New OOP

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

zombiegleemax

Aug 15, 2007 22:21:22
So, are the TETSBN players going to be relegated here now?
#2

tankschmidt

Aug 16, 2007 7:34:51
I hope they don't expect us to go to mixers with them...
#3

kengar

Aug 16, 2007 8:20:45
I know some FLGS's full of 3.X inventory that aren't gonna be happy.
#4

tankschmidt

Aug 16, 2007 8:24:47
This is sort of on topic: Gnarley Bones has said that 3.x won't be welcome on the DragonsFoot boards.
#5

varl

Aug 16, 2007 8:29:28
As far as I'm concerned, d20 will now have its own version of OOP. Two entirely different groups, and they should stay that way.
#6

zombiegleemax

Aug 16, 2007 8:41:07
I'd find it hard to imagine topics we could converse upon. Not just the details of the rules, but major elements of the core philosophies are different.
#7

havard

Aug 16, 2007 9:14:44
Did I miss something?


Nevermind...
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=349417



Havard
#8

caeruleus

Aug 16, 2007 14:05:07
As far as I'm concerned, d20 will now have its own version of OOP. Two entirely different groups, and they should stay that way.

I'd find it hard to imagine topics we could converse upon. Not just the details of the rules, but major elements of the core philosophies are different.

Ah yes, segregation. Gods forbid that we have to acknowledge the existence of people different from us.

Although I seem to remember meeting people who thought that people who play Classic D&D and people who play AD&D have nothing to talk about.

Having said that, I think there should be a separate forum for each edition, as they have at Dragonsfoot (excluding d20, of course), so you know where to look if you want something edition-specific. But that doesn't mean there can't be dialogue.
#9

havard

Aug 16, 2007 15:26:17
Having said that, I think there should be a separate forum for each edition, as they have at Dragonsfoot (excluding d20, of course), so you know where to look if you want something edition-specific. But that doesn't mean there can't be dialogue.

Makes sense to me. I am a fan of all editions of D&D and will probably check out 4e too, if only just to see what it is all about. But knowing where to go for a particular type of discussion/topic is always a good idea.

Havard
#10

varl

Aug 16, 2007 16:19:38
Ah yes, segregation. Gods forbid that we have to acknowledge the existence of people different from us.

You say this about Yorlum and I....

Having said that, I think there should be a separate forum for each edition, as they have at Dragonsfoot (excluding d20, of course), so you know where to look if you want something edition-specific. But that doesn't mean there can't be dialogue.

...then you say this. Nice. It's good to know you know our "segregation" from your "separation". Give me a break. It's not like the separation of editions is a new and shocking development.
#11

chatdemon

Aug 16, 2007 17:17:16
as they have at Dragonsfoot (excluding d20, of course),

D20 isn't banned at DF, 3rd edition is.

D20 games like C&C, OSRIC, LL are fully welcomed. Other D20 lines like Blue Rose/True 20 are tolerated.
#12

caeruleus

Aug 17, 2007 1:07:02
You say this about Yorlum and I....



...then you say this. Nice. It's good to know you know our "segregation" from your "separation". Give me a break. It's not like the separation of editions is a new and shocking development.

I wasn't referring to your suggestion of keeping the forums separate, because, as you see, I agree with that. I was referring to the claim that there's nothing for people from different editions to talk about.

Rereading your post, however, it now strikes me that you may not have had that second claim in mind. If that's the case, then I appologize.
#13

caeruleus

Aug 17, 2007 1:08:06
D20 isn't banned at DF, 3rd edition is.

D20 games like C&C, OSRIC, LL are fully welcomed. Other D20 lines like Blue Rose/True 20 are tolerated.

Right, thanks for clarifying.
#14

varl

Aug 17, 2007 10:43:12
I wasn't referring to your suggestion of keeping the forums separate, because, as you see, I agree with that. I was referring to the claim that there's nothing for people from different editions to talk about.

Rereading your post, however, it now strikes me that you may not have had that second claim in mind. If that's the case, then I appologize.

It's cool. Thanks.
#15

zombiegleemax

Aug 17, 2007 11:27:59
I wasn't referring to your suggestion of keeping the forums separate, because, as you see, I agree with that. I was referring to the claim that there's nothing for people from different editions to talk about.

Rereading your post, however, it now strikes me that you may not have had that second claim in mind. If that's the case, then I appologize.

Well said, thanks for posting!
#16

robertfisher

Aug 17, 2007 12:30:26
Personally, while I have greatly enjoyed the conversations I've had here, I think our communities could be better served by more prominent pointers to good OOP fora elsewhere than by this hidden "D&D out-of-print" forum.

Unfortunately, a person can come to the other D&D fora here & even mention a preference for the older editions, yet never find or be pointed to this forum!

Or if they really want this Gleemax thing to be a "gamer community" rather than just a "Wizard's community", then sure: Add a whole, prominent "OOP D&D" section with fora for classic D&D, AD&D, & 3e.

Giving OD&D its own forum and/or splitting AD&D into separate 1e & 2e fora could make sense as well, but I think that three-way split is a minimum based on my experience here & at DF.

So, are the TETSBN players going to be relegated here now?

"The edition that shall be named"? (^_^)

Sorry for poking fun at a typo, but I thought it was just too funny which letter got dropped.
#17

zombiegleemax

Aug 17, 2007 14:26:19
"The edition that shall be named"? (^_^)

Sorry for poking fun at a typo, but I thought it was just too funny which letter got dropped.

Heh. I was angling for "shouldn't ", but if it serves to amuse, that's fine with me