Gamer_Zer0;16136036 wrote:
I think a DM section would make sense for asking questions that won't get pushed to the bottom quickly.
Aye. It should be logical though - if people have a question and have to ponder in what forum to post, it is not actually going to be an improvement.
Personally, I see something in Gaming vs Novels, or, more abstract, Rules and applications vs Background and plotlines.
Want to know how to make a drider (N)PC? Go to rules. Want to know what the status of Driders are within Drow community? Go to background.
Gomez
-Would it be dignified to call them "Forgotten Realms: Mechanics" and "Forgotten Realms: Realmslore", perhaps?
Yes, it seems quite logical to me.
Dude, I was just about to say that same thing, but decided to break out from work rather than post. Yeah, "Forgotten Realms Mechanics" for sure, and "Forgotten Realms Canon" or "Forgotten Realms Realmslore" would be nice. It is much more specific and easier to understand.
I think either of these would work - an awful lot of people seem to like FR for its novels as well as the setting. "Crunch" and "Fluff" would be nice too...I like the idea of fluff being called "Realmslore", but I dunno what I'd call crunch.
I would avoid the "DMs" and "Players" division, personally. I worry it might promote the adversarial view some people have about the hobby.
Much better way of putting it, gets my vote.
I think this might suit it better:
Forgotten Realms: Issues Of Logic
Forgotten Realms: Issues Of Imagination
:D
Crunch and fluff.
There. Now you have an outsider view on the subject that should mean absolutey nothing to those forums.
Stupid board seperation - the game mechanics stuff was THE slowest moving board before (Arms and Equipment). All the other boards that existed before will still fall under the 'general' category, which is already far to busy.
I could care less about a mechanical board - what I want to see is an FR 'lore' board, for custom projects, homebrew lore, and FR history discussions. That is FAR more needed then a mechanics board. Whenever I wanted an answer to a mechanical question, I went over to the D&D boards. Now that D&D and FR rules are identical, there is absolutley NO reason to place a mechanics board here.
For general FR questions or discussion, the general boards would still be plenty busy.
So what brain surgeon decided that 99% of what goes on here should be in one board, and 1% in the other?
As am I. we certainly needed a second board. The biggest question was how to split. This is the most logical way, but its certainly not even, The lore will have at least 75% of traffic I think, but what other way was there.
There really should be 3 boards: mechanics and lore somehow split in 2. But lets see how this plays out.
Perhaps once the 4e FR book is out there will be more mechanical stuff going on
One board of constant argueing and bickering was good enough for me.
While it might overlap with generic D&D, we do tend to have a very specific community of posters on this board, so I'm certain it will see more use than many expect. Either way, I'm glad they've finally realized this isn't something that can just wait for another 3 months.
Split the forum into two forums.
Crunch and fluff.
There. Now you have an outsider view on the subject that should mean absolutey nothing to those forums.
-Heh, thanks. Now we have the opinion on an outsider who has absolutely no contribution to the Forgotten Realms forums whatsoever! :D
-Phew...And that's that.
-Heh, thanks. Now we have the opinion on an outsider who has absolutely no contribution to the Forgotten Realms forums whatsoever! :D
Exactly why any discussion about a forum like that belongs within the forum itself, where us filthy outsiders don't make decisions for people we have no contact with.
Aside from the possible crunch/fluff split I had a thought...game/novel split....or is that the same thing?
Exactly why any discussion about a forum like that belongs within the forum itself, where us filthy outsiders don't make decisions for people we have no contact with.
-Oh, you filthy outsiders, you...:P
-But, if this expedites the process, for whatever reason, I have no problem whoring my threads out. ;)
Aside from the possible crunch/fluff split I had a thought...game/novel split....or is that the same thing?
-More or less the same thing, different way of saying it. A more...'adversarial' way of saying it, too, if you ask me.
Perhaps there will be more mechanical stuff once the FR books come out but.....
