4
\$\begingroup\$

For those with 10k rep, I deleted my original question to split it off into its separate parts so we can better address it. What should we do to move forward on D&D 5e planning?

In reference to Grace's answer here: https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3580/3529

What methods/data should we use to determine which RPG.SE users are sent advanced copies that SE procures for us for 5e's releases?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Do we have any idea how many advanced copies we would be receiving? \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage May 22 '14 at 1:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ No, we're currently in discussions with... people. They will likely ask us how many we want. \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 23 '14 at 8:22
13
\$\begingroup\$

Let's treat it like an election:

People can nominate themselves and their plans for the books, established groups, and other public commitments, then the community can vote, using established SE voting mechanics. People can then judge on whatever merits they choose, including rep earned in the dnd-next tag.

Given that there are 3-4 staggered book releases totalling $150 per set (more, if we count the starter) there are some interesting problems here.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ We could have one poll to determine who will get the lot, and then they'll get their books incrementally as they're released. We might as well, too: giving someone the DMG but no PHB is as useless as having given someone the PHB but not a DMG. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 22 '14 at 22:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ My only counterpoint is that breaking them up allows for better followthrough if someone doesn't have questions? \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 23 '14 at 3:05
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ If they're not asking questions about their books, they'll hopefully be well equipped to answer them! \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 23 '14 at 5:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Could you let us know the mod team's stance on whether we'll use an election, and whether there's a conclusive decision yet? The mods being the ones handling interaction with the Community team, it would be helpful for them to weigh in with official endorsement at some point & provide security this is being handled well. A nomination thread was opened only the day after this answer, and I have significant concerns about it having been opened so soon (expressed in the comments there, and apparently shared by others). \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 29 '14 at 0:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ We're in discussions with community still, as much hinges on other discussions that community is having with WotC. Elections... probably aren't how we're going to do things. \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 30 '14 at 8:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for letting us know. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 30 '14 at 9:05
7
\$\begingroup\$

How about we look at the top users of the dnd-next tag.

From there you could take the top answerers and askers (both show interests). "Top" being defined as the activity on the subject not reputation. Minimal reputation would be good (like 2k so they can edit questions and clarify things). They should be active enough (at least once a day or every 2 days top).

I can't formulate why, but I'd like to see a fair distribution of mods and non-mods. I just think giving a head start on the rules to people who already have plenty of reputation (10K+) would be redundant.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This was my thought as well, top answers and asker's combined with some form of overall site activity. A user with high rating on the tag, but who is inactive isn't the ideal candidate for example. \$\endgroup\$ – Joshua Aslan Smith May 21 '14 at 15:03
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You say "mods and non-mods" and then you say "plenty of reputation". I might be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're saying those are the same thing? As a result, I'm not actually sure what you're suggesting in regards to fair distribution. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 21 '14 at 21:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie I think he is saying that 2K-50K(?) rep good, above that is a bit redundant. But it also seems like a side point. \$\endgroup\$ – GMNoob May 22 '14 at 7:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @GMNoob Maybe; I can't tell what's being said there. I would otherwise vote this up, but I prefer to know what I'm voting for. :) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 23 '14 at 16:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes I meant betweeen 2k and 10k. But the election is also a good option. \$\endgroup\$ – user4000 May 23 '14 at 16:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ So you're suggesting that, instead of just taking the top users from [dnd-next], take the top X users of [dnd-next] below 2k, and the top X users of [dnd-next] 2k+, so that half the books go to new and half to experienced site users. Is that right? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 25 '14 at 18:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ What I suggest is way more complicated than an election. I haven't thought of it. I think Brian's idea is better. \$\endgroup\$ – user4000 May 25 '14 at 18:32
0
\$\begingroup\$

Just to make things simpler, I'm going to suggest that we offer the early resources to the top people in both questions and answers in the D&D 5e tag, giving first to the top answerer and second to the top questioner and then alternating.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Be careful here, though: there are so few D&D Next questions that the data is pretty "noisy." Like, I'm ranked #4 all time because I answered about some probability stuff. But I've never even seen a playtest packet. (And have no intention of ever playing the game.) \$\endgroup\$ – Alex P May 25 '14 at 23:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .