We had certain restrictions placed upon us with regards to the forum reorganization, but now that it's complete we can let community traffic drive how we shape the forums going forward.
Starting Monday of next week, May 21st, I would like the community's help in determining the activity of all the D&D forums so we can identify the areas where we will need to expand. I firmly believe that we're going to need to add forums as we move forward, but I need to be able to present good traffic information to back up those requests.
There are a lot of ways to judge forum traffic, but the easiest (and the one I personally find most convincing) is the number of recently active threads. The general rule of thumb is that each forum should ideally have about 25 active thread per day, meaning that someone who visited the forums once a day, would see about one full page of threads with new replies. Since this isn't an exact science, our acceptable range is 10 to 50 active threads per day.
Therefor:
- If a forum consistently has an average active thread count of more than 50 per day, we need to create another forum and split out some of the traffic.
- If a forum consistently has an average active thread count of less than 10 per day, that forum should be considered a candidate for a merge.*
* If a forum has more then 3-4 active threads a day, we can give it a few months before deciding to merge it.
The way we'll calculate the average number of daily active threads is to take the number of active threads within the past week and divide it by 7. (note that this will give a number that's a bit less that the average daily for reasons I can explain in a reply if anyone is interested)
For example: Say that on next Monday, the Character Building forum has 425 threads with a reply in the past week. 425 / 7 = 60.71 average active threads per day. Now let's say the following week, the number of threads with a reply in the past week is 487. 487 / 7 = 69.57 average active threads per day.
This means a couple of things: 1) For two weeks straight we've had significantly more active threads than our desired high end of 50. 2) We're trending upwards and things are likely to get even better. (more traffic = better)
Conclusion: We need to create a new forum to split out the traffic from the Characte Building one, with the goal to have around 25 active threads a day in each of the split out forums.
This holds true for all the D&D forums, including the previous edition ones. If by the above rules there is enough traffic for a dedicated Greyhawk forum, or a previous edition Epic forum, we'll make them.
While I am sure no one would do this, I need to point out that these are general rules of thumbs and are not binding, especially in a case where someone starts bumping a lot of threads for the purpose of skewing these numbers. Doing that will just cause a lot more work for all of us to sort through and will have the net result of delaying the addition of needed forums, so I am hoping we can avoid that.
Thanks again to everyone for their patience. I look forward to seeing lots of great discussion leading to many additional forums. =)
-Mike
- If a forum consistently has an average active thread count of more than 50 per day, we need to create another forum and split out some of the traffic.
- If a forum consistently has an average active thread count of less than 10 per day, that forum should be considered a candidate for a merge.*
* If a forum has more then 3-4 active threads a day, we can give it a few months before deciding to merge it.
I have started an [thread=1034748]analysis thread[/thread] here. Nevertheless, I just want to be on record for saying I think that 50/day is too high for determining when a forum should be split. Anything over 30/day, in my opinion warrants a split (or at least consideration of one). I think the goal should be to have the forum cycle every day or two, not less than a day.
If we can get each forum between 10 and 30 active threads/day I think that is a vibrant but not overwhelming forum.
All three of these boards are about character creation. Wha?
Also, it leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth that, back-to-back, we have what appears to be the "normal" character building area and the "hardcore insane" character building area.
-Hatsuma
"Help My DM is forcing me to do X, even though it's against my personality!"
"Another character is playing a kleptomaniac. How do i deal with it?"
"I'm interested in playing a non-standard race. What are some decent choices?"
"Am I understanding this particular rule correctly?"
And so on.
There are definitely topics that could go in more than one forum; and I actually strongly recommend folks do just that -- post your question to two forums if it's on topic in both places. You'll hit a different "community" with each different forum, and possibly get different answers.
*
Character Building is a hodgepodge of forums that will - sometime soon, I'd guess - be split into several different forums. It covers a myriad of topics - races, classes, etc.
Character Optimization is all about the numbers. How to get the most out of class X, how to combine classes X and Y for best effect, how to chain together a series of spells for some spectacular results, and so on.
Character Optimization is about trying to break the game by tweaking every last mechanical advantage from vagarities in the rules.
Very different considerations warranting very different approaches.
I have started an [thread=1034748]analysis thread[/thread] here. Nevertheless, I just want to be on record for saying I think that 50/day is too high for determining when a forum should be split. Anything over 30/day, in my opinion warrants a split (or at least consideration of one). I think the goal should be to have the forum cycle every day or two, not less than a day.
If we can get each forum between 10 and 30 active threads/day I think that is a vibrant but not overwhelming forum.
I agree with you on this. Over 50 is something that is determental to discussion and needs to be addressed right away (meaning, within a week or so) Anything over 25 would be a candidate for a split, with 10 to 30 as a good target range.
Races and Monsters peak during the winter when 'family friendly' fantasy movies come out and more people in general are reading.
Magic (now Powers) is in high gear all the time, but surges in the summer when kids are out of school and have time to turn *everything* into spells.
The forums rarely cracked 40/page except during peaks, let's be honest, so what's going to happen is the board is going to go in and out with the tides and we'll have yearly spates of 'where'd my thread go? Why was everything merged for no good reason' like we've got now, except for a much bigger user base.
Staying static is the best thing you can do for the health of the board in general, and adding or deleting boards should be a MAJOR change, not a random occurance based on break points. Everything should be in its place *before* users start getting used to things; before the edition hits, not set up to defacto pull the rug out from under everyone are random intervals.