Its really hard to tell what will happen. Right now the vast majority of threads are "what will happen to in 4e?" There are only 2 or 3 threads on the first page that are clearly Mechanical in nature
Crunch=Running the Realms
Fluff=Realmslore
These are probably the best known phrases from the FRCS and various Dragon & Dungeon magazine articles.
Just a thought.
Bel
-You filthy outsiders are good for something after all!
It may not be alot, I consider myself a novice to you Realms masters, but definitely not an outsider.
Bel
Bel
If Realmslore would get the vast majority of traffic, is there any particular part of Realmslore that currently gets less traffic? I don't visit the FR boards very much, but if (for example) the Underdark and Netheril always provoke questions but Calimshan and Thay don't, you could have a "popular fluff" and "not-so-popular fluff" split instead. Mechanics-wise, any crunch dealing with "popular fluff" would go there and either "not-so-popular fluff" crunch or "generic FR" crunch would go in the other one, so you could achieve a more even traffic split.
Obviously you'd need better names for those--maybe "Legendary Realms" for the big and mysterious Underdark, Netheril, etc. and "Everyday Realms" for the others, which also implies everyday -> common -> generic crunch/fluff? I don't know. But anyway, hope that helps some.
Another filthy outsider here! :D (Don't worry, I'm an Outsider (Good).)
If Realmslore would get the vast majority of traffic, is there any particular part of Realmslore that currently gets less traffic? I don't visit the FR boards very much, but if (for example) the Underdark and Netheril always provoke questions but Calimshan and Thay don't, you could have a "popular fluff" and "not-so-popular fluff" split instead. Mechanics-wise, any crunch dealing with "popular fluff" would go there and either "not-so-popular fluff" crunch or "generic FR" crunch would go in the other one, so you could achieve a more even traffic split.
Obviously you'd need better names for those--maybe "Legendary Realms" for the big and mysterious Underdark, Netheril, etc. and "Everyday Realms" for the others, which also implies everyday -> common -> generic crunch/fluff? I don't know. But anyway, hope that helps some.
That is logical but I don't know how you would exceute 2 boards: crunch plus these particular fluff items and the rest of fluff. That would be difficult to accomplish
Another filthy outsider here! :D (Don't worry, I'm an Outsider (Good).)
-Those are the Outsiders I can deal with.
If Realmslore would get the vast majority of traffic, is there any particular part of Realmslore that currently gets less traffic? I don't visit the FR boards very much, but if (for example) the Underdark and Netheril always provoke questions but Calimshan and Thay don't, you could have a "popular fluff" and "not-so-popular fluff" split instead. Mechanics-wise, any crunch dealing with "popular fluff" would go there and either "not-so-popular fluff" crunch or "generic FR" crunch would go in the other one, so you could achieve a more even traffic split.
Obviously you'd need better names for those--maybe "Legendary Realms" for the big and mysterious Underdark, Netheril, etc. and "Everyday Realms" for the others, which also implies everyday -> common -> generic crunch/fluff? I don't know. But anyway, hope that helps some.
-Personally speaking, I DON'T believe that the Realmslore section would receive the vast majority of the traffic. I believe the split would be about 65/35.
-That said, splitting things along those lines seems to be "micromanaging", and opens up more cans of worms than it solves: Where does a question go that doesn't fit into those "popular/unpopular" areas go? How exactly are the "popular/unpopular" areas determined? And, by doing this, you'd have the same theoretical problem: The "popular" area would have more traffic than the "unpopular" section.
-Personally speaking, I DON'T believe that the Realmslore section would receive the vast majority of the traffic. I believe the split would be about 65/35.
Well, that's sort of the idea--if Realmslore would get 65% of the traffic, you'd rig it so that if, say, 50% of all the fluff and crunch questions are about X, you'd split off that part of the fluff forum and that part of the crunch forum so instead of 65% fluff/35% crunch you have (65/2)% fluff/(35/2)% crunch about X and (65/2)% fluff/(35/2)% crunch not about X...thus leaving you the nice 50/50 split. Whether it's actually doable is another issue, but theoretically it works out nicely.
