# OLG Forum



## Monte At Home (Nov 16, 2004)

Refering to this latest, moved thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=107320

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that it's completely backward that Arcana Unearthed cannot be discussed in the main forum along with all the D&D material (which it's completely compatible with), but games completely unrelated to D&D like GURPS, Vampire and HARP can.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 16, 2004)

OLG?

Olgar no get ...

Edit: Ugh, OGL.  Olgar feel stupid.

The original poster's question was pretty rules-specific.  If it were a D&D thread phrased in a similar way, it probably would have been moved to Rules, so OGL may be right.  Dunno, IANAM (I am not a moderator)


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 16, 2004)

I'm the person who moved it, Monte. It was a toss-up between Rules and the d20 forum, and with threads for a specific OGL game we lean more towards the latter. General Discussion was certainly the wrong place for it.

We actually had a long discussion about where AU threads belong back before your game first came out a year and a half ago. Whether or not AU is compatible with D&D (and it clearly is - I was just borrowing an AU class yesterday for my game), the hard line we draw for where a particular game's threads belong is how that game describes itself.  Is it a product for D&D? If so, General Discussion. Is it a d20 game (Grim Tales) or OGL game (Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed)?  Then it goes in the d20/OGL forum. This gives us a consistent, clear and easy division. We're certainly not trying to hide it; AU is the first example game listed on the forum's description.

If non-d20 games had more traffic here, we'd probably have a separate forum for them as well, but a lot of that traffic ends up at rpg.net. 

So you're not alone in thinking it's odd that a game as close to D&D belongs in the OGL forum. Since the game is specifically OGL, though, that's where it goes. I suppose that's an accidental tradeoff for the benefits of getting to include character generation rules.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I do want to be clear about why we have the categories set up this way. If you have any questions, let me know.

 - Kevin


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 16, 2004)

As an additional comment, if I were to see a thread about an AU campaign, but they wanted to discuss some random thing about DMing methods or how to inject, say, political intrigue, into the campaign, I'd leave it in General.  That would be something that would be more of a specific example of general interest.

In the meantime, having the OGL forum means that people who are specifically interested in games like AU are more likely to find threads on the front page, rather than having them lost in the maelstrom that General Discussion can become.


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 16, 2004)

I think Monte is also complaining about a perception that other non-D&D systems are being discussed in General and not being moved (and hence a double-standard).

I haven't noticed this myself, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening since I would completely ignore any non-D&D game system thread.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 16, 2004)

As I said, Dave, non-d20 games have always been discussed in General Discussion. They don't have enough traffic to warrant their own forum (it would be a lonely and low-volume forum indeed!), so that's where they belong.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 16, 2004)

Once upon a time there was only one forum - I think most forums started in order to accomodate "themes" which were generating a sufficient amount of traffic to sustain their own forum.

It sometimes goes the other way as well - d20Modern initially had its own forum but the discussion became less fulsome a while after its launch and d20Modern was rolled in with the other d20/OGL games.

One side-benefit of being in the lower traffic forums is that items stay on the front "page" of results for much longer, and are more likely to get seen. In General discussion you can miss things if you don't look at the boards at the right time of day!

Cheers


----------



## diaglo (Nov 16, 2004)

they have an OLG/OGL forum???  

never been there myself.

does it have anything worth reading in it?


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 16, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> As I said, Dave, non-d20 games have always been discussed in General Discussion. They don't have enough traffic to warrant their own forum (it would be a lonely and low-volume forum indeed!), so that's where they belong.




Oh, ok - my bad.

Thanks.


----------



## BSF (Nov 17, 2004)

Diaglo,
There is nothing regarding OD&D, the one true game, so nothing for you to see there.

In general relevance to the thread, I can see where it would seem counter-intuitive to leave threads pertaining to other game systems in General, yet relegate D20/OGL systems to their own forum.  But I view it much the same as Olgar does.  D&D Rules has a specific forum .  Stuff specific to other D20/OGL books goes into a specific forum as well.

I like it since it does make it easier to find subject matter specific to those games.  The biggest drawback is that the D20/OGL forum does seem to have less traffic.  That might be a lack of interest, or a lack of exposure, I am not sure.


----------



## Henry (Nov 17, 2004)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> I like it since it does make it easier to find subject matter specific to those games.  The biggest drawback is that the D20/OGL forum does seem to have less traffic.  That might be a lack of interest, or a lack of exposure, I am not sure.




