Request: Move the Optimization Section back into the General 5e Section

[Mistwell]

Long ago, the general section was about 3e, and it thrived on optimization and character building threads (in addition to other kinds of threads). I am sure there were good reasons to change that, probably involving edition warring and 4e, but those times seem to have passed. I think it's time we returned to characters being discussed in the general 5e board. Here are some reasons why:

1) Nobody seems to even know the Optimization section exists anymore. I hear this comment a lot, on other message boards, that people are surprised to even hear EnWorld has any character build discussions. It's relegated to near the bottom of the section list, and posts there get very few comments. If a thread manages to sneak into the general board that is about character builds and optimization, it gets a lot more comments - a sign people want to talk about the topic, they just don't know it's even there in that other section.

2) Character discussions are relatively non-controversial. You don't see a whole lot of edition warring (at least, any more) in the character build conversations that take place these days (here or elsewhere).

3) Character build discussions fit the general 5e section theme. Character builds are about the rules and product of the game - rather than about a company making that game. These days a lot of discussion in the general section seems to revolve around companies (WOTC and Paizo) rather than the game itself - even though the section is "supposed" to be about the rules and products (according to the tag description of that section) more than the company that makes it or their competitor. It's just really nice to talk about people's characters, and how they use the rules to make those characters, and the products those rules are found in. This kind of topic seems well within the theme of a general 5e section - more so than even a lot of the current discussion in that section.

4) There seems to be little rhyme or reason between what stays or gets moved out of the general 5e section in terms of character builds. Right now easily a half-dozen threads could be arguably moved to the optimization section, and a bunch more to the house rules section. For example, just on the first page of that section I'd say all of these could arguably be moved to either the optimization or house rules section: Assassinate, Breaking the rules with Goodberries, Warlording the fighter, Spell Mastery, Transporting large unwilling creature, How to break 5e, Let's Tweak the Ranger, Rules for Moral, Dumb Question re: Ensnaring Strike. And I am not saying I want any moved, just that the line seems blurry. We could "clarify" the line more, but why do that? Isn't the point to discuss fun topics we like, and isn't allowing these things in the general 5e rules section about fun topics we like to discuss? I'd say all those topics add to the board as a whole, and so do the threads that get moved (for whatever reason) to the optimization section.

5) The character builds and optimization section is "supposed" to be builds for any game system, but it's not really even used that way any more by most users. Builds for discontinued games like 1e, 2e, and 4e, tend to get posted in the section about those games. Builds about 3e and Pathfinder tend to get posted in that section. The character builds and optimization section is already mostly just 5e rules discussions. Few even use it the way it's apparently intended (for all games) - and few are enforcing the rule to move builds from non-5e sections anyway. I fact, most threads that end up in that section seem to be moved to that section from the general 5e section by a mod - a sign again that people just don't know about that section, or know a thread being moved to that section is like a gulag for their thread and they hope some few see it in the general 5e section before it gets moved. It would be less work for the mods if they just were allowed where people seem to want them to be and post them most often anyway.

I say it's time to end the optimization section. Whatever purpose it once served, the message board as a whole is better served by allowing those kinds of posts back in the general 5e rules section.

 

[Morrus]

That took longer than expected, Mistwell!

I'm always struggling with board layout - believe me, I consider far more radical layouts than that on a regular basis. Obviously, busier forums get more comments; but too-busy forums mean stuff doesn't stick around long enough, and isn't easy enough to find. Heck, I occasionally consider taking that to the extreme and just having one GIANT forum! It'd be super-busy, but would move super-quickly.

One thing I've learned is that you can never even being to predict how it'll work out; it had nothing to do with controversy or edition wars, though.

As for other stuff not getting moved - only because I don't see it. As you know, it's pretty much just me and Umbran these days.

I'm not against the idea of reorganizing boards (hell, I did just a few days ago!) and that's not an unreasonable suggestion. I'm not sold on the idea that it's beneficial, though.

 

[steeldragons]

I would hate for this to be done. I was THRILLED when they were separated. Leave the optimizer/powergamers to their numbers-crunching. They are having completely separate discussion from those who just want to talk about 5e stuff or who want to homebrew (which is/can be as much as the flavor as the mechanics, if not moreso). They're happy and not hurting anybody where they are. Those of us for whom that holds no appeal are happy and not hurting anybody where we are.

