Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 wrecan Jan 25, 2008 14:35:10	Fourth Edition is coming out in June. I expect there will have to be a reorganization of the D&D boards at that time. Currently, D&D discussions are split into two areas: the 4th edition Boards and the D&D Boards. I doubt that will continue. So what do you think a consolidated D&D Board should look like come June? For starters, here is how the D&D-specific Boards are currently organized: Current Organization This list doesn't include "Forums" that are simply links to other forums, like the Optimization Boards. Dungeons & Dragons D&D HQ D&D Forum FAQs Regdar's Repository RPG Boards Business D&D Fundamentals Future Releases Races Classes Prestige Classes Skills & Feats Equipment & Combat Magic & Spells Psionics Monster's Lair Deities & the Planes D&D General D&D Rules, Campaign & Character Advice [list] What's a DM To Do? DM Rules Counseling What's a Player to Do? Unearthed Arcana & House Rules Campaign Workshop Character Development (linked to d20 character development boards) Character Optimization (linked to d20 optimization boards) [*]D&D Styles Epic Level Digital D&D Mature Topics Oriental Adventures D&D Accessories (Archived) D&D Adventures [*]D&D Related Topics D&D Fiction (linked to Inside Wizards: Legendology Fiction) D&D Out-of-Print (linked to Other Roleplaying Worlds: D&D Out of Print) d20 Design (linked to d20 Design) [/list] D&D 4th Edition D&D 4th Edition HQ RPG Business (linked to D&D HQ: RPG Boards Business) Staff Blogs (linked to Inside Wizards: Wizards' Staff Blogs) [b] Astrid's Parlor OGL/d20 D&D 4th Edition Fundamentals Races Classes Treasure & Rewards Monsters Magic 4E Rules 4E Concerns & Criticism 4E Adventures D&D Insider Dragon Magazine Dungeon Magazine Character Creator D&D Game Table Dungeon Master's Kit Technical Discussion D&D 4th Edition Campaign Settings Dragonlance Eberron Forgotten Realms Greyhawk Other Campaign Settings[/b]
#2 pangalactic Jan 25, 2008 14:56:10	I only gave it a quick once-over, but it looks good to me. Seems like a very intuitive structure.
#3 Magocrat Jan 25, 2008 15:03:08	It looks excellent to me as well, except that you may want to divide the Spells, Powers, Feats, and Skills forum into its individual parts. I expect that there'll be enough discussion on each topic to warrant an individual forum for each. And I doubt whether Points of Light is actually a campaign; Worlds and Monsters states that it represents a lot of assumptions about the campaign you're playing in. (That piece is available in the excerpt on the main page.) Also, while I can't predict, I think it would be wise to give each power source its own room for discussion, perhaps in respective subforums. (The power sources will be martial, arcane, and divine in the first Player's Handbook, for as far as I know.) Granting each a subforum isn't obtrusive, but also gives each its own room for discussion. As pangalactic said, it's intuitive.
#4 wrecan Jan 25, 2008 15:11:49	I thought about dividing magic, psi and powers up, but I didn't want there to be an overwhelming number of forums either. But then the Power Source Suggestion got me thinking. I'm editing my OP. Let me know if you like it.
#5 Magocrat Jan 25, 2008 15:23:19	Looks good, except that I don't think there should be a catch-all subforum for all power sources that are published after the first Player's Handbook; each should get its own subforum. If you look at the number of people who want a (sub)forum for their favorite book (Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, et cetera), you can understand why that would be a good move. (And a minor nitpick, but it's Regdar's, not Redgar's. Another good reason to abolish iconic characters.)
#6 wrecan Jan 25, 2008 15:25:52	Both are good points....
#7 Seeker95 Jan 25, 2008 16:28:39	I would suggest that this excellent idea be held in reserve until we know a bit more about the structure of 4th edition. Because we are getting more information (teaser in nature, though it may be), this idea will continue to develop and evolve as our understanding of 4e evolves. This does not mean stop talking about it. It means reserve judgment on the rightness, wrongness, goodness or badness of the details until we know more. In the meantime, the discussion of structural change is not a bad one.
#8 wrecan Jan 25, 2008 16:50:12	Well, as new info comes to light, I can always amend the original list. But I think we have sufficient global info about the game to suggest how the forums should be restructured in June.
#9 sillyrobot Jan 25, 2008 16:57:35	I would suggest a reorderig of this section: Family Gaming Astrid's Parlor (formerly Astrid's Parlor) Diversity in Gaming Mature Topics (formerly Mature Topics) into
#10 wrecan Jan 25, 2008 17:18:11	I'm trying to avoid subfolders if I can. Also, you just cut out discussion of Race, which is what Diversity in Gaming was supposed to encompass. I'm open to another name to make the topic more clear.
#11 Zherog Jan 25, 2008 17:38:20	I'm not sure "What's A Player to Do?" and "What's A DM to Do?" need to be renamed. There's nothing wrong with the current names, so I think it would provide continuity to keep those names the same. As for why Rules Counseling is a sub-forum of WaDMtD... it's because the members of that community insisted they needed the subforum as a home for all the rules questions that pop up on the main forum. There was a discussion about it in this forum, though it's probably been purged or archived by now. That said - I agree that it shouldn't be under the WaDMtD forum.
#12 sillyrobot Jan 25, 2008 17:49:50	I'm trying to avoid subfolders if I can. Also, you just cut out discussion of Race, which is what Diversity in Gaming was supposed to encompass. I'm open to another name to make the topic more clear. I admit I didn't read diversity as race; there are a bunch of possibilities such as disability, race, wealth level, language, etc. I was thinking it was a general catch basin forum. My reasoning is diversity at the table is much more general and incorporates race, gender, gaming requirements, and lifestyle choices. I must admit I am of the opinion that the sub-forums in this area tend to become exclusionary flame bait areas or echo chambers. The Mature area is necessary because of the nature of discussions and the level of level of propriety WotC wants on their open forums. Astrid's already exists and is unlikely to be folded into a more general forum -- though that would be my first choice.
#13 wrecan Jan 25, 2008 17:52:58	I admit I didn't read diversity as race; there are a bunch of possibilities such as disability, race, wealth level, language, etc. I was thinking it was a general catch basin forum. Actually, that's a good point. I must admit I am of the opinion that the sub-forums in this area tend to become exclusionary flame bait areas or echo chambers. I totally agree, though I don't think "Family Gaming" would be one, as that would be intended to provide help for people who play with their own children or their own parents. But a number of people have asked for the Diversity Forum to go alongside Astrid's, so I included it. Personally, I'd do away with Astrid's since, as laudable a goal as it had, I don't think it's living up to its promise.
#14 crazy_monkey Jan 25, 2008 19:00:29	The Diversity in Gaming and Family Gaming forums aren't necessarily D&D specific and would be better served in the Gleemax forums area, in my opinion. Additionally, the primary advocates for the existence of those forums have asked that they be created in the Gleemax forums area.
#15 eldritch_lord Jan 25, 2008 19:52:34	I second SilyRobot's reorg suggestion. I would also suggest folding D&D Game Table, Character Creator, and Technical Discussion into one "Digital Initiative" forum; it seems to me that once 4e takes off and the 4e forums are no longer "What if..." but "So here's how it is...", the three forums would likely have a lot of topics in common, as they overlap quite a bit. It seems that the devs always talk about the DI as being Dragon + Dungeon + Game Table, so having 3 forums for the 3 main themes would be appropriate.
#16 wrecan Jan 26, 2008 11:06:33	The Diversity in Gaming and Family Gaming forums aren't necessarily D&D specific and would be better served in the Gleemax forums area, in my opinion. I'm actually going to disagree here. I think playing a RPG is a different concept than playing minatures or CCGs. I think it's worth having a forum for Family Gaming and Mature gaming in the D&D boards.
#17 toran_a_sunder Jan 26, 2008 12:12:49	I agree with both Wrecan and Crazy_Monkey. But I do want to point out that on Gleemax there are more games being discussed than D&D, CCGs and miniatures. More RPG games that typically you don't find being discussed on the D&D forums.
#18 Webster Jan 27, 2008 7:47:20	General D&D Discussion (formerly D&D Forum FAQs and D&D General) The FAQs should remain a separate resource, either as a blog/webpage or some other form. Otherwise you'd have to sticky a TON of FAQs. Also, although it might seem cleaner to remove all the sub forums, it's easier to have them so folks can go discuss prestige classes in one area and races in another. (See Paradox's Supermarket) OGL/d20 (formerly OGL/d20) We actually already have a whole area for these sort of discussions. It would probably be better to keep it as a link at the bottom of the list to those forums instead of having a duplicate forum of something that's already there. Product Discussions & Reviews (formerly 4E Adventures, D&D Accessories (Archived), D&D Adventures) With a future releases or future products board, there's no need to have a second preview/review board. Moderated Articles (formerly Regdar's Repository) We really don't need Regdar's. Gleemax provides everyone with a blog to sound off.
#19 wrecan Jan 28, 2008 10:42:59	I'm going to agree with Webster's about not needing Regdar's. I'm also going to include the "forums" that are really just links to other forums on Gleemax/Wizards.COMmunity.
#20 celloshane Jan 28, 2008 12:33:06	I have two suggestions about Wrecan's general outline, but I don't have specific folder trees to suggest right now: - From what I've interperated about the importance race will play during leveling in 4e, you may want to consider splitting the Race and Monster forums or possibly making a sub-folder. - Also, perhaps some forums addressing the 3 level ranges should be considered. I'm not sure how neccessary they would be, but there seems to be a margin of importance placed on whether a group will run from 1-10, 11-20, or 21-30. I would expect we'll have to wait to see just how much such forums would be needed. I'm unclear Wrecan, about what you are suggesting for the 3rd ed. forum. Sorry if this creates a de-rail, but I haven't seen any information about what will actually happen to the 3rd edition forums in June. I ferverently hope that the forums will remain largely unchanged. Perhaps my opinion is biased, but my group won't be switching to 4e (at least for the near future) and it would be greatly dissapointing if the functionality of the 3e forums suffered. I will be very interested in the goings on of 4e, but if I have to post all my 3e questions in one generic forum (like the Out of Print forum is now) it would be frustrating to say the least.
#21 wrecan Jan 28, 2008 12:52:35	- From what I've interperated about the importance race will play during leveling in 4e, you may want to consider splitting the Race and Monster forums or possibly making a sub-folder. I did think about that, but "Race" is a pretty narrow focus. After all, there will only be eight races (with maybe a handful of others added later). Also, perhaps some forums addressing the 3 level ranges should be considered. I'm not sure how neccessary they would be, but there seems to be a margin of importance placed on whether a group will run from 1-10, 11-20, or 21-30. I would expect we'll have to wait to see just how much such forums would be needed. That's an interesting idea. Not sure how to implement that, though. I'm unclear Wrecan, about what you are suggesting for the 3rd ed. forum. Sorry if this creates a de-rail, but I haven't seen any information about what will actually happen to the 3rd edition forums in June. I haven't either. I'm speculating that the 3rd edition forums will get consolidated. I'm hoping that they will keep one forum open for 3rd edition separate form the prior editions. I really find it unlikely that Wizards will dedicate a dozen or more forums of server space to a game edition that is not being supported by the company. It's just as likely that Wizards will just consolidate the 3rd edition with all the other "Out of Print" editions.
#22 Seeker95 Jan 28, 2008 13:27:48	there seems to be a margin of importance placed on whether a group will run from 1-10, 11-20, or 21-30. Although the advanced information separates the level advancement into these branches, most posts have indicated that the ruleset is identical at each stage. My guess is that there will NOT be a need for such distinction in the Boards, although individual posts may benefit from such explicit distinction. Which brings me to a feature idea best addressed in a separate thread.
