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



## Morrus

On *Monday October 15th* we will be making a big change to the forum structure here at EN World. It's a change which we've decided that - after looking at stats, data, trends and figures over the last decade - we believe is the correct decision in view of the future of this website and its continued existence.

We're going to merge the four D&D forums (and I include Pathfinder in that definition) into one large forum. It's our opinion that the (combined) topic does not support four separate forums, and that splitting them was, retrospectively, a mistake. Our data tells us that four quiet forums do not add up to the same as one busy forum in terms of traffic, new posts, and new threads. The total is greater than the sum of its parts; in this case quite literally. Every time we've split a forum, the resultant combined traffic has been less than the single forum had originally: and we've done that four times.

So from Monday 15th, the first category of forums will read:
Tabletop Gaming
D&D and Pathfinder
Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge​This will create something of a challenge in terms of 'edition wars', and we mods will be monitoring things fairly strictly.

In the meantime, I've created an example which shows you what such a forum will look like - you can't post in it, but it displays the combined threads of all four forums with post icons. You can see that here. That is - roughly - what it'll look like.

We will also be re-activating the "clickable prefixes" feature of the site. This means that from October 15th, you'll be able to click on a thread prefix icon (such as "Pathfinder" or "4th Edition") to filter the forum to those topics only.

We hope you'll support this decision. We understand that it's somewhat controversial, but it comes after a great deal of thought and discussion. Let's work together and make this work - we're firmly of the belief that it is in the best interests of EN World going forward.

@Whizbang Dustyboots described it very well here:
Most of the threads in each of the D&D forums have nothing to do with the individual edition, but are edition-agnostic discussions. By seperating those out onto smaller forums, that means less input, less discussion and less cross-polination between self-selected tribes, making the quality of all the discussions worse as a result.

The prefixes are coming back (hooray!) so the rules-specific stuff will still be obvious and available. But now, when someone wants to know about structuring a campaign or dealing with a problem player or new ways to make dwarves interesting, they can discuss it with the entire D&D-playing community, not just the subgroup using their particular rulebook, despite those all being issues that span the years and editions.​


----------



## JeffB

Not a fan of the proposed change, but it's your place, so Good Luck


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

Looking forward to checking it out!


----------



## Libramarian

I think this is a good idea. I'm always thinking to myself that forums have too many subforums. Dragonsfoot is really hurt by its overly specific forums, I think.


----------



## Leif

I'm in favor of the change, too!  Please keep up the good work Morrus.


----------



## GrayLinnorm

Will this include the Creature Catalog forums?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Very happy to see this.


----------



## trancejeremy

Libramarian said:


> I think this is a good idea. I'm always thinking to myself that forums have too many subforums. Dragonsfoot is really hurt by its overly specific forums, I think.




I think the exact opposite. That's exactly why I like Dragonsfoot

I think the net result of this is that discussions about anything but 5e will simply be driven out.

It seems to me that ENworld has sort of lost its identity. It used to be _the_ 3.x site. Then when 4e came out, only a fraction moved on, the rest felt alienated and moved to sites where they were more welcome.

I don't think it would be a good idea to do the same thing now that 5e is here.

Personally, when I lost my interest in 5e, I only stopped by the legacy forum. Now I guess I won't be doing that anymore. It might not have gotten a lot of posts, but at least they were relevant to me.


----------



## Sammael

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. And for what? To increase traffic by 5%? To what end?

I do not support this decision and, in fact, will very likely cancel my ENW subscription over this.


----------



## Walking Dad

Will there still be support for non-D&D RPGs? Is tabletop non-D&D RPGs, boardgames and tabletop strategy games (like Warhammer)?

I think the success of the merge will depend on how obligatory the tags will be. If you always risk missing half the posts of the same topic by selecting its tag, the tags will be effectively useless for me. And sorting through topics on games I'm not interested in can become quickly frustrating.


----------



## Mengu

I don't mind 4e and DDN getting mixed together, 4e discussions are peetering out anyway. I don't know anything about Pathfinder... It feels a little awkward to me, lumping it together with D&D.

The identity of ENWorld in its early days, was all about the next edition of D&D (whatever that might be), or the New edition of D&D, new products, what's exiting, etc. 4e is currently in a stagnant state, doesn't necessarily need a forum. I don't really know if Pathfinder constantly has hopping new things, maybe it warrants its own forum, maybe not, no clue... I don't really mind forum identity being focused on the Next edition of D&D, and all Next editions of D&D.


----------



## S'mon

I'm definitely in favour of fewer fora, so I think this is a good move. Splitting 3e from Pathfinder in particular never made any sense to me, when the 3e players were lumped in with OSR dudes in Legacy. 

I think rpgnet's General vs d20 forum split worked well for them, but one reason for that is that the rpgnet d20 forum creates a bit of a safe space for people who want to talk about gaming without being constantly harrassed about political stuff - the political threads ('Racism in Pathfinder'/'Too Much Whiteness in 4e art' sort of stuff, mostly) are there, but a minority, whereas in rpgnet General it's very heavy. The rpgnet d20 forum also makes players of d20 games less likely to be attacked for their play preference, which also used to be a problem there.

ENW is different - political debate is banned, moderators here don't allow posters to be harrassed, and d20/TSR/WoTC/Paizo games are the dominant interest, so I'm not sure if there is the same value in having a d20 subforum separate from the General forum. Why not just one Tabletop Gaming forum, including D&D?


----------



## delericho

Morrus said:


> This will create something of a challenge in terms of 'edition wars', and we mods will be monitoring things fairly strictly.




I was of the impression that that was the motivation for splitting the forums in the first place?

Personally, I would prefer the 5e forum remain separate, as it's liable to swamp the other three to the point where any topics there become lost. However, I do support merging the other three. (And, indeed, once 5e is released, and so discussion isn't so all-encompassing, merging it with the rest would be a good idea. But not now.)

In any case - it's your place.

(Having said all that - for a while we had an "All threads" button, which was extremely useful (and which essentially merged _all_ the forums, of course). Any chance of that coming back, or do technical issues prevent it?)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

trancejeremy said:


> Personally, when I lost my interest in 5e, I only stopped by the legacy forum. Now I guess I won't be doing that anymore. It might not have gotten a lot of posts, but at least they were relevant to me.



Most of the threads in each of the D&D forums have nothing to do with the individual edition, but are edition-agnostic discussions. By seperating those out onto smaller forums, that means less input, less discussion and less cross-polination between self-selected tribes, making the quality of all the discussions worse as a result.

The prefixes are coming back (hooray!) so the rules-specific stuff will still be obvious and available. But now, when someone wants to know about structuring a campaign or dealing with a problem player or new ways to make dwarves interesting, they can discuss it with the entire D&D-playing community, not just the subgroup using their particular rulebook, despite those all being issues that span the years and editions.


