traditional book-using players to D&Di. |
| #88wrecanMay 18, 2008 19:49:36 | Whatever it's "trying to achieve", they've said that DDI is optional. It is not needed to play. It is, by many definitions, not Core. |
| #89HaldrikMay 18, 2008 19:51:27 | Whatever it's "trying to achieve", they've said that DDI is optional. It is not needed to play. It is, by many definitions, not Core. Well the DMG is also "optional" but its still part of the core D&D experience - as will be D&Di. PS: The Game Table literally brings the Core D&D books to life. D&D books are (by their nature) intimidating to newbies. Players need to be part of the "oral tradition" to learn how to play the game. The Character Creator is a satisfying and intuative way for a newbie to understand what a character is and how the info in the Players Handbooks comes together to form a persona. Meanwhile the Game Table hooks the newbie up with real DMs and fellow players who can initiate the newbie into the arcane mysteries of that "oral tradition" to reveal the beauties of the D&D experience. I think it would be impossible to sell D&D books to many newbies unless online gaming is "Core". |
| #90ZherogMay 18, 2008 20:05:00 | I'm here to ask once again, Mike:Some of my community in the What's a Player to Do forum are expressing some concerns, so I'm going to bring them here. I really don't think this is a difficult question that would require weeks to answer. Personally, I think the answer to question #2 determines the answer to question #1. |
| #91ZherogMay 18, 2008 20:05:50 | Well the DMG is also "optional" but its still part of the core D&D experience - as will be D&Di. No, actually. The DMG isn't optional. The books tell you that you need the three "core" books to play, at least in 3.5. |
| #92HaldrikMay 18, 2008 20:21:21 | I meant players dont need to buy a DMG. Of course, the Dungeon Master must. (The excerpts convince me, the DMGs are valuable resources even for experienced DMs.) |
| #93crashy75May 18, 2008 23:05:17 | ... (so there is no magic section? *Confused by current setup*) I really feel that the Character building forum will be too dense when 4e comes out. Think about it- every new custom class, paragon, race, (EDIT ED), feat, power, and (not so much) skill that comes out will be crammed on one board. When 4e comes out there will probably be a flood of player created material. I really feel that there should be separate Class, Race and powers/feats/skills. You could probably do a class and Race section and the powers/feats/skills will probably distribute between them (class powers would go in the class section while racial feats would go in the race section- general feats might be homeless however). Also, I don't see why Rules Q&A and General Discussion couldn't be grouped. Most of the questions asked will probably be known (and be answered) by the community and those threads will turn into a discussion anyway. |
| #94ieattrollsforbreakfastMay 19, 2008 4:00:58 | (so there is no magic section? *Confused by current setup*) Quite rightly so, IMO. Magic works no different to the other powers, so it shouldn't get special treatment. So long as there is a 'powers' forum, there's no need for a 'magic' one. How about this set up:
Rituals could go in Equipment & Treasure, actually, but it occurs to me that in the currently proposed set up it isn't well defined where they should go. --- Gamer_Zer0 - I can understand why forums should be shrunk and some merged (I think, in the end, it'll be a good experiment to try just one Eberron forum), but what's the point of merging thematically different topics (races and classes) into one forum? Are two forums more difficult to moderate than one? With the current non-area specific WizO set up, I can't see how that's the case. |
| #95wrecanMay 19, 2008 5:45:09 | Well the DMG is also "optional" but its still part of the core D&D experience - as will be D&Di. And this argument is supposed to show me that "Core" is a meaningful word to use?! All it shows me is that "Core" is an essentially meaningless term. You might as well just invent a word "D&D Fhurgle" and use that. It would be as suggestive as the word "Core". PS: The Game Table literally brings the Core D&D books to life. Pet Peeve: Don't use the word "literally" there. Uness, the Game Table is going to animate my books and have them begin to roam my living room, it does not "literally bring the Core D&D books to life." It metaphorically does this. I think it would be impossible to sell D&D books to many newbies unless online gaming is "Core". Wel, your thinking is not Wizards' thinking. So when naming forums, let's go with what Wizards is thinking, not what you or I think it shouldbe thinking. This is an inappropriate means of trying to twist Wizards' marketing strategy to match your own. |