#23 celloshane Jan 28, 2008 14:15:11	That's an interesting idea. Not sure how to implement that, though. Yeah, that's where I got stuck as well. Anyway, as Seeker indicates, it likely won't be neccessary. I haven't either. I'm speculating that the 3rd edition forums will get consolidated. I'm hoping that they will keep one forum open for 3rd edition separate form the prior editions. I really find it unlikely that Wizards will dedicate a dozen or more forums of server space to a game edition that is not being supported by the company. It's just as likely that Wizards will just consolidate the 3rd edition with all the other "Out of Print" editions. That pretty much sums up my expectations and fears. It would be unreasonable to expect the forums not to shift focus to 4e in June, but I think locking the 3e forums would be a mistake. I'll wager that a significant amount of the market will stick with 3e (though I wouldn't guess at any specific numbers), at least for some time after June. It would be crazy to say that those people won't be supporting WotC; they'll still be buying minis, 3e books off the shelves and product that isn't edition specific. If the 3e forums were to be locked and shoved into Out of Print, I would think that would have a very negative effect on those people. I'll be keeping abreast of 4e so that I can decide whether I want to switch in the future, but if I don't have access to the 3e boards or something similar that's going to affect how much I use the boards at all and possibly my future purchases. Anyhow, I've derailed this thread enough now - I may open a new post to discuss the future of the 3e boards.
#24 Zherog Jan 28, 2008 14:53:31	I did think about that, but "Race" is a pretty narrow focus. After all, there will only be eight races (with maybe a handful of others added later). I dunno. "Races" current warrants a whole forum. While it's true there will be slightly fewer races in the first PHB, there's two other factors to consider: 1) The races seem like they'll be more complex, since your race gives out benefits as your level increases 2) There will be new core books released every year - PHB2, PHB3, etc. I think it's pretty reasonable to speculate that races such as gnome or aasimar will find their way into those books.
#25 wrecan Jan 28, 2008 15:28:17	I dunno. "Races" current warrants a whole forum. I don't actually think Races does warrant a whole forum in Third Edition. A lot of the threads in the Races forum should really be in the Monster's Lair. The line between "playable monster" and "race" is thin. In 4th edition, where instructions for playing monsters will be included in the MM, it will be even thinner. Frankly, I'm thinking we should do away with Skills and Feats as a Board too. That should just be in Rules Counseling or House Rules. On the other hand, I think Planes & Divinities might be better as Planes, Environments and Traps, given what we've seen of 4th edition. "Divinities" might be better discussed in the Divine Power Source board.
#26 sphyre Jan 30, 2008 18:08:21	I'm going to give my vote for that too... ... that is if Astrid's Parlor is going to make it to the real release. I'm still of the opinion that it needn't exist. (I don't mean to start a debate here, my reasons have been voiced in Astrid's Parlor in the thread specified for that.) In addition, in 4e there is a large divide between player races (specifically cleared for players to play as) and monsters(specifically designed for players to fight against. They are vastly different subjects that deserve their own forums, unlike the Classes and Power Sources having subforums for each power source, which is a bit of repetition.
#27 wrecan Jan 31, 2008 8:12:33	After further thought, I realize I'm probably alone in thinking Races and Monsters should be merged. So I separated them out.
#28 Webster Feb 12, 2008 22:30:09	Not to hijack Wercan's thread, but are there any other suggestions? I do like some of the things proposed here, and am trying to come up with a solid list. Now, I do have some concerns about "Diversity in gaming". Not with the issue itself, but, if put on the D&D boards it would have to apply to D&D only. I think such a forum would be better served in Gleemax, to allow a broader range of issues/discussions. For random example gay characters in video games. The prior editions looks good, but I'd like to add another forum under that called Conversions. I have to check with WotC to see if they want such a board, though. We all know there will be tons of conversion threads, but by putting it under Former Editions, it will allow conversions between other editions, as well as update older stuff to 4e.
#29 sphyre Feb 12, 2008 23:06:54	For random example gay characters in video games. *Goes off to create a Xandir P. Wifflebottom thread* Oh, and I like that idea, having the the diversity in gaming be more of a gleemax thing than a D&D thing.
#30 wrecan Feb 13, 2008 8:27:06	It definitely seems like the consensus if that "Diversity in Gaming" should be in Gleemx, not D&D. So I'll remove it from my OP. I also like webster's idea of a "Conversion" board ot help people convert 3rd to 4th (or 1st or 2nd or OD&D for that matter)
#31 Zherog Feb 13, 2008 9:27:39	It definitely seems like the consensus if that "Diversity in Gaming" should be in Gleemx, not D&D. So I'll remove it from my OP. I also like webster's idea of a "Conversion" board ot help people convert 3rd to 4th (or 1st or 2nd or OD&D for that matter) Or 4th to 3rd. ;)
#32 wrecan Feb 13, 2008 9:30:30	Whatever floats your boat!
#33 boozerker Feb 16, 2008 1:07:23	D&D General D&D Discussion Fluff Reviews OGL/d20 Notes The Fluff section has a bunch of fluff drops to color your world. Examples include here, there, elsewhere, here too and there too. The "Concept Optimization" name better defines what the CO boards are for. "At the Screen" got changed because that might get confused with the DM screen. :Credit: to Wrecan for the nice start.
#34 autumn_serene Feb 17, 2008 18:23:40	We've talked about it on the Character Optimization boards have decided that we'd like to keep the CharOp forum the way it is, and leave it as a 3.x CharOp board and add a 4e Char Op forum next to it. There is way too much good stuff there that won't translate that we don't want to loose. We expect people will continue to play both games and want to keep on optimizing them both! We'd like to have the 4e optimization forum up though soonish-- we're starting to make predictions with the material released so far. The "Rules Counseling" forum suggestion will tie to CharOp. I love it- we get a ton of questions on CharOp because an intimate knowledge of rules is crutial to optimization. I'm sure we'll find ways to link the two.
#35 celloshane Feb 20, 2008 17:32:37	Ok, I've been spending some time in the 4E Class forum, and based on what I've seen I think there will likely be a need for forums based on role. So I would suggest Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader forums. If a significant focus of 4e is going to be on having your character fill your chosen role then we'll probably see a decent amount of discussion about the roles themselves and how to fill them.
#36 wrecan Feb 28, 2008 9:42:22	I made a few edits to my proposal, incorporating some of the others' suggested changes, and adding hyperlinks to existing forums.
#37 Zherog Feb 28, 2008 9:48:42	Just a few things... General D&D Discussion (formerly [forum=92]Forum FAQs[/forum] and [forum=42]D&D General[/forum]) "Forum FAQs" is currently a read-only forum that contains copies of all the FAQs from the D&D forums. It's a combination "archive as a backup" and "one stop shopping" for those documents. I don't see any point of changing it, and it certainly shouldn't be a "writable" forum. Dungeon Master Guidance (formerly [forum=24]What's a DM To Do?[/forum]) Players Helping Players (formerly [forum=48]What's a Player to Do?[/forum]) I still don't see a need for a name change. I think the current names are just fine; actually, they're more than fine - I prefer them. Conversion Between Editions As I recall, WotC was pretty cold towards this sort of idea in the past - especially when it came to converting 3e to prior editions. Now, certainly, opinions change, and maybe now they'll be down with it. But it's just something to keep in mind.
#38 wrecan Feb 28, 2008 10:10:50	"Forum FAQs" is currently a read-only forum that contains copies of all the FAQs from the D&D forums. I think those FAQs should be locked stickied threads in the D&D General Forum. Frankly, most of those FAQs are years out of date. FAQs for topics related to individual forums should be handled by the VCL/FL for that forum. FAQs for the D&D boards in general should be in the D&D General Forum. I still don't see a need for a name change. I think the current names are just fine; actually, they're more than fine - I prefer them. I don't like them at all. I much prefer a more declarative Forum name. As I recall, WotC was pretty cold towards this sort of idea in the past - especially when it came to converting 3e to prior editions. Now, certainly, opinions change, and maybe now they'll be down with it. But it's just something to keep in mind. Hey, I'm just making suggestions. I thought a conversion forum would be a good idea -- particularly since they aren't putting out a conversion document (and for reasons with which I agree).
#39 Zherog Feb 28, 2008 10:28:28	I think those FAQs should be locked stickied threads in the D&D General Forum. Frankly, most of those FAQs are years out of date. FAQs for topics related to individual forums should be handled by the VCL/FL for that forum. FAQs for the D&D boards in general should be in the D&D General Forum. Typically, the FAQs are also in the forum they belong to. For example, one of the threads in that directory is "Trollbill's Dictionary." That thread still exists on D&D General (though it's not stickied because most stickies were removed a few years ago in favor of an "important links" thread). The version in the FAQ directory serves two purposes: 1) There was a time on this forum where they WizOs used to purge old threads. Sometimes, threads that shouldn't get purged were anyway. Keeping the FAQs in that directory provided a backup, just in case one got deleted accidentally. This is a non-issue now, because threads are archived rather than deleted; but it was one of the reasons that forum was created originally. 2) It gathered them all in one place, at the top of the forum. Presumably, it would be the first thing somebody sees and therefore might be a place they'd go look for an answer. Regardless, all the threads in there do not belong in D&D General (there's d20 Modern stuff in there, for example). And even if you did throw them all into D&D General they sure as heck shouldn't all be sitckied -- that would be the definition of sticky bloat. Frankly, if anything is going to happen to the forum, it should probably just be removed. The main purpose for it - protecting against accidental deletion - is no longer a factor. I don't like them at all. I much prefer a more declarative Forum name. So I like them, and you don't. *shrug* Hey, I'm just making suggestions. I thought a conversion forum would be a good idea -- particularly since they aren't putting out a conversion document (and for reasons with which I agree). I never said it was a bad idea. I just said that in the past WotC didn't want to provide a forum specifically for such activity. That's all.
#40 wrecan Feb 28, 2008 10:50:39	Frankly, if anything is going to happen to the forum, it should probably just be removed. Well, my proposal does essentially remove the forum. By referencing that Forum as part of FAQ, I just meant that any threads from that forum that would not be shunted elsewhere would end up in D&D General. So I like them, and you don't. *shrug* And since it's my proposed reorganization I win. :P I never said it was a bad idea. I just said that in the past WotC didn't want to provide a forum specifically for such activity. That's all. I know. I wasn't offended. I was just saying that I understand why they didn't do it before (they had a conversion document). They might be more willing to do it now, since they acknowledge that conversion will be more of a chore. If they don't, they don't. That's not a forum I have strong feelings about one way or another.