-That said, splitting things along those lines seems to be "micromanaging", and opens up more cans of worms than it solves: Where does a question go that doesn't fit into those "popular/unpopular" areas go?
With the "unpopular" stuff--if the "popular" stuff is getting the most traffic, you split everything else off on its own to try to balance.
How exactly are the "popular/unpopular" areas determined?
You're the FR buff; you tell me. :D
Let's take a gander at the FR boards now....It seems that there are a bunch of threads on the drow, famous NPCs, and gods/Chosen/etc., so you could make a "Realms Legends" board about famous NPCs and building NPCs; FR gods/Chosen/planes and FR cleric crunch; and Underdark stuff, and then an "Everyday Realms" board about other things.
Granted, this is from a non-FR guy skimming the top 4 pages, so I'm sure you could do better, but you get the idea.
And, by doing this, you'd have the same theoretical problem: The "popular" area would have more traffic than the "unpopular" section.
Well, by "unpopular" I mean things that aren't mentioned/posted about very often, so you might get a post or two on Meilikki, then a post or two on some obscure NPC, and so forth. The idea with this split would be that all the random topics with 2-4 posts each would add up to about the same amount as the 3 bazillion posts on Drizzt, Elminster, Netheril, etc., so anything that would normally "hog the forums" is separated.
If you think this is a completely unworkable idea, just say so, but from what little I've seen of the FR boards it could work.
I like the "Running the Realms" idea, because it would easily incorporate DM issues as well as more general mechanical questions. Heck, that might even make Mr. Miscellany happy....
Which is always a plus, on any forum. ;)
That said, I think we can get more DM traffic into the "Running the Realms" section if people don't have to wory about hardcore lore overlap. I think a distinction should be made in the wording for each sub-forum so people know whether the forum in question trends towards canon lore and the expectation of such in people's responses, or not (in which case creativity and the open sharing of ideas outside of canon are acceptable; i.e. custom stuff that Realms DMs came up with to flesh out their Realms campaigns, etc...).
A place for both, as it were.
Split the forum into two forums.
Crunch and fluff.
There. Now you have an outsider view on the subject that should mean absolutey nothing to those forums.
I support this, but Eberron forum needs the same split.
I support this, but Eberron forum needs the same split.
no it doesn't. Its not as popular as the Realms
no it doesn't. Its not as popular as the Realms
Oh stop it with the low-key baiting already.
Eberron is a huge amount of fun to play in and has a very welcoming set of online community members.
Oh stop it with the low-key baiting already.
Eberron is a huge amount of fun to play in and has a very welcoming set of online community members.
-As I just stated, it does not meet the specified criteria to have the boards split. When and if they do, they can be taken into consideration by the Boards supervisors.
-This is not the topic of this mostly meaningless thread, though.
-Rauric:
One board of constant argueing and bickering was good enough for me.
-:D
:D 18DELTA ;)
Bel
If I wanted to be acerbic about this, I'd suggest: Pre-4e Realms and Post-4e Realms... Actually, that'd probably be a good idea for a non-WotC board. However, since I'm sure the powers that be and the bean counters would much rather the focus be on the 4e Realms (given that's where they'll be making their money, provided they haven't ticked enough people off with their roughshod treatment of the world already), perhaps I should try to be a little more constructive. ;)
So I guess my suggestions are either a "Running the Realms" and "Realmslore" split, or some kind of "Gods and Characters" and "Places and Things" type split (leaving Mechanics to the Dungeons and Dragons boards that already exist for that very topic).