----------



## airwalkrr

My reaction is guarded. As long as the clickable prefixes has a simple UI it shouldn't be much of a problem. But I foresee it as a potential barrier to new and relative newcomers to the site.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Most of the threads in each of the D&D forums have nothing to do with the individual edition, but are edition-agnostic discussions. By seperating those out onto smaller forums, that means less input, less discussion and less cross-polination between self-selected tribes, making the quality of all the discussions worse as a result.
> 
> The prefixes are coming back (hooray!) so the rules-specific stuff will still be obvious and available. But now, when someone wants to know about structuring a campaign or dealing with a problem player or new ways to make dwarves interesting, they can discuss it with the entire D&D-playing community, not just the subgroup using their particular rulebook, despite those all being issues that span the years and editions.




Something went wrong with my xp awarding, so I'll use a whole post to say thanks Dustyboots - this is indeed a major factor, and highlights the main mitigation method for those who don't like fish fingers in their custard. 

I think this approach is going to work well for us.


----------



## Mark CMG

I wonder if keeping the 5E forum alone might be an alternate way to go, and combining all others back into Tabletop?  5E is going to surge periodically with each playtest round and each barrage of big news from WotC, so at least until 5E is released, it should get plenty of traffic on its own to warrant a separate forum.  Combining D&D and PF back into Tabletop solves the problem of folks wanting to discuss any of the D&D-like games (d20 variants) in threads where they'd likely love to have opinions from anyone playing something similar like D&D and PF.  Seems a more natural division and should help curtail some of the edition warring you might otherwise get as folks poke and prod 5E during the playtesting with their own pre-5E preferences in tow.  It might make for less work for the mods and admins in that way.  Just a thought and I'm sure however you proceed will be worked out in the long run.


----------



## Thalain

Mark CMG said:


> I wonder if keeping the 5E forum alone might be an alternate way to go, and combining all others back into Tabletop?  5E is going to surge periodically with each playtest round and each barrage of big news from WotC, so at least until 5E is released, it should get plenty of traffic on its own to warrant a separate forum.  Combining D&D and PF back into Tabletop solves the problem of folks wanting to discuss any of the D&D-like games (d20 variants) in threads where they'd likely love to have opinions from anyone playing something similar like D&D and PF.  Seems a more natural division and should help curtail some of the edition warring you might otherwise get as folks poke and prod 5E during the playtesting with their own pre-5E preferences in tow.  It might make for less work for the mods and admins in that way.  Just a thought and I'm sure however you proceed will be worked out in the long run.




This might be a very viable idea, but in general, I am very much in favor of flexible filters on a flat forum. I hope they'll extend beyond just editions. I am for example primarily interested in player-created rules variants (new classes, races, magic systems, whatever) regardless of edition, but finding those in a large list of topics is not always easy, especially when the server once again has a slow day.

The idea, if implemented properly, will essentially allow each user to have their personal subforum structure whenever and however they want it. Can't be a bad thing.


----------



## Minigiant

I hope it works out but I predict:

Mon-Thurs: The D&D Next Forum
Fri-Sun: Everybody else Forum

Probably adding a New and Upcoming Games forum for DDN, 13 Age, Numenera, etc


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

I think I'd prefer to keep the 5E forum separate until after it has been released for a bit, but the others can be combined.  That should reduce the most egregious edition warring.

I like the filtering option, though.


----------



## Klaus

Morrus said:


> On *Monday October 15th* we will be making a big change to the forum structure here at EN World. It's a change which we've decided that - after looking at stats, data, trends and figures over the last decade - we believe is the correct decision in view of the future of this website and its continued existence.
> 
> We're going to merge the four D&D forums (and I include Pathfinder in that definition) into one large forum. It's our opinion that the (combined) topic does not support four separate forums, and that splitting them was, retrospectively, a mistake. Our data tells us that four quiet forums do not add up to the same as one busy forum in terms of traffic, new posts, and new threads. The total is greater than the sum of its parts; in this case quite literally. Every time we've split a forum, the resultant combined traffic has been less than the single forum had originally: and we've done that four times.
> 
> So from Monday 15th, the first category of forums will read:
> Tabletop Gaming
> D&D and Pathfinder
> Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge​This will create something of a challenge in terms of 'edition wars', and we mods will be monitoring things fairly strictly.
> 
> In the meantime, I've created an example which shows you what such a forum will look like - you can't post in it, but it displays the combined threads of all four forums with post icons. You can see that here. That is - roughly - what it'll look like.
> 
> We will also be re-activating the "clickable prefixes" feature of the site. This means that from October 15th, you'll be able to click on a thread prefix icon (such as "Pathfinder" or "4th Edition") to filter the forum to those topics only.
> 
> We hope you'll support this decision. We understand that it's somewhat controversial, but it comes after a great deal of thought and discussion. Let's work together and make this work - we're firmly of the belief that it is in the best interests of EN World going forward.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDHYZtwjFTs]We're All in This Together - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Morrus

For those who want to see how the clickable thread prefixes work, check out the news forum where I've just enabled them.  You'll see it's very easy to filter threads with a single click.


----------



## Alzrius

I for one am very glad for this - I see it not as a change, but as a return to normalcy. I remember when the forums weren't segregated by edition, and there were clickable prefixes, and I think that EN World was better for it back then.

Hopefully this will lead to less ideological entrenchment regarding editions, and more discussions about the game as a whole.


----------



## joethelawyer

Alzrius said:


> I for one am very glad for this - I see it not as a change, but as a return to normalcy. I remember when the forums weren't segregated by edition, and there were clickable prefixes, and I think that EN World was better for it back then.
> 
> Hopefully this will lead to less ideological entrenchment regarding editions, and more discussions about the game as a whole.




I totally agree.  Well done.  I think this will go a long way towards bringing  ENW back to the place it used to be.  If we all see how much we have in common, no matter the edition, it will go a long way towards lessening the edition wars and factionalism.


----------



## adamc

It will be interesting to see what the result is. My suspicion is that any change to a forum structure -- collapsing or splitting -- is likely to reduce usage in the short-run, because it confuses existing users, and it doesn't take much frustration to make a forum user look elsewhere.

I don't have much reaction to the proposal itself -- I don't know how I'll feel about it after I see it. I did kind of like having separate forums, but it might turn out that something good comes from cross-pollination. As a 4e player, I seldom read about Pathfinder -- maybe now I will, and good things will come of that.

I do worry that the 5e posts will overwhelm other conversations, but hey -- your house, your rules. We'll see how it goes. I can always use other forums.


----------



## TerraDave

Your rebuilding the old "general". 

This is a good thing.


----------



## Umbran

Walking Dad said:


> Will there still be support for non-D&D RPGs? Is tabletop non-D&D RPGs, boardgames and tabletop strategy games (like Warhammer)?




Yes, and yes.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom

I think Next should have its own forum but otherwise agree with the change.


----------



## freyar

GrayLinnorm said:


> Will this include the Creature Catalog forums?