But this fact seems to be getting blocked from high above for some reason (that honestly seems to be from someone who has never even used a forum before), so here's something that may actually be noticed: at the very least, once a forum gets split off, it should get at least a year before someone tries to cram it back under another over taxed area.
I can already see this leading to constant flux as 50/day is a really washy break point.
Gamer_Zer0 clarified that anything over 25/day would be considered for splitting. 50/day is the threshhold for the "We better split it right now!"
25/day, imo, is reasonable. The DM, Classes and Spells boards broke 25/day almost every day during third edition, and not just in the peak period. Forgotten Realms and the Other Worlds boards, I suspect, will also break this threshold.
I was informally watching the Races and Monsters boards since the 4th edition announcement a year ago. i didn't see any noticeable increase of traffic around the holidays. Those boards hovered around the 25/day threshold all year.
Everything should be in its place *before* users start getting used to things; before the edition hits, not set up to defacto pull the rug out from under everyone are random intervals.
I agree. But what's done is done. Best to keep moving forward.
I agree. But what's done is done. Best to keep moving forward.
That is the least true thing said about any forum. That is what backups and rollbacks are for. When administration screws up they can fix it quickly by restoring the former working version.
There was nothing wrong with the way the forums were, there was no reason to reorganize them at all. If new subforums were needed to be added then it could have easily been done, rather than trying to redesign the wheel while you are going 90mph down the highway.
Another example of change for the sake of change it seems.
If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT!
Hellmute you can howl at the wind or you can face reality. Things are not going back to the way it was. CM has made it clear. So you have a choice. You can try to be productive and suggest changes they might make, or you can make a lot of useless posts for things you wish could be but never will. It's your choice.
Do you even grasp the context of the post? Who decided these things need to be changed? If this place is to function like a real community, then their should be elected officials. Well the "officials" here are hired by the company.
So do the users have any say, or are they just going to be drug along by the company?
That is the point. When you say things cannot go back you are full of ****. the software and any competent company with understanding of the requirements for backing up data would know that a rollback is possible.
So how about stop lying to other users, or if you were unaware of this, then do not speak of things that you don't have any knowledge of.
What is done can be undone. If you didn't know that, then you have now learned it and should no longer lie to the other users about it.
The thing is whether administration is willing to undo its brainchild and can handle users not liking it.
Posts like yours are ones that really get me hot under the collar for your attitude and/or ignorance and passing information along that is untrue, aka lies.
Do you even grasp the context of the post?
Yes, I do. Do you understand we are not discussing what is "physically" possible, but what the company is going to do.
Who decided these things need to be changed? If this place is to function like a real community, then their should be elected officials.
You confuse "community" with "democracy".
So do the users have any say, or are they just going to be drug along by the company?
They have a voice, not a say.
When you say things cannot go back you are full of ****
The question is not whether it is physicaly possible, but whather the company is likely to do it. They said they are not. So howl at the moon ordeal with reality. So far, all you want to do is howl at the moon.
Posts like yours are ones that really get me hot under the collar for your attitude and/or ignorance and passing information along that is untrue, aka lies.
The fact that you get so emotional about this is irrelevant to anybody but you and your mental health specialist (if any).
They are preparing for the soon to be released 4th edition, like I said in a previous post the old 4e forums were only temporary.
The 3.5e forums were going to be merged into the single forum, that changed and they were gracious enough to make 6 previous edition forums. To top it off if that area stays productive it can grow in the future.
Re DM Advice forum:
In the first page of the DM Advice forum, I counted at leasted 8 threads that clearly belonged in other forums: Campaign & Adventure, Character Building, Equipment, Player Advice, Monsters, and even D&D 3e forums.
If the locations of the DM Advice & Player Advice forum were reorganized to be grouped together with related forums, traffic would post in the correct forum more often. This alone would significantly relieve traffic overflow.
Its better to fold the separate "D&D Community" section into the "Fundamentals" section. The only threads that would legitimately belong in "Community" would be the D&D 4e "General Discussion" and the "Off Topic Tavern". But "General Discussion" is already in the Fundamentals section, and Off Topic Tavern can be tacked on at the end of the Fundamentals section. IMO, even Astrids Parlor belongs in the Fundamentals section together with Character Development, Players Advice, and related forums.
Even better would be to restructure the current "Community" and "Fundamentals" sections into new "Players Handbooks" and "Dungeon Masters Guides" sections. One for players, one for DMs.
Is there a reason not to merge the Off Topic Tavern forum with the Off Topic forum in the Gleemax community?
Good forum organization to route the traffic flow is half the battle. "Traffic signs" must be brain-dead-obvious, or else accidents WILL happen.
Wrecan: Well, a conversion forum [from 1e & 2e Greyhawk to 4e] is something I had proposed, but which didn't make it into the final reorg.
I hope we see a 4e Greyhawk conversion forum in the not-so-distant future.
I also believe that a 6th forum is desirable to adequately adress traffic issues in the 3e Previous Editions subset. But I emphatically disagree with the idea of "The P.E.A.C.H. Pit". I'll outline why and then make an alternate suggestion.
First the name. P.E.A.C.H, standing for Please Examine And Critique Honestly, is a horrible thing to put in a thread title, let alone a forum. I believe it undermines the community by suggesting that there are threads where examination and honest critique are the exception.
