I have a minute now. I don't have a horse in this race, really. I game from time to time but am not an avid gamer. Since the conversation isn't happening in threads anyway, I don't see that having a dedicated thread that would draw the Buffista gamers into conversation would hurt anything. I do think it's different than something like a cooking thread, which I would oppose. Regardless, I am sorry to see things get so heated in here about this. I do understand that people feel strongly about thread proliferation, but I hope we can keep things civil on both sides. I think we mostly have.

So is it worth continuing to try to has that out?

As the one that originally tossed out the idea, I've dropped it. I certainly didn't want to force people into it.

Would this become a problem in a general games thread?

It's possible, as Raq said, some video games have story lines that can be spoiled. But board games and RPGs generally do not. The risk of spoilage on video game story lines can be mitigated by whatever whitefont policy we decide to come up with.

I think there's greater danger of cross-media spoilage by throwing gaming discussion into Other Media. A level that's unacceptable to some of the people who want a gaming thread.

However, Sang Sacre, or the Book Club thread (was that the other suggestion?) do not have that problem.

For myself, I would be okay with a withdrawn proposal and a testing of the waters in either of those threads. I would also be okay with the proposal of making the gaming thread a temporary test thread.

But ultimately, either of those things happening are up to MM, as he was the original proposer.

It really doesn't have to be either/or, people can head over to any thread and start talking games right now and not pull the proposal into it at all.

Let the proposal run and we can all accept the results. If the thread fails, we could then look at taking over another thread.

Let the proposal run and we can all accept the results. If the thread fails, we could then look at taking over another thread.

That's my feeling on it.

LET LIGHTBULBS RING!!

Let's head over to literary and start talking D&D!

Let's head over to literary and start talking D&D!

BWAH!!

"I have to say that I think the narrative structure in version 3.5 lacked something compared to earlier works. And the tables were simply shoddy, bereft of the art and skill obviously poured into prior versions tables. I think this is a symptom of series-itis, much like Robert Jordan suffered from beginning with...well, the first book of the Eye of the World, actually..."

It is interesting to track the writing style of the Player's Handbook starting with the almost impenetrable arcana of the first edition, through to the dumbed down version of D&D basic in the 80's and then through the...well...whatever it is we got with 3rd edition. I'm also fascinated by the move from traditional publishing and hard cover editions of the books to .pdf distributions that make it possible for more boutique RPG's to be brought to light.

It really doesn't have to be either/or, people can head over to any thread and start talking games right now and not pull the proposal into it at all.

Nice way to take this literally, right here right now.