D&D Older Editions

[EzekielRaiden]

Nice theory.

I suspect, however, that the practice will be that this sub-forum gets very little traffic and not many new threads. (though I'd be happy to be wrong in my suspicions).

Yeah, it's been my experience that this is exactly what happens in other boards. Fork out the "old" stuff and sure, it doesn't get buried under a ton of other things. Instead it never even gets the chance to be seen in the first place.

Not that I think there's a better way, to be clear. There really isn't one, it's an unwinnable situation. Getting drowned out in the vast ocean of more popular topics, or dying in obscurity in a subforum that won't get but a tiny fraction of the attention that the "active, living" edition forum does. (Consider, for instance, that the oldest front-page thread on the PF forums is from August 7, nearly five months ago. The oldest thread on the front page of the 5e/General D&D forum is from merely five days ago.)

The only exceptions to this trend that I've seen were either "forking out the active, living edition from an even broader forum" (e.g. pulling D&D out of tabletop RPGs in general) or, being relatively blunt, "3.X + Pathfinder," since PF reinvigorated the 3rd edition community that might otherwise have moved on.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

What an odd thing to say. It literally says “D&D” in the subforum name.

The exact opposite. The idea is to encourage discussion without having those threads immediately buried under a million 5E threads.

There's no pleasing anyone these days. Threads for older editions get ignored and buried, even if the topics being discussed are applicable to other editions. But moving them out of the way just makes them easier to ignore. Double-edged sword? We'll see how this goes.

I do have some questions. I started two recent threads regarding Reavers of Harkenwold and Iron Circle. They are 4e products, but I categorized them as D&D General since there was more to do with adventure/campaign design and system-neutral information.

If D&D General applies to all editions, why is it exclusive to the primary (5e) D&D forum?

Would it be possible to make Older Editions a subgroup under D&D?

Are any of us ever truly happy with D&D?

No pressure. Answer as best you can. Thanks.

 

[Yora]

The 13th age tag is still in the current D&D section. It's a 4th edition derivative, right?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Advanced D&D is best D&D. It’s own forum is fine IMO.

 

[Alzrius]

I just click on the "Community" button, so that I can see all recently-active threads. So long as stuff from this new sub-forum appears there, I suppose it's not too much of an issue.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I always figured that's what the tag search function was for. Old Editions forums elsewhere just tend to atrophy and die because no one thinks to look for it

 

[Sacrosanct]

I just click on the "Community" button, so that I can see all recently-active threads. So long as stuff from this new sub-forum appears there, I suppose it's not too much of an issue.

I do the same thing.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I just click on the "Community" button, so that I can see all recently-active threads. So long as stuff from this new sub-forum appears there, I suppose it's not too much of an issue.

Oh! So you're saying why do we have forum groups at all? Problem solved, I guess.

 

[overgeeked]

On the other hand, if the earlier editions, are what makes you tick, now you can limit yourself to that, and not be burdened by all the 5e posts.

You could already do so by filtering the tags.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Nice theory.

I suspect, however, that the practice will be that this sub-forum gets very little traffic and not many new threads. (though I'd be happy to be wrong in my suspicions).

You have to go galaxy brained!

Take your old topic from an older edition.
Tie it into 5e!

Anger the blood of both the fans of 5e and older editions. Keeping the topic alive indefinitely.

Profit?