Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 wrecan Sep 16, 2008 18:12:00	The forum description for Rules Q&A is "If you want a no-nonsense discussion about what a rule means or where it can be found, ask your question here." Rules Q&A also seems redundant with other forums since it's a "catch-all". Here's my proposal for keeping Rules Q&A from overlapping with other forums: A stickied thread in the Rules Q&A forum can read: [indent]The Rules Q&A forum is intended for two types of posts: People who have a quick rules-based question and just want a straightforward answer without a lot of discussion. People whose rules-based question does not fit in any other forum. If a thread reaches a second page (i.e., more than 30 replies), and that thread is appropriate for another forum in the D&D Fundamentals section, that will be taken as an indication that the initial question has spawned (intentionally or not) a substantive discussion of the rules and the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is to help make sure that threads more appropriate to Rules Q&A won't get lost. If you see a thread in this forum you think should be transfered elsewhere, please post a reply to this thread, so Community Management can evaluate whether a move is warranted.[/indent] Opinions? If this move were implemented today, the following threads from the past week would be moved: [thread=1088684]To Multiclassing[/thread] [thread=1087829]To Combat[/thread] [thread=1088449]To House Rules & Homebrew[/thread] [thread=1089220]To Combat[/thread] [thread=1088262]To General[/thread] [thread=1087682]To Multiclassing[/thread] [thread=1083339]To Equipment[/thread] [thread=1085454]To Combat[/thread] [thread=1087971]To Defenders[/thread] [thread=1076621]To Defenders[/thread] [thread=1087537]To Controllers[/thread] [thread=1083843]To Multiclassing[/thread] [thread=1087257]To Defenders[/thread] [thread=1086367]To Races and Monsters[/thread] [thread=1046225]To House Rules & Homebrew[/thread] [thread=1084795]To Combat[/thread] [thread=1085039]To Wizards[/thread] [thread=1085431]To Combat[/thread] [thread=1074383]To Strikers[/thread] [thread=1084016]To Multiclassing[/thread]
#2 emwasick Sep 17, 2008 2:58:24	Sounds smart to me! I'm a big fan of categorizing things as exactly as possible. Lengthy, detailed threads like that should end up in the section they most relate to. Rules Q&A should be sort of like a really fast alternative to emailing CS.
#3 batshido Sep 17, 2008 8:35:14	It almost seems like we would be better off just splitting it into two forums (and this might have been suggested elsewhere, I haven't been tuned in to most of that discussion); one for quick rules questions and one for more lengthy discussion of the rules as they exist. So, if you've got a question about longsword damage (for example) it goes in the "quick answer" forum. If you want to discuss why a longsword does the damage it does when compared to other swords, it would go in the "rules theory" forum. Then again, there might not be enough people who care about the whys and wherefores of it all (I know I tend to be in the minority on these things) to really justify that having its own forum. Just something to think about, I guess.
#4 wrecan Sep 17, 2008 8:37:45	I don't see the point of having 23 Rules Q&A forums. 90% of topics are covered in the Fundamentals forums we have currently. The only thing that might not have a home is Skill Challenges and Feats.
#5 batshido Sep 17, 2008 8:43:22	I don't see the point of having 23 Rules Q&A forums. 90% of topics are covered in the Fundamentals forums we have currently. The only thing that might not have a home is Skill Challenges and Feats. I think we'd just need to designate a forum for those questions, is all. Maybe roll them into the GM forum if it's not slammed as it is (I don't frequent there, so I can't be sure from a glance how quickly it turns over). My suggestion was more in the spirit of finding one place for the 4+ page long discussions so they're not pushing the "I need a quick answer" threads off the front page so quickly. If we've got other solutions that can handle that, great.
#6 Zherog Sep 17, 2008 9:26:52	If you want to discuss why a longsword does the damage it does when compared to other swords, it would go in the "rules theory" forum. Wouldn't this sort of discussion go in the Equipment forum?
#7 batshido Sep 17, 2008 9:32:38	Wouldn't this sort of discussion go in the Equipment forum? Ok, bad example. What about a discussion of the use of Pg. 42 and it's application to things like tackling opponents or tripping them? A quick question ("does Pg. 42 cover X, and if so how?") would require a vastly different response than something that was intended to be a protracted discussion ("Is there a good way of standardizing these sort of impromptu maneuvers based on the material on page 42? Anybody got any ideas?"). Now, there are theoretically other forums that both aspects of that question can go into, but right now they're both very likely to end up in Rules Q&A, with the discussion of the latter quickly pushing the former quick-answer post down and off the page. Again, if this has been hashed out elsewhere, that's great. Just putting forward an idea.