Hopefully the Creature Catalog will stay under the "hosted sites" and forums down here with Meta...


----------



## Morrus

freyar said:


> Hopefully the Creature Catalog will stay under the "hosted sites" and forums down here with Meta...




I don't run or make decisions about hosted sites. That forum isn't mine to merge with anything!


----------



## Yora

I don't see the purpose in this.


----------



## joethelawyer

Yora said:


> I don't see the purpose in this.




Looking at your membership date, you don't know how ENWorld used to be.  It was a place where people who played dnd, mostly, got together to talk about the game.  Most of the good discussion happened in one general forum area, regardless of edition.  True, it was mostly 3.x, but people who played older editions also engaged with players of newer editions on all manner of topics they had in common.

Then 4e hit, and edition wars flared.  

Lots of people left ENW due to that, and a perceived bias of the forum owners and moderators.

Then basically every edition had its own corner of ENW to discuss stuff.  Basically everyone was put in time out.

People lost what they had in common and I think the gaming community suffered for it, and apparently ENW suffered in number of posts and posters because of it.

Now with Next coming out, acting as an olive branch to players of older editions, attempting to heal divisions, it makes sense that the forums should merge back together.

That's my take anyhow.


----------



## Umbran

joethelawyer said:


> Now with Next coming out, acting as an olive branch to players of older editions, attempting to heal divisions, it makes sense that the forums should merge back together.
> 
> That's my take anyhow.




Moreover, it has now been several years since 4e's release.  Years.  After all this time, we should not need to enforce division to play gently with sensibilities - if you can't learn to play nice after several years, it isn't our fault, and the boards should no have their otherwise awesome dynamic hampered.


----------



## DaveMage

I don't care for the change, but I'll live with it.


----------



## Viking Bastard

I, for one, wholeheartedly approve of this change!


----------



## pogre

I like the idea. I have found value in all of the specific edition forums (forae?). Adventure ideas, campaign advice, D&D sacred cows, etc. are largely edition independent. I hope it jacks up participation.

I'm curious why Morrus felt compelled to "warn" or alert us to the change? Just courtesy - I suppose....


----------



## Mishihari Lord

Great idea.  I've played every edition except OD&D and 4th, and I'm interested in talking about any of them.  This puts most of the threads I'm interested in in one place, which makes things simpler for me.


----------



## Sunseeker

This will be an absolutely horrid change.  It will be nearly impossible to tell what a topic is about unless it is expressly tagged.  Simple topics asking for 3.X character help or 4e DMing suggestions will vanish in moments to MASSIVE discussion about 5e.

Relying on the honor system and the dedication of mods to ensure that all topics are appropriately tagged is IMO, going to be more work than keeping them all separate.


----------



## Matthias

The forum merger would not bother me EXCEPT that D&D Next/D&D 5E needs to stay in its own forum.

My reasoning is that D&D Next forum traffic will flood any combined D&D forum because everyone will still be trying to learn the new rules, putting up character builds for peer review, changing and manipulating rules they have quickly decided they dislike, and so on.

All previous editions of D&D and Pathfinder (yes, even 4E) have already gone through that opening phase of "post-release playtest". Everyone that still likes Pathfinder or 4E has figured out 99% of the game already, figured out all the house rules that will make their homebrew campaign like they want it to, and all the kinks and loopholes of the game system have been fixed, embraced, or retconned, and its now mainly the players who have just now gotten around to discovering or warming up to Pathfinder, and those who just enjoy endlessly tweaking rules like myself, that come up with new and different ways to reshape the game system or write new content for it.

D&D Next (and any other brand-new game system) should have its own forum. If you must merge, only merge forums for the game systems that have been around for awhile.


----------



## GX.Sigma

It seems to me that it would be more useful to divide forums based on the topics of discussion (GM advice, character builds, rules theory, homebrew, etc.) rather than throwing them all into one big bucket.


----------



## dd.stevenson

What about having separate forums for "In Development Games" and "Released Games"?  Just a thought.

Personally I look forward to this change and hopes it works out for the best.


----------



## blargney the second

Yay, General's coming back!  So happy.


----------



## Walking Dad

Morrus said:


> For those who want to see how the clickable thread  prefixes work, check out the news forum where I've just enabled them.   You'll see it's very easy to filter threads with a single click.



I still see this as an issue:


shidaku said:


> This will be an absolutely horrid change.  It  will be nearly impossible to tell what a topic is about unless it is  expressly tagged.  Simple topics asking for 3.X character help or 4e  DMing suggestions will vanish in moments to MASSIVE discussion about 5e.
> 
> Relying on the honor system and the dedication of mods to ensure that  all topics are appropriately tagged is IMO, going to be more work than  keeping them all separate.



Tagging has to be enforced to be consistent to be useful IMHO.



Umbran said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Walking Dad*
> 
> 
> _Will  there still be support for non-D&D RPGs? Is tabletop non-D&D  RPGs, boardgames and tabletop strategy games (like Warhammer)?_
> 
> Yes, and yes.



Don't like this much...
Will we get separate "RPG", "Wargame" and "Boardgame" tags for this forum?


----------



## DragonLancer

I agree with some folks here... it's a nice idea but with five editions of D&D and Pathfinder it will just dilute the forum. I think it would be better to keep it as it currently is. It's much easier to find the topics for the game you want, and topics won't get buried under huge numbers of new threads.


----------



## Umbran

Walking Dad said:


> Will we get separate "RPG", "Wargame" and "Boardgame" tags for this forum?




Maybe.  But, I note that "tabletop" (or "General") had existed for years without tags, in times of higher volume than now, and seemed to work well enough.


----------



## Lwaxy

We do have tags for RPG and boardgames already. 

As for "buried under 5e discsussion" - if you check the 5e forum, or the combined example forum, you can see that this not the case. And how hard is it, really, to click on an icon to show you the game you want?


----------



## Mark CMG

Lwaxy said:


> We do have tags for RPG and boardgames already.
> 
> As for "buried under 5e discsussion" - if you check the 5e forum, or the combined example forum, you can see that this not the case. And how hard is it, really, to click on an icon to show you the game you want?





The problem for some people is probably that you can't click an icon or two to get rid of the ones you don't want.  That's maybe not a problem unless something is taking up 35, 40, or even 50% of the forum thread count.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Morrus said:


> On *Monday October 15th* we will be making a big change to the forum structure here at EN World. It's a change which we've decided that - after looking at stats, data, trends and figures over the last decade - we believe is the correct decision in view of the future of this website and its continued existence.
> 
> o from Monday 15th, the first category of forums will read:
> Tabletop Gaming
> D&D and Pathfinder
> Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge​This will create something of a challenge in terms of 'edition wars', and we mods will be monitoring things fairly strictly.



You do seem to be asking for more 'edition warring' by putting everyone on the same forum.  That will mean the forums are more active, though. Maybe that accounts for the drop-off in splitting forums?  Separating 'warring' parties?


