Why has WotC stopped posting on ENWorld?

[Morrus]

While I manage to survive on these boards, if I were King, I would only moderate out personal attacks, foul language, and harassment. I wouldn't care about "edition warring". A game is an inanimate object.

It's called Circvs Maximvs. Except we don't moderate out personal attacks, foul language, and harassment.

 

[tomBitonti]

That line length study seems very limited.

Also, 95 characters is woefully short. While I was reading the study, I was easily fitting 160+ characters per line. And that is just on a laptop.

Just from a personal POV, I find lines over a certain length to be very hard to read, in part because paragraphs tend to disappear, and because of the long travel distance to the beginning of a line. Generally, line length makes a huge difference as to my comfort while reading. Reading the linked article, 50 cpl is too small for my comfort, while 95 cpl was getting to be too long.

But other factors matter, e.g., intraline spacing, font, what else is on the screen.

It's quite interesting to see how this very limited study (it had only 20 subjects) was referenced as a definitive work (see http://viget.com/inspire/the-line-length-misconception). The more I read, the less I'm convinced that there is very much definite research underlying the opinions. Here is an example which references a style guide of uncertain authority: http://www.maxdesign.com.au/articles/em/).

This, although with horrid blue bold insets, seems to offer more depth: https://www.msu.edu/user/webbsuza/atw/index.html. Although, the referenced page on this subject no longer exists, leaving me with an uncertain feeling in regards to the depth.

Maybe: http://www.typophile.com/node/78173, but that also references the originally referenced study.

Anyways, an interesting aside, but hard to get solid answers and perhaps harder to apply.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There is a commonly stated "fact" that optimum line length is 50 to 60 characters. However, research doesn't seem to support this:

The Effects of Line Length on Reading Online News

In which, they test lines of various lengths: 35, 55, 75, and 95 characters.

The results?

Line length did not impact reading comprehension, or satisfaction with the material. However, reading speed increased with line length, even among those who reported preferring shorter lines, stating that a shorter line meant they read faster. Their subjective impression of speed was simply inaccurate.

I'd love to get into this discussion with you, but not where it can derail this thread.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is a commonly stated "fact" that optimum line length is 50 to 60 characters. However, research doesn't seem to support this:

The Effects of Line Length on Reading Online News

In which, they test lines of various lengths: 35, 55, 75, and 95 characters.

The results?

Line length did not impact reading comprehension, or satisfaction with the material. However, reading speed increased with line length, even among those who reported preferring shorter lines, stating that a shorter line meant they read faster. Their subjective impression of speed was simply inaccurate.

Does this mean my ridiculous run-on sentences are actually fine? If so, YAY!

 

[Umbran]

That line length study seems very limited.

Having limited overall scope is a good thing - otherwise, you end up testing too many variables, and risk vulnerability to confounding biases. I would have preferred a larger sample size, though.

Just from a personal POV, I find lines over a certain length to be very hard to read, in part because paragraphs tend to disappear, and because of the long travel distance to the beginning of a line. Generally, line length makes a huge difference as to my comfort while reading. Reading the linked article, 50 cpl is too small for my comfort, while 95 cpl was getting to be too long.

But other factors matter, e.g., intraline spacing, font, what else is on the screen.[/qote]

There are basically two different factors at play, one argues for a short line, the other for a long one. 1) how often your eyes have to follow a line break (the less often the better) and 2) whether you can follow the line (if you can't see both ends of the line at once, your ability to follow it is degraded).

There are, then, other factors which will enhance or degrade (2), as you note. And it will vary from person to person. But all I needed was to dispel the "short line is flatly better" point.

Does this mean my ridiculous run-on sentences are actually fine? If so, YAY!

I am pretty sure poor punctuation and structure will degrade comprehension and reading speed, though I have to admit this was outside the scope of the study I referenced above

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

There are basically two different factors at play, one argues for a short line, the other for a long one. 1) how often your eyes have to follow a line break (the less often the better) and 2) whether you can follow the line (if you can't see both ends of the line at once, your ability to follow it is degraded).

There are, then, other factors which will enhance or degrade (2), as you note. And it will vary from person to person. But all I needed was to dispel the "short line is flatly better" point.

I suppose this thread is already doomed, so I'll jump back in.

Because of the small and selective sample size, and the limited number of circumstances tested, there are only two pieces of information that we can really glean from it with confidence.

One is that line breaks slow reading speed, which is reasonable. But I'd like to see this study run with differing line-heights and paragraph spacing, to see if that holds true. Also, they were testing magazine articles, and while we don't know the exact texts used, such articles tend to have short paragraphs. This will lead to a larger percentage of line breaks being at the end of a paragraph, greatly easing new line discovery. I'd like to see the test run with long-form text.

The other is that a person tends to either prefer information density, or information sparsity, but rarely in between. This is a trend I've seen in regards to both web design, and character sheet design, and I find it interesting.

But when we're talking about web forums, we're not really discussing a difference of 35 character per line and 95. We're talking about unbound lines of text, which can stretch into the hundreds of characters per line. And that's primarily where I think forums fall down.