Second the premise and logistics. Homebrewed classes, skills, feats, races, and etc. will continue to show up on the forums they are linked with, even should 'The Pit' exist. This would lead to organizational confusion both for posters and reviews. In addition it could result in much work and challenges for the VCL(s) of the area.
Here's is my first idea, would you let me know what you think, along with your response regarding the analyzation of the 'The Pit'?
Alternative Styles
A board to discuss different play styles of of the previous edition of our favorite game. Do you like truly Epic adventure? Always wanted to play the salt of the earth- commoners? Or do you want your own set of house rules critiqued? You've come to the right place
Finally and quite importantly, I think that your suggestion for informative stickies is an excellent idea. I'd like to add to it that a sticky asking what additional board would be most appreciated would be an excellent way to gather data, if nothing else.
If the location of the DM Advice & Player Advice forum was reorganized to be grouped together with related forums, traffic would post in the correct forum more often. This alone would significantly relieve traffic overflow.
I'm actually unconcerned about traffic overflow in the DM forum. Since I've been a member of these boards, the DM forums has always averaged between 30 and 45 posts/day. I think the DM forum is the exception to the rule about ideal forum traffic being between 10 and 25 posts/day.
Some of the overflow may also be due to the overflow in Character Building. People see that forum as a mess. Nobody knows what is to go in there. So they might avoid Character Building altogether and end up posting it in Rules Q&A or DM Advice. By better structuring the Character Building forum into multiple forums, I think it will also relieve the traffic is Rules Q&A and DM Advice.
Is there a reason not to merge the Off Topic Tavern forum with the Off Topic forum in the Gleemax community?
CM said they want every section to have its own off-topic area. I don't understand it, but that's what they've decreed so we have to live with it.
I emphatically disagree with the idea of "The P.E.A.C.H. Pit".
Having read your explanation, I completely agree that "P.E.A.C.H. Pit" would be a terrible name.
Alternative Styles
A board to discuss different play styles of of the previous edition of our favorite game. Do you like truly Epic adventure? Always wanted to play the salt of the earth- commoners? Or do you want your own set of house rules critiqued? You've come to the right place
I think this is a little vague. I don't know that people will necessarily know what belongs. It's sort a mish-mash of the Epic boards, Unearthed Arcana and House Rules and Campaign Workshop.
But it's probably better than my PEACH Pit idea.
First the name. P.E.A.C.H, standing for Please Examine And Critique Honestly, is a horrible thing to put in a thread title, let alone a forum. I believe it undermines the community by suggesting that there are threads where examination and honest critique are the exception.
I am not disagreeing with either your conclusion (that it is a horrible name) or the other points you have made. However, I feel you have misrepresented the intent and purpose of PEACH.
PEACH was introduced not as a criticism of the community in its critiquing, but ratehr as an OP acknowledgment that the thread is not seeking a simple "looks good to me" response.
There were a number of threads with new spells and magic items (and I suspect similar things on other Boards) where the OP countered every suggested change, challenged every suggestion that something was unbalanced, and disagreed with every piece of constructive criticism offered. It was commented by a few of us that if the OP did not want feedback, then why bother posting in the first place.
PEACH was the response. it was a way that the OP could confirm to the reader that s/he was not simply posting to show off, but rather, really did welcome the feedback we on the Boards tend to offer. It further acknowledged that the OP *wants to improve the offering* with the suggestions the collective wisdom of the Boards can offer.
PEACH does not imply there are exception to when critiques are offered honestly. It acknowledges that we have all experienced the poster who really did not want the feedback his post seemed to be asking for.
Yes, and Campaign & Adventure Workshop is a good forum. But I feel strongly its location should be reorganized so it is immediately before the DM Advice forum, to encourage more traffic into the C&A Workshop forum, and to discourage posts in DM Advice that really belong in the Campaign & Adventure Workshop.
I'd just like to underline this point. I've been a forum member for gawd knows how many years now (lost a screenname in at least one switchover), and I never knew the C&A forum existed before this post. And believe me, I would have used it had I known.
And Greyhawk has almost no posts anywhere.
There are the Living Greyhawk boards:
http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=464
It is possuble traffic in the Other Worlds forum will increase after those boards close when the RPGA campaign ends.
…The way these numbers come into play is that we want people to see healthy and active forums each time they visit, and having too many active threads in one forum will make it tough to keep on top of everything being said. On the other hand, having only a handful of active threads in each forum can give the impression that the forums are dead.
Mike, since the subject of the number of active threads is broached, what about the length of threads? We've all seen the occasional hot-button thread that, even with a 50-posts-per-page view, spills over into multiple pages. Would those skew or have any relevance on the perceived level of activity of a forum?
(I've though of an idea to tag threads to make them easier to sort out (something like using post icons), but I don't know which currently active thread this is relevant to, so if anyone knows point it out to me please.)
By checking the daily active thread count, we can approximate if the forum has the desired level of activity. Forums with less than 10 active threads/day might get merged with other forums. Forums with more than 25 active threads/day might get subdivided.
Right now, there's only one forum that consistently underperforms (the Out-of-Print) forum. There about six forums consistently with more than 25 threads/day. Several of these, imo, need to get subdivided.
Right now, there's only one forum that consistently underperforms (the Out-of-Print) forum. There about six forums consistently with more than 25 threads/day. Several of these, imo, need to get subdivided.
