Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 nom Nov 19, 2008 6:01:20	Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but why does a thread about rules for resolving [thread=1113798]blindness and single target bursts[/thread] fit better in "combat, traps and tactics" (my interpretation: "tactics and gameplay) than "rules Q&A" (my interpretation: "how do the rules work?")? If you skim the thread, it's quite obviously a debate about "what are the rules for ...?" rather than "how could I use this in play?". Is "rules Q&A" as a general category to be deprecated? Or did someone with mod powers just get a little too enthusiastic?
#2 wrecan Nov 19, 2008 6:11:58	Perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but why does a thread about rules for resolving [thread=1113798]blindness and single target bursts[/thread] fit better in "combat, traps and tactics" (my interpretation: "tactics and gameplay) than "rules Q&A" (my interpretation: "how do the rules work?")? Rules Q&A is for short discussions of rules where someone asks a question and gets the answer. (Thus "Q&A") If a thread exceeds one page, then it has evolved into an actual discussion, and should then be moved to the appropriate forum for rules discussions. I'm the one who asked for the move. The discussion of blindness and bursts belongs in combat and tactics section. I had considered that it might belong in the Defenders section, since it mostly concerns a discussion of swordmage powers, but I decided Combat was a better fit since the central theme -- blindness and bursts -- crosses different class powers. Is "rules Q&A" as a general category to be deprecated? Not at all. During the forum reorginazation that occurred after the release of 4th edition, I was probably the primary proponent of a forum dedicated to a place where people can ask rule-specific questions seeking for a strict interpretation of the written rule without extraneous discussion of house rules or variants. This forum used to be a subforum of What's a DM to Do? called "DM Rules Counseling" of which I was the forum lead. In my opinion, Rules Q&A is one of the most valuable forums on the boards. But it works only if threads are kept short and limited to the question and answer format. (The two exceptions being the "Consolidated Custmer Service Answers" which is sort of a rules compilation, and "Rules you Didn't Realize" which is also a rules compilation of sorts.) So whenever a thread reaches a second page, indicating it has evolved into a substantive discussion, I will ask it to be moved to a forum specific to the thread's topic.
#3 nom Nov 19, 2008 14:12:35	That's an interesting take on it, but it feels wrong to me. To my way of thinking, rules is about rules (in isolation), and the other forums are about gameplay (which may or may not include relevant rules). I don't really see any virtue in "oh, this forum is for short questions" (as opposed to "no-nonsense discussion of what a rule means"). Short questions are going to be answered quickly and then get pushed down regardless. Questions where there is an interesting difference of opinion will naturally be debated and stay more live. But there's going to be debate anyway; all pushing debated threads (maybe 5-6) away does is create lots of small debated threads rather than a single larger one. Oh, and create threads about rules details in forums that would be better served talking about gameplay. In this situation, it's a relatively pure rules debate. One could perhaps argue that everything from the combat chapter belongs in the "combat" forum, but I really don't see the obviously commonality between "how do I improve our teamwork" and "what's the rules for X". Obviously, I'm not specifically concerned about this case other than being a little annoyed that I had to go chasing a rules thread in a gameplay forum, but it provides an interesting case study.
#4 wrecan Nov 19, 2008 15:47:03	I don't really see any virtue in "oh, this forum is for short questions" (as opposed to "no-nonsense discussion of what a rule means"). The problem is that long discussions tend to shunt shorter discussions to the second and third pages, where, our experience has shown, they can languish and disappear. The Rules Q&A forum is a busy forum with more than 30 active threads a day. If someone asks a question that isn't answered in 24 hours, it quickly disappears into the ether. If the first eight or so threads on the page are taken with rules questions that have been answered and have now evolved into rules discussions, the number of threads that will disappear without an answer increases dramatically. In my opinion, most conversations about a rule that have progressed to the second page are most often about how to handle an ambiguity in the rule, rather than trying to figure out what the rule actually says. And that holds true in the thread you referenced. The thread had evolved into a discussion of how individual DMs would rule by post #15. Questions where there is an interesting difference of opinion will naturally be debated and stay more live. But there's going to be debate anyway; all pushing debated threads (maybe 5-6) away does is create lots of small debated threads rather than a single larger one. Oh, and create threads about rules details in forums that would be better served talking about gameplay. All of the Fundamentals forums are for discussion of rules as well as gameplay. There is no dichotomy between "gameplay" and "rules discussion" that you seem to want. I really don't see the obviously commonality between "how do I improve our teamwork" and "what's the rules for X". The Combat forum is not exclusively about "how do I improve our teamwork"? (That might actually be better posed in What's a Player to Do?, actually.) The Combat forum is for discussing tactics, traps and terrain. And whether someone can target unseen enemies in a burst is certainly pertinent to the topic of tactics. it provides an interesting case study. We've been transferring threads from Rules Q&A for months. (Moves happen maybe twice a week, and average 5-7/week.)