----------



## JamesonCourage

DaveMage said:


> I don't care for the change, but I'll live with it.



I agree. I dislike the idea being put forward, but I'll live with it.



GX.Sigma said:


> It seems to me that it would be more useful to divide forums based on the topics of discussion (GM advice, character builds, rules theory, homebrew, etc.) rather than throwing them all into one big bucket.



I'm on board with this idea, too. I just don't have a good feeling about the tags. I used to love the old homebrew subforums, and browsed them all the time before joining the site. I was sad to see them combined. I still visit the GitP homebrew section, even if I don't look at much else on the sight.

Just adding my voice. As always, play what you like


----------



## Lwaxy

Mark CMG said:


> The problem for some people is probably that you can't click an icon or two to get rid of the ones you don't want.  That's maybe not a problem unless something is taking up 35, 40, or even 50% of the forum thread count.





If you click on an icon, you only get the respective topics shown. Seems you have re-select every time unless you open your threads in a new window, but it does work. So you won't see any 5e stuff if you are only looking for 4e.


----------



## Mark CMG

Lwaxy said:


> If you click on an icon, you only get the respective topics shown. Seems you have re-select every time unless you open your threads in a new window, but it does work. So you won't see any 5e stuff if you are only looking for 4e.





But if someone is looking for everything BUT 5E, for instance?


----------



## Lwaxy

I guess you'll then have to check the topics one by one. But the system is still being worked on.


----------



## Libramarian

trancejeremy said:


> I think the exact opposite. That's exactly why I like Dragonsfoot
> 
> I think the net result of this is that discussions about anything but 5e will simply be driven out.



You like that OSRIC and AD&D have different forums? To me that's a prime example of splitting up forums for an arbitrary, superficial reason, rather than actually thinking about how best to facilitate discussion amongst your users. And that's not even to mention crazy stuff like Lejendary Adventures having its own forum.

You know if you look at the New Horizons forum, it produces a lot of posts but not actually that many threads. Most of the high volume posters hang out in big, rambling 20+ page threads.

If we can somehow convince ren1999 to keep all of his posts in one thread, we should be fine I think.


----------



## frankthedm

JeffB said:


> Not a fan of the proposed change, but it's your place, so Good Luck



He owns it, but the fan base made it what it is, for Good and Ill.







trancejeremy said:


> I only stopped by the legacy forum. Now I guess I won't be doing that anymore. It might not have gotten a lot of posts, but at least they were relevant to me.



Agree. These are different games. The only merger I think would be a good deal would be Pathfinder into D&D legacy since it derives directly from 3E's rules. Of course others might read more into that , assuming somehow the move is meant to say _'4E isn't part of D&D's legacy'_.







Sammael said:


> 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. And for what? To increase traffic by 5%? To what end?



Agree.


----------



## Lwaxy

PF is an active, publishing game, not something that belongs in a legacy forum 

Before going on about disasters and threads being pushed off too quickly, just have a look at the combined forum example Morris made, and you'll see that this is not the case, as stated before. Oh it may happen every once in a while, but it is not like page 2 is out of reach.


----------



## Elf Witch

I have mixed feelings on one hand I don't like have to going to several different areas just to talk about the game. A lot of what we talk about is edition free. And so I think it could add to the discussion with more people contributing. For example DMing issues, player issues things like that are of interest no matter what edition you play.

I am a little worried about 5E threads drowning out everything else. Maybe one way to discourage that is to combine threads that are basically discussing the same thing. The last time I was there, there were five different threads basically discussing magic.

Also as posters we are going to need to resit the urge to make snarky comments  about editions we don't play  and resist telling A DM looking for help that if he switched editions he wouldn't be having said issue.


----------



## Storminator

Sounds pretty good to me. I click on all the forums and don't often see new threads go off the first page. I'd be nice to see some more interesting traffic.

Only thing that stuck out to me was calling Pathfinder out explicitly. It's just another D&D, doesn't need a separate description.

PS


----------



## Nellisir

Not a bad idea, and the reasons make sense.  I support it.


----------



## Agamon

Works just fine this way at RPG.net, without sortable prefexes.  And the sort function will be nice.  Trying to find OSR stuff in the Legacy forum is usually a pointless endeavour.


----------



## Herobizkit

What happens to the "General" forum?

Disappointed that editions are being merged into one giant forum if there is no way to filter only the threads you want to see.


----------



## Derulbaskul

Why doesn't Next have its own forum?

It's the new thing. It's polarising (just as 4E was when it was announced). It's  also something where there are new snippets of news and/or rumours from time to time so it is well-suited to having its own forum.


----------



## Lwaxy

Because the idea is to merge them all, not to single anything out anymore. 

If people haven't learned not to edition war from 4e, they'll probably never learn anyway.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

I'm sceptical of the change; I'm rather of the opinion that diminished traffic is a result of the fragmentation of the fan base, as opposed to any particular forum format. The site doesn't _feel_ like it used to in the heydey of 3.5 unity, but it never again will. Some thoughts which echo previous posters, FWIW:

1) I would exclude 5e/Next threads from the merger until the edition is actually released, and have a dedicated forum for speculative discussion. I suspect that when 5e is actually available, it will necessitate a reshuffle of forums in any case.

2) A tool which allowed the _exclusion_ of certain tags would be much more useul (to me, at least) than one which collects a particular tag: that way I can ignore - say 4e and 5e threads - and read anything else I want. 

3) Correct tagging will require continual and pro-active intervention in threads on the part of the mods to enforce.

4) Large, clear, bold tags would be better than edition-specific logos.

5) Has a comparison of site traffic volume and flow been made to the existence/absence of the "jump to" window which is currently no longer available? Although a small thing, this single tool is the thing I miss most.

6) Has a comparison of site traffic volume and flow been made to the relative speed of the boards? I know that when they're slow, I tend to avoid the site more.

7) I'm nervous that when site functionality is poor, that the tags will be sacrificed in order to increase speed.

Morrus, this is your site, of course; but when you write "we" in the OP do you in fact mean "I?"


----------



## N'raac

A lot of forum posts are on character builds, rules questions, etc.  These are pretty edition/system specific.  Unless the tags are used, knowing which system is under discussion will be tough.  If every thread needs a tag so the poster knows whether this is even something he wants to consider reading, that seems to me an indication separate forums would be preferable.

I'm not sure which forums are considered lower traffic - at some point a "prior/other editions" forum will be preferable to a dozen forums with very minor traffic.  I don't find the few forums I visit are short on posts, and I can see myself quitting the site (and cancelling my subscription) if I have to spend a ton of time weeding through posts that are (to me, at least) irrelevant.


----------



## Lwaxy

Sepulchrave II said:


> 4) Large, clear, bold tags would be better than edition-specific logos.





This is most likely going to happen - it was my main worry about the change, as I have a hard time with my visual issues to distinguish the prefixes as they are now. It is easy enough to swap icons.