To be honest, there are so many other places to use forums about out-of-print editions many people many wish to avoid even hearing that newer editions exist. Another problem is dumping all 30+ years worth of editions prior to 4th edition into one forum. Only diehard visitors would be willing to risk trying to post about an edition only to be swamped by other editions and not be able to find topics aobut a prefered edition they may need help with such as 4th edition has its specific forums.
Gatned there is no real feasible way to give each ediiton its own forums dedicated to the same "splits" of topic that 4th edition has, because that would give unsavory light to those edition rather than the newest. NOt entirely a bad thing to have the newest product having the biggest spotlight, but one forum for each older ediiton might generate more traffic as there would be les having to wade through incorrect editions trying to find help/information/etc on a specific edition. Otherwsie it might require an additional option during initial thread creation to have the forum ask which edition, or people to post something defing which edition the thread relates to such as.
[1e] Forgotten Realms gods
[OD&D] GreyHawk NPCs
etc
Within those example you see another potential problem with the OOP section as there are campaign specific as well as edition specific possiblities for discussion. So would all FR topics go in the forum for the new version of the Realms? Do some go in the OOP area?
You can't really give each edition its own forum for each setting either, so the overlap will exist no matter what you do.
Currently with about a weak left until LEGAL release of 4th and even though the PDF, Amazon.com and BUY.com fiasco has allowed some people early access to the edition, there is probably going to be a good two months of strict focus on topic in just the 4th edition as people get to actually know the game and discuss it with it on hand. Even those OOP visitors that want to learn without buying the edition so they can get reviews from the people that it has grasped their full attention.
So it may be a while until the movelty of 4th edition wear off before a true determination of the traffic of the OOP areas can be found, unless you have the statistics from the release of 3rd edition to compare, and those would still not show true results as there wasn't the same kind of change between the editions and forums at that time. But it still could show traffic trends when a new edition comes out relating to the new edition versus older edition discussions.
I think the Character Building will most likely need division because it may generate too much traffic on too many topics even though they are all related to character creation. I forsee an explosion in that area once 4th dition is released and people start making or changing races, classes, path, etc and may make for harder viewing/finding of topics on those seperate aspect.
I am curious as to the other 5, or 6 if Character Building was not one of those you metnion.
4E Character Building
4E Rules Q&A
Dungeon Master Advice
Forgotten Realms
Eberron
3E Classes and Class Features
I don't think 4E Rules Q&A and Dungeon Master Advice should be split. IMO, a large reason for the traffic there is engendered by confusion as to the purpose of the 4E Character Building Forum.
If 4E Character Building is split into three forums with a very clear purpose, I suspect that some threads currently posted to Rules Q&A and DM Advice would be put into the proper forum, reducing the traffic to acceptable levels across the board (so to speak)
EDIT:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1038292
Example of forum structure confusing already. While I understand just wanting a simple quesiton and this thread being in the wrong place, I does seem like new users may have a problem finding thing unless each forum says something about its intended Edition in the name of the forum. Most often people may visit a forum and think to only look at the top few forums to find the right topic as seems like happened here in regards to a "rule" question.
Could the actual 4th edition be added to prevent this from new forums users that might have this problem, or would it seem to silly since scrolling down the long list of forums would reveal that ALL older editions should go in the OOP section?
I don't think so. For the most part our high level goal is to maintain and grow our community. Our goal with the forums is to increase the anount of good quality discussion. The way these numbers come into play is that we want people to see healthy and active forums each time they visit, and having too many active threads in one forum will make it tough to keep on top of everything being said. On the other hand, having only a handful of active threads in each forum can give the impression that the forums are dead.
I don't know why this explanation wasn't part of the first post. It's a lot easier for people to understand and discuss the merger decision when we know the reasons WHY the decision was made. Okay, now we see: they don't want low-activity boards because they don't want boards that look dead. Fine.
But what the powers-that-be don't seem to understand is that some particular mergers -- and here I am specifically thinking of the Other Published Worlds forum -- are succeeding only in killing the forums and driving away posters, thus having exactly the opposite effect compared to what was intended.
Numerous people have posted in the Other Published Worlds forum only to express their disgust over the merger and to report their intention to move their viewing and posting elsewhere. Also, I believe that at least one new website was created, and I assume that other existing sites have absorbed other disaffected posters.
I'd like to suggest that criteria be considered beyond the raw numbers. When the new boards were set up, there were some forums created based on anticipated interest, not through the method now being used (of splitting up busy forums). Sometimes, you need to move a plant into a bigger pot so it has room to grow. Or, if you're a movie buff, then think of this: "If you build it, they will come."
It may be too late to salvage any goodwill from the Other Published Worlds forum, but what would be the harm in trying? Especially if these are the people that you hope to interest in converting to 4E and buying the upcoming conversions of their favorite settings. Don't wait until the 4E versions are due to be released, and then expect traffic on the newly-split-out forums for those worlds. With some of these people, once they're gone, they're probably gone for good.
I know that one of the goals of 4E is to bring in new blood, but do you really want to drive off all of the old blood? Sounds like a sure recipe for death by exsanguination....
I know that one of the goals of 4E is to bring in new blood, but do you really want to drive off all of the old blood? Sounds like a sure recipe for death by exsanguination....
The problem there is that again, the blame is put fully on WOTC... When you very well can see that things are a bit more complex.
There is 'otaku' purism in the base, some really, really hardcore base... And some of them kicked themselves out that way. Because of any and every changes at all, even if they where presented very well and nicely.
You always see peoples shoutting 'it's too much'... AND 'it's too less'. You go one way, they outcry, the other way, they cry too... Etc.
Unpleasable.
Fandom have a dark side, a weird side.
The problem there is that again, the blame is put fully on WOTC... When you very well can see that things are a bit more complex.
The decisions made concerning boards reorganization have been made exclusively by WotC. And I can't say that they've been presented well or nicely. It's been presented as if handed down from on high by God Almighty himself (or by the deity of your choice, if your faith differs). Little or no attempt has been made to explain the reasoning behind the decisions, which would go a long way toward helping us understand. And there appears to be no willingness to consider alternatives. As a basic premise, I can understand what they're doing, but in specific cases -- and I think the Other Published Worlds forum is one of them -- I think that what they're doing is creating more problems than it's solving.
It's a question of what's really important: making the boards look busy, or making your customer base happy and excited about your products? The boards reorganization has elevated the former -- at the expense of the latter. If they want to sell 4E versions of the worlds now lumped together in the "Other Published Worlds" section, WotC would do well to avoid alienating the fans of those settings.
So yes, I am putting the blame squarely on WotC, because it's WotC's decision-making that I see as the root of the problem.
'That' kind of fans. They are also a factor in the whole picture, and I talk of the whole 4th ed thing.
And so...
I say there is actual fans who are unreasonable and demanding, very demanding. And mean.
because to me, the whole situation is also an overinflated balon. Is that so serious if some honestly minor legacy things are joined together? Because some of those settings, honestly... EVEN when they where 'alive', you know...
is that really worth rage?
No, customers are not always right, as pointed justly by ArcTan, by example.
And I bring you back that there is a problem also with the fandom; don't tell me that you have never seen in here or in real life some..... very enthousiast fans.
'That' kind of fans. They are also a factor in the whole picture, and I talk of the whole 4th ed thing.
And so...
I say there is actual fans who are unreasonable and demanding, very demanding. And mean.
Yes, there are plenty of unreasonable people in any population, and these boards are no exception.
because to me, the whole situation is also an overinflated balon. Is that so serious if some honestly minor legacy things are joined together? Because some of those settings, honestly... EVEN when they where 'alive', you know...
is that really worth rage?
Clearly, this is what WotC thought in the first place. However, I would disagree that the other published settings, representing 30 years of history of the game, really qualify as "minor legacy things." Each setting has a vibrant and active fan community, even if it is not active here. And why are those communities not active here? Might it have something to do with the way their settings are treated here? I would submit that that is a significant contributing factor.
For WotC to exhibit this kind of attitude toward its customer base is a bad idea. That is especially true, as I said, if WotC plans to publish 4E versions of some or all of these settings at some point.
Each setting has a vibrant and active fan community, even if it is not active here. And why are those communities not active here? Might it have something to do with the way their settings are treated here? I would submit that that is a significant contributing factor.
I would disagree on both those statements. There is an intense minority of people dedicated to the out-of-print settings, but they were not vibrant or active on these boards, even when each setting had its own separate board. Many of the boards had less than five active threads a day. Many of the boards' traffic would have to be measured in weeks or even months. That's before the consolidation.
Yes, some people were very upset that the boards were consolidated but except for Greyhawk and Dragonlance, none of those settings had original material in years.
The boards were an eyesore, in my opinion, and I'm a huge fan of Planescape and Darksun and hope they get updates for 4th edition.
The people who got upset that their worlds didn't get to keep separate boards were never going to be satisfied. Wizards can't walk on eggshells for fear of upsetting such customers. I don't think it was bad business to consolidate those boards. I think the hundred or so (and I think that's a generous estimate) people who were angered by the decision were worth cutting loose.
That probably sounds harsh. I don't know of a non-harsh way to say it.
Heck, another hundred or so people are going to be angry when the Duelmaster and Transformer TCG forums are eventually shut down and moved into Gleemax. So be it. These are dead game lines. You don't keep them around just because they have historical significance.
One day (maybe in a year or two), the Third Edition boards will likely get consolidated into a single board, depending on the traffic there. People will get angry all over again.
Message boards are not museums intended to enshrine the games' history. That's what coffee table books are for.
I would disagree on both those statements. There is an intense minority of people dedicated to the out-of-print settings, but they were not vibrant or active on these boards, even when each setting had its own separate board. Many of the boards had less than five active threads a day. Many of the boards' traffic would have to be measured in weeks or even months. That's before the consolidation.
I believe I did say that they weren't necessarily active [b]here[/b]. But each setting has active fansites, and from what I saw, posting here was always secondary to posting in those other places.
Yes, some people were very upset that the boards were consolidated but except for Greyhawk and Dragonlance, none of those settings had original material in years.
Um, Dragonlance was licensed to Margaret Weis Productions, which did publish 3E Dragonlance stuff. And Greyhawk did have this little thing called Living Greyhawk - I believe it was the largest living game ever; it also effectively prevented any published support for the setting, since nothing was allowed to contradict the LG stuff. But now I'm just quibbling. I know what you meant: during the lifespan of 3E, neither setting was supported by WotC like FR and Eberron were.
The boards were an eyesore, in my opinion, and I'm a huge fan of Planescape and Darksun and hope they get updates for 4th edition.
The people who got upset that their worlds didn't get to keep separate boards were never going to be satisfied. Wizards can't walk on eggshells for fear of upsetting such customers. I don't think it was bad business to consolidate those boards. I think the hundred or so (and I think that's a generous estimate) people who were angered by the decision were worth cutting loose.