#41 Zherog Feb 28, 2008 10:56:42	I know. I wasn't offended. I was just saying that I understand why they didn't do it before (they had a conversion document). They might be more willing to do it now, since they acknowledge that conversion will be more of a chore. If they don't, they don't. That's not a forum I have strong feelings about one way or another. No, it wasn't the conversion doc. As I recall, they were concerned about people taking 3e and converting backwards to prior editions. Basically, if you were converting to 3e, they liked you; if you were converting from 3e, you made them cry. ;) [edit]I like the idea, and I think it's worth trying to get. While I'll be buying the 4e books and learning the rules (I already have freelance opportunities for this summer that are contingent upon that), my home game will be staying 3.5 for at least a year - maybe as long as 18 months - while the current campaign wraps up. That doesn't mean, though, that I won't see a new monster I like, or whatever. [/edit]
#42 Webster Feb 29, 2008 6:32:53	Keep in mind we're also looking for simplicity. Probably scale things back a bit (at first) and let things grow as we need them as well. For example, Campaigns & Adventures covers a lot of ground that three or four other boards covered. Another example- the "classes" board really doesn't need sub-boards at this time. I think G0 should ask around to see if WotC will allow a conversion board- the argument for one is that we all know when 4e hits, there will be tons of conversion threads, and it would be nice to have a place to stick them. I think most of it should look like the 4e boards are now- with some changes. D&D HQ RPG Board business: (Because you can't really get rid of a board that deals with message board issues. Having said that, it may be decided to combine all the boards into one.) WotC staff Blogs: (Worth keeping since it's just a link. But, if three's a "links to other areas" section- which should be kept small- this would go there. Astrid's Palor- (Not many folks chimed in on making Astrid's a general forum for all female/gamer issues- those that have want to keep it strictly D&D, so it stays in D&D, though it may be put lower on the "list".) D&D FUNDAMENTALS D&D Rules- (Probably best to get the rules question board right were folks can see it.) What's a Player to Do? (No need for a name change, but a help board for situationals rather than straight rules questions.) What's a DM to Do? (Yes, I switched the order- there are more players than DMs. I'm trying to look at the structure from the stance of new players to the game/boards.) Classes- Races- Monsters- Magic- (All of these are staples, and are broad enough to cover a lot of ground.) Campaigns & Adventures- (Rolls up a number of existing boards into one.) D&D INSIDER Dragon/Dungeon Magazine- (Unless WotC wants them listed as separate boards, since the online magazines are more or less the same- online content, I think it could work as one forum. If not, we can separate them later.) Character Creator- D&D Game Table- Dungeon Master's Kit- Technical Discussion- (Since these four do seem to be different entities, they should remain as they are.) (More later)
#43 gamer_zer0 Mar 28, 2008 0:20:34	I'd like to hear more thoughts on this. Here's the direction I'm currenting thinking of including in my proposal (to be reviewed internally and by the community): D&D HQ --D&D Community Businiess: Replaces RPG Board Business, is exclusive to D&D, and includes a place for FAQs, Q&As, and other community business. --Staff Blogs - --Astrid's Palor - --Emerald Dawn Inn - Place for the D&D community to participate in off-topic discussion D&D FUNDAMENTALS --D&D General - Yes, you've all beaten me into submission over having a general forum =) --D&D Rules Q&A - -- What do I do if my DM/Player...? - Combines What's a player/DM to do. -- Classes - -- Races - -- Monsters - -- Magic -- Campaigns & Adventures D&D INSIDER -- D&D Insider General - (includes server up/down threads) -- Dragon/Dungeon Magazines - -- Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group - -- Technical Discussion - D&D Misc -- 4th Edition Conversion Discussion -- Past Editions
#44 Webster Mar 28, 2008 1:29:23	That list looks pretty good, but there are a few items. I'd suggest a different "order". You'd be surprsied at how many people don't look at the screen when they post. The order we have now, (and that one of the top forums can't be posted to,) was to prevent people from hitting just the first forum without regarud to what it is. For the off topic board- does that mean the other off topic board is going away? For the "conversion" board; it was suggested because we all just KNOW people are going to be making conversions and it's a great place to organize all such posts. Having said that, WotC has in the past frowned on such activity. Just be sure to check with internal to make sure it's okay with them. Also- what becomes of the Other Worlds board/area? And what of the Mature boards? Here's a suggestion to kick around: D&D HQ --Staff Blogs - --D&D Community Businiess: Replaces RPG Board Business, is exclusive to D&D, and includes a place for FAQs, Q&As, and other community business. -- Find Players Here D&D FUNDAMENTALS --D&D Rules Q&A - -- What do I do if my DM/Player...? - Combines What's a player/DM to do. -- Classes - -- Races - -- Monsters - -- Magic -- Campaigns & Adventures --D&D General - Yes, you've all beaten me into submission over having a general forum =) D&D INSIDER -- D&D Insider General - (includes server up/down threads) -- Dragon/Dungeon Magazines - -- Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group - -- Technical Discussion - D&D Styles --Astrid's Palor - -- Psionics --Mature Boards- --Digital D&D (To cover all the non- D&D Insider programs) D&D Misc -- 4th Edition Conversion Discussion -- Past Editions ----3e ----Earlier (Could use a better name, covers basic, 1e, and 2e.) --Emerald Dawn Inn - Place for the D&D community to participate in off-topic discussion My suggestion assumes we're keeping the mature boards. I also moved stuff around a bit to put the important stuff on top. (Not that things moved down aren't inmportant!) Most new people will come to the site for information, so the blogs forum should be right up there. I also put up a "Find Players Here" forum to either link or take the place of the Gamer Classified. We've tried many tricks to get people to post in the right place, but even when we had the link in bright blue, it was still missed. "Where do I find players?" Next up, people will be looking for rules/discussion/clarification. I bumped General down because then people have to make an effort to scroll down to get to it, rather than just dump threads at the first board on the top and not care how much extra work it makes for FL/VCL/WizOs. Astrid's also feels more like a style/type/thingie board rather than a "HQ' type board. It's a specialized discussion, not a general "utility" board. The Psionics is added assuming there's going to be psionics in D&D, either right at the start or as an add on book later. I also put the off topic board a bit lower. We want the D&D community to discuss D&D, not just hit the off topic board at the top and ignore everything else. And yes, it has been noted there are some people that only visit the off topic board which is why I wonder why we need another one.
#45 sphyre Mar 28, 2008 3:05:07	--Staff Blogs - Are dev's blogs going to remain on gleemax or return to the blog forum? I personally preferred the blog forum due to the format, but it very useless once the blogs migrated over to gleemax.
#46 wrecan Mar 28, 2008 8:19:05	I'd like to hear more thoughts on this. Here's the direction I'm currenting thinking of including in my proposal (to be reviewed internally and by the community) This looks pretty good, but I have a few questions and comments... Please do not combine the What's a Player to Do and What's a DM to Do forums. They are the two busiest forums on the D&D boards as is and combining them would be a mess. Also, DMs and Players have very different concerns that should absolutely be addressed separately. If you implement only one of my suggestions, please implement this one. Please come up with a better name than "Emerald Dawn Inn". Not that I dislike the name, but it simply doesn't suggest that it's an off-topic forum. How about "The Off Topic Tavern"? Rename "Magic" to be "Powers", in accordance with the new nomenclature of 4th edition I do think 3rd edition should get its own forum, and Basic, AD&D and Second Edition a combined forum. You could call it "TSR Editions". You really need a link to the Other Worlds Forums, probably under D&D Misc. I absolutely agree with Webster that the first forum on the list should be a link. If the Staff Blogs is simply going to link to the Gleemax Staff Blogs, that should be on top. Wow, you're reducing 45 forums into 17 forums. Is there a specific reason of which we should be aware that the number of forums is being so drastically consolidated? As Sphyre indicated, would the Developer's Blogs be found in that forum, or would that simply be a link to the Gleemax developer blogs? Is there a reason Astrid's Parlor is specific to D&D, instead of women in gaming in general? Are you rejecting the idea of a more general "Diversity in Gaming" forum, to discuss issues of racial and cultural diversity? Will the Past Editions forum replace the Out of Print Forums? As there is no Regdar's Repository in your draft, can I assume you'll be recommending that Redgar's be closed permanently? Will there be links to the Character Development, Character Optimization and d20 Design forums? Will there even continue to be such forums? Why no Mature Forums? Are we doing away with subforums altogether? I think Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies should be subforums of classes. I also think Points of Light should be a subforum of Campaigns & Adventures, unless it will be getting its own separate forum like Forgotten Realms and Eberron have currently. Will there still be a d20 forum? If so, there should be a link to it. Gamer_Zero's Current Draft Proposal: D&D HQ D&D Community Businiess: Replaces RPG Board Business, is exclusive to D&D, and includes a place for FAQs, Q&As, and other community business. Staff Blogs Astrid's Palor Emerald Dawn Inn - Place for the D&D community to participate in off-topic discussion D&D FUNDAMENTALS D&D General - Yes, you've all beaten me into submission over having a general forum =) D&D Rules Q&A - What do I do if my DM/Player...? - Combines What's a player/DM to do. Classes - Races - Monsters - Magic Campaigns & Adventures D&D INSIDER D&D Insider General - (includes server up/down threads) Dragon/Dungeon Magazines - Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group - Technical Discussion - D&D Misc 4th Edition Conversion Discussion Past Editions wrecan's Counter-Proposal: D&D HQ Staff Blogs (locked board with link to Staff Blogs) D&D Board Business: formerly RPG Board Business, but exclusive to D&D, with FAQs, Q&As, and other official business. Looking for a Gaming Group? D&D COMMUNITY D&D General What's a DM to Do? I still prefer my proposed title: Dungeon Master Guidance What's a Player to Do? I still prefer my proposed title: Players Helping Players Campaigns & Adventures D&D RULES D&D Rules Discussion Classes Races Monsters Powers Deities and Planes D&D INSIDER D&D Insider General (includes server up/down threads) Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Technical Discussion Future Releases D&D MISC 4th Edition Conversion Discussion Third Edition TSR Editions RELATED FORUMS Campaign Worlds (linked to the Other Worlds forum, which should include Eberron and Forgotten Realms) Character Development (linked to this forum assuming it still exists) Character Optimization (linked to this forum, assuming it still exists) d20 Design (linked to this forum, assuming it still exists) General Gaming (linked to this forum, assuming it still exists) Off Topic Discussion (linked to this forum)
#47 Zherog Mar 28, 2008 8:34:17	--D&D Community Businiess: Replaces RPG Board Business, is exclusive to D&D, and includes a place for FAQs, Q&As, and other community business. Does this mean you'll be adding a "boards business" area for the other places that currently share ours - d20 Modern, Star Wars, and D&D Minis I believe? --Emerald Dawn Inn - Place for the D&D community to participate in off-topic discussion With the existence of the Rec Room, why is this necessary? I like one shared off-topic area. It encourages people from different communities to mingle together. I've met people from the M:tG side that I never would've talked to if not for the Rec Room. -- What do I do if my DM/Player...? - Combines What's a player/DM to do. I agree with wrecan, for all the reasons he mentioned. Please keep these two areas separate and distinct. Both serve different communities, and both have a ton of traffic. Combining them would lead to a big mess, in my opinion. It would also, in my opinion, ruin two strong communities you have here on the forums. I also agree with just about everything else wrecan suggested, and echo his questions. I just really wanted to emphasize this one point. But consider the rest of his ideas quoted with a "me too" after them.
#48 Zherog Mar 28, 2008 9:37:53	Some other questions: -- Why no "Future Releases" type forum? -- Why no "Deities and the Planes" type forum? Also, looking at wrecan's edited "suggested" structure in his post above my last one, I'm not convinced the "Classes" forum needs two subforums. Why do Paragon and Epic deserve a subforum, but the first "bracket" (1-10th level, I forget the name) does not? Going further on wrecan's structure... I think "Astrid's Parlor" belongs as a forum under Gleemax, not under D&D. Women In Gaming isn't exclusive to D&D - it encompasses all games. Therefore, it should be a Gleemax forum, not a D&D forum.
#49 wrecan Mar 28, 2008 9:44:35	Some other questions: -- Why no "Future Releases" type forum? -- Why no "Deities and the Planes" type forum? Those are excellent questions. Also, looking at wrecan's edited "suggested" structure in his post above my last one, I'm not convinced the "Classes" forum needs two subforums. Why do Paragon and Epic deserve a subforum, but the first "bracket" (1-10th level, I forget the name) does not? The name is Heroic. I guess that forum would be "Heroic Talent Trees", assuming 4th is using Saga's Talent Tree format (it's unclear whether it is). But I agree. Tiers of Play probably isn't needed. I'll edit my counter-proposal. Going further on wrecan's structure... I think "Astrid's Parlor" belongs as a forum under Gleemax, not under D&D. Women In Gaming isn't exclusive to D&D - it encompasses all games. Therefore, it should be a Gleemax forum, not a D&D forum. I totally agree. By the way, so should Mature Gaming, in my opinion.