Please leave it as is. I think it's great.

EDIT: IOW: There is a fundamental disconnect and difference of approach between those who view the game as a matter of mechanics and numbers and statistics to be used to "build" characters/scenarios/worlds and those who view the game as a matter of imagination and fantasy to "create" characters and scenarios and worlds. Either/Both has "fun" by their definition thereof.

And, of course, most everyone is on the spectrum in between, not viewing the game exclusively one or the other. Having the forums separate let people go talk with others in that similar frame of mind/perspective to one area or the other as they need/want for a particular topic at the time. That's, most assuredly, a feature not a bug.

 

[Morrus]

Here's what the merged forums would look like, if anyone's interested in taking a look.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?533-All-D-amp-D-Topics

 

[Agamon]

I would hate for this to be done. I was THRILLED when they were separated. Leave the optimizer/powergamers to their numbers-crunching. They are having completely separate discussion from those who just want to talk about 5e stuff or who want to homebrew (which is/can be as much as the flavor as the mechanics, if not moreso). They're happy and not hurting anybody where they are. Those of us for whom that holds no appeal are happy and not hurting anybody where we are.

Please leave it as is. I think it's great.

EDIT: IOW: There is a fundamental disconnect and difference of approach between those who view the game as a matter of mechanics and numbers and statistics to be used to "build" characters/scenarios/worlds and those who view the game as a matter of imagination and fantasy to "create" characters and scenarios and worlds. Either/Both has "fun" by their definition thereof.

And, of course, most everyone is on the spectrum in between, not viewing the game exclusively one or the other. Having the forums separate let people go talk with others in that similar frame of mind/perspective to one area or the other as they need/want for a particular topic at the time. That's, most assuredly, a feature not a bug.

I agree with this. I think it works well separated.

 

[Mistwell]

So to be clear, two people who don't like optimization and character building posts, claim it's working just fine as is.

Even though it's not.

Even though, as I explained in the first post, if a character build thread gets started in the general forum it gets a LOT more posts in that forum that it does in the optimization forum. Even though when most people hear about the optimization forum elsewhere, their usual response is "I didn't even know EnWorld had such a forum"?

It's not working well. You not liking those posts is not a sign the current system is working well. It just means posts you don't like got ditched to the gulag of the board where nobody sees them. Which is great for you personally, but not a good result if the interests is those of the community in general. If those posts get a lot of responses when they're in the general forum, then that means they have some general appeal. The goal should be to have posts with general appeal.

I will bet we could experiment with ANY kind of topic, give it a separate forum to post in, and the post count on those kinds of posts will drop very low. In fact, pick five topics SteelDragon or Agamom has responded to lately, find some theme for them, stick them in their own forum, and see what happens to those threads. I think we all know the answer - they will die down to next to zero posts.

Remember when "Damage on a Miss" was stuck in it's own forum? You think that had no impact on decreasing the number of such posts? You think that had nothing to do with the reason it was given it's own forum? We all know sticking topics in their own separate forum has a negative impact on the number of posts about that topic.

I am not an optimizer, but I like SOME optimization topics. Much like most people like to read those posts sometimes. It used to be a very active part of this forum, and it didn't cause much trouble with that activity (unlike the constant discussion of companies like WOTC and Paizo, which frequently causes trouble but remains a big part of the general forum...even though that forum is specifically supposed to be about rules).

I'd be OK with all 5e related topics in one forum. Whatever the solution, the current system doesn't work too well for any kind of topic with it's own forum.

 

[Morrus]

Calm down, Mistwell. It's certainly something I'm willing to discuss; it's even something I've considered. Aggressive stridency is counter-productive here. It's not a points-winning situation.

Though I really don't care whether people on other boards realised we have a new optimisation forum. Though it would be immensely flattering to think that members of other forums assiduously followed our forum rearrangements, I suspect they follow it about in about as much detail as I follow other forums. It's people here who matter.

It is flattering you've stumbled across so many discussions elsewhere about my forum arrangement choices, though!