----------



## Walking Dad

Sepulchrave II said:


> ...
> 7) I'm nervous that when site functionality is poor, that the tags will be sacrificed in order to increase speed.
> 
> ...



This! It already happened once and was very confusing on the PBP board, where all games are in the same sub forum. Before the tags, all just mentioned the system/edition in the thread title. With the tags most didn't bother anymore and then they were gone... just like the blogs...


----------



## I'm A Banana

I'm not too worried about the Next forums, since they're actually pretty circular and insular -- like the people said, if you check the example, there's newer posts from other forums than the first page of Next.

If you ARE worried about Next dominating the discussion, though, you should probably create new threads about your own games. Post about the new Pathfinder supplement, or whatever Goodman Games has put out, or how much better _Hold Person_ was when it was just "Mass Charm Person" instead of paralysis back in 1974. Be pro-active. The best way to hold onto the things you love is to continue to include them in your life. 

I'd even strategically post them just after WotC releases a new playtest.  Lord knows I don't want to look at a forum full of 20 different people all giving their opinion on how whatever minor mechanical change WotC implemented this time around is going to ruin the game forever.  Gimmie some variety in those circumstances!

And us mods will be more sensitive toward edition warriors, general obnoxiousness, and repeat topics because of this. We'll have more eyes on one space, then!


----------



## Scotley

I am very much in favor of the change. I have long accessed the forums though the 'today's posts' quick link in order to see all the threads together rather than separated out. 

For those who feel they simply must only view content for 'their' game, would it be possible to allow folks to sort the forum by thread tags as suggested by others? I don't know enough about how such things work, but would it be possible to label or tag posts for a specific system and then sort in some way? 

Just trying to make the naysayers happy.


----------



## gamerprinter

Geez, that's too bad. In order to avoid any edition warring, I've done my absolute best in avoiding any thread/forum that does not pertain to general RPG or Pathfinder - those are the only forums I post anything, ever. I have no interest in regressing to 3.5, and avoid 4e like the plague. D&D Next? I don't even want to hear about it.

And currently it's a pain to try to climb through a hundred threads to find the one I want, posted in or looking to follow up. To take what's difficult to find now in separated forums and be forced to search through 4 times as many threads to find what I'm looking for... this may force me to stop visiting ENWorld.

It's your ball, so you do what you want with it, but not a fan of your chosen direction.


----------



## Lwaxy

You could just click on the PF tag and see nothing else. Very simple


----------



## Sammael

Lwaxy said:


> You could just click on the PF tag and see nothing else. Very simple



Yes. It's very simple. It's also very slow and requires people to actually tag their threads correctly (which is a huge presumption) or mods to continually police the threads and change tags as necessary (which requires lots of work). 

How will the new tagging system work on Tapatalk, BTW?


----------



## The_Universe

Great idea. I don't post much around here anymore, but I like the move away from topic segregation!


----------



## gamerprinter

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Most of the threads in each of the D&D forums have nothing to do with the individual edition, but are edition-agnostic discussions.




IMO, those are just lazy posters who do not take care to post non-edition questions in the General RPG forum, and stick with the fora of their particular flavor. The fact that I don't read most threads unless the thread title is specific enough to draw my interest, so I don't know that this point is true or not.

While I generally only post in the Pathfinder forum, when I do have non-PF specific question or point, I ALWAYS post in the General RPG forum and never in the PF forum exclusively.

This particular argument does not convince me of the right or wrongness of merging the forums. This point never applied to me or my posts, so I'm not sold on the idea at all.

I'm also thinking with the emphasis on D&D Next (look at the majority of the News Items to see this) by many posters, any Pathfinder threads are going to be buried (knocked into page 2) by the endless DDN threads, which again, I currently don't have to put up with since I never visit the 5e forum.


----------



## blargney the second

If a forum is busy,  I'll happily look at the first two or three  pages of threads.  It's not even a little onerous.  *shrug*

ps - will we be able to bookmark filters?


----------



## the Jester

I like this. Tentatively speaking, anyway.

Here's hoping that it helps bridge the differences between people who prefer different editions rather than riling them all up.


----------



## Morrus

gamerprinter said:


> I'm also thinking with the emphasis on D&D Next (look at the majority of the News Items to see this) by many posters, any Pathfinder threads are going to be buried (knocked into page 2) by the endless DDN threads, which again, I currently don't have to put up with since I never visit the 5e forum.




You don't have to guess or predict anything. You can look for yourself. Simply look at the sample forum link I posted.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

I am looking forward to how this works.


----------



## Lanefan

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


----------



## Papa-DRB

*Questions...*

1. Can I tag a thread multiple times. Ie. I post new PCGen software and it affects DnD 3.0, 3.5, MSRD, Pathfinder and others. I would want the thread to show up when any of those tags are selected.

2. If I select DnD 3.5, how to I "reset" the forum so I can then select "Pathfinder".

3. Can you put a bar of the tags that are selectable just below the bar that shows which page out of 'number' of pages that you are looking at? (that would take care of #2 above).

-- david
Papa.DRB


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Not a fan of this at all.

Don't really want to read about 4E and D&D Next threads as I'm not interested in either of those systems. General topics I'm fine with and are pretty much the reason I still visit here. If those are going to be harder to peruse or access due to the anticipate flood of D&D Next posts that will be coming with the new edition then what's the point?

Ugh. Just when I started coming back here regularly again.


----------



## PeelSeel2

Not a fan of this today.


----------



## Shemeska

Not a fan of the idea, but it's your place.


----------



## mach1.9pants

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.


----------



## Derfmancher

This should be.. interesting. Can't say I am a fan of the concept. However being relatively new I suppose I can't really complain.


----------



## Cor Azer

I'm rather indifferent to the change, but I'll echo something mentioned above - how will the tags effect or interact with Tapatalk?


----------



## Mark CMG

It's a shame there isn't a way to choose from a menu the various tags of interest and maybe save that setting.  If you're only interested, for instance, in 4E, 2E, and Generic threads, you'd check those boxes (or uncheck all others if that is the default), then save it.


----------



## Deset Gled

I'm not optimistic about this change, but I'm okay with being along for the ride.

Generally, I hate using tags for sorting.  They slow down my reading, cause confusion, and are generally inaccurate.  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.


----------



## Maggan

I'll probably hate it for a week, then I'll forget how it was before that, and then I'll use it like it's been like that forever.

Same as with all the other changes here over time. 

/M


----------



## concerro

When WoTC had the player and GM advice section supporting 3.x and 4th edition people would put the title of the game in question in the subject name.

As an example: "PF--Do I have to spend 2 skill points to get one rank for a nonclass skill?"

or

"4th ed--If I have a fighter can I use two-weapon fighting"

Another idea is to have the board allow the poster to select from a dropdown list.


----------



## Zireael

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.