#50 Zherog Mar 28, 2008 9:48:08	I totally agree. By the way, so should Mature Gaming, in my opinion. If the forum evolves, probably. The original purpose of the forum was a place to discuss Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. I personally see no harm in having the forum expand beyond coverage of D&D. In the same vein, the oft-requested "Family Gaming" forum would go in the same location. Ideally, there would be a "section" on Gleemax labeled "Game Styles" or something more clever. It would have those forums all grouped in that section.
#51 Seeker95 Mar 28, 2008 10:01:03	I just wanted to give a to the participants in this thread. I like the method being used and the objectives being pursued. Since I already gave the in the first sentence, I'll follow it up with a
#52 seTiny Mar 28, 2008 10:04:33	I agree with this, but would make Webster's changes. wrecan's Counter-Proposal: D&D HQ Staff Blogs (locked board with link to Staff Blogs) D&D Board Business: formerly RPG Board Business, but exclusive to D&D, with FAQs, Q&As, and other official business. Off Topic Inn D&D COMMUNITY D&D General What's a DM to Do? What's a Player to Do? Campaigns & Adventures D&D General (Moved to here for Webster's reasons) D&D RULES D&D Rules Discussion Classes Races Monsters Powers Deities and Planes D&D INSIDER D&D Insider General (includes server up/down threads) Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group Technical Discussion Future Releases D&D MISC Off Topic Inn (Moved to here for Webster's reasons) 4th Edition Conversion Discussion Third Edition TSR Editions RELATED FORUMS Other Worlds (linked to that forum, which should included Eberron and Forgotten Realms) Character Development (linked to this forum assuming it still exists) Character Optimization (linked to this forum, assuming it still exists) Other d20 Gaming (linked to this forum, assuming it still exists) Also would there be anyway of adding a link to the Gaming Boards? I've been looking for a place to request a link to be made, but under the current forum organization there wasn't a place it fit. It would be great if we could increase the visibility of little known areas (Gamer Classifieds, Creative Corner, the Gaming Boards, etc...). Why is every forum going to get an off-topic forum? That runs counter to what was discussed in the Forum Lead Forums. Giving each board an off-topic forum makes each board insular and self-sustaining. The forum leads were looking for ways to get members to see the other parts of the forums. The Rec-Room was one of the ways that the cross-pollinization happened in the current system. It just doesn't make sense.
#82 Zherog Mar 30, 2008 23:27:22	I thought that has part of the point of the VCL. Having regular members of the boards "patrol" the boards so the WizO's didn't have to so much. While there'd still be all the same issues we have now, isn't the same true for the out of print boards? There'd be fewer members sticking back with this edition, so there'd be fewer "issues" that required moderation. VCLs (and Forum Leads for that matter) have no say in conduct moderation. We can report a post - just like anybody else. Forum Leads get to make editorial decisions - for example, whether a thread is off-topic and needs to be moved. Once the FL makes that decision, he passes it along to the VCL, who then decides whether the FL is right or not. If the VCL believes the FL is correct, he drops a note into a forum where the on-duty WizO can pick up the task and implement the change. If the VCL doesn't agree, he/she can either change the suggestion (for example, decide it belongs in Forum Y rather than Forum X), or can go back to the FL for some discussion. But Conduct Moderation is still entirely under the purview of the WizOs, and they rely upon folks reporting posts when they see something wrong. My point about the future releases was to give a bit of background. If Zherog and the other leads (Heh, Including myself in that one. ) feel we can establish the parameters and stick to them, then a Future Releases forum could be very handy. It would be a very good place for the game designers to plug their blogs or answer questions. It would work well as a central place; the designers wouldn't have to search the races forum to answer questions about an upcoming new race- they'd all be in one spot. Great idea! Bring it on! Anyway, while Future Releases may have started as a "dumping ground" I think the forum has value as a place to gather speculation about, er, future products. And as you point out, there's direct value to WotC, too, because it puts all those threads into one place, which makes it easier for the designers to find it.
#83 boozerker Apr 02, 2008 1:43:31	I vote for the Rec Room to be renamed "Off Topic Tavern" but Gamer0's suggestion is also good if you add "the" to the beginning, such as "The Off Topic Inn". There shouldn't be an off-topic board in every forum, it's best in one central place. "What's a Player To Do?" gets a fraction of the traffic that "What's a DM To Do?" gets. So does the "DM Rules Counseling" subforum. Both can be merged as "Game Counseling". Future Releases should be a sub-category of "D&D General". Character Optimization should be renamed as "Concept Optimization", to lessen arguments/criticism by players who don't realize it's about helping others to realize a concept (which sometimes includes munchkin power, rather than seeming like all about power as the current title suggests). The classifications of Arcane, Divine, Martial and Psionics should be used, and made available as text icons that can be picked to appear in a thread's title, so it's immediately obvious as to the character's role. This would help categorize them neatly. If you do so, allow up to four of them to be used for purposes of multi-classed characters. Even if you don't use the icons for that, you can still use them for the new roles PCs have in 4e, so a viewer knows what role a character plays before even opening the thread. D&D COMMUNITY ZONE Staff Blogs Community Business Off Topic Tavern (or "The Off-Topic Inn") Locate a Gaming Group D&D INSIDER D&Di Announcements D&D Insider General Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Technical Discussion DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME Classes (enables use of the text icons detailed above) Races Monsters Powers Off-world Matters (replaces "Deities and Planes") Crunchy Rules Colorful Fluff RELATED TOPICS D&D General [color=Teal]Future Releases [/color] Gameplay Counseling (merges "Player Advice" forum with the "DM Rules Counseling" subforum) Dungeon Master Guidance Campaigns & Adventures D&D MISC 4th Edition Conversion Discussion Previous Editions 3rd Edition Previous Editions Notes: A lot of Gamer0's suggestions didn't need the D&D label because it's plainly obvious you're in the D&D forums. So D&D Community got shortened to just "Community". The big D&D logo should be a good clue anyway. Besides, the next section is titled "Dungeons and Dragons Game". "Related Topics" follows an intuitive progression, and "D&D General" being the first entry neatly reminds you it's still related to D&D. The Colorful Fluff section is from a proposal of mine, on the same forums page as this thread (as of now). "D&D Insider has sub-forums because let's face it, once someone goes into it they won't likely return to the boards soon -- it's not the same as when you're skipping around the classes, spells, rules, etc. And it's more neatly organized too. The first section, "Community," has nothing dealing with game rules, in order to avoid newcomers flooding it with unrelated questions. But they'll be able to see the "Dungeons & Dragons Game" section directly below (without further scrolling down). "Locate a Gaming Group" sounds/reads better than "Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group". It serves an identical purpose and it's not too wordy. __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#84 Airos Apr 02, 2008 2:48:38	"Locate a Gaming Group" sounds/reads better than "Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group". It serves an identical purpose and it's not too wordy. I just wanted to point out that "Players/DMs Looking for a group" under "D&D Community" is meant for people looking to game in person, while "Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group" under "D&D INSIDER" is meant for people looking to game on-line via the virtual tabletop program. (going by GamerZer0's list) They should be kept separate to reduce confusion. p.s. Props for having separate boards for 3rd edition and older editions. :D
#85 boozerker Apr 02, 2008 5:16:13	Thanksfor pointing that out, Airos. In which case, here are updated changes. D&D COMMUNITY WIRE Staff Blogs Community Business Off Topic Tavern (or "The Off-Topic Inn") Locate a Gaming Group D&D INSIDER D&Di Announcements D&D Insider General Digital Table Play Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Technical Discussion DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME Classes (enables use of the text icons detailed above) Races Monsters Powers Off-world Matters (replaces "Deities and Planes") Crunchy Rules Colorful Fluff RELATED TOPICS D&D General [color=Teal]Future Releases [/color] Gameplay Counseling (merges "Player Advice" forum with the "DM Rules Counseling" subforum) Dungeon Master Guidance Campaigns & Adventures D&D MISC 4th Edition Conversions Previous Editions 3rd Edition Previous Editions Notes: Having "Community Wire" as the top entry seems to fit the interaction of staff with the community, announcements, forums issues and even casual talk. Chopped the end word off "4th Edition Conversion Discussion" for less redundancy The newer title speaks for itself, as of course there'll be discussion regardless. For the same reason, I changed "Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group" to "Digital Table Games" because anyone looking for one is naturally going to drawn to that section and it's obvious they can search for a group there. Also, it's best for newcomers to be know the difference between the sections. Compare the two name sets below. Players/DMs Looking for a group Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group Locate a Gaming Group Digital Table Play (If that still might confuse some, then maybe go with "Locate a Pen & Paper Group" instead)) __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#86 Zherog Apr 02, 2008 6:49:38	I just wanted to point out that "Players/DMs Looking for a group" under "D&D Community" is meant for people looking to game in person, while "Players/DMs Looking for a Game Table Group" under "D&D INSIDER" is meant for people looking to game on-line via the virtual tabletop program. (going by GamerZer0's list) They should be kept separate to reduce confusion. Note that the current Gamer Classifieds forum has such a break out already, so I still see no reason to make new forums, and instead they should just be forum links. "What's a Player To Do?" gets a fraction of the traffic that "What's a DM To Do?" gets. So does the "DM Rules Counseling" subforum. Both can be merged as "Game Counseling". While What's a Player to Do does get less traffic that What's a DM to Do, it has more traffic than all the other D&D forums except Classes (which is really two forums because of the sub-forum) and D&D General. If you merged the two forums you'd be taking the busiest (WaDMtD) and third or fourth busiest (depending how you split Classes). That's a traffic nightmare for one forum. Keep them separate. Future Releases should be a sub-category of "D&D General". No, it shouldn't.
#87 wrecan Apr 02, 2008 7:52:35	I really, really dislike the idea of combining What's a Player to Do? and Rules Counseling. The Player's forum is not for rules counseling. It covers a host of topics, from how to role-play a character, coming up with background material and how to resolve personality conflicts with DMs and other players. The Rules Forum is elegant in its simplicity: What is the Rule for X? The two are not congruent. Keep them separate. Frankly, if I had to limit the D&D forums to the smallest number of boards, it would be: Dungeon Masters Players Rules Counseling Campaigns & Adventures Future Products D&D General And everything else would be links to other boards (Classifieds, Other Worlds, Off-Topic, Board Business, Optimization, etc.) But these six boards should exist as separate entities, no matter what.
#88 autumn_serene Apr 02, 2008 8:30:47	I have input, but in general, I'd just like to say that I think the Rules Counseling and Char Op boards should be better linked. Before the rules Counseling board, all of those questions got put on CharOp which wasn't effective. I'm all for hyperlinking boards in different sections of the boards since they directly relate, rather than create an entirely new forum. So Rules Counseling should be hyperlinked under CharOp and viceversa.
#89 Zherog Apr 02, 2008 9:00:47	Mike - I'm still looking for some input to my questions raised in post 75. Just a reminder.