I think it's symptomatic that D&D is the first interest to the comunity, non-D&D-tied-in d20 second. As for exposure, from my perspective, it's fourth on the Forums list, and can't get more exposed, short of being placed above the D&D forums.

Funny AU is mentioned - AU's got an interesting position in that it's probably the second-or-third largest d20-mechanic game gamers have ever heard of, short of D&D itself, and Mutants and Masterminds. It's right on the axis of being a D&D supplemental line - without being a D&D supplemental line. As a result, about one-quarter of its conversation seeps out of the OGL forum into General Discussion and Rules, because its as often intermixed with 3E as it is played straight. 

Very few other OGL threads have that happen - heck, not even Conan gets that much love in GD or Rules!


----------



## BSF (Nov 18, 2004)

I apologize, I was unclear.  I wasn't referring to exposure on EN World.  I was referring to the general exposure to the game systems.  I think fewer people have any familiarity with the D20/OGL systems that are not Dungeons & Dragons.  Though, it could be that there are a number of people that are familiar with the systems, but have little interest in discussing them.  

I do think EN World provides good exposure for D20/OGL product.  So my comment wasn't specific to exposure on EN World, just general exposure of the products to gamers.


----------



## Belen (Nov 19, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I do want to be clear about why we have the categories set up this way. If you have any questions, let me know.
> 
> - Kevin




Actually, I have to question this one.  Personally, I never visit the d20/OGL boards.  I run a mixed DnD/AU campaign.  The systems are fairly interchangeable.

If we are going to have a 'general' discussion, then should it not be an actual general discussion on gaming.  As it stands now, it sounds like what general needs to be call is "General D&D Discussion."

I think we lose a lot of flavor in the general discussion because gaming in all forms cannot be discussed.

Also, for non-d20/OGL games, then that should probably be placed in OGL forum.  Allowing them in the general forum allows them to get a much broader "face" time with far more members seeing threads about them than the d20/OGL games.

I think this is a slight disservice to the d20 people since ENWorld is THE place for d20 online, so if we're discussing D&D only in general, then the non-d20/OGL threads should go to the smaller forum, just to be fair.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I think we lose a lot of flavor in the general discussion because gaming in all forms cannot be discussed.




There's a very simple problem with that thought.  If you actually allow all types of gaming conversation in General, that would effectively eliminate everything but the Sci-Fi and Meta Forums.  That would make the thing so unwieldly as to be unusable, with too much darned traffic in one place.  Sure, it'd have lots of flavor, but you wouldn't get much of a taste of anything in the mish-mash.  

The forums must be broken up, for reasons of practicality.  The thread Monte indicated was mostly a rules-question, not a general one.  You'll note that the General forum is pretty clear of distinctly rules-based questions for D&D, too.  So they are reasonably even-handed in the policy.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 19, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I have to question this one.  Personally, I never visit the d20/OGL boards.  I run a mixed DnD/AU campaign.  The systems are fairly interchangeable.
> 
> If we are going to have a 'general' discussion, then should it not be an actual general discussion on gaming.  As it stands now, it sounds like what general needs to be call is "General D&D Discussion."




The thing is, we do have an OGL board. It's supposed to be for games based in the SRD, but being stand-alone. Now, there are different levels of stand-alone. Mutants & Masterminds is about as far as you can get from D&D and use the OGL. Arcana Unearthed is pretty darn close to D&D, it even tells you to use the D&D DMG and MM (probably not using those words though). The thing is, if you're gonna have a separate board for OGL games, you need to draw the line somewhere. "Being a stand-alone game" is as fair as any, I reckon.

On the other hand, AU *supplements* do feature the d20 logo, so they might fit well in General too. I do think AU is right about where the line should be drawn - the question is which side of the line it's on.


----------



## Belen (Nov 19, 2004)

Right now, there is an Ars Magica 5th thread and a HARP thread in general.  Both of those games are "standalone."  If we're not going to allow standalone d20 games in general, then standalone non-d20 should not be allowed either.

The HARP and Ars Magica thread should be moved to the d20/OGL forum.  It's a smaller forum where people discuss standalone games.

I think it is wrong to punish standalone d20 games by banishment from the largest forum on ENWorld, yet allow threads regarding non-d20 games.  All in all, the non-d20 and d20 standalones are more similiar and should be in the same forum.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Olive (Nov 20, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The HARP and Ars Magica thread should be moved to the d20/OGL forum.  It's a smaller forum where people discuss standalone games.