That probably sounds harsh. I don't know of a non-harsh way to say it.
But what would it have cost them to keep the boards separate? (This has never been satisfactorily answered, at least as far as I've seen.) Who would have been angered by leaving them separate? (No one, as far as I can tell.) What is the benefit in angering any number of customers, when the alternative would have angered no one?
Message boards are not museums intended to enshrine the games' history.
No, they're intended to draw people into the community, so that WotC can try to sell them other stuff. That goal can never succeed with any customers that WotC drives away. Moreover, one of the things that WotC will eventually try to sell is 4E versions of some or all of these old settings - so what sense does it make to alienate the fans of those settings?
All I'm saying is that I don't think WotC appropriately calculated the costs and benefits of what they did, and I don't think they've done a good job at all of selling the necessity of what they did. This could have been done differently and handled better.
I'll just note one more thing: I think those of us who frequent the "Other Published Worlds" forum would find the merger a lot easier to swallow if there were an easy way to sort the threads by setting. Maybe the Search feature could be used - although I can't test that now because it seems to be down again. What I'm really thinking of, though, is something like the way you can sort by topic on EN World. That way, WotC can still have one forum instead of several, and we can still find the threads that concern our chosen settings without sifting through a lot of other stuff.
Why not use the suggestions of Tags on the topics titles? Many places work with that.
Yes, some people were very upset that the boards were consolidated but except for Greyhawk and Dragonlance, none of those settings had original material in years.
Um, Dragonlance was licensed to Margaret Weis Productions, which did publish 3E Dragonlance stuff. And Greyhawk did have this little thing called Living Greyhawk - I believe it was the largest living game ever; it also effectively prevented any published support for the setting, since nothing was allowed to contradict the LG stuff. But now I'm just quibbling. I know what you meant: during the lifespan of 3E, neither setting was supported by WotC like FR and Eberron were.
I recommend you read wrecan's comment again. He said Dragonlance and Greyhawk were the only "out of print" settings to get 3e support.
But what would it have cost them to keep the boards separate?
Nothing. The decision has nothing to do with "cost" as was explained several posts up. It has to do with keeping the boards vibrant so as to encourage people to contribute.
What is the benefit in angering any number of customers, when the alternative would have angered no one?
A company whose only consideration is not angering people is a poorly run company. Thus my comment on "walking on eggshells"
All I'm saying is that I don't think WotC appropriately calculated the costs and benefits of what they did, and I don't think they've done a good job at all of selling the necessity of what they did. This could have been done differently and handled better.
And I'm saying that I don't think you understand all the goals and benefits they are trying to achieve when you seem to think it all comes down to the cost of maintaining the forums and cost of angering customers and nothing else.
I recommend you read wrecan's comment again. He said Dragonlance and Greyhawk were the only "out of print" settings to get 3e support.
You're right, my bad. I misread his comments.
Why not use the suggestions of Tags on the topics titles? Many places work with that.
You've still got to do a lot of sifting. It would be nice if there were a way to automatically sort. Again, visit EN World and you'll see what I mean.
Nothing. The decision has nothing to do with "cost" as was explained several posts up. It has to do with keeping the boards vibrant so as to encourage people to contribute.
A company whose only consideration is not angering people is a poorly run company. Thus my comment on "walking on eggshells"
And I'm saying that I don't think you understand all the goals and benefits they are trying to achieve when you seem to think it all comes down to the cost of maintaining the forums and cost of angering customers and nothing else.
I'm not sure whether we're talking past each other or simply disagree, so I'll take one more stab at this.
I'm not suggesting that WotC needs to walk on eggshells around its customers. Nothing they do is going to please everyone. But what I'm challenging is the notion that merging the other worlds boards has contributed to a vibrant community. To the contrary, from what I have seen, it has driven people away. What is left is a single forum that might have more activity than any of individual forums used to, creating the APPEARANCE of a vibrant community, when in fact many people who used to contribute to the old boards are simply gone and much of the activity on the new board is the continuing discussion about the forum merger.
If the APPEARANCE of a vibrant, active community is enough for WotC, more power to them. Instead of making any kind of effort to draw people in to the separate forums, they have reduced the total number of people posting concerning the other published worlds, but they've got a single forum with at least some activity each day.
I think I do understand the costs and benefits. I think I understand them better than WotC does. If there's no additional cost to maintaining separate forums for each setting, and the sole reason for the merger is to make the boards look busy, then I think they've dropped the ball. Instead of making the WotC other worlds forums a hub of activity for those worlds, WotC has pushed people away from here to other sites -- including at least one brand new one, if I am not mistaken. I don't think they anticipated the level of anger that the merger would generate, and the number of people who would simply leave.
Even judged solely in terms of WotC's goal of making the boards look busy, I would not say that they have succeeded insofar as the Other Published Worlds forum is concerned. Judging by the weekly tallies, that forum is consistently one of the least busy. I would be willing to bet that the current numbers are well below what the combined totals for all of the separate other worlds forums used to be, and is probably in the neighborhood that some of those single forums used to achieve all on their own -- the high end of that neighborhood, maybe, but still the same neighborhood.
I'm not suggesting that WotC needs to walk on eggshells around its customers.
Yes, you did, when you said they shouldn't be angering the customers who barely used the Other Wolds boards before.
If the APPEARANCE of a vibrant, active community is enough for WotC, more power to them.
That's looking at things quite selectively. Yes, the appearance of activity is not the goal but a means of inviting people to participate.