#90 boozerker Apr 02, 2008 13:46:05	I really, really dislike the idea of combining What's a Player to Do? and Rules Counseling. The Player's forum is not for rules counseling. It covers a host of topics, from how to role-play a character, coming up with background material and how to resolve personality conflicts with DMs and other players. The Rules Forum is elegant in its simplicity: What is the Rule for X? Games Counseling is also elegant in simplicity. The entry to Rules Counseling reads: "Character creation, resolving problems with the DM or other players, and general advice on how to be a better player." All of that is counseling. Add rules counseling, and it's all Gameplay Counseling. And if you quickly browse of the DM Rules Counseling section, you won't find one question which couldn't have been asked a player. As of now, Rules Counseling is barely 3.5 (no pun intended) pages worth of threads, from March 3rd until now. Surely its extra traffic won't much affect the content of What's a Player To Do, which generates 1 page worth of threads about once every 4 days. While What's a Player to Do does get less traffic that What's a DM to Do, it has more traffic than all the other D&D forums except Classes (which is really two forums because of the sub-forum) and D&D General. If you merged the two forums you'd be taking the busiest (WaDMtD) and third or fourth busiest (depending how you split Classes). That's a traffic nightmare for one forum. Keep them separate. Hardly a nightmare. First, you probably misunderstood. I didn't offer for WaDMtD itself to be merged, just its sub-forum. Combined, "DM Rules Counseling" and "What's a Player To Do?" make 12 pages worth of threads. Compare to 11.5 pages in Magic & Spells, and 12.5 pages in Equipment & Combat. Additionally, removing the sub-thread brings "What's A DM To Do?" from 17 pages down to 14 pages. And, it's one less forums section to moderate. No, it shouldn't. Taking a page from you, :shrug: ;) But really, I disagree. Future Releases is a very general topic, often related questions appear in D&D General. So why not just have it be a sub-forum? It gets less than 1 page a month of threads. That's worth assigning it a main section? With the focus on reducing space, I think it has merit. __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#91 wrecan Apr 02, 2008 14:03:29	Games Counseling is also elegant in simplicity. Yes, but the Rules Counseling Forum works because it attracts people who are rules junkies, just like the Optimization boards attracts optimizers. Combining Rules Counseling and WaPtD? would be disastrous because it waters down the reservoir of expertise that has been built up in that forum. And if you quickly browse of the DM Rules Counseling section, you won't find one question which couldn't have been asked a player. The problem is not who is doing the asking, but who would be doing the answering. As of now, Rules Counseling is barely 3.5 (no pun intended) pages worth of threads, from March 3rd until now. Surely its extra traffic won't much affect the content of What's a Player To Do But the WaPtD forum would negatively affect the content of the Rules Counseling threads. Forum traffic is not the only consideration for forums. it shouldn't even be the primary consideration. removing the sub-thread brings "What's A DM To Do?" from 17 pages down to 14 pages. No, it doesn't. The What's a DM to Do? Forum has 417 threads (17 pages), not including the Rules Counseling Forum's 80 threads (3 pages).
#92 Zherog Apr 02, 2008 14:07:50	Hardly a nightmare. First, you probably misunderstood. I didn't offer for WaDMtD itself to be merged, just its sub-forum. Combined, "DM Rules Counseling" and "What's a Player To Do?" make 12 pages worth of threads. Compare to 11.5 pages in Magic & Spells, and 12.5 pages in Equipment & Combat. Additionally, removing the sub-thread brings "What's A DM To Do?" from 17 pages down to 14 pages. And, it's one less forums section to moderate. Frankly, I was opposed to the "DM Rules Counseling" forum when it was created several years ago, because it seemed redundant to me. Not redundant with WaPtD, but instead with all the other forums - Classes, races, Skills & Feats, etc. But really, I disagree. Future Releases is a very general topic, often related questions appear in D&D General. So why not just have it be a sub-forum? It gets less than 1 page a month of threads. That's worth assigning it a main section? With the focus on reducing space, I think it has merit. The traffic on that forum is gimped at the moment because there really isn't much to talk about, because all 4e traffic needs to go over on the 4e forums. The forum has merit, because it serves as a place to round up all the talk about, well, future products. As mentioned previously in this thread, this has the potential of making the discussions easier for designers and such to locate. I'm not necessarily opposed to it being a subforum, but I'll tell you from personal experience that you'll have a heckuva time trying to convince Mike that he needs a subforum for something.
#93 gamer_zer0 Apr 02, 2008 14:08:52	Thanksfor pointing that out, Airos. In which case, here are updated changes. D&D COMMUNITY WIRE Staff Blogs Community Business Off Topic Tavern (or "The Off-Topic Inn") Locate a Gaming Group D&D INSIDER D&Di Announcements D&D Insider General Digital Table Play Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Technical Discussion DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME Classes (enables use of the text icons detailed above) Races Monsters Powers Off-world Matters (replaces "Deities and Planes") Crunchy Rules Colorful Fluff RELATED TOPICS D&D General [color=Teal]Future Releases [/color] Gameplay Counseling (merges "Player Advice" forum with the "DM Rules Counseling" subforum) Dungeon Master Guidance Campaigns & Adventures D&D MISC 4th Edition Conversions Previous Editions 3rd Edition Previous Editions Notes: I don't have a lot of time, so I'll just throw out some random notes: - We should start putting links in where they should fit. - Community Wire is a good idea. I am not sure Wire is the right name for D&D, but Community (sometihing) would work as the category. - Locate a Gaming Group should be a link to a forum in the Gamer Classified area. - D&D Insider should be it's own heading. - I want to avoid sub-forums - I don't think the title "off-world matters" conveys what it is. What was wrong with D & P? - Crunchy Rules should be replaced with Rules Q&A. We nee to have an official place where people can ask rules questions. - I don't like the name colorful fluff. Is there something else that better conveys what that forum is trying to do? - Related Topics needs a better category name - Future Releases should be it's own forum, not a sub forum - Game play counseling/what's a DM/What's a player.... I don't think counseling is the right word, but I'd really like to see if we could combine those two into one forum. Somehow. Wrecan, thoughts on how we could position it to make it okay for both types of discussion? - I think DM guidance should be rolled into the above, somehow. - Campaigns and Adventures seems good. - D&D Misc seems okay, though it sort of breaks your convention about not being redundant in naming. - 4th Edition Conversions should be renamed to something else, along the lines of Home Brewed or Custom Rules/Stuff - Previous Editions should be a single forum with no sub-forums.
#94 Zherog Apr 02, 2008 14:18:43	- Game play counseling/what's a DM/What's a player.... I don't think counseling is the right word, but I'd really like to see if we could combine those two into one forum. Somehow. Wrecan, thoughts on how we could position it to make it okay for both types of discussion? - I think DM guidance should be rolled into the above, somehow. Why do you believe these should be merged? Using the current forum names, What's a DM to Do and What's a Player to Do have entirely different audiences, and are among the busiest forums in the D&D section. By combining them you'd create a huge mega-forum with too much traffic to keep track of, with two distinct groups competing for "attention" within the forum. Keep them separate.
#95 wrecan Apr 02, 2008 14:22:29	Since boozerker is interested in counting thread, here's the current D&D boards and the number of threads in each forum: Dungeons & Dragons D&D HQ D&D Forum FAQs Regdar's Repository RPG Boards Business (26 threads) D&D Fundamentals Future Releases (10 threads) Races (182 threads) Classes (458 threads) Prestige Classes (111 threads) Skills & Feats (230 threads) Equipment & Combat (307 threads) Magic & Spells (289 threads) Psionics (109 threads) Monster's Lair (169 threads) Deities & the Planes (48 threads) D&D General (346 threads) D&D Rules, Campaign & Character Advice [list] What's a DM To Do? (418 threads) DM Rules Counseling (80 threads) What's a Player to Do? (189 threads) Unearthed Arcana & House Rules (61 threads) Campaign Workshop (96 threads) Character Development (linked to d20 character development boards) Character Optimization (linked to d20 optimization boards) [*]D&D Styles Epic Level (51 threads) Digital D&D (26 threads) Mature Topics (40 threads) Oriental Adventures (13 threads) D&D Accessories (Archived) D&D Adventures (44 threads) [*]D&D Related Topics D&D Fiction (linked to Inside Wizards: Legendology Fiction) D&D Out-of-Print (linked to Other Roleplaying Worlds: D&D Out of Print) d20 Design (linked to d20 Design) [/list] D&D 4th Edition D&D 4th Edition HQ RPG Business (linked to D&D HQ: RPG Boards Business) Staff Blogs (linked to Inside Wizards: Wizards' Staff Blogs) [b] Astrid's Parlor (242 threads) OGL/d20 (40 threads) D&D 4th Edition Fundamentals Races (451 threads) Classes (802 threads) Treasure & Rewards (144 threads) Monsters (282 threads) Magic (233 threads) 4E Rules (791 threads) 4E Concerns & Criticism (1295 threads) 4E Adventures (793 threads) D&D Insider Dragon Magazine (225 threads) Dungeon Magazine (121 threads) Character Creator (33 threads) D&D Game Table (81 threads) Dungeon Master's Kit (13 threads) Technical Discussion (78 threads) D&D 4th Edition Campaign Settings Dragonlance (20 threads) Eberron (82 threads) Forgotten Realms (171 threads) Greyhawk (27 threads) Other Campaign Settings (75 threads)[/b] Note that the lists may be skewed because people are on hold pending the release of 4th edition. So the DM and Player's boards may have depressed activity (I've certainly noticed a drop in posts in the DM and Rules boards since last June), while the 4th edition boards are in full swing. Some (though not most) of those 791 Rules threads would be in the Rules Counseling boards were there not a 4th Edition Rules board. The present thread count, imo, is a poor metric to determine what boards should survive
#96 Zherog Apr 02, 2008 14:31:51	Another thing to keep in mind is posts per thread. For example, while What's a Player to Do "only" has 2542 threads (as of this post), those threads have a total of 70,206 posts - fourth highest in the D&D area.
#97 boozerker Apr 02, 2008 14:45:54	wrecan, you didn't have to count all the threads Just the pages are fine, same deal, more easy to analyze. Also, you're correct about the "What's A DM To Do?" page count not being affected by removing DM Counseling. My bad. Thanks for pointing it out. And I'm not interested in counting threads. :P - Locate a Gaming Group should be a link to a forum in the Gamer Classified area. I meant for it to also replace "Gamer Classified" because that name sounds like it's for buyers/sellers of used gaming supplies. - I don't think the title "off-world matters" conveys what it is. What was wrong with D & P? Nothing wrong, really. Yeah, "off-world" sucks. I was thinking maybe something like Divine, inter-planar, etc, but those only hint at one or the other, not both deities and planes. I just think with a slightly broader name, people might be inclined to post about travel to other worlds also, rather than an entire plane which is like a universe instead of single worlds. And I don't mean like the established campaign worlds, but more like just adventure hooks, thrilling exploration, new and bizarre monsters and situations. All right here in the Material Plane. - I don't like the name colorful fluff. Is there something else that better conveys what that forum is trying to do? I'm short on time also But I'll come up with something better. - Related Topics needs a better category name Ditto on the time element. - D&D Misc seems okay, though it sort of breaks your convention about not being redundant in naming. I did realize that, but I didn't want people thinking it was just a place to dump off-topic stuff unrelated to D&D. - 4th Edition Conversions should be renamed to something else, along the lines of Home Brewed or Custom Rules/Stuff OK
#98 wrecan Apr 02, 2008 15:00:27	wrecan, you didn't have to count all the threads Just the pages are fine, same deal, more easy to analyze. It's easy enough to do. Just roll your cursor over the "Page X of Y" counter above the first thread and it tells you how many there are. I want to know how Zherog managed to count all the posts!
#99 Zherog Apr 02, 2008 15:08:45	I want to know how Zherog managed to count all the posts! You go to the [forum=8]main D&D forum[/forum] and look at the number in the far right column. ;)
#100 wrecan Apr 02, 2008 15:25:15	Doh!!