No, it's a smaller forum to discuss OGL/D20 games.

I spend a lot of time in OGL/D20 myself. It's a good forum. Put HARN and Arms MAgica aren't OLG/D20 games and theads about CoC D20 would get even more bloked up if all CoC threads went into OGL/D20.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Nov 20, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Right now, there is an Ars Magica 5th thread and a HARP thread in general. Both of those games are "standalone." If we're not going to allow standalone d20 games in general, then standalone non-d20 should not be allowed either.
> 
> The HARP and Ars Magica thread should be moved to the d20/OGL forum. It's a smaller forum where people discuss standalone games.
> 
> ...



With the growing community, and the fact that many people here have multiple intrests, and adding in the fact that the Ennies have been expanded for all RPG's I think a new sub forum should be added for any/all non d20/OGL RPG's..

From Ars Magica and Harp, to Vampire the Requium, Larping, and Startrek...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 20, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> With the growing community, and the fact that many people here have multiple intrests, and adding in the fact that the Ennies have been expanded for all RPG's I think a new sub forum should be added for any/all non d20/OGL RPG's..




A new forum isn't just about topic.  It's even more about traffic.  It isn't about being fair and gving the exact same and equal to all games, it's about making the forums useable.  It's about how people use the forums.

When a topic has some traffic, but not a lot, forcing the conversation off into a sub-forum kills the topic.  When the topic gets so big that it starts clogging up General is the time to think about a new forum, and not before.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 20, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> With the growing community, and the fact that many people here have multiple intrests, and adding in the fact that the Ennies have been expanded for all RPG's I think a new sub forum should be added for any/all non d20/OGL RPG's..




Which part of "They don't have enough traffic to warrant their own forum (it would be a lonely and low-volume forum indeed!)" wasn't clear?   

Umbran's got it right - there's not enough traffic to warrant its own forum, and not so many non-d20 threads that they clog the main forum. We're keeping an open mind, but I've seen no compelling reason to shunt non-d20 game threads out of General RPG Discussion. At best we'd consider merging them in with d20/OGL games, but frankly I prefer them in General Discussion. It helps stop the main forum from getting too insular and D&D-centric, and slightly minimizes additional stratification of our users.

I know some folks aren't going to know what I mean by that, but it makes sense to me.

I _like_ non-d20 games, and the more exposure they get the better. Anyways, this thread isn't really about shifting non-d20 games out of General Discussion, it's about shifting AU games into it. It's about perceived parity between d20 D&D supplements and games which can't claim this but really are anyways.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 21, 2004)

. o O (One of these days I'll get my massive dream hack - categories - done, and this type of argument will then be put to rest.)


----------



## BSF (Nov 21, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Right now, there is an Ars Magica 5th thread and a HARP thread in general.  Both of those games are "standalone."  If we're not going to allow standalone d20 games in general, then standalone non-d20 should not be allowed either.
> 
> The HARP and Ars Magica thread should be moved to the d20/OGL forum.  It's a smaller forum where people discuss standalone games.
> 
> ...




Punish?  I see it as a benefit.  It isn't practical to create a seperate forum for each game.  Nor is it practical to leave everything in one huge mega-forum.  As it is, if you log off the board for 12-24 hours, you will have at least 2 pages of new posts to go through in General.  Many times, you wil have significantly more.  

Conversation tracks quickly in General.  OGL/D20 games would be tracked in and out of the radar very rapidly I think.  I suppose the occasional thread would bubble to the top for a while, but in the long run, many more of the threads would be relegated to the bottom of page 2, or 3, or 4 and then slide out of sight within a day or two.  

Really, the topics for a thread come up with general play (which arguably applies across multiple systems), in-depth flavor discussions (the flavor of the game world), rules, and house rules.  General play still belongs in the General discussion forum.  I think the OGL/D20 games are better served keeping flavor, rules and house rules all assigned to the same forum.  I am not aware of many people looking to use the Diamond Throne setting without using the Arcana Unearthed "crunch".  So if somebody is asking for help with the campaign setting, they are likely also interested in rules & house rules for AU at the same time.  

I suppose it could be argued that keeping that conversation in General might increase the interest in the system.  I am not sure whether that would be true or not.  But for me, I am better served keeping the forum structure that is currently in place.


----------