I also want to point to another study published in the same issue regarding columns. It's interesting, because there's more going on here. If anything, it hints that experience is a major factor in reading speed, and undermines the results of the previous study. It also suggests that, absent better data, laying out your text according to current best practices may be beneficial simply because everybody is doing it.

 

[DMZ2112]

It's worse in the unmoderated wilds of social media. There's some pretty nasty stuff out there!

Holy cow are you not kidding. I followed a guy with some cred in a certain gaming community on G+ for literally a single day before the comments following something he posted turned into the most foul-mouthed, hair-raising group ad hominem in absentia against All Games Not My Game And The [Plural Expletive Deleted] Who Participate In Them. It was chilling, at least considering the venue. I mean, you'd expect this stuff from a political community, or possibly a group of white supremacists.

Well, no, it isn't, as you note. If it isn't about in-depth back-and-forth, it isn't a discussion forum. All social media (FB, G+, messageboards, or what have you) are just blobs of information, linked together. But, the arrangement and experience matters.

A community on Facebook or G+ is still more about announcement than discussion, because the underlying architecture and display* is about the top-level short-form broadcast statements, with a focus on the individual making the statement. It is, "Morrus' post about X."

Thanks, Umbran, you managed to state my point in a far less confusing and backward fashion than I. Agreed completely.

 

[tadanokami]

world is changing

with the advent of social media being catalyzed by mobile devices many many more transformations are coming. I love miniatures, mapping, and artwork....however, there is a need to address logistics & efficiency. We can still have those wonderful things in our hands, and at the same time have a digital miniature & mapping that we can see whether we are logistically present or not. This is just an example of amazing things to come that will bring more remote players and efficiency to RPG's. WOTC recognizes this, and the way they operate & communicate will transform in unforeseeable ways, and soon. The next generation will go with it, stubborn fools will not...get on board or enjoy your waning days...it's all good either way.

 

[DDNFan]

A fair number of Paizo employees do post occasionally here (most of whom of course are formerly of WotC). Even though they have their own forums, apparently they see some value in ENW specifically.

Paizo should capitalize on their good will and continued game experience by generating their own new IP, which builds on their previous incarnations but similarly gets rid of old hangups and awful 3rd ed baggage.

If they are such good game designers, they should make a Pathfinder 2.0 which is inspired by a variety of sources, and do a lengthy playtest with transparent polling, and then beat Wizards at their own game.

They have twice as many employees and are the current #1 with a loyal fanbase. If I were in such a position, I would capitalize on that instead of leading from behind as they appear to be doing. They need to make a Pathfinder 2.0 sooner rather than later.

As much as it might sound like I criticize Wizards and 5th edition, they are about to eat their lunch, at least for a while, with a simpler game system that evokes classic D&D better than 3rd ed + derivatives ever could. Now that we know all the structural flaws of 3rd and 4th, and will soon know the limitations of 5th ed, they should get ready to burn through a design phase ASAP to not rest on their laurels.

I would jump ship to a superior D&D-like system, even one that diverged further than 4th ed did, if it was in the opposite direction namely simulationism (without burdensome complexity). With simplicity + simulation as a design goal, they could have a winner. Design a game based on wounds + armor as DR and you'd probably get even a lot of 4th ed fans on board (many of which I've noticed on the Wotc boards love the idea of a good DR + explicit wounds + vitality system), despite claiming to hate simulationism. I think a large misunderstanding with simulationism is that it can't be fun, or simple, or that fighters would get the shaft. As 5th ed shows (with non-quadratic spell scaling), it's quite possible to tone down the power of casters without making fighters magical.

 

[DDNFan]

Holy cow are you not kidding. I followed a guy with some cred in the OSR community on G+ for literally a single day before the comments following something he posted turned into the most foul-mouthed, hair-raising group ad hominem in absentia against All Games Not OSR And The [Plural Expletive Deleted] Who Participate In Them. It was chilling, at least considering the venue. I mean, you'd expect this stuff from a political community, or possibly a group of white supremacists.

Or, conversely, perhaps the moderation on the forums you are used to has shielded from you the reality of what people at large really think about 4th edition.

I've been surprised myself at the level of vitriol and hate expressed by people who are not even anonymous and yet not shy at all to share their opinions about how much they hate this new stuff generally.

I'm more moderate but that's tempered by the knowledge that there is a way to progress beyond the original D&D system, and keep the good it had but get rid of the bad.

For instance, I think vancian is fine, but automatic scaling of spell damage or range was a give-away. I like bounded accuracy but think they need to implement bounded HP as well, and treat HP as purely wounds, which increase very slowly simulating getting tougher via the rigors of adventuring.

Calling people who hate 4th ed similar to white supremacists betrays your own inability to accept criticism and an inherent bigotry which is bordering on personal attack.

Don't insinuate that people who like classic D&D better than modern iterations are similar to white supremacists EVER AGAIN. Otherwise you and I are going to have a big problem here.