#101 gamer_zer0 Apr 02, 2008 16:59:12	It's always tough to arrive at conclusions based on forum numbers, especially with regards to post count. Here are a few different things I like to look at: - Number of threads - Number of posts - Number of views That alone doesn't tell the whole story, since a forum that has been around for 5 years will have a much higher number of everything than a forum that's only been around 5 weeks. So additionally, it's good to look at all those factors: - In the last 24 hours - In the last week - In the last month If I had to single out one metric that is most helpful, I'd say it was the number of posts in the past month. This is the sort of thing that probably best represents the activity level of a forum. As a general rule, I aim for forums to have between 10 and 50 active threads per day. In other words, I want a person who only visits a forum once a day, to see at least 10, but no more than 50, threads with new replies in the past 24 hours. A forum that receives more than 50 new threads per day probably needs to be updated. While one with less than 10 needs to be closed or merged. The bullseye would be 25 new and active threads per a 24 hour period.
#102 wrecan Apr 02, 2008 18:39:58	Based on G0's criteria (active but not too active, no subforums, minimize need for links), I propose the following (gray indicates link to other forums): Dungeons & Dragons D&D Product Discussion Staff Blogs Board Business Future Releases D&D Insider Dungeon and Dragon Magazines Other Digital Products Prior Editions D&D Fiction D&D Rules Discussion d20 Design (Character Development, Character Optimization, etc.) Rules Counseling Classes Powers Monsters Races Equipment & Treasure Deities & the Planes House Rules & Conversions D&D Community Discussion Off-Topic Tavern General Discussion Dungeon Master Guidance Player Advice Campaign and World Building Other Worlds Gaming Styles (Astrid's, Mature, etc.) Find a Game Near You (previously called "Gamer Classified") So I got it down to 18 forums and 7 links to other places. I put a link as the first entry on each heading so people can't just reflexively pout a question in the first forum.
#103 boozerker Apr 02, 2008 20:12:06	- D&D Insider should be it's own heading. - I want to avoid sub-forums You know, considering present day technology, I don't see why it can't drop a menu of sub-items when moused-over or clicked on. The search link even has that feature. It would eliminate the sub-category problem, by not taking you to a 2nd page in order to access sub-categories, and yet they're neatly folded under one heading. - Game play counseling/what's a DM/What's a player.... I don't think counseling is the right word, but I'd really like to see if we could combine those two into one forum. Somehow. Wrecan, thoughts on how we could position it to make it okay for both types of discussion? For every problem, an elegant solution awaits. The technology exists to fix the problem. If you use the text-icons I mentioned earlier, posters can label threads in Gameplay Counseling as *DM*, *Player*, etc. With the label affixed next to each forum title, you can sort the threads by text-icon if you wish (for example, threads have always been able to be sorted by *Number of Replies*, *Thread Starter*, etc). If the New Thread link branches off into DM/Player, then when someone posts a new thread, it can automatically display a text-icon of whatever branch they had clicked on. It requires modification to software, but you can only go so far with the current model. Perhaps the forums software Gleemax will use has newer capabilities we're yet unaware of? That would make organization easier and more streamlined?
#104 Zherog Apr 02, 2008 21:15:01	If I had to single out one metric that is most helpful, I'd say it was the number of posts in the past month. This is the sort of thing that probably best represents the activity level of a forum. As a general rule, I aim for forums to have between 10 and 50 active threads per day. In other words, I want a person who only visits a forum once a day, to see at least 10, but no more than 50, threads with new replies in the past 24 hours. A forum that receives more than 50 new threads per day probably needs to be updated. While one with less than 10 needs to be closed or merged. The bullseye would be 25 new and active threads per a 24 hour period. Going on this... What's a Player to Do has 20 threads with replies today, 22 threads with replies within the past 24 hours. Sounds like it deserves to be its own forum. ;)
#105 wrecan Apr 02, 2008 22:03:59	Game play counseling/what's a DM/What's a player.... I don't think counseling is the right word, but I'd really like to see if we could combine those two into one forum. Somehow. Wrecan, thoughts on how we could position it to make it okay for both types of discussion? I missed this before. I'm having a real problem trying to combine what I think to be three very differently purposed forum into one or two. DMs have very specific issues that have nothing to do with rules and work best when not included with players. And the same goes for players being able to discuss table issues without DMs getting involved. Whereas the rules forum offers a very specific service in analyzing problems from a very specific rules-based approach without house-rules and without dealing with real-life issues. I really think any attempt to combine these forums will make it worthless for either group.
#106 boozerker Apr 03, 2008 0:11:44	The blue headings are expandable (pseudo-) links, the indented ones below them aren't sub-categories, but rather a menu that appears under the (blue) heading if clicked. It doesn't have you leave to another page.....instead, you're shown more options to click. I think it's the best way to avoid sub-categories while also compacting the forum. Based on Gamer0's random notes, and Zherog's and wrecan's input, here's my newest offering. D&D COMMUNITY DOORWAY Staff Blogs Community Business Off Topic Tavern Locate a Gaming Group DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME Classes Races Monsters Powers Deities and Planes (or "Multiversal Existence") Rules Q&A Flavor Your Game (explained here) GAMING TOPICS D&D General Gameplay Counseling Dungeon Master Guidance Player Help DM Study (replaces "DM Rules Counseling") Campaigns & Adventures Future Releases D&D INSIDER D&Di Announcements General Buzz Digital Table Play Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Technical Discussion MISCELLANEOUS Compatibility Help (or "Backwards Compatibility") Previous Editions 3rd Edition Previous Editions Notes: The GAMING TOPICS began as OTHER GAME TOPICS but then I changed it. Any preferences? (thinking of making it MORE GAMING TOPICS) I forsee mistaken identity below D&D General D&D Insider General Changed it to "General Buzz". Collapsed the Dungeon Master Guidance, Player Help, and DM Study boards into one expandable menu but they're still individual boards. "DM Study" replaces "DM Rules Counseling". If you do go with the expanding menu, I'd suggest individual preview titles for each (as currently appears on the right of each heading) that are viewable without expanding the menu. Under MISCELLANEOUS I listed "Compatibility Help" even though it's unnecessary, as Wizards has said compatibility isn't getting official support (and because if a good conversion pops up on the web, it'll be easily linked to elsewhere on the boards). But I'm open for suggestions there or even ideas on Gamer0's recommended names for it. __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#107 Zherog Apr 03, 2008 6:50:06	The blue headings are expandable (pseudo-) links, the indented ones below them aren't sub-categories, but rather a menu that appears under the (blue) heading if clicked. It doesn't have you leave to another page.....instead, you're shown more options to click. Can the software do that, or is it something they'd have to code? If the latter, I would suspect they won't be doing it.
#108 aotrscommander Apr 03, 2008 7:54:09	- Previous Editions should be a single forum with no sub-forums. I really think that's a bad idea. There's liable to be a huge number of people still interested in 3.x even after 4e comes out, and a single forum is going to become very messy very fast...unless, of course, people simply stop coming to the WotC boards at all, which I think would be a tragedy for everyone of monumental proportions. I'd leave 3.x at least it's own board for a while, at least until the traffic dies off (if it ever does), or as someone suggested earlier, pack it off wholesale to gleemax and leave D&D for 4e. I'm not sure why exactly the number of forums is being minimised and analgamated; considering the amount of traffic on these boards, one would assume you (i.e WotC) expect a similar amount of traffic will be on the new boards, and that combining the most-used forums will merely overload them. (Unless you're not expecting the same amount of traffic...?) I don't follow the reasoning, other than for some sort of sense of aethetics. Unless you (again, WotC as a whole, not any specific personage) have some more concrete idea of how many people will adapt to 4e 1, what proportion of people who don't adapt will still use the 4e forums for non-rules stuff (general player or DM questions etc etc) than I do - which is certainly possible - would it not be better to err on the side of caution to start with? Surely, it would be easier to consolidate more forums into one if some aren't getting any traffic than expand ones into more if it's needed? Anyone care to field this one? Just my input, for whatever it's worth (which is probably nothing.) 1Because realitically, as much as WotC might hope for it, not everyone is going to shift and I suspect it's a not inconsiderable portion; what percentage it will actually is I cannot say and would not care to hazard a guess, but I predict from the responces to it, it's not inconsequential.
#109 autumn_serene Apr 03, 2008 8:25:04	As a general rule, I aim for forums to have between 10 and 50 active threads per day. In other words, I want a person who only visits a forum once a day, to see at least 10, but no more than 50, threads with new replies in the past 24 hours. A forum that receives more than 50 new threads per day probably needs to be updated. While one with less than 10 needs to be closed or merged. The bullseye would be 25 new and active threads per a 24 hour period. I like this matrix a lot- it's finally something concrete that can be used as a measuring stick. The only argument I'd have with it is the actual numbers. A page has 25 threads, so a board with 50 updated threads would go almost into 3 pages. I think a good measure would be that the majority of the page should have new threads, so 15-20 would be ideal, but over 25 and I think an argument could be made to "update" the board. When someone comes on, they want to scan the first page for new threads- if they have to go beyond, things will get lost in the shuffle. I speak from experience- the CharOp board regularly has updated threads going into the 3rd and 4th pages and it's quite the task to keep up with it.
#110 boozerker Apr 03, 2008 9:20:58	Can the software do that, or is it something they'd have to code? If the latter, I would suspect they won't be doing it. I suspect it can. Look at the very top of the forums, at Games, Books, Events, Community, and Search Wizards. Each has a pull-down menu. But the Gleemax sign-in page has it where you simply mouse-over, so that might work even better after the boards migration. However, those aren't your usual links. Just buttons for Marketplace, Community, Events, Games, About, and Events. Yet surely new pull-down menus can't be a gigantic task for any forums software. __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#111 Zherog Apr 03, 2008 9:25:47	The top of the page, I believe, is not actually part of the forum software.
#112 boozerker Apr 03, 2008 10:01:32	I looked at "DM Study" again on my counter-proposal, and it's better as "DM Rules Study". Below are two versions of my updated proposal. The first is the natural look of the forum, the next is with menus choices visible and highlighted. ->Menus collapsed<-- D&D COMMUNITY DOORWAY Staff Blogs Community Business Off Topic Tavern Locate a Gaming Group DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME Classes Races Monsters Powers Deities and Planes Rules Q&A Flavor Your Game GAMING TOPICS D&D General Gameplay Counseling Campaigns & Adventures Future Releases D&D INSIDER D&Di Announcements General Buzz Digital Table Play Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Technical Discussion MISCELLANEOUS Compatibility Help Previous Editions <---Menus expanded---> D&D COMMUNITY DOORWAY Staff Blogs Community Business Off Topic Tavern Locate a Gaming Group DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME Classes Races Monsters Powers Deities and Planes (or "Multiversal Existence") Rules Q&A Flavor Your Game (explained here) GAMING TOPICS D&D General Gameplay Counseling _ Dungeon Master Guidance _ Player Help _ DM Rules Study Campaigns & Adventures Future Releases D&D INSIDER D&Di Announcements General Buzz Digital Table Play Dragon/Dungeon Magazines Technical Discussion MISCELLANEOUS Compatibility Help (or "Backwards Compatibility") Previous Editions _ 3rd Edition _ Previous Editions Notes: I'd like other ideas for the "Multiversal Existence" and "Backwards Compatibility" secondary options. (My reasoning for the Deities and Planes alternative is listed on post #97) __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#113 wrecan Apr 03, 2008 10:18:21	I really like a lot fo your suggestions. Just a few questions: How is "Flavor Your Game" different from "Campaigns & Adventures"? How is "Rules Q&A" different from "DM Rules Study"? To me, the drop-down menus versus the outline format we currently have is inconsequential. Eaither way, all the forums should be visible from the initial menu header. Otherwise, nobody is going to bother.
#114 Zherog Apr 03, 2008 10:19:14	"Locate a Gaming Group" should be a link to the existing RPG Gamer Classifieds (which I believe is what the grey color is for in your list).
#115 wrecan Apr 03, 2008 11:05:22	Let's see if I can re-arrange my suggestions into Boozerker's drop-down menu format...