Heya,
If I wanted to be acerbic about this, I'd suggest: Pre-4e Realms and Post-4e Realms... Actually, that'd probably be a good idea for a non-WotC board. However, since I'm sure the powers that be and the bean counters would much rather the focus be on the 4e Realms (given that's where they'll be making their money, provided they haven't ticked enough people off with their roughshod treatment of the world already), perhaps I should try to be a little more constructive. ;)
-While that sounds nice, in theory, that's not "making the most use" of the limited amount of space we'll be having (two boards). Questions that individuals have that want to incorporate or ignore the new lore that will be released, the poster can specify, so...
Oh stop it with the low-key baiting already.
Eberron is a huge amount of fun to play in and has a very welcoming set of online community members.
I like Eberron but it doesn't have any near the traffic the Realms board does. Most days there is only a handdul of active threads going on
Bel
pre- and post- spellplague campaigns.
adding it here too:
pre- and post- spellplague campaigns.
-As I said to Storm, who suggested that:
-While that sounds nice, in theory, that's not "making the most use" of the limited amount of space we'll be having (two boards). Questions that individuals have that want to incorporate or ignore the new lore that will be released, the poster can specify, so...
It's also confusing to have a FR-3rd edition board among the 4th edition forums.
-As I've said to everyone already, the Forgotten Realms section is going to continue to be edition neutral, being as that it has it's own specific niche.
Not to mention that an official forum split between editions would probably prolong the baiting and flaming from each side ad infinitum.
-That too.
-And, like I said, that's just not making the most of our ability to have two, and not one section.
Bel
Is there a way to tab threads for the different editions? Or should thread starter just include the edition in there thread title? I would perfer tabs or flags, but if not the thread starter should go with 3x or 4E in the title instead of pre or post Spellplague as that would be too long.
Bel
-No, no there isn't, asides for putting (3e) or (4e), or whatever. Personally speaking, though, I think that looks sloppy. The meat of the person's post should include what they are looking for, however, and if not, they'll need to specify. For example, if a person is asking about Prestige Classes, obviously, they are talking about 3e.
It's a whole lot smarter to specify by edition with a simple "3E" or "4E". That way people can easily find threads that suit their tastes.
This format works on other message board forums. It can and should work on the Forgotten Realms Forums.
Another problem this might eliminate are anti-edition theads, like a 4E thread created just to bash 4E regardless of other editions, again not that we FR dwellers would do that.
Bel
I disagree.
It's a whole lot smarter to specify by edition with a simple "3E" or "4E". That way people can easily find threads that suit their tastes.
This format works on other message board forums. It can and should work on the Forgotten Realms Forums.
-I got to agree with you Miscellany :D . I know I would like a 3.5 Realms Forum.
That way I wont have to hear about 4E and the 4-Gotten Realms. ;)18DELTA :P
That way I wont have to hear about 4E and the 4-Gotten Realms.
Now if we can get our Forum Lead to quit using that term (a form of baiting, amongst other things), then things should be just about perfect.
:P
The reason I ask is that it seems to be a convienent way to prevent edition sniping. If someone posts something anti 3x in a 3x thread, they don't have the excuse that they weren't aware of the content. Not that I expect there to be alot of this, as we Realmsrunners tend to be more civilized than other boards.:D
-Yeah, there really wasn't much of that going on in our section. Of course, there was/is debate, but 80% of it is intelligible debate, which is a good thing.
-That said, though, the minority that are going to "thread crap" are going to do so, regardless. Most of the people who have gained notoriety doing that have stopped, though.
Now if we can get our Forum Lead to quit using that term (a form of baiting, amongst other things), then things should be just about perfect.
:P
-It's baiting only in your mind. No matter how many times you repeat it, it isn't so.
-Yeah, there really wasn't much of that going on in our section. Of course, there was/is debate, but 80% of it is intelligible debate, which is a good thing.
And the other 20% are my posts
And the other 20% are my posts
-But, in all seriousness...
-It's baiting only in your mind. No matter how many times you repeat it, it isn't so.
Oh it is, it is. Forum members have complained to you openly on the FR Forums about it, but you just keep using it, even though you know it will tick people off.....