| #96HaldrikMay 19, 2008 7:48:15 | Pet Peeve: Don't use the word "literally" there. I use the word "literally" literally. The Game Table brings the D&D books to life by showing newbies how they work in the context of living people. "Core" means the digital & hardcopy materials that form the essence of the D&D experience: Core includes PHs, MMs, DMGs, CSs, and on the digital side, Game Table. Wizards' thinking. I was referring to the claim WotC wants D&Di to be a superfluous optional addon. They want the digitial format and the monthly subscription to be a *new normal* for D&D players. Organizing it within Core conveys this. Speaking for myself, Game Table will be "Core" because I need it to play D&D with my old highschool friends. We all live far across the USA now. Today D&D players need the Game Table to play, sometimes even more so than buying a Players Handbook, since the Core also comes with the Online Rules Compendium. The monthly subscription has value. |
| #97HaldrikMay 19, 2008 7:49:55 | (moved to next page) |
| #98wrecanMay 19, 2008 7:50:49 | That's not "literal". That's "metaphorical". "Literally" bringing books to life would involve rendering them into living beings. |
| #99HaldrikMay 19, 2008 8:09:41 | Humans are literally alive. Human life is more than a physical body. Human life is especially a living mind. |
| #100seTinyMay 19, 2008 8:35:45 | As G0 said the list he provided is the one that got approved internally, so it is probably not going to change no matter what the argument for or against a change are. G0, quick question. How long must a forum sustain the number of threads/posts needed to be considered for splitting? I ask because when 4e is launched the forums should be slammed with new threads as they are with each new excerpt, because the information is now going to be available. IF the One Forum to Rule Them All (Classes, races, etc..) is as popular as I and a few others think it will be then it may become an unappealing place to post, especially if their thread is halfway down page two in less than a day. |
| #122vaalingrade_ashland_02May 20, 2008 1:21:34 | I'm just going to flat out avoid that mess until they separate it back out again. I have no interest in slogging thought back pages trying to fine threads germane to my needs (classes). I fail to see what advantage crushing them all together is especially when I'm already predicting Classes alone is going to be glutted because Power discussions are going to vie for just as much space if not more than Magic dreamed. |
| #123ZherogMay 20, 2008 7:00:15 | It doesn't matter what we think; Community Management has clearly demonstrated they don't give a dire rat's hairy ass what we think. |
| #124HaldrikMay 20, 2008 8:15:37 | Vaalin: I'm just going to flat out avoid that mess. Yeah, I stopped posting in Character Building too, until they sort out the traffic flow. LOL! The last thing I posted there was a complaint, the combined traffic is moving the posts too quickly - which soon fell off the page. Hmmm. It could be they plan to "legacy" this thread when the books come out, then replace it with fresh forum(s). |
| #125Calestin_KethalMay 20, 2008 8:17:53 | I too would like to see the Character Building forum to be separated. 1) Races and Classes 2) Powers and Spells 3) Skills and Feats With them currently combined, it's going to be a nightmare. Ideally, all today's current topics should be first page. As topics are ignored they should drop off the front page. But when something has a last update of today, it should be on the front page. That's not going to be possible with the new setup. |
| #126HaldrikMay 20, 2008 8:45:56 | Powers and feats should combine: Feats are just minor powers and dont separate well from a *Powers* forum. For example, its less helpful to have the Expanded Dragonborn Breath feat in a separate forum away from the Dragonborn Breath power. With powers and feats combining, they may as well combine skills too, which by the itself probably wont see too much traffic. 