#116 wrecan Apr 03, 2008 16:19:50	Hmm... Or we can do this with six categories instead of three... DUNGEONS & DRAGONS D&D PUBLICATIONS D&D Fiction Reviews & Future Releases Prior Editions Published D&D Worlds D&D DIGITAL General Digital Gaming Board Business D&D Insider Dragon & Dungeon Magazines D&D DETAILS Classes & Powers Monsters & Races Equipment & Treasure Deities & the Planes D&D RULES COUNSELING General Rules Questions House Rules & Conversions d20 Design D&D PLAY COUNSELING General Discussion Dungeon Master Guidance Player Advice Campaigns & Adventures D&D RELATED LINKS Developer Blogs Rec Room Find a Game Near You Gaming Styles (Mature, Astrid's, etc.)
#117 gamer_zer0 Apr 03, 2008 16:42:41	Going on this... What's a Player to Do has 20 threads with replies today, 22 threads with replies within the past 24 hours. Sounds like it deserves to be its own forum. ;) Yup, it does. =)
#118 Zherog Apr 03, 2008 16:46:38	Yup, it does. =) Excellent. Does that mean we're done talking about merging WaPtD with WaDMtD and/or DM Rules Counseling? Pretty please? If you say yes, Mike, I promise I won't ask about your dog for a month.
#119 gamer_zer0 Apr 03, 2008 17:00:37	The only argument I'd have with it is the actual numbers. A page has 25 threads, so a board with 50 updated threads would go almost into 3 pages. I think a good measure would be that the majority of the page should have new threads, so 15-20 would be ideal, but over 25 and I think an argument could be made to "update" the board. When someone comes on, they want to scan the first page for new threads- if they have to go beyond, things will get lost in the shuffle. Yeah, I am pretty much in agreement. 15-20 is ideal. More than one page starts to be undesirable. Less than a page a week becomes problematic.
#120 holy_beholder Apr 03, 2008 17:46:08	I think that the boards should leave most of the 3rd edition board open for a while, as its not like everyone can get their 4th edition books, and get used to the rules the day they come out.
#121 gamer_zer0 Apr 03, 2008 17:54:02	Excellent. Does that mean we're done talking about merging WaPtD with WaDMtD and/or DM Rules Counseling? Pretty please? If you say yes, Mike, I promise I won't ask about your dog for a month. What are the numbers like in each of those forums? I believe one of them doesn't pass our litmus test.
#122 wrecan Apr 03, 2008 18:29:11	Yes, Rules Counseling is not a very active board. But I think it serves a valuable purpose regardless of its low thread count. (WaDMtD? fits the criteria with ease.) For instance, I intended to start a thread with the April Fools Sage questions in the Rules Counseling forum. Accidentally, I started it in the DM forum. And a lot fo the answers are not about rules, but rather about what people do in their campaign, and why should things be one way and not another, and just general discussion. When I started a similar thread, the last time the Sage asked for answers, I did so in the Rules Counseling Forum and it was all business. All straight answers, with page citations and dissections of the rules. It was quick and efficient. So if you had a rules question and you just wanted to know what the rules say and where do they say it, where would you go? To the DM (or player) Board, where you'll have to wade through a dozen posts about how individual members play the game, with no or little reference to what the rulebooks say, or the Rules forum, where you are likely to get a quick and accurate answer? And that's the service being provided. I note that the Rules forum also -- in theory -- alleviates some of the stress on Ask Wizards or Ask the Sage. Anyway, that's my pitch for saving the Rules Counseling Board as a distinct entity, notwithstanding its slow thread count. Let me know what the decision is.
#123 boozerker Apr 04, 2008 20:52:20	I really like a lot fo your suggestions. Thank you much I had ideas for this previously, but it was you got the ball rolling. How is "Flavor Your Game" different from "Campaigns & Adventures"? Campaigns is long-term planning, where Flavor Your Game would serve more immediate needs. Campaigns has things like demographics, resources, town defense costs. Flavor Your Game offers non-crunchy additions on the go. Players who seek char descriptions or portrait sketches, DMs who'd like to pick and choose from various posted tidbits: unexpected handshaking (tail shake), or backwoods armor, or local coinage design; a one-of-a-kind passerby (or even a landscape oddity) with no game hook but that improves your group's memory of a place. See more explanation on this post. How is "Rules Q&A" different from "DM Rules Study"? Well, "Rules Q&A" and "DM Rules Counseling" were separate, I just changed the latter's name. __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#124 autumn_serene Apr 04, 2008 23:38:19	What are the numbers like in each of those forums? I believe one of them doesn't pass our litmus test. The only thing to remember and/or have awareness of are boards that serve a specific purpose regardless of traffic-- for example, this board has far less than the 20 ideal active threads per day but we couldn't get rid of it. For Rules Counseling, I think that if we reorganize it better to stand out and be linked with the CharOp boards it will greatly increase in traffic.
#125 Amaril Apr 05, 2008 22:53:26	Haven't read through this whole thread, but I'm curious what's going to happen to all of the existing content in the forums. There's a large quantity of excellent material written up by the community, and it would be heartbreaking to see it all disappear.
#126 boozerker Apr 06, 2008 1:26:16	Haven't read through this whole thread, but I'm curious what's going to happen to all of the existing content in the forums. There's a large quantity of excellent material written up by the community, and it would be heartbreaking to see it all disappear. I second that question.
#127 wrecan Apr 06, 2008 7:08:48	A with the stuff in Redgar's Repository, the boards are likely to be locked and then the threads will over time find their way to the WotC_archives. I personally wouldn't mind if the current stuff gets ported over to their analogous new forums. Don't know how feasible that is from a technical standpoint though.
#128 Airos Apr 06, 2008 8:16:03	I personally wouldn't mind if the current stuff gets ported over to their analogous new forums. Don't know how feasible that is from a technical standpoint though. Why wouldn't it? I mean, we currently have both 3rd edition and 4th edition boards, so from a technical standpoint it would work just fine if they left everything alone.
#129 wrecan Apr 06, 2008 10:54:10	They're not going to maintain the 3rd edition boards. It sucks up moderator efforts time, which is significant. It's just not in the realm of possibility. I've been advocating a separate board for all 3rd edition, but I doubt that's even going to happen.
#130 Amaril Apr 06, 2008 11:01:49	They're not going to maintain the 3rd edition boards. It sucks up moderator efforts time, which is significant. It's just not in the realm of possibility. I've been advocating a separate board for all 3rd edition, but I doubt that's even going to happen. At the very least, I'd like for the existing boards to be available but locked. This will eliminate the need for moderation while preserving the rich content available throughout the 3e forums. We saw the same thing with the D&D Accessories forum for 3.0 supplements which were locked for read-only access.
#131 wrecan Apr 06, 2008 14:53:35	At the very least, I'd like for the existing boards to be available but locked. I think that's likely. That's what they've done in the past. Eventually, the posts will filter down into the archives.
#132 Zherog Apr 06, 2008 16:56:17	At the very least, I'd like for the existing boards to be available but locked. I think if you actually read the whole thread (which you said you didn't do), you'd see that this is the most likely scenario; they'll set these forums to read-only, and over the course of six months all the threads will drift into the archive.
#133 Airos Apr 06, 2008 17:39:23	They're not going to maintain the 3rd edition boards. It sucks up moderator efforts time, which is significant. It's just not in the realm of possibility. I've been advocating a separate board for all 3rd edition, but I doubt that's even going to happen. Well, I wasn't talking from a financial standpoint, only a technical one as you brought up in your post. I had assumed when you said technical, you meant software. I apologize if I misunderstood you. My biggest counterpoint to it needing moderator time is that how much "moderation" is needed on the current out of print boards? Sure, if these boards remain open, then the amount of moderation would be the same for the short term as is is currently, but as more people move on to 4th edition and/or other community forums, the traffic on these 3rd edition boards would slow down, requiring less and less moderation. I do believe that the traffic would eventually slow to the point where 3rd edition can be contained in a single forum, but I do not believe that point is June. Maybe next year, maybe 2 years from now, but not the exact moment 4th edition hits the shelves. I feel there needs to be an overlap period. Just my
#134 radicaltaoist Apr 07, 2008 8:10:22	Just a worried member asking; will there still be boards for character optimization? I can't see in the latest breakdowns any place for it, and I've heard a vocal minority (with an example earlier in this thread) eager to see that niche in these forums dismantled. The CO boards is a very strong and vibrant community, and I think something very special would be lost without a forum for us.
#135 Zherog Apr 07, 2008 9:00:42	The Character Optimization boards aren't currently part of the D&D forums (only linked there). So I see no reason (well, no legit reason) why they would change.
#136 wrecan Apr 07, 2008 9:55:26	I agree with Zherog. There's no reason for the CharOp boards to be going anywhere.
#137 radicaltaoist Apr 07, 2008 10:25:33	Thank you for your answer!
#138 autumn_serene Apr 07, 2008 15:50:06	If the litmus test is 10-25 threads a day, then out of the 21 D&D boards, the following boards don't pass: RPG Boards Business Prestige Classes Skills and Feats Equipment and Combat Psionics Deities and the Planes DM Rules Counseling Unearthed Arcana and House Rules Campaign Workshop Epic Level Digital D&D Mature Topics Oriental Adventures D&D Adventures Too many: D&D General That's 71%. I see that as there are topics that people need at the drop of a hat, but aren't regularly, daily visits, but they are specific enough that they can't really go anywhere else.
#139 calronmoonflower Apr 07, 2008 16:55:45	If the litmus test is 10-25 threads a day, then out of the 21 D&D boards, the following boards don't pass: RPG Boards Business Prestige Classes Skills and Feats Equipment and Combat Psionics Deities and the Planes DM Rules Counseling Unearthed Arcana and House Rules Campaign Workshop Epic Level Digital D&D Mature Topics Oriental Adventures D&D Adventures 1). RPG Boards Business This is necessary for feedback and such. 2). Psionics NNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo... :P Psionics will be included later in 4th ed so it really shouldn't be a part right now no matter the traffic. Later when psionics are released for 4th ed it might be enough for its own forum. Then again it might not get enough. 3). DM Rules Counseling With the release of a new rules set this topic will likely see far more traffic than it does now. Enough that it should warrant its own forum. However the DM part could be dropped. 4). New topics 4th may warrant new topics that are not important right now. A mechanics forum might be one as 4th is going to be very different from 3.5. A homebrew forum might be another one worth doing. As it is most forums get allot of homebrew stuff and a separate forum could pull in allot of traffic.
#140 Webster Apr 07, 2008 22:54:50	The CO boards and such are separate to take advantage of all the other d20 material to optimize with. They used to be under the D&D boards as the Min/Max board. It's such a distinct style of play and in fact one of the most popular/busy areas of the boards, it should be kept the way it is. If Autumn_Serene has suggestions to change it, I'd seriously listen to her since she can be considered an expert in the area. :D
#141 gamer_zer0 Apr 09, 2008 10:31:31	Let's take another crack at this, with the following: General RPG Category - Discussion for RPGs from other companies, homebrewed, or other. Includes forums on anything not WotC specific. (Autumn_Serene seems to have a good handle on this) D&D - Same as what we have, but including a 3.x category. Under that category we can have 6 forums, so we need to make them the 6 best. Also under D&D, we'll have a single forum for Previous Editions (i.e. 1st and 2nd.) D20 - Any d20 forums that are wotc specific would go here. Otherwise, they all live under general. When I get into the office this morning, I'll make a couple of new threads to help us focus.