Keeping a huge parking lot open that is growing weeds and is a huge eyesore simply because five people use it is nonsensical. Better to close it down and fill it with forest greenery and a small strip with six parking spots. Let's say this development drives away three of the five people who used to park there dreaming of the day that lot was once again filled with cars. Is anybody parking in the new forest? No. Would it have cost you anything to keep the parking lot open? No. Is it driving away most of the five people who used to park there? Yes. Is that bad business? No.
Instead of making the WotC other worlds forums a hub of activity for those worlds...
That was not a possibility. Instead of turning water into wine, they decided to do what was in their realm of possibilities. Making the forums a "hub" for out-of-print world fans was not within their purview. That requires actual investments of time, personnel and of course money.
WotC has pushed people away from here to other sites -- including at least one brand new one, if I am not mistaken. I don't think they anticipated the level of anger that the merger would generate, and the number of people who would simply leave.
I for one totally expected it and I raised it as a possibility when we were discussing on these boards what to do about the Other Worlds. Frankly, the level of rancor is decidedly less that I figured was going to happen.
If you're looking for boards where four posts a day on a board is sufficient, then yes, the Wizards boards are not for you. Wizards.community is not looking to have a monopoly on dead and dormant game lines. So yes, it was expected that people would leave and... it was hoped they'd find a home that could serve their needs, because these forums would not cater to them.
Why do people think that something should be all things to all people? It's not realistic. It's not useful. It's not productive. And it's actively bad business.
Judging by the weekly tallies, that forum is consistently one of the least busy. I would be willing to bet that the current numbers are well below what the combined totals for all of the separate other worlds forums used to be
Define "well below". Before the merger, the combination of all those boards would have produced about 14 active threads a day. Now it's 9. Is that well-below?
That's like saying a drop from one milliliter to a half-milliliter is a precipitous drop, even though the metric we measure everything else is in kiloliters.
The Other Worlds Forum is one of the slower forums. But it's a far sight better than when the Other Worlds Board was one of the slower twelve forums.
I'm a bit surprised by the argument that slow boards present an "eyesore." I would disagree that it's anything like a cracked and weedy parking lot.
In any event, you've made it clear that WotC did indeed know what it was doing when it merged the other worlds forums, and that it didn't care about losing those people from the community. That said, it's clear that they're not about to change their minds, so I'll stop trying to convince them to do so.
In any event, you've made it clear that WotC did indeed know what it was doing when it merged the other worlds forums, and that it didn't care about losing those people from the community. That said, it's clear that they're not about to change their minds, so I'll stop trying to convince them to do so.
-As I said, the only way that'll realistically happen would be by working within the rules that have already been set down- which is why I find it so counterproductive that a large majority of the "mainstay" of the various Other Published Settings community is leaving and going elsewhere. You've heard this from me already, though, so...
Wizards.community is not looking to have a monopoly on dead and dormant game lines. So yes, it was expected that people would leave and... it was hoped they'd find a home that could serve their needs, because these forums would not cater to them.
A concern might be whether anyone involved in this decision to strangle the retired settings has any coordination with the part of WotC that decides to bring a retired setting out of retirement for a 4e iteration.
Is it dead and dormant when it merits a Dragon or Dungeon article? Do you think that no retired setting will get them?
To happily send the fans of a setting out of the WotC community out of a sense of forum organization Potemkin village aesthetic, but then have to reverse course, squealing tires on the day when a retired setting is republished and is in need of forum support.
But then I'm expecting a response of, "yeah maybe that could happen, but whatever, you'll all get what we give you and you'll take it."
Most of those settings were NOT killed... You can't kill the already dead.
Most of those settings were legacy, used by a minority of dedicated fans.
(Except perhaps GH (to a point) and DL)
WOTC just accepted the cold, hard fact. There won't be a Mystara or Spelljammer grand renaissance. It's the fans who can't accept the reality, sorry.
The problem is 'vibrant'.
Most of those settings were NOT killed... You can't kill the already dead.
But some were 'vibrant'. And those with an active posting core of members got blended into everything else, effectively smothering the life in those few.
I have a large level of confidence that with 4e out the Dark Sun fan community would have begun a post-surge about what to do to convert a DS4 as soon as folks started getting a grasp at designing for 4e. But it now won't happen here.
But some were 'vibrant'.
The Darksun Community was not vibrant as that term is used around here. The Darksun boards got less than an active thread a day before the merger.
I have a large level of confidence that with 4e out the Dark Sun fan community would have begun a post-surge about what to do to convert a DS4 as soon as folks started getting a grasp at designing for 4e. But it now won't happen here.
I have a large level of confidence that there may have been a thread or two which would have died quickly because it would have gotten few responses because no more than a half-dozen people frequented the Darksun boards on a regular basis (and I was one of them).
A wholesale Darksun conversion is something for a fansite to do (once the GSL for fansites if published) or wait a few years and hope WotC identifies Darksun as one of the settings to get an update.
Is it dead and dormant when it merits a Dragon or Dungeon article?
Yes. The fact that there was a Darksun-themed Dragon article does not change its status as a dormant setting.
Why do people think that something should be all things to all people?
Perhaps because Gleemax bills itself as the home for all gamers, and the forums are a part of Gleemax.
Not necessarily arguing with you; just tossing out a potential reason why.