----------



## underfoot007ct

Add me to the "not a fan" of this idea, not one bit


----------



## Mattachine

Good luck with this, Morrus.

I am concerned about threads being mis-tagged with the wrong game or edition. Also, as others said, it seems that non DDN threads are likely to be pushed down off of page one rather quickly. 

Morrus, you noted that traffic decreased when forums split. True. There is no evidence that merged forums will increase traffic. What happens if merged forums decrease traffic, as well?

If the new system doesn't seem to be working out, change back quickly.


----------



## Riley

Great idea, Morrus!  ENWorld hasn't been nearly as interesting to read since the ''All Threads'' button disappeared.

I like one stop shopping, and I am potentially interested in a discussion of anything from OD&D to Next.


----------



## billd91

There is one notable problem with the icons that I encounter. I browse with graphics shut off to reduce the company bandwidth I use up when taking a break at work. Sometimes, threads with art discussions or photos use up a noticeable amount of capacity (I actually got called about it a few years ago when I encountered a thread with father's day pictures on CM and my network IT guys noticed I spiked as the top internet user all of a sudden). 

The icons become invisible when browsing with graphics off, which makes them largely useless. Most other navigational icons on the site, like the Pages at the beginning of a thread title, appear as a descriptive link (in this case "Go to the first new post"). Can the controls in the icon column be set up to do something similar?


----------



## Rhyssa

Agree with others that the graphic icon prefixes aren't very user friendly.  It would make much more sense to just use text prefixes and that would allow the option to include choices such as "general topic" or "meta-discussion" or "random" (just examples, of course) and those could be color-coded for easier viewing.


----------



## GreyICE

I don't actually foresee any good coming of this at all, but what do I know?


----------



## Grand_Director

Sounds great.  It was getting to be a bit of a slog with the division.  You would think that one could just check all the forums but it never worked out that way for me...odd.


----------



## Matthias

Deset Gled said:


> 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.




This should be implemented if at all possible.


----------



## Lwaxy

I'd fear this would lead to thread hijacking though.


----------



## Janx

Riley said:


> Great idea, Morrus!  ENWorld hasn't been nearly as interesting to read since the ''All Threads'' button disappeared.
> 
> I like one stop shopping, and I am potentially interested in a discussion of anything from OD&D to Next.




I never left the General Discussion forum, and I've noticed a considerable decline in the frequency of discussions.  Apparently everybody holed up in their own little favorite game edition sub-forum.

Since I don't bother delving into those, things were looking pretty dead to me.

I reckon this might make the forum interesting to read again.


----------



## arbados

It's going to be impossible to please everyone and in fairness there is value to both opinions.  However, I'm in favor of the change.  

I have absolutely no interest in 4th edition rules, but am very interested to hear the opinions of persons who play that edition on things such as race, treasure, random encounters, etc.  I play Pathfinder and sometimes feel the forum gets lonely.  I am happy to try and reinvigorate the forums with the change.


----------



## Dragonhelm

I like the idea of merging the forums. I like more than one edition, and I find it a bit tedious going in and out of forums to find the topics that interest me. Having them all in one forum with the sortable functionality that Morrus is talking about sounds like a winner to me.

I also like the idea of cross-pollination. I could see this being very useful, for example, for doing conversions from one system to another. So want to convert from Pathfinder to 4e, or 1e to 3e? Then this new D&D forum will be for you. I bet the response will be better too.

Anyway, that's my two steel.


----------



## aboyd

Meh.  I haven't posted a lot in the last 2 months (lost my job, been distracted).  I came in tonight to start up posting again, saw this.

While I would be a fan of combining basic/1st/2nd/3rd/Pathfinder into one big group, mixing in 4th and 5th seems really bad.  At the very least, 4th is mechanically and conceptually quite different.  And if we can go beyond "very least" and state more, I simply don't want to bother mixing it up with 4th edition fans.

I've read in this thread that Dragonsfoot is held up as a failure because they keep things split out.  That actually sounds good to me, so I'll go take a look.

EDIT: Dragonsfoot sucks.  OK, I'll keep looking.


----------



## Janaxstrus

I don't like this even a little.

If numbers and visits are down, I'd put the blame on the fact that these forums are dreadfully, PAINFULLY, excruciatingly slow at times, not split forums.  I'm on an 80mb internet connection and have issues opening threads, going to the next page, etc, yet have absolutely no problem streaming a movie.

I don't forsee me renewing just to deal with slow forums and having to run through multiple searches to find the topics I want to read.  A good filter allows me to see only what I want, not only what I want...as long as I only want 1 thing.  I don't want to see 4e stuff, don't care about most general threads, etc.  I would, however, like to be able to read all PF, 3.x and Next stuff without having to have 3 different windows each with it's own filter.

Oh well, not my site, do what you want.


----------



## Umbran

aboyd said:


> While I would be a fan of combining basic/1st/2nd/3rd/Pathfinder into one big group, mixing in 4th and 5th seems really bad.  At the very least, 4th is mechanically and conceptually quite different.




Well, conceptually different or not, only seven threads in the 4e forum have gotten posts in the past day or so.  The 4e forum is, at this point, pretty low traffic.


----------



## Halivar

"I don't even want to be around fans of [X] edition" seems a very silly reason for opposition to me.

Myself, I want the old General forum back, where people could talk about OSR and newer editions in one place. This gives it back to me, and therefore I approve.


----------



## Mark CMG

Umbran said:


> Well, conceptually different or not, only seven threads in the 4e forum have gotten posts in the past day or so.  The 4e forum is, at this point, pretty low traffic.





What's the traffic like in the 5E forum currently and what's it like when there is major news like just after a playtest round release?


----------



## saskganesh

Don't like.

In my opinion, we already have a general forum, so we don't need a second general (D&D) forum.

Rather than cross-pollination, I think you're just going to see more weeds and the hardworking mods are going to be extra busier as gardeners.

eh. I'm sure I'll survive. But if traffic is trending down, I advise you to create a forum space and environment which stimulates community and creativity. Make people want to come here.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

I'm fine with it. I got quite used to using the "All threads" menu option when it was available, and this seems to be an improvement on that idea.

It's worth trying -- after all, it's the web, if it doesn't work, it can always be changed back. 

-rg


----------



## Nikosandros

I'm very much in favor. If you look at the example page that Morrus linked, you can see topics going back to yesterday, despite the fear that Next threads will push everything else away from the from page in a short time.

I've never been a fan of too many sub-forums (that's why I dislike both WotC and Paizo forums). It seems very easy not to click on threads that one doesn't find  interesting. I don't get the fear of "contamination". Yes, 4e might be very different, but it's not like a 4e thread will somehow "pollute" nearby threads... 

The only caveat is that proper tagging must be enforced, otherwise it can get confusing.


----------



## 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.



Sammael said:


> 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).



Lanefan said:


> 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:



Zireael said:


> 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.






mach1.9pants said:


> 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.