#142 Amaril Apr 09, 2008 11:13:37	Let's take another crack at this, with the following: D&D - Same as what we have, but including a 3.x category. Under that category we can have 6 forums, so we need to make them the 6 best. Also under D&D, we'll have a single forum for Previous Editions (i.e. 1st and 2nd.) For 3.x: Resources and References: Discussions/questions about products which will still be useful as 3.x books will be available as OEF PDFs from RPGNow/DrivethruRPG). Also discussion about 3.x articles in the WotC archive; other resources and references such as 3.x issues of Dungeon/Dragon Magazine, online tools, third-party products and resources, etc. Character Options: Character classes; prestige classes; races; feats; equipment, etc. Magic, Psionics, and more: Discussions about various power sources in 3.x including arcane, divine, psionic, incarnum, maneuvers, etc. Monsters: Discussions about where a monster can be found, how to create monsters in 3.x, etc. Worlds and Cosmology: General discussions about world dynamics based on 3.x rules and assumptions Rules of the Game: Discussions about game mechanics, anything from combat to crafting
#143 wrecan Apr 09, 2008 12:22:38	Let's take another crack at this, with the following: General RPG Category - Discussion for RPGs from other companies, homebrewed, or other. Includes forums on anything not WotC specific. (Autumn_Serene seems to have a good handle on this) D20 - Any d20 forums that are wotc specific would go here. Otherwise, they all live under general. Wait... what? Are you saying the D&D Boards should have a section dedicated to the discussion of games other than D&D? Isn't that what Gleemax is for? D&D - Same as what we have, but including a 3.x category. Under that category we can have 6 forums, so we need to make them the 6 best. Also under D&D, we'll have a single forum for Previous Editions (i.e. 1st and 2nd.) With these criteria, I suggest the following: DUNGEONS & DRAGONS D&D PRODUCTS Developer Blogs Board Business (announcements, FAQs and technical issues) Reviews & Future Releases (what's coming, what's good, what's not) D&D Insider (digital table, character creator, etc.) Dragon & Dungeon Magazines (articles, editorials and you) General Digital Gaming (other products and online play issues) D&D Fiction D&D RULES COUNSELING General Rules Counseling (ask a rules question; get a rules answer) Classes & Powers (a forum for arcane, divine & martial characters) Races & Monsters (from aasimar to zombie and everything in between) Treasure & Equipment (if you can carry it, you can discuss it) Deities & the Planes (the forum beyond the beyond!) House Rules & Homebrews (if you build it, they will come) D&D PLAY COUNSELING General Discussion (can't figure out where to ask a question? Ask it here) Dungeon Master Guidance (resolve table issues, story problems and bounce ideas off your peers) Player Advice (resolve table issues, character development and bounce ideas off your peers) Campaigns & Adventures (discuss the worlds in which we don't live, but like to visit) Published D&D Worlds D&D CLASSIC Third Edition (Discuss your Third Edition games) Rules & References (question about a book) (yes, I'm stealing Amaril's excellent suggestion!) Player Characters (races, classes and abilities) Non-Player Characters (monsters and NPCs) Loot & Locations (if it doesn't have a Wisdom or Charisma Ability, discuss it here) TSR Editions (Discuss your Basic, AD&D & Second Edition games) D&D RELATED LINKS d20 Design Rec Room Find a Game Near You Gaming Styles (Mature, Astrid's, etc.)
#144 Zherog Apr 09, 2008 12:29:50	Wait... what? Are you saying the D&D Boards should have a section dedicated to the discussion of games other than D&D? Isn't that what Gleemax is for? Yes, that's what Gleemax is for. And I think you might be misunderstanding Mike. I think he's asking for our help in laying out a section of Gleemax, rather than dropping that stuff into the D&D boards.
#145 wrecan Apr 09, 2008 12:57:36	Ah! Well, in that case... never mind.
#146 Airos Apr 10, 2008 13:00:49	D&D - Same as what we have, but including a 3.x category. Under that category we can have 6 forums, so we need to make them the 6 best. Also under D&D, we'll have a single forum for Previous Editions (i.e. 1st and 2nd.) Thank you! I'm very happy to hear this news. I would like to ask a couple of questions, which I'm sure are on the minds of a lot of people; - When are these new boards going "live" - Will we be able to view these old boards in "read-only" mode until they fall into the archive? - Will current/active threads be moved from the current boards to the "new" boards? There's a few ideas I've had bouncing around in my head that I wanted to present to the 3.5 community, but I've been holding off until I knew the fate of the boards. I'd like to know what kind of transition period we're looking at for going from the "old" 3.5 boards to the "new" 3.5 boards, so I can plan for saving/moving threads. I would imagine that the only "real" change would be that we have fewer forums, and all the threads we currently have would just get moved out of "deleted" forums to the new categories. I'll need to think about what 6 forums I'd like to see. I'll offer my suggestions when I have more time available to post. And again, thank you. :D
#147 Amaril Apr 10, 2008 13:07:55	For 3.x: Resources and References: Discussions/questions about products which will still be useful as 3.x books will be available as OEF PDFs from RPGNow/DrivethruRPG). Also discussion about 3.x articles in the WotC archive; other resources and references such as 3.x issues of Dungeon/Dragon Magazine, online tools, third-party products and resources, etc. Character Options: Character classes; prestige classes; races; feats; equipment, etc. Magic, Psionics, and more: Discussions about various power sources in 3.x including arcane, divine, psionic, incarnum, maneuvers, etc. Monsters: Discussions about where a monster can be found, how to create monsters in 3.x, etc. Worlds and Cosmology: General discussions about world dynamics based on 3.x rules and assumptions Rules of the Game: Discussions about game mechanics, anything from combat to crafting Anyone else have opinions about this?
#148 Airos Apr 10, 2008 23:51:35	Anyone else have opinions about this? I'll chime in... Resources and References: Discussions/questions about products which will still be useful as 3.x books will be available as OEF PDFs from RPGNow/DrivethruRPG). Also discussion about 3.x articles in the WotC archive; other resources and references such as 3.x issues of Dungeon/Dragon Magazine, online tools, third-party products and resources, etc. I don't know that there's going to be too much need for this board. Gamer_Zer0 said that there would be a d20 board for WotC specific products, and that everything else would fall under general. Since, for example, Monster Manual III is a WotC d20 book, if you wanted to know if it was worth picking up, you should be able to ask in there. If you had a question about a specific monster in MMIII, it'd go in the Monsters board. Specific 3.x articles should be discussed in the correct forum, (i.e. Minds Eye with Psionics). Character Options: Character classes; prestige classes; races; feats; equipment, etc. This really packs a lot of boards into one, (I know, we only get 6 to play with...). I think we should break this into a couple of other boards. Magic, Psionics, and more: Discussions about various power sources in 3.x including arcane, divine, psionic, incarnum, maneuvers, etc. This isn't too bad. Hopefully we'll be able to get the Psionics people and the Magic people to play nice together. Monsters: Discussions about where a monster can be found, how to create monsters in 3.x, etc. This board is, well, completely unchanged. Worlds and Cosmology: General discussions about world dynamics based on 3.x rules and assumptions First, I'd suggest changing the name to something that includes the word "campaigns". Second, I'd suggest having Deities, planes, Campaign Settings and "house rules", (ala Unearthed Arcana) and possibly epic level included in here. Rules of the Game: Discussions about game mechanics, anything from combat to crafting [/LIST] Not too bad. This covers What's a DM to do and What's a Player to do. I'd make my suggestion as this; Races and Classes: Who you are Skills, Feats and Equipment: What you can do Magic and Psionics: Blowing stuff up for fun and profit Random Encounters: Monsters, Traps and other hazards Campaign Styles: Planes, Deities, Campaign Settings, House Rules and Epic level play. Other Q&A: Help and advice for DM's and Players alike, as well as any other topic that doesn't fit into the above forums. That should cover all the same bases, but with a little less clutter. I know we've already be given a lot with the decision to keep the 3.x and out of print boards separate, so I don't want to push our luck with asking for an extra board or two... Just my
#149 Amaril Apr 11, 2008 9:16:59	Races and Classes: Who you are Skills, Feats and Equipment: What you can do I honestly think these can be rolled into one. Part of who you are with regards to classes and race includes feat selections and equipment of choice. Most discussions regarding character concepts talk about these things in conjunction with one another, especially with divine, fighter bonus, and racial feats. Magic and Psionics: Blowing stuff up for fun and profit Where do fans of incarnum, invocations, auras, maneuvers, and stances discuss those topics? Random Encounters: Monsters, Traps and other hazards I like the grouping, but I think Random could be dropped from the name. Campaign Styles: Planes, Deities, Campaign Settings, House Rules and Epic level play. I like this, too. Other Q&A: Help and advice for DM's and Players alike, as well as any other topic that doesn't fit into the above forums. Again, I like this, but the name seems off. Just call it Rules of the Game. The rest would be implied.
#150 Airos Apr 11, 2008 22:59:04	I honestly think these can be rolled into one. Part of who you are with regards to classes and race includes feat selections and equipment of choice. Most discussions regarding character concepts talk about these things in conjunction with one another, especially with divine, fighter bonus, and racial feats. The reason I made my suggestion as I did was because those forums seem to get the most, (or at least a lot), traffic. (Races has 45,184 threads, Classes has 155,325, Skills and Feats has 51,424 and Equipment and Combat has 66,654). Piling all of those into a single forum would, in my opinion, be a logistics nightmare. "Character Concepts" should still be handled under the d20 CharOp and CharDev boards, (assuming they're still around... it's under discussion). These, (D&D), forums are supposed to be for rules questions. While I don't object to "help me build at 10th level fighter" threads, I don't think that alone is justification enough for piling all those high traffic forums into one. Where do fans of incarnum, invocations, auras, maneuvers, and stances discuss those topics? Either the same places they've been discussed, (Skills and Feats or Equipment and Combat for maneuvers/stances, and Spells and Magic for incarnum, invocations and auras), or just by using your name of the thread. I wasn't suggesting my forum names and tag lines should be the ones used, just what forums be condensed into each other. I like the grouping, but I think Random could be dropped from the name. I just threw that in as a little to the article on the D&D site, as well as to make it feel a little less "stale", ("monsters" just doesn't quite fit in when we're giving fancy names to the other forums). I came up with the ideas about traps and other encounters just because I couldn't figure out what else to combine "Monsters" with. It looked silly sitting all by itself, while all the other forums were fairly packed. Again, I like this, but the name seems off. Just call it Rules of the Game. The rest would be implied. If we called it Rules of the Game, it may lead to some confusion. A question about how a feat works is a rules question, but shouldn't be posted in this particular forum. Again, while I never meant my names to be the "official" ones, I figured it fit, at least for the moment, since people as questions about their players and campaigns in What's a DM to do, questions about the other players and DMs in What's a Player to do, etc... Anyways, I'm glad you liked my suggestions. Hopefully we can get a few other ideas tossed in here from the others that plan on sticking around, (you know... before June).
#151 Obsidianjaerc Apr 16, 2008 2:36:01	Here is my vision of the retained 3.x forums. I'm happy to clarify positions or reasoning. 3.5 General: Discussion regarding 3.x products, threads now in the archive, Dungeon and Dragons print magazines, conversion, etc. [this is sort of a catch all] Race & Classes: Discussion and material on 3.5 classes, prestige classes, races Magic & Powers: Discussions about 3.5 spells, incantations, psionics, incarnum, maneuvers, mysteries, True Names, and more. The Great Wheel: Discussion about the Great Wheel cosmology, planes, deities, and so on. [Discussion of personal campaign worlds, although typically edition neutral would also be feasible] Encounters: Discussion and creation of monsters, traps, environmental dangers, and dungeon design. Resources [better name to indicate it's nature?]: Discussion and material regarding feats, skills, and nonstandard character options, as well as equipment. Rules Guidance: I like Amaril's tag "From combat to crafting", this forum serves as an overall rules grind. I also have a question, regarding the fate of the 3.x PbP forums? There is a large community of dedicated folk there who I am sure would also be eager to know.