#8 Zherog Sep 17, 2008 10:02:12	Ok, bad example. What about a discussion of the use of Pg. 42 and it's application to things like tackling opponents or tripping them? A quick question ("does Pg. 42 cover X, and if so how?") would require a vastly different response than something that was intended to be a protracted discussion ("Is there a good way of standardizing these sort of impromptu maneuvers based on the material on page 42? Anybody got any ideas?"). I don't know what's on page 42, but just guessing based on the "tackling" and "tripping" aspects of your comment, wouldn't that sort of discussion go on the Combat forum? I guess my point is that just about everything already has a home where a long discussion on the topic could occur. That's one of the reasons, actually, that my original re-org proposal dropped Rules Q&A altogether, because it seemed like a redundant forum to me.
#9 batshido Sep 17, 2008 10:09:07	I don't know what's on page 42, but just guessing based on the "tackling" and "tripping" aspects of your comment, wouldn't that sort of discussion go on the Combat forum? It could, I guess. But that's not really the best place for it when you take Pg. 42 as a whole. It covers vastly more (in fact, virtually anything to be done in-game) than just these specific applications. As such, it's hard to classify into any given forum that's not just "general rules discussion," unless you're just going to break down every individual application and designate it. Like I said, if this has already been sorted by the reorg, great. Just putting it out there. I guess my point is that just about everything already has a home where a long discussion on the topic could occur. That's one of the reasons, actually, that my original re-org proposal dropped Rules Q&A altogether, because it seemed like a redundant forum to me. I have to say that I strongly disagree with the idea of doing away with Q&A altogether. The forum needs somewhere for people to drop in for quick rulings and answers on that sort of stuff where they can expect rapid turnaround. Mixing that in with other forums leads to a 'someone else will take it, I have other threads to reply to' attitude. It also vastly increases the possibility of duplicate (and triplicate, quadruplicate, etc) threads with the same question being asked in rapid succession, as the heavy traffic threads will push those questions off the front page very quickly.
#10 wrecan Sep 17, 2008 10:28:01	It could, I guess. But that's not really the best place for it when you take Pg. 42 as a whole. But people don't ask questions about page 42 as a whole. You're really stretching to find a topic not covered by any of the other Fundamentals forum. As far as I can tell there are three: Skill Challenges, Improvised Difficulties (page 42) and Feats (that aren't specific to a class or race). While I had advocated a Skills, Feats and Ability Scores forum, I'm fine with putting these few threads into 4E General or leaving them in Rules Q&A. I have to say that I strongly disagree with the idea of doing away with Q&A altogether. I agree. I think Rules Q&A is working just as intended, and if we farm out threads that turn into substantive discussions, it can work even better.
#11 Zherog Sep 17, 2008 10:29:43	I have to say that I strongly disagree with the idea of doing away with Q&A altogether. The forum needs somewhere for people to drop in for quick rulings and answers on that sort of stuff where they can expect rapid turnaround. Mixing that in with other forums leads to a 'someone else will take it, I have other threads to reply to' attitude. It also vastly increases the possibility of duplicate (and triplicate, quadruplicate, etc) threads with the same question being asked in rapid succession, as the heavy traffic threads will push those questions off the front page very quickly. Well, obviously my idea wasn't very well received since the forum is still around. ;) In my experience here, those types of quickies got turned around very fast in the past without a forum dedicated to that sort of stuff. old forums like Feats and Skills, Spells and Magic, and so on did just fine with a combination of quickies, in-depth and homebrew material all intermingled.
#12 wrecan Sep 17, 2008 10:36:25	In my experience here, those types of quickies got turned around very fast in the past without a forum dedicated to that sort of stuff. When did we not have a forum dedicated ot that kind of stuff? Rules Q&A is just a continuation of DM Rules Counseling, which existed throughout Third Edition.