By virtue of the Community homepage, they aren't. Come on, zherog, let's not play the semantics game. If someone is going to insist that the D&D boards are Gleemax boards because of the url, rather than the way the boards are actually organized, I think it's fairly safe to say the person is looking for a fight more than answers.
By virtue of the Community homepage, they aren't. Come on, zherog, let's not play the semantics game. If someone is going to insist that the D&D boards are Gleemax boards because of the url, rather than the way the boards are actually organized, I think it's fairly safe to say the person is looking for a fight more than answers.
By the "Community homepage," I assume you're talking about this. If you go there while you're logged in, yes, you'll see "Wizards.Community" across the banner. But try this: log out and then follow the link. Then it comes up "Gleemax." At least, that's how it was for me; maybe that's got to do with the viewing preferences I've chosen (which apply only when I'm logged in).
Moreover, regardless of what's on the banner, it still says this:
Whether you're a fan of role playing games, trading card games, board or other strategy games, or just want to talk about gaming culture, you'll find people here who share your interests and are eager to discuss them with you.
Do with that what you will.
As for your quote, that's all true. There are places to discuss everything. That doesn't mean that Wizards has promised you your very own forum for whatever topic you and twenty other people want to discuss.
There is a place to discuss Darksun. You just don't like it. I don't see any where that the forums promised "These forums will be organized exactly how each of you want it to be organized even if those desires contradict one another."
Yes. The fact that there was a Darksun-themed Dragon article does not change its status as a dormant setting.
I did not use past tense. I meant, when there is a new article. Because there surely will be.
I have a large level of confidence that there may have been a thread or two which would have died quickly because it would have gotten few responses because no more than a half-dozen people frequented the Darksun boards on a regular basis (and I was one of them).
Were you a frequenter when 3.5 was released? Or when 3e was released? I was, the activity was remarkable . . . in my opinion. The activity around conversions is low now because folks are still getting their mind around how 4e is meant to be properly designed for balance. . . and waiting for some news on psionics.
A wholesale Darksun conversion is something for a fansite to do (once the GSL for fansites if published) or wait a few years and hope WotC identifies Darksun as one of the settings to get an update.
Has WotC relinquished the restriction against official fan sites from running forums? Athas.org (the official fan site) directed all such forum activity to the official forums. So of course athas.org would do the convesion, duh, but athas.org always directed discussion of the conversion to the official WotC forums. . . which seemed to make tons of sense and was a plus for the official fan site, and WotC. Cutting this off truly is a net negative for both parties (WotC and the official fan site).
I did not use past tense. I meant, when there is a new article. Because there surely will be.
There is a "new article" right now. It was released a few days ago. That's why I sued the past tense. The current article on Athas doesn't change the fact that DarkSun is a dormant setting.
Were you a frequenter when 3.5 was released? Or when 3e was released? I was, the activity was remarkable . . . in my opinion.
I was too. It was heartening and it quickly died. Even at its height, it wouldn't have been enough to justify a Darksun forum under the current criteria.
Has WotC relinquished the restriction against official fan sites from running forums?
WotC hasn't done anything yet except promise a Game System License specific to fansites. We'll have to see if they allow discussion forums or not.
Athas.org (the official fan site) directed all such forum activity to the official forums. So of course athas.org would do the convesion, duh, but athas.org always directed discussion of the conversion to the official WotC forums. . . which seemed to make tons of sense and was a plus for the official fan site, and WotC. Cutting this off truly is a net negative for both parties (WotC and the official fan site).
When the new GSL comes out, hopefully, Athas will be able to have its own forums.
Am I missing something? Athas.org does have its own forums. I think every major fansite does.
We're talking about the official fan site. Official meaning WotC approved the site with arrangement that those sites could produce conversions of the settings as long as the material was given away for free and both WotC and the official fansite together were owners of the material.
The official fansites were originally required to not host a discussion forum. Some other fansites ignored the limitation and did it anyway. Athas.org held out and instead kept directing discussion to the official forums . . . until now.
I am no longer a member of the Athas.org team so I can state whether someone at WotC has been in contact with the official fan sites over the status of what official fansites can do. For all I know, WotC will be removing the imprimatur of "officialdom" for any fansite.
-Not for nothing, but does anyone care if a specific site is the "official fansite" for XYZ? I know I don't..
You are not WotC.
WotC cares who uses their creative material.
In the past, under the D20/OGL, settings like Dark Sun were not fair game for fans to publish rules and conversions about. The imprimatur of an official fansite gave fans a place to come together to do it, where the fansite and WotC kept ownership of everything produced.
If the future GSL fansite rules come out giving fansites free reign over retired setting material, then the imprimatur of officialdom truly means zilch. Does anyone think WotC will let fans go wild with retired setting material though?
Which brings me back to a questions I was asking in a round about way. Is anyone who merged the retired settings forums in communication with the people who are crafting the GSL fansite stuff . . . much less the people who are scheduling future product lines? From the sound of things the answer is "no". I'm asking this in honest curiosity.
You are not WotC.
WotC cares who uses their creative material.
-Understood. I meant that in the sense of us nobodies, not WotC.
-Furthermore, most larger corporations, I find, do very little to enforce fansites that pop up, so long as they do not make money in any fashion, regardless if they do not have the "official" say so. George Lucas is perhaps the most proactive, when it comes to not allowing people to profit from his intellectual property, and how many "unofficial" Star Wars fansites are there out there? Plenty.
-But, the main crux of my post was that I don't think that most nobodies like us care if a site is "official" or not.