|
Just a request - when thinking of a title for a thread, please give a thought for those playing the game who also browse these boards but might not have played through the adventures yet. Some of these thread titles, nevermind the contents, give the game away to some extent. Nualia this, Nualia that.... She's described as being dead to start with, but anyone idly running through the site can see he being mentioned all the time, so it won't take a genius to work it out. The same with Tsuto, Foxglove and probably others as the thing runs along.
I know its fun to talk about these things, and there is a trade off between clarity (i.e. getting your message across, and your post read and commented on) and spoileryness. I also know there is supposed to be a difference between PC knowledge and player knowledge (though, of course, there isn't really). But please try to give it some thought when coming up with thread titles, as it can otherwise detract slightly from player enjoyment.
Thank you.
What might need to be done is to get something that indicates whether the discussion is for DMs or for players.
|
With all due respect, Aubrey (and that is a lot of respect), I don't see that happening. You're asking that no one use the name of the two major villains of the first adventure in the title of any post - and that, quite frankly, would make discussing that adventure all but impossible, never mind what comes along later. I really sympathize with your situation, but I can't think that it's a viable choice.
A better solution might be to try to persuade the Paizo powers-that-be to split the forums into GM and Players subforums, and try to get all the spoiler-laden posts, titles and all, into the GM section. Then it would be on your players' heads if they wandered into the wrong section of the boards...
Contributor
|
So it's not reasonable to ask people to use titles like "Problem with Burnt Offerings main villain" or "RotRL 1, final encounter" or something like that?
I keep running into the same problem with the AoW, which I'm playing in. I don't read those posts, but some of the titles give up the goods anyways.
|
|
So it's not reasonable to ask people to use titles like "Problem with Burnt Offerings main villain" or "RotRL 1, final encounter" or something like that?
At that point, the amount of information you have to drop out of the title makes the title itself meaningless. Using workaround terms like "main villain" might be functional for Burnt Offerings, but who's the main villain in Skinsaw Murders? It doesn't take long for the circumlocution to become so entangled that even making the attempt becomes too aggravating to bother with.
Either that, or thread titles become so vague that you literally can't tell what's in them without opening them up, which produces so many other issues (search utility, innumerable threads with essentially identical titles that may or may not be on the same topics, etc.) that the forum simply becomes useless.
It's not an unreasonable desire, but as a practical matter, I can't see it happening. Which is why I suggested a forum division instead - it would accomplish the same effect, but retain forum usefulness.
So it's not reasonable to ask people to use titles like "Problem with Burnt Offerings main villain" or "RotRL 1, final encounter" or something like that?
Just my $0.2, but I believe the above isn't unreasonable. To that, when posting with spoilers I'll be keeping them out of the title.
J.
|
|
With all due respect, Aubrey (and that is a lot of respect), I don't see that happening. You're asking that no one use the name of the two major villains of the first adventure in the title of any post - and that, quite frankly, would make discussing that adventure all but impossible, never mind what comes along later. I really sympathize with your situation, but I can't think that it's a viable choice.
I appreciate that it isn't easy, but I suspect that it isn't that difficult either. Where it is possible, it would be appreciated, I suppose I am saying. Where the title is ambiguous, I suspect it doesn't really matter that much as anyone interested would probably look, find it wasn't actually the subject they were interested in, and not worry about it. Not as much as someone who actually was playing the scenario and saw a more explicit thread title.
|
Contributor
|
Bear in mind as well, that in most cases, it's fine to use a villain's name, becasue the PCs won't hear it until they fight the villain anyways (if they hear it then). But there are specific times when information needs to be kept secret. Go ahead with a title like "Is Ripnugget too tough?" but avoid "Problems with Nualia's secret return from the dead"
See the difference?
I'm guilty of not thinking about this. Sorry. I've had this place pegged as a GM board even though players are here, and I'll keep it in mind from here on out.
So it's not reasonable to ask people to use titles like "Problem with Burnt Offerings main villain" or "RotRL 1, final encounter" or something like that?