I just don't see what the problem is with calling the Forgotten Realms the "Forgotten Realms".
I don't believe the 4E Forgotten Realms is any less a part of that body of work that comprises the Forgotten Realms than any other game product or novel.
Why do you? I only ever see you use the term in posts that complain about the setting.
I don't believe it's right or appropriate to use terminology that helps to divide the Realms community and promote the idea that the latest Forgotten Realms products (including novels) aren’t part of the setting.
But your pet phrase does just that.
Oh it is, it is. Forum members have complained to you openly on the FR Forums about it, but you just keep using it, even though you know it will tick people off.....
-And, a greater majority have no problem with it. As I recall, majority rules.
I just don't see what the problem is with calling the Forgotten Realms the "Forgotten Realms".
I don't believe the 4E Forgotten Realms is any less a part of that body of work that comprises the Forgotten Realms than any other game product or novel.
-Nobody says that it is or isn't less Forgotten Realms than the current incarnation of the setting. It is, however, taking place 100 (+/-) years after the current incarnation of the setting. Thus, a distinction between the two eras must be made. We've been through this before, and I know you're not a stupid guy.
Bel
Running the Realms The Forgotten Realms has many unique mechanical aspects, including special races, classes, spells, and powers. Discuss them here with other fans of Ed Greenwood's panoramic campaign setting. This is also the place to talk about integrating standard mechanical rules into Faerûn.
Realmslore This forum looks at the "fluffier" side of Faerûn. Hop to this forum to discuss the rich history of the setting's many countries, delve into the culture of its races, and investigate the effects of the spellplague - among other topics.
*
Do those names and descriptions work?
Do those names and descriptions work?
Running the Realms: The Forgotten Realms have many unique races, classes, spells, and powers, all of which have been integrated and implemented in the setting. Discuss these mechanical aspects of Dungeons & Dragons here, with other fans of Ed Greenwood's panoramic campaign setting.
Realmslore: The lands of Faerûn are a place of great heroes and stark evil, encompassing lands of magic, mystery and high peril. Discuss the rich and colorful history of the Forgotten Realms, as well as the people and places that make them up, here.
Running the Realms: The Forgotten Realms have many unique races, classes, spells, and powers, all of which have been integrated and implemented in the setting. Discuss these mechanical aspects of Dungeons & Dragons here, with other fans of Ed Greenwood's panoramic campaign setting.
Realmslore: The lands of Faerûn are a place of great heroes and stark evil, encompassing lands of magic, mystery and high peril. Discuss the rich and colorful history of the Forgotten Realms, as well as the people and places that make them up, here.
I have to admit I like LK's just a tad better, it seems less edition centered.
Bel
The term "integrated" should not be used, because it implies the rules are tacked on to the setting. The Forgotten Realms has always been as much a gaming setting as it is a fiction setting, so that aspect of it should receive equal treatment.
Also, both of the "Running the Realms" descriptions are flawed. They should also include words pointed squarely at Realms Dungeon Masters to encourage them to talk about their campaigns and how to run them in the Realms.
Thus, a distinction between the two eras must be made.
That is what the term "4E" or "Fourth Edition" is for.
Please stop disrespecting the setting. We both know you are not using your pet term out of any great admiration or appreciation for the 4E Forgotten Realms.
No sweat. ;) Mine was just a starting point.
-The one I used is what I suggested in the Forum Descriptions thread. Since all of my subscriptions are gone, I can't find it, but...I used, more or less, what you provided for the "Running the Realms" entry, and used the opening text in the FRCS for the Realmslore section.
If there are dissenting views, can someone summerize the arguements for and against so I can bring that to our team and make a final determination?
Thanks!
For myself I do not post there now, because it is a single forum and would be one more interested in posting to them being split in some fashion.
Also, the forums must be moderated well and fairly. How about another VCL, if possible and needed? Mr_Miscellany would be good by example.
