D&D 4e and Tags

Up until now, if memory serves, all of the previous editions of D&D have all been rolled into a single tag under Dungeons and Dragons. With 4th edition 1 month away I think a descision should be made regarding tags. The publishing of a New Edition has already caused a big rift among fans/players. Some will upgrade, some wont. The same thing happened previous times the game was updated.

I'm just wondering are we gonna roll a new 4th Edition tag into the main D&D one, or should we actually split the D&D tag into all of its editions. (Red Box and Blue Box D&D, OD&D, Expert D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e, D&D3e, D&D 3.5e and D&D4e, damn am I missing any?).

Previously I supported re-directing everything to the main Dungeons and Dragons tab, but with Meta-Tags I'm not so sure that we should anymore.

What say you?

I think the most important question for redirecting is whether people who listed themselves to play AD&D would want to play 4th Ed. I think the answer is no in that instance, but it's murkier for a generic "Dungeons and Dragons".

I don't have a good answer here, any D&D players want to pipe up?

I would split D&D into:

OD&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D, D&D 3.X, and D&D 4E

I have enjoyed every version of D&D BUT really hate what I've seen and read about 4th edition.

What the hell is BECMI D&D?

B(asic), E(xpert, C(ompanion), M(asters) and I(mmortals) D&D.

Were Companion MAsters and Immmortal really their own versions or are they all part of Expert?

Having never played anything beyond Basic D&D I wouldn't know. The BECMI acronym is commonly used, so I'm guessing that others consider them to be editions unto themselves.

In the 11 or so years I've been playing D&D and years I've spent on EnWorld and other sites that's the first time I've seen that anacronym.

Why dont we just leave in under a general D&D tag and let prospective players / DM's sort it out? Categorizing under the different incarnations of D&D just seems to make things more complicated for the sake of being complicated. I'm fairly certain that if some one wants to run or play a particular version they'll let people know.

I think DnD 4e is good. There needs to be something to distinguish between 3.X and 4e. I'm planning on playing in 4e and my group is looking for new members. But, I would hate to have to sort out every person and try to find out who is playing what. This way its clear at the beginning.

You are definitely going to need a new tag for 4E, since there will inevitably be folks unfamiliar with the earlier editions and folks who will want to play only earlier editions. The editions are different enough to be considered different games IMO, and people who choose not to upgrade (there are always a few) will want to specify that they are not moving on to 4th...

I think tags should divided into editions when it's clear what edition they refer to. Everything else gets rolled into the general Dungeons & Dragons tag, which itself should be applied to the individual edition tags.

I'd subdivide D&D 3.X into 3E and 3.5, but otherwise I like csperkins1970's categorization.

If you've never seen "BECMI" written, you aren't familiar with the sites that support true old-school gamers. Sites like Dragonsfoot.org or the Knights and Knaves Alehouse.

I support separating AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, and the pre-2000 D&D games from each other and from 3.X and 4E. I have "AD&D" in my tags list. There is no way I'd play 3.X or 4E... just ain't happening. I doubt that many who have D&D in their tags are really interested in any pre-2000 (A)D&D game, either. When I look at the map with an interest in finding players or DM's, I don't really want to see a bunch of people who aren't going to want to hear from me. I doubt they want to see me either.

I've been doing some work to resort all the different versions of Dungeons & Dragons into different tags. One question I have about the development of the game is: was the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons -- or Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition, as I'd tag it -- the same thing that some people have tagged as Original Dungeons & Dragons?

And those aren't the same as BECMI D&D, right?

To me, Original D&D is the white-box edition. Blue-box D&D is more or less just the earliest incarnation of Basic D&D, which was then expanded with the Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal boxed sets. AD&D is self-explanatory, but do we really need to distinguish between editions? We don't do that for all the editions of other games. And I think D&D3.x and D&D4e deserve their own tags since they are very different beasts. I don't see enough difference twixt D&D3e and 3.5 to merit separate tags for each, though.

I don't see enough difference twixt D&D3e and 3.5 to merit separate tags for each, though.

In fairness, there are at least 90 plus people who think there's enough of a difference to specify 3.5. Edition matters to a lot of people, particularly when there are as many different flavors of a game as D&D.