Try using the combined forum I created at the link above for a while and let me know how you find the balance of resounded and speed of drop-off? That's the it real metric here.

 

[Mistwell]

Calm down, Mistwell.

Totally calm. Just representing my view as best I can. Didn't mean to imply a tone of excitement or aggression.

It's certainly something I'm willing to discuss; it's even something I've considered. Aggressive stridency is counter-productive here. It's not a points-winning situation.

Again, no aggression intended. Two guys who don't like X said system Y is working great because it doesn't favor X. I just pointed out that math and the flaw with it in case it was not apparent, and suggested a thought experiment which might help make it more apparent. It was not meant to be personal to the two guys who said it or about them (in fact I happen to like the posts of both those guys in general).

Though I really don't care whether people on other boards realised we have a new optimisation forum. Though it would be immensely flattering to think that members of other forums assiduously followed our forum rearrangements, I suspect they follow it about in about as much detail as I follow other forums. It's people here who matter.

It's just the only place I've seen it come up. Hard to bring it up here - not sure what sort of thread would be allowed in the general forum to talk about that topic without getting moved out of the general forum to a less read one - like the very optimization forum we're talking about, or this one. So it's a data point - not a strong one, but perhaps the strongest one possible given the nature of the topic.

Try using the combined forum I created at the link above for a while and let me know how you find the balance of resounded and speed of drop-off? That's the it real metric here.

Sure, and thanks for that link. I do think putting all of OSR, 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder in there might muck it up a bit. While there are people who like to read stuff about all versions of the game, usually people have a game of preference. Which is why I was advocating for an all-5e forum, where house rules about 5e and character builds about 5e are also permitted.

 

[Morrus]

Two guys who don't like X said system Y is working great because it doesn't favor X. I just pointed out that math and the flaw with it in case it was not apparent, and suggested a thought experiment which might help make it more apparent.

It's just the only place I've seen it come up. Hard to bring it up here - not sure what sort of thread would be allowed in the general forum to talk about that topic without getting moved out of the general forum to a less read one - like the very optimization forum we're talking about, or this one. So it's a data point - not a strong one, but perhaps the strongest one possible given the nature of the topic.

None of this is data. The conversation has 3 participants out of thousands of active forum members. Not to mention the quarter of a million folks who read but don't post - though how we get their opinion, I don't know!

And, even that said, their opinion wouldn't be useful data either -- asking people to predict how forum usage might vary according to organization is asking them something beyond my expertise (and it's been my job for 16 years - I defy anyone who claims they know how to do that).

Sure, and thanks for that link. I do think putting all of OSR, 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder in there might muck it up a bit. While there are people who like to read stuff about all versions of the game, usually people have a game of preference. Which is why I was advocating for an all-5e forum, where house rules about 5e and character builds about 5e are also permitted.

Sure. It's certainly something I've been considering, and I might well do it. The thing holding me back is that combining them takes me about a minute and a few clicks; separating them back again isn't possible. So it's not a trivial decision!

If the software had some kind of functionality where I could trial something for a couple of weeks and then revert it if it didn't work, I'd do it like a shot. It's the irreversibility of combining stuff that's the issue.

There's a seesaw, a balance -- a separate forum gives people "permission" (they don't need it, but without it they often don't do it) to start a certain type of thread. A combined forum is busier. These two facts need to co-exist, and it's easy to get hung up on one or the other. There are certainly more character build threads on ENW now than there were a year ago, and the only change was the recent creation of that forum. So those are threads that would not have existed otherwise. On the other hand, like you say, they'd get more responses in a busier forum. More threads or longer threads? For the thread starter, the goal is a longer thread; for the forum owner, the goal is more threads. Longer threads can inspire more threads; but more threads can inspire longer threads.

 

[Morrus]

Here's an idea - it's actually possible for me to make threads in one forum "appear" also in another forum, while still remaining in their original forum. That might be a way to test it without doing something irreversible. I've flicked that on for the moment to see how it looks. Check out the 5E forum now.

Alternatively, one could just show all 5E-tagged threads across the entire forum, like this.

So that's three possible solutions which don't require actually merging anything.