Deset Gled said:


> 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

Mattachine said:


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



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


Mattachine said:


> 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

Mattachine said:


> 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.


----------



## Morrus

Mattachine said:


> I
> 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?




You're confusing "traffic" with "posts about D&D". There's plenty of traffic; poeple are just posting less about D&D.


----------



## Zaukrie

If there are tags or filters, I do not see them on tapatalk....not a fan of the change yet, but I will give it some time before deciding.


----------



## Morrus

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> 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.)




It's called "D&D and Pathfinder" and it's right next to Tabletop Gaming.


----------



## Mattachine

Morrus said:


> You're confusing "traffic" with "posts about D&D". There's plenty of traffic; poeple are just posting less about D&D.




I'm not confused--I am referring to Morrus noting that traffic on the site has decreased since splitting everything into many sub-forums.

I can agree that splitting the forums may be the cause. No problem.

My concern is that the idea that doing the reverse (merging the forums) will somehow increase traffic. Folks that see threads they aren't interested in probably won't post there. 

With the forums merged, members seem to be doing these four things:

1. Clicking tags to only see the topic of their old forum.
2. Browsing the new forums as is, but still only posting on the threads they used before.
3. Browsing the new forums as is, even posting in topics they didn't before.
4. Leaving the site because they don't like the new layout or they can't post from Tapatalk.

I suspect that most folks are using options #1 and #2, with a few doing #3, and some doing #4.


----------



## Morrus

Mattachine said:


> I'm not confused--I am referring to Morrus noting that traffic on the site has decreased since splitting everything into many sub-forums.




I wouldn't listen to that Morrus guy.


----------



## Obryn

I have to say, I really like it so far.  Most of the other RPG forums I've seen have done similar sorts of divisions - D&D vs. Everything Else - and it makes a lot of sense.

-O


----------



## Deset Gled

Well, having tried it out after being aprehensive about the changes, I'm okay with it but have a few suggestions/comments/questions for improvements:

1.  The tag display needs a little work.  The icons need more visual variety.  More importantly, I think there needs to be text in the tag field or post title that spells out the tag choice.  In a perfect world, the tag names would also be written out as "D&D 3e" instead of "DND3E"

2.  The tag browsing could use some help.  I understand that a checkbox-style interface probably isn't available right now due to software limitations, but I still really want one.  As an alternative, I would like to suggest a sticky thread that lists all the tags and has links to them.  This would help in two ways: First, it could provide a handy list of all tags and explanations for when to use them (for example, when to use the WoTC tag instead of DND3E or ALLDND).  *Second, it solves a hunting problem.  Right now, you have to find a post with an appropriate tag to sort by that tag.  I imagine this will be a real pain with some of the rarer tags.

3.  I still want D&D Next to be in it's own forum.  It's not an issue now, but I really think that it will dominate whenever there are major announcements.  This is also the only reason I want the checkbox tag interface, so it would solve that problem, too.

4.  Why does Conversions still have it's own subforum?  Given that Next doesn't have it's own, this one is hard to understand.  Couldn't we just have a Conversions tag?

5.  I think there needs to be a way to edit tags.  I went back to an old thread I started, and couldn't find a way to add one.  I think this will be a PITA if people forget to enter a tag when they start a thread.

Just my two cents.

*Edit: just found the "Prefix" drop down under "Display options".  This solves the hunting problem but it's relatively well hidden.


----------



## Mattachine

GAH!
If I view DDN-only, WotC articles disappear. That means that WotC articles about DDN have to be viewed as WotC, or with everything else.

Poopies.


----------



## Mark CMG

Deset Gled said:


> 5.  I think there needs to be a way to edit tags.  I went back to an old thread I started, and couldn't find a way to add one.  I think this will be a PITA if people forget to enter a tag when they start a thread.





Can it be changed if you choose the "Go Advanced" editing option?


----------



## crazy_monkey1956

Apologies if this has already been mentioned.

If I may make a suggestion regarding Echohawk's Collector's Guides.  Currently the 4th Edition Guide is stickied.  I would suggest a stickied Index thread with links to all the Guides instead (since the forum now encompasses all editions of D&D).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

For me: so far, so good.


----------



## Empirate

So far, I quite hate the forum changes. I have no hard numbers of course, but I'd guess a lot of people interested only in Legacy or Pathfinder feel crowded out by Next (that was my gut reaction, at least). Took me a while to notice you could click on the tags to filter threads - maybe some regulars won't even find out? Posts and new topics seem slower than before the change as a result. At the very least sticky a message at the top of the "D&D and Pathfinder" sub-board!

Furthermore, what the change did was not encourage synergy IMO, but encourage heavy usage of tags. So now I'm looking only at 3.x, instead of all Legacy. To look at earlier edition stuff, I have to do several clicks, each of which takes a few seconds. In effect, I'm not looking at _more _content at the same time, but _less_. You just split the forums further! Tags are just a different way of lumping threads together!

How about lumping "current" (Next) and "former" (everything up to and including 4E) editions of D&D each in their own categories, and do away with the tags? That way, I'd really look at more threads, and be tempted to post in more of them, at the same time. Also, bring back the "General" forum for topics like problem players, playstyles, theme music, story telling etc.!


----------



## crazy_monkey1956

A handy dandy...

Index of Echohawk's Collector's Guides

Just in case you wanted one.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Re a couple of above posters, let's keep the number of stickied threads to a minimum, please. We do not need more than 4 and I would prefer one or two, or a lit I can collapse and that will stay collapsed.


----------



## Empirate

Dice4Hire said:


> Re a couple of above posters, let's keep the number of stickied threads to a minimum, please. We do not need more than 4 and I would prefer one or two, or a lit I can collapse and that will stay collapsed.




I understand the sentiment, but I reckon a big change in the way the forums operate warrants a sticky to notify the regulars (and especially the not-so-regulars who peek in once a week or so). Not everybody frequents the Meta board to see what's up and how to deal with it.

I have nothing against un-sticky-ing the notification after a bit.


----------



## Deset Gled

Bug note: Choosing the "No prefix" tag in "Display Options" currently displays all threads with DND4E or PATHFINDER tags, in addition to threads with no tags.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

This new change makes it really hard to browse the forums.  It's like going to the soup isle in the grocery store and finding paint.  Yeah, the soup is there too, but you have to dig to find it.  In the past, I go to the 5e forum and read, check out general when I'm bored, maybe a quick run through the Pathfinder board now and then.  Now I get all that hurled at me in one forum, and have to dig 19 pages deep to read anything new.  I am not amused.


----------



## billd91

JRRNeiklot said:


> Now I get all that hurled at me in one forum, and have to dig 19 pages deep to read anything new.  I am not amused.




I have all of the threads updated with new content today on one page, so you must have set your threads/page to an absurdly low level - which I do find amusing.