#13 batshido Sep 17, 2008 10:40:57	You're really stretching to find a topic not covered by any of the other Fundamentals forum. As far as I can tell there are three: Skill Challenges, Improvised Difficulties (page 42) and Feats (that aren't specific to a class or race). Well, I'm trying to find something that doesn't make it sound like; "I want a place to discuss the rules structure and the whys and wherefores of it because I think that's interesting." Specific examples are hard to find without them being classified into another forum even if they would fit better in a general "RPG Design Theory as it applies to 4E" spot. I know I'm easily in the minority here, and as such it's probably not going to happen.
#14 Zherog Sep 17, 2008 10:46:28	Alright - when you say "RPG Design Theory" forum... that's an interesting idea, and (in my opinion) makes your case a lot better than trying to find a specific topic -- at least based on the examples you've given so far. ;) In the past, we had that sort of discussion in the d20 area of the community. In fact, that's where Character Optimization used to live -- it was just linked to the D&D area -- because Optimization is just another aspect of design theory. But in the last re-org, it was determined that that whole area was unnecessary, and almost everything that was there was lumped together with everything that was in the d20 Modern forums, into one place. I would be interested to discuss the merits of Design Theory style forum based around the 4e rules. But I think that's an entirely different idea from "a place to talk about a specific rule" like some of the examples you've given.
#15 wrecan Sep 17, 2008 10:50:37	if they would fit better in a general "RPG Design Theory as it applies to 4E" spot. I just don't think there's much interest in a 4E Game Design Theory Forum. 4E General would be the most appropriate place.
#16 batshido Sep 17, 2008 10:58:38	Alright - when you say "RPG Design Theory" forum... that's an interesting idea, and (in my opinion) makes your case a lot better than trying to find a specific topic -- at least based on the examples you've given so far. ;) In the past, we had that sort of discussion in the d20 area of the community. In fact, that's where Character Optimization used to live -- it was just linked to the D&D area -- because Optimization is just another aspect of design theory. But in the last re-org, it was determined that that whole area was unnecessary, and almost everything that was there was lumped together with everything that was in the d20 Modern forums, into one place. I would be interested to discuss the merits of Design Theory style forum based around the 4e rules. But I think that's an entirely different idea from "a place to talk about a specific rule" like some of the examples you've given. Well, I was trying to illustrate the difference between that and individual rule questions, and obviously doing a poor job of it. (hence the "what's a longsword do" question vs the "why did they set the longsword up this way" question) I would be interested to see what the response would be to such a forum, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it wouldn't have the numbers to support its own full-fledged forum. Sub-forum, maybe? I just don't think there's much interest in a 4E Game Design Theory Forum. 4E General would be the most appropriate place. 4E GD is a horrible place to be having those types of conversations, unless you're looking to pick an edition fight. Start a thread about 4E design principles and their application in there, and it will be chock full of trolls in under a page.
#17 wrecan Sep 17, 2008 11:02:22	4E GD is a horrible place to be having those types of conversations, unless you're looking to pick an edition fight. Start a thread about 4E design principles and their application in there, and it will be chock full of trolls in under a page. That's a problem with GD that can only be fixed by CS. But GD is the appropriate forum for the topic. Essentially, you're asking for a General Discussion forum that is better moderated.
#18 batshido Sep 17, 2008 11:04:55	That's a problem with GD that can only be fixed by CS. But GD is the appropriate forum for the topic. Essentially, you're asking for a General Discussion forum that is better moderated. That's potentially what I'm asking for, if that's what works, yes. What I'm specifically asking for is a place to discuss the design principles specifically, whether or not it's also the place we discuss the sundry other aspects of the game that don't really go anywhere else.
#19 Zherog Sep 17, 2008 11:05:13	That's a problem with GD that can only be fixed by CS. But GD is the appropriate forum for the topic. Essentially, you're asking for a General Discussion forum that is better moderated. I tend to agree here. And if the topic proves to be popular, we can always address adding a "Design Theory" forum at a later date. And I think we all agree that GD could use some tighter moderation; but let's not drag that into this conversation, please. ;)
#20 batshido Sep 17, 2008 11:11:32	I tend to agree here. And if the topic proves to be popular, we can always address adding a "Design Theory" forum at a later date. So, what we're kind of coming to is that this particular subject is at an impasse until individual threads can broach it in GD without turning into flamefests. Rawk.