I keep running into the same problem with the AoW, which I'm playing in. I don't read those posts, but some of the titles give up the goods anyways.
100% agree -
With some of the posts I see - might as well let the players read the module.--The best solution **would** be if Paizo split the boards (as WotC does) for DMs and Players- but until then/that happens, it would be nice for my players to visit the Paizo site without so many *spoilers* in the tread titles.
-JM
Alternatively, we could encourage "Red Herring" thread titles like:
Is Aldern the Sheriff's Love Child?
The Tumor Rat as a Familiar
My PCs don't trust Nualia
Goblin Takeover of Sandpoint Not Working!
My PCs Keep Going to Thistletop!
There's always BBEG. Everyone knows it. It's short and it doesn't give anything away. Just a thought.
|
|
Alternatively, we could encourage "Red Herring" thread titles like:
Is Aldern the Sheriff's Love Child?
The Tumor Rat as a Familiar
My PCs don't trust Nualia
Goblin Takeover of Sandpoint Not Working!
My PCs Keep Going to Thistletop!
Is a vampire too tough as the final encounter?
Sheriff Hemlock is a cross-dresser - and why it matters!
TPK in the Rusty Dragon.
Is a vampire too tough as the final encounter?
Sheriff Hemlock is a cross-dresser - and why it matters!
TPK in the Rusty Dragon.
With a little work, we could have nosy players more baffled than ever.
I especially liked TPK in the Rusty Dragon!
|
|
Alternatively, we could encourage "Red Herring" thread titles like:
Is Aldern the Sheriff's Love Child?
The Tumor Rat as a Familiar
My PCs don't trust Nualia
Goblin Takeover of Sandpoint Not Working!
My PCs Keep Going to Thistletop!
Is a vampire too tough as the final encounter?
Sheriff Hemlock is a cross-dresser - and why it matters!
TPK in the Rusty Dragon.
Why is everyone a werewolf?
Getting sick of DR X/Epic
The zombies in the Pixie's basement
My PCs killed Martin - what do I do now?
One of the issues with a spoiler free title would be that players would then be inclined to look into it. After all it does not seem to give anything away.
|
Contributor
|
One other thing... I'm not really that keen on dividing the boards into DMs vs. Players sections, mostly because I do both for different campaigns. And to be honest, I like that the DM questions come up on the general hot topics and board categories, and occasionally I answer them. But if I had to go into a special section to look at them, I probably wouldn't.
So I guess that would be an improvement for those of you who disagree with my advice...
With all due respect, Aubrey (and that is a lot of respect), I don't see that happening. You're asking that no one use the name of the two major villains of the first adventure in the title of any post - and that, quite frankly, would make discussing that adventure all but impossible, never mind what comes along later. I really sympathize with your situation, but I can't think that it's a viable choice.
A better solution might be to try to persuade the Paizo powers-that-be to split the forums into GM and Players subforums, and try to get all the spoiler-laden posts, titles and all, into the GM section. Then it would be on your players' heads if they wandered into the wrong section of the boards...
QFT
This is more sound IMHO. It's because of this reason I won't surf the Curse of the Crimson Throne threads since I'll switch and be the player for a change, and I forbid my player from scanning the RotRL threads. Having AP's split between "DM" and "Player" sections would be an ideal solution as Shisumo mentions, and I would urge for such a resolution.
Players expecting something to occur in one of my campaigns based on what they’ve read in someone else’s’ thread deserve what they have coming.
So it's not reasonable to ask people to use titles like "Problem with Burnt Offerings main villain" or "RotRL 1, final encounter" or something like that?
I keep running into the same problem with the AoW, which I'm playing in. I don't read those posts, but some of the titles give up the goods anyways.
That seems fair enough, I've been guilty of this too. Sorry.
Oh, and for my 2cp:
* Madam Mvashti/Hellfire Wyrm CR wrong?
* Players getting distracted by murders, not investing in real estate!
* Bluff check for Shayliss to pretend she's not a wererat?