4e feats are generally less powerful (but more consistent) than 3e feats were, and may not get as much traffic. Powers and rituals should combine: Spells are Arcane powers, and Prayers are Divine powers, so obviously these belong with powers. At this point, They should probably add rituals too. Powers and classes should combine: Tho each class has a few class features, its choices of powers constitute most of it. Its impossible to describe a class without describing its class powers. As far as I can tell, the only feasible way to separate the traffic is to separate the *Races* forum (including racial traits, racial powers, racial feats) from the *Classes* forum (including class features, class powers, class feats, skills and rituals). At this point it seems ok to combine discussions about ability score generation with the *Races* forum since *Races* often involve boosts to the score. Classes would necessarily handle leveling, tiers, paths, and destinies. The main point is: powers, classes, and feats dont separate well. - - - Races (traits, powers, feats, ability scores generation, & playable monster races) Theres good reason to combine everything into one forum. The problem is it moves too quickly. Perhaps if each page listed 100 threads (rather than 25), viewers could manage to keep track of their threads of interest. |
| #127malisteenMay 20, 2008 9:38:59 | I disagree. I think: -Skills & feats -Classes, Paths, & Destinies -Races Should all be separate forums. Powers can come from multiple sources, and can't really be talked about separately from those sources (you can't discuss the fighter class without discussing fighter class powers), so powers coming from classes would be discussed in Classes, powers coming from races in Races, and powers coming from magic items would be discussed in Magic Items. Yes, these forums could conceivably be rolled together, and if there was less traffic I'd be all for it, but there's a lot of traffic, and the books aren't even out yet. Skills and feats don't necessarily warrant a separate forum on topic value alone, but they can be separated from classes, unlike paragon paths and destinies, and that might be necessary purely to releive stress on what will probably be one of the most crowded boards. Of course, I don't know what the logistics and costs of extra forums are, so there may be business factors that make this impractical. |
| #128ZherogMay 20, 2008 9:47:43 | I disagree. I think: This looks like a reasonable split to me. |
| #129HaldrikMay 20, 2008 10:19:55 | Im concerned about feats & skills getting enough traffic, to warrant a separate forum, and if they dont they wont relieve much stress anyway. Assuming it does get enough traffic, you could probably add ability scores and rituals to it too. (Theyr could even be Martial rituals along the lines of martial arts meditations.) Something like: - - - Races (racial powers & traits) Malisteen: Yes, these forums could conceivably be rolled together, and if there was less traffic I'd be all for it. Yeah. |
| #130ieattrollsforbreakfastMay 20, 2008 11:50:20 | How about this:
Minor adjustments to other people's ideas, really, just name changes. |
| #131HaldrikMay 20, 2008 12:12:59 | Maybe alignment too. |
| #132HaldrikMay 20, 2008 12:21:36 | Traffic-wise, whats the ideal? A new post stays on the front page for about 3 days? |
| #133ZherogMay 20, 2008 12:23:34 | Traffic-wise, whats the ideal? There've been several metrics tossed around to measure "ideal' traffic. I think, overall, the idea is that a new thread should stay on the first page for a day is the current thinking. But I could be misremembering. |
| #134seTinyMay 20, 2008 12:25:32 | Traffic-wise, whats the ideal? Here is what G0 has to say: Go ahead and take a look. Count up the number of threads in each forum that have had a reply in the past 24 hours. If that number is over 50, then our general ground rule is that we should have two forums. (note that I can't promise two forums, since I've already gotten sign off on the current list from lots of folks interally and I'm not sure what I can change) So anything less than 50 threads in a 24 hour period is what they are looking as an ideal. |
| #162wrecanMay 20, 2008 16:40:12 | I agree with Zherog. And I'm not hostile, Haldrik. It's just frustrating because we discussed these very issues weeks ago. Also, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you write. |
| #163seTinyMay 20, 2008 16:40:27 | I dont understand this explanation: There is a lot that can be cross posted as community and as fundamentals, the forums were placed where they best fit. This means that the Races forum should be primarily for asking about how a race works and other rule based questions, but it also works as a place to show off your homebrewed race and such. And Char Op should have gone in the Community section as Autumn and Mudbunny point out here, problem is the list was probably being approved when this was posted. Personally, I see 4E Optimization as best placed in the Community forum. They are similar in scope to What's a player/DM to do. It is a a place where people can go to asking for advice on how to deal with situations. Fundamentals, for me, deals more with discussing the topics, rather than providing advice on the topics. |