Demarcation Needed

[S Ferguson]

I think at some point there has to be a consensus on what we, the FG community, will be discussing in this forum. I mention this because there's already confusion (myself included ) over this "what will be discussed here." Is the forum strictly for D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e and the "blatantly obvious" clones, like LL, ALL & OSRIC for example? If so, how far do we dip into what makes a game a "suitable" addition. I for instance have a AD&D game based around the rules of GORE (a Runequest-like retro-game by the same makers of LL) and have added a few things from Mutant Future (the Gamma World clone which was always close to D&D until the 3e). These house rules or other systems, IMHO should be discussed as well if they are in the context of D&D. It can only serve to enrich the game (from a DM's or players' perspective) and might shine light where there was previously darkness. Someone is bound to learn something from another system, even if it might not be too close to actual D&D rules.

Thoughts?
SF

[dr_venture]

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the content is aimed at something related to classic D&D, or something that some folks may find related to that (such as your house rules) then I'm curious to read about it.

[Answulf]

Agreed. I think any kind of demarcation would do more harm than good. This place already has forum-itis as it is.

Point being - I'm interested in Classic D&D as a subject, not as a specific TSR ruleset, and would rather only have to visit one forum for that content. Anything even vaguely related will most likely be interesting to someone who would be looking in a Classic D&D forum to begin with... Bring on the GORE + Mutant Future.

Castles and Crusades is really the only gray area since it already has its own forum but is a good fit for this one too. Personally I would prefer they were combined - the C&C forum is pretty quiet and would be dead if it wasn't for you two.

[S Ferguson]

Well you're more than welcome to join in the forum at any time. And the "grey area" I think might even bring more people over to the C&C ruleset, which would be a good thing.

Conversely it might inspire someone to adopt a bit of C&C into their D&D campaigns. The system are worlds apart in most of their mechanics but there is still something to be learned from each system - and that can be extended to a generality about all systems.

The overlap of topics could cover the entire forum board, and I would encourage it and so-far it seems to be a consensus providing it has something to do with the D&D system. After all it would be pretty confusing for a beginning FG player, going from signal to noise, in the forum.

[GunnarGreybeard]

Well, my OCD says it should be limited to D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e but I wouldn't really have a problem with overlap since the clones generally originated from that same source. I guess it depends on traffic too. If this section gets too cluttered it might later necessitate some further separation between the truly D&D named versions and the clones.

[dr_venture]

I think C&C's main place here is where it is discussed in relation to classic D&D.There's a lot of crossover, and potentially good stuff to be swapped between the systems. Other than that, anything specific to C&C should be brought up in it's own forum.

[Answulf]

I guess it depends on traffic too. If this section gets too cluttered it might later necessitate some further separation between the truly D&D named versions and the clones.

This section already has more posts in it's first 11 days than the Arcana Evolved section has had in five years...

[opusaug]

I agree with Gunnar.

Is the forum ... for D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e and the "blatantly obvious" clones, like LL, ALL & OSRIC for example?

This - after removal of the word "strictly" - is my suggestion. I'm all for firm definitions, but we can police ourselves without going overboard.

IMHO, your example of your house rules game depends if you're trying to use one of the classic/retro rulesets created for the games mentioned above (in that case, yes post here) or some other ruleset (in which case it's probably more appropriate to go in the forum for that ruleset). I think the rub is: where does "Classic D&D" end and "Other Game Systems" begin, especially if the discussion is about creating a new ruleset? I think the answer to that will come over time, as we discuss things and guide the discussion between the forums. Is the ruleset so different from the Classic games that it's really an entirely different game? In another thread I asked: "Perhaps DW stuff should go in 'Other Game Systems'?" That's about as much enforcement/guidance as I think is necessary.

Incidentally, I think some of the other comments in this thread lean too far in the other direction, and invite a free-for-all. Some people find my pattern for logical thinking a bit odd, so you really don't want to ask me to show "context" for what I'm "learning". Basically that would require me to talk about nothing but Star Trek, since All I Ever Needed To Know I Learned from that.

[S Ferguson]

This section already has more posts in it's first 11 days than the Arcana Evolved section has had in five years...

And probably has seen more action than "Other Game Systems" has had in a while I tend to agree with Gunnar as well. Although I very rarely read about 3.5e gaming on that site anymore, as a fair but of it is more Pathfinder oriented. This might be the last bastion for classic fans of the "granddaddy of them all."

[GunnarGreybeard]

Maybe its just nostalgia but I think there is still a large old school community and I believe a concerted effort to a really automated version of one of the old versions (carrying the D&D name) would bring in a lot of new blood to the FG community.