#21 Zherog Sep 17, 2008 11:36:41	I think we're at two different places. Every thread should be able to exist in GD (and any other forum) without becoming a flamefest. This is a Customer Service issue. If the topic of "Design Theory" proves to be popular enough - in GD and other forums - then it might warrant a forum to specifically cover that aspect. This is a Community Management issue. Both have something to do with GD, but other than that I really don't see any relation between the two. *shrug*
#22 batshido Sep 17, 2008 11:42:45	Both have something to do with GD, but other than that I really don't see any relation between the two. *shrug* The common thread is that until we get GD cleaned up the threads can't really exist to see if the subject would have a following in the first place. Posting such a thread in there right now would basically be trolling, as it's bound to erupt into flames. (Which is, ironically, one of the favorite covers of a particular troll in GD at the moment. Post something like that, poke just hard enough to provoke a reaction and then decry all those who take the bait to flame him exactly like he was hoping they would.)
#23 Zherog Sep 17, 2008 11:49:21	I don't think it would be trolling at all. Even if it would elicit negative responses from some people.
#24 batshido Sep 17, 2008 11:52:14	I don't think it would be trolling at all. Even if it would elicit negative responses from some people. Well, I can't in good conscience start a thread that has a 95% certainty of devolving into a flamewar. To me that's irresponsible at best, and more commonly active trolling.
#25 wrecan Sep 17, 2008 12:12:22	The problem is that the edition wars are, to a great extent, a virulent emotional disagreement on game design. Pretty much any forum intended to discuss 4E's game design philosophy is going to attract the same hostility as exists in GD. To wit: the following threads in GD are, in my opinion, game design threads, once you eliminate the emotional element: [thread=1089672]Your "Perfect Edition[/thread] (game design, generall) [thread=1087223]It all boils down to this...[/thread] (how much should be n the core books?) [thread=1089085]Unrealistic he said[/thread] (realism in game design) [thread=1088682]Thoughts on the 4e Skill System?[/thread] [thread=1089412]The Tyranny of Fun[/thread] (give players what they want vs. challenging players) [thread=1084744]Point Buy Discussion[/thread] [thread=1089677]3.5 Fireball vs. 4th Ed Fireball[/thread] That's just a handful of threads that I think are appropriately in General Discussion to discuss game design. Are some of them baiting? I think so. Did some of them result in flame wars? Again, yes. But when the edition wars are substantive (not often), it's about differences in game design, so I really don't see a way around it.
#26 batshido Sep 17, 2008 12:23:13	The problem is that the edition wars are, to a great extent, a virulent emotional disagreement on game design. Pretty much any forum intended to discuss 4E's game design philosophy is going to attract the same hostility as exists in GD. To wit: the following threads in GD are, in my opinion, game design threads, once you eliminate the emotional element: [thread=1089672]Your "Perfect Edition[/thread] (game design, generall) [thread=1087223]It all boils down to this...[/thread] (how much should be n the core books?) [thread=1089085]Unrealistic he said[/thread] (realism in game design) [thread=1088682]Thoughts on the 4e Skill System?[/thread] [thread=1089412]The Tyranny of Fun[/thread] (give players what they want vs. challenging players) [thread=1084744]Point Buy Discussion[/thread] [thread=1089677]3.5 Fireball vs. 4th Ed Fireball[/thread] That's just a handful of threads that I think are appropriately in General Discussion to discuss game design. Are some of them baiting? I think so. Did some of them result in flame wars? Again, yes. But when the edition wars are substantive (not often), it's about differences in game design, so I really don't see a way around it. The real problem with those threads, though, is that they're all (or almost all) there specifically to compare 3E game design with 4E game design. In the few instances where that wasn't the case (the Unrealistic thread an the Point Buy discussion) that's what it quickly devolved into anyway. Best case scenario, those threads currently turn into exchanges marked by one-upsmanship on both sides. Worst case, they were started purely as exercises in baiting and were remarkably successful in that arena. I know that the comparison between the two systems is inevitable, and that the odds of getting a forum specifically do discuss game design from a non-edition war standpoint is purely fantasy on my part. That doesn't change the fact that with the current state of the forums trying to discuss anything resembling the design decisions that went into 4E (or Bahumut-help-us the state of the RPG industry en toto) is just going to result in bile and flames. Anyone starting those threads right now is either a) naive enough to think better of GD than it really deserves or b) looking for a fight. As such, it's really not conducive to anything near the discussions I would hope to have. I get that this is purely my problem, so I'm going to drop it. Consider this my public lament for the lack of civility on this topic, nothing more.