The forum isn't that hard to negotiate, but it could certainly use some improvements in usability. The label icons should change to be more distinct. It's cute to include the graphic design differences between the editions, but utility is more important. They should be redone in a much simpler way and clearly incorporate the edition number or some other identification to make recognition easier. The board user should be able to recognize 1e's and 2e's icons without having to recall from memory that 2e's backgrounds were more likely to be white. Recognition > recall.


----------



## Morrus

Some of the tags have been amended for clearer ones.


----------



## Empirate

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]: thank you for the stickied notification of how the tags work! Just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## Mattachine

Yes, thanks for the tags info.

They are useful, and I will adjust my use of the site to match them.


----------



## Nikosandros

The tags are nice and useful, but would it be possible to implement a way to add more than one to a thread? It's easy to have threads that, for example, are relevant to both 1e and 2e or to both 3.x and PF.


----------



## Klaus

After the maintenance, I can't seem to enter the D&D/Pathfinder forum. When I click on the link, I'm taken to a "vbseo" page.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Klaus said:


> After the maintenance, I can't seem to enter the D&D/Pathfinder forum. When I click on the link, I'm taken to a "vbseo" page.




Could be a caching problem perhaps? Have you tried froma different browser to see if it is?


----------



## Klaus

Plane Sailing said:


> Could be a caching problem perhaps? Have you tried froma different browser to see if it is?




Cleaning the cache solved that. But I still see some pages with a white background (like this one, which was working okay earlier... seems random).


----------



## thorian

I would love to see a way to exclude posts with certain tags.  For instance, I would like to view everything EXCEPT 4E & 5E.

It seems the only option right now is to select each tag one at a time -- 9 at the time I posted this.  That makes reading the desired content a nuisance without wading through all the 4E and 5E threads.


----------



## darjr

Klaus said:


> Cleaning the cache solved that. But I still see some pages with a white background (like this one, which was working okay earlier... seems random).




Are you still getting the white background pages? Mine stopped.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Everything is working fine for me right now, except last night, one moved thread (from Tabletop to News) did not direct correctly.

Overall I think the change is working fine for me.


----------



## Klaus

darjr said:


> Are you still getting the white background pages? Mine stopped.



Not at the moment. If I get any, I'll let you know!


----------



## Nikosandros

Nikosandros said:


> The tags are nice and useful, but would it be possible to implement a way to add more than one to a thread? It's easy to have threads that, for example, are relevant to both 1e and 2e or to both 3.x and PF.



Is that not possible at all? Or am I the only one who thinks that it might be useful?


----------



## grodog

thorian said:


> I would love to see a way to exclude posts with certain tags.  For instance, I would like to view everything EXCEPT 4E & 5E.




Seconded.

And it would be nice if the old bookmarks were redirected to the new forum here, too:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/ just takes you to 



> Invalid Forum specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator


----------



## I'm A Banana

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> The tags are nice and useful, but would it be possible to implement a way to add more than one to a thread? It's easy to have threads that, for example, are relevant to both 1e and 2e or to both 3.x and PF.




I think this is mostly an issue of how many tabs do we need. Can a viewer distinguish that a post about wandering monsters, even if posted under 2e, might be relevant to 1e, but probably not to 4e? Does someone who sees a post about Golarion know that it would include potentially useful information for a 3e player? 

I think some of that might encourage exploring and cross-polination (which is part of what this is trying to encourage), but some of it might require less ambiguity.


----------



## adamc

I didn't have much of an opinion before it happened. I have an opinion now: it makes the forums harder to navigate and less pleasant to use. Using the tags results in a noticeable delay. And the tags use up a lot of screen real-estate on my Macbook, making the thread titles harder to read.

I find myself going to Wizards forums more often. They're not perfect either, though. Probable outcome is less reading of threads for me.

Note, though, that I'm mostly interested in 4e (with a little interest in Next), and that may explain why this isn't working so well for me. For those with broader interests, maybe it's great.


----------



## Dice4Hire

4E has been slow for quite a while now.


----------



## Leif

I'm really, REALLY missing the 'subscribed threads' feature, but, overall, I do like the way the board looks now.


----------



## Morrus

Leif said:


> I'm really, REALLY missing the 'subscribed threads' feature, but, overall, I do like the way the board looks now.




Subscribed threads hasn't gone away!  It's under settings.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

I like the new dropdown menu -- but I miss having Messageboards as a top level choice.  It would be great to have a top level that was the Messageboards, and then be able to drop down to the specific forums as submenu options. 

-rg


----------



## The Human Target

My 2 cents-

Under this new board structure, it makes it a lot harder for me to find threads and information I'm interested in.

So I've pretty much totally stopped coming here.

Which is sad as this is my favorite place to talk gaming on the internet.


----------



## Jackinthegreen

Something I don't like about recent changes: The location of the Log Out button.  I very much like it under my name on the top right because when I want to log off it's quick and easy, but still unobtrusive and I've never accidentally clicked on it.  Now it's under the Profile tab and I think to myself "Why does it have to be there?  It worked fine where it was before."


----------



## Viking Bastard

The Human Target said:


> My 2 cents-
> 
> Under this new board structure, it makes it a lot harder for me to find threads and information I'm interested in.




I'm having the opposite reaction. Finding the stuff I'm interested in takes a lot less digging after the change.


----------



## Leif

Morrus said:


> Subscribed threads hasn't gone away!  It's under settings.



Yeah, I just found it by trial and error, but thanks!


----------



## Morrus

Leif said:


> Yeah, I just found it by trial and error, but thanks!




But it's always been on the Settings page.  It hasn't been moved (in fact moving it would be a pretty big project in itself!)


----------



## Matthias

Slowly getting used to the new format...I have one request: for each ofthe game system banners, could we have a different high contrast color background color? The D&D 3.5 logo is easily observable on a shrunk webpage on my droid. However it would be nice to be able to more quickly tell 5E and Pathfinder threads apart without zooming in first.


----------



## Leif

Morrus said:


> But it's always been on the Settings page.  It hasn't been moved (in fact moving it would be a pretty big project in itself!)



Yes, but Settings wasn't under the Profile tab before.  And, anyway, I remembered my navigation more by where things were, rather than by names.

But it's all good.


----------



## Lwaxy

I love the new navigation, although I'm not 100% used to it yet.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

Lwaxy said:


> I love the new navigation, although I'm not 100% used to it yet.




I like it too, but I still feel like the message boards portion of the site deserve a top level menu item. Unless the plan is to seriously de-emphasize the importance of the boards (or accurately reflect the real traffic the site is getting, which is entirely possible, I guess). 

-rg


----------



## Radiating Gnome

Radiating Gnome said:


> I like it too, but I still feel like the message boards portion of the site deserve a top level menu item....




Wow, that was fast. 

Now, I wish I had a million dollars!

 

-rg


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

*poof*

You _had_ a million dollars...unfortunately, it was in the form of that lottery ticket you tossed in the trash...


----------

