Big changes a'coming! Merging the D&D forums

[Psion]

I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, I recently considered cross posting a querry to several forums because, well, it was a general D&D thing not specific to a certain edition, and there was no reason I had to limit my respondents.

But there is enough of a paradigm shift between some editions that many things I would post would not be shared across editions. In these cases, I feel like I get a more coherent response from more specific sub-forums.

I suppose it might work having related thread categories, so long as you can tag a thread with more than one category. I've not tried any new forum features, but historically, that's not how vbulliten has worked. Is it changed now?

 

[Morrus]

Well. I started this at 9pm Sunday expecting the server to churn away for a few hours moving threads, and that it would be done by early Monday AM my time.

Turns out the server decided it was gas today. It only took a few minutes.

So. Yeah. It is done.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Time to see how it goes. Overall, I think it will go well. The tags will help it work out.

 

[the Jester]

So far, at least, I like it.

It's early to be sure, but I think the spread of threads (based on tags), while heavy on 5e, is not dominated by any specific edition. Looking good!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I was just going to complain about my bookmarks not working again, but I'm glad to see ENWorld is explaining things here.

This will end up being a disaster, with D&D Next threads pushing all other threads away to the oblivion of 2nd page within minutes of their posting.

I agree, although the fervor of the 5e forum has died down now, so probably not as terrible as it was a few months ago. I still think D&DN should have its own forum, but I don't mind sharing 4e with previous editions or Pathfinder.

Just saw the note about tags; I think a lot of posters here didn't notice that (or don't trust them).

Looking at Morrus' sample page the one thing that becomes blindingly clear is the need for a "generic" D&D tag as opposed to a specific edition, for those threads that are either truly edition-neutral or that contain (or have broadened their focus to include) discussion pertinent to all editions even if the original focus was only on one.

Another example of where this would be needed is conversion questions and discussions - if I start a thread about converting something from 4e to 1e, for example, if it gets the 4e tag on it all the 1e types like me will probably ignore it; the reverse would be true if it gets the 1e tag. But the tag still needs to say "D&D" somewhere so it's obvious I'm not talking about GURPS or Warhammer or Magic: the Gathering.

Lanefan

This! I would probably exclude D&DN. I also like the idea of separate forums, or at least tags, for things like DM Advice. (You could have a thread with a DM Advice and 4e tag, one with a DM Adive and any D&D tag, one for builds and D&DN tag... but can the forums handle multi-tags like that?)

I support all the following ideas:

Well, I like the idea of clickable tags, but I agree that there needs to be a way to save your chosen tags, a General tag and a 3.x tag.

I am happy with this as long as tagging your thread at creation is compulsory i.e. you should not be able to start a thread without it having a tag. Even if it is 'edition agnostic' tag. That means that people will be able to find their specific stuff and 5E won't surge out the other games every packet.

If tags are not compulsory I reckon we need a 5E rules sub-forum.

The only board I have ever seen with a tag function that actually worked was one where the tags were reader-generated. That is, users had the option to add tags to a post, or to up-vote from the tags that were already added. The tag with the most votes was then the primary tag, and all the extra tags were listed in order of votes. This removed the need for the original poster to include a tag, and also allowed for the tag(s) to change if the focus of the thread changed. Unfortunately, I doubt ENWorld has the ability to emulate this feature.

Also, reading a forum by excluding a tag will be an absolute necessity for me to enjoy the change.

 

[DaveMage]

Messy.

I guess I"ll get used to it, but...bleh.

 

[Mattachine]

I'm not a fan.
I joined EN World under the separate forums.

If the separate forums caused a net reduction of traffic, how will changing the forums increase traffic? Doesn't that mean more people have to use the web site?

Can I filter out all the non-DDN threads?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This link - http://www.enworld.org/forum/compiled-d-d/ - seems to have stopped working. Checking the list of forums, I can't find D&D stuff. (Perhaps I should be looking at the Tabletop Forum though.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not a fan.
I joined EN World under the separate forums.

Same. I even miss the old House Rule forums, though.

Can I filter out all the non-DDN threads?

You can click on a tag to only see posts with that tag (D&D and Pathfinder - EN World: RPG News & Reviews should take you to only stuff tagged for 5e). As always, play what you like

 

[Umbran]

If the separate forums caused a net reduction of traffic, how will changing the forums increase traffic? Doesn't that mean more people have to use the web site?

It is a synergy thing.

As a broad generalization, any time you segregate out a topic, traffic on that topic reduces. The only folks who read or write on the topic are the ones who actively seek it out. When multiple topics are put together, folks looking for one will tend to see another, and go, "Hey, that's interesting..." and comment, which makes for more active conversations.

More active conversation is what they call "sticky" - it gets users old and new to stay around and take part more than if the conversation were slow, thus increasing overall traffic in a virtuous cycle.