Do we feel we've reached some consensus?
-Yes. As you can see from the posts, the majority are in favor of the split:
'Realmslore' (Non-D&D related issues, in relation to the setting)
'Running the Realms' (D&D related issues, in relation to the setting)
Do we think each forum will get roughly the same amount of traffic?
-As I said, right now, I expect the ratio to be about 65-70% to be in the 'Realmslore' section, and 30-35% in the 'Running the Realms' section. The mean, right now, of the section is 41 active thread per week (something in that area. You'll have to check the Forumwatch thread), so that's about 25 active thread per day in the Realmslore section, and 16 in the 'Running the Realms' section. I think those are good numbers.
-And, of course, when the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Forgotten Realms Player's Guide are released later this summer, activity in both sections should increase exponentially.
If there are dissenting views, can someone summerize the arguements for and against so I can bring that to our team and make a final determination?
-Majority of the recommendations were for (more or less, and often in different terms) the split that has been described above. The majority of those that did not support this kind of split recommended a split in the terms of 3e information (Pre-Spellplague) and 4e information (Post-Spellplague). As I said to those who gave such recommendations, that is not using the limited space (two potential sections, rather than one) in a wise manner. Not only is it polarizing, but would seem to encourage a lot of baiting and flaming, and would cause too much of a divergence in the active thread ratios of the two threads (especially as more time passes). I really cannot recommend a split on such grounds.
Do we feel we've reached some consensus?
-Yes. As you can see from the posts, the majority are in favor of the split:
'Realmslore' (Non-D&D related issues, in relation to the setting)
'Running the Realms' (D&D related issues, in relation to the setting)
Do we think each forum will get roughly the same amount of traffic?
-As I said, right now, I expect the ratio to be about 65-70% to be in the 'Realmslore' section, and 30-35% in the 'Running the Realms' section. The mean, right now, of the section is 41 active thread per week (something in that area. You'll have to check the Forumwatch thread), so that's about 25 active thread per day in the Realmslore section, and 16 in the 'Running the Realms' section. I think those are good numbers.
-And, of course, when the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and Forgotten Realms Player's Guide are released later this summer, activity in both sections should increase exponentially.
If there are dissenting views, can someone summerize the arguements for and against so I can bring that to our team and make a final determination?
-Majority of the recommendations were for (more or less, and often in different terms) the split that has been described above. The majority of those that did not support this kind of split recommended a split in the terms of 3e information (Pre-Spellplague) and 4e information (Post-Spellplague). As I said to those who gave such recommendations, that is not using the limited space (two potential sections, rather than one) in a wise manner. Not only is it polarizing, but would seem to encourage a lot of baiting and flaming, and would cause too much of a divergence in the active thread ratios of the two threads (especially as more time passes). I really cannot recommend a split on such grounds.
I still have a preference for LK's intro's, however.
Bel
i think the split should be about even, there are many Realmslore savvy people on the forum now as well as DM's and ruleswise players from most editions 1E-4E.
-Traffic for the 'Running the Realms' section would also pick up once the new books are published, as well. That would probably bring the ratios closer to about 60% 'Realmslore', and 40% 'Running the Realms'.
I still have a preference for LK's intro's, however.
-Well, descriptions, we can think up and finalize once we know exactly what we're getting.
Bel
Did we ever decide if putting the edition in the thread title or if there was a way to flag or tag a thread by edition should be implemented?
Bel
-There isn't a way to flag/tag such posts, for a search or whatever. If the person wants, they can include what edition they are talking about in the titles of their posts, or in the body of the the actual post itself. And, of course, there are context clues- if someone is looking for information about a Prestige Class, they are obviously looking for 3e information.
-Traffic for the 'Running the Realms' section would also pick up once the new books are published, as well. That would probably bring the ratios closer to about 60% 'Realmslore', and 40% 'Running the Realms'.
Thanks. I think 60/40 or even 70/30 isn't a bad split. I just want to avoid a situation where it's like 85/15.
Thanks. I think 60/40 or even 70/30 isn't a bad split. I just want to avoid a situation where it's like 85/15.
-Nah, I really can't foresee it being anything that radical.
Bel
-Hell, think of it...Theoretically, with enough traffic, we could get more threads...How's that for an incentive for everyone to participate and contribute (in a meaningful way)! :D
Hopefully meaningfull indeed... I am not optimistic for august - september though, to be frank.
I didn't know your name was Frank.
I on the other hand will be ernest in my attempt to make the best of the new Realms.
Bel
Hopefully meaningfull indeed... I am not optimistic for august - september though, to be frank.
-I thought that the books were being published in August? So, that's when a lot of the new posts, asking questions, and conversions and stuff will start.
-My meaningful, I mean posts consisting more of things such as "DIE 4e DIE", and "Stop whining".
Did we ever decide if putting the edition in the thread title or if there was a way to flag or tag a thread by edition should be implemented?
Bel
There isn't a way to do it automatically, but it would be something that you could ask people to do.
Put [3.5] or [4E] at the beginning of the subject line.
-I thought that the books were being published in August? So, that's when a lot of the new posts, asking questions, and conversions and stuff will start.
-My meaningful, I mean posts consisting more of things such as "DIE 4e DIE", and "Stop whining".
Well, you know as much as me how may be the reaction of a... part of the base. This will be like when the core books arived.
Also, the forums must be moderated well and fairly. How about another VCL, if possible and needed? Mr_Miscellany would be good by example.
Sorry if this is off the topic, but it was suggested here and I must interject.
Mr Miscellany would be an absolutely terrible choice for a VCL.
Sorry if this is off the topic, but it was suggested here and I must interject.
Mr Miscellany would be an absolutely terrible choice for a VCL.
Why?
Because he is openly in the 'pro changes' camp?
Karsus is openly and vocaly in the "anti changes" camp and well, he was chosen.
Could even make an interesting counterweight and second opinion on that aspect. He can discuss well too, to my eyes, and talk around.
Why?
Because he is in the 'pro changes' camp?
Sending you a PM shortly.
Karsus is openly and vocaly in the "anti changes" camp and well, he was chosen.
-I am not the D&D VCL. Webster is the D&D VCL. I am the FL of the Forgotten Realms section. Nor do one's 'personal views' have to do with anything.
-Back to topic, now that that confusion is cleared up.
-That is, if there's anything left to discuss...?
Bel
Mr_Miscellany would be good by example.
TY for the recommendation!
:embarrass
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I’d just like to put in another shout-out towards including something more in the soon-to-be Running the Realms section header (other than its title) that’s pointed squarely at Realms DMs in order to encourage them to post questions and comments about running Realms campaigns, as well as posts on sharing custom FR creations (which helps to keep the non-canon custom stuff out of the other section).
Lord Karsus is right that posting will increase dramatically once the FR Campaign Guide and FR Player’s Guide hit the shelves.
I’m not trying to make the Running the Realms section outshine the other section, I want both sections to rev up to full speed and run that way for as long as possible.
I think wording pointed at Realms DMs will go a long ways towards making this happen.
Then we can build the community up by getting Realms DMs to come to rely on each other for advice and ideas.
Likewise when the FR Player’s Guide hits, we can get people to post their characters, their character’s back stories and whatever else FR-related that makes them unique.
Encouraging people to share, and sometimes to PEACH, is how we knit our section of the Forums together and make it grow.
I’m stoked. Let’s do this.
Good notes, Miscellany.
-Also, how long should those forum descriptions be? I like adding flourishes to things, so...
I'm submitting the request right now and want to give at least a week's notice in the forums. I can use the existing descriptions or you can do up new ones that are one or two lines each. Thanks
-Cool. Excellent. I'll PM you those descriptions.
Bel