My methodology is inspirec by a snippet of a Scientific American article, where the ratio of planetary mass to mass of uncontrolled objects intersecting the orbit or something like that had two general categories: Very high for the four inner planets and four gas giants, but very much lower for Ceres, Pluto, et al. Hence, I'm going to try and find natural dividing lines, should they exist, in lengths of forum games.
23390
18448
8623
8586
7662
6512
6132
4307
3499
3469
3444
3303
2888
2369
2345
2273
2171
2079
2026
Judging by RtD's alone (and for convenience ignoring the multiple-threads problem), there are two obvious divides in the data: 10,000 and 5,000 posts. The former would basically only let ER in; the latter would let half a dozen games (ER, Life Begins at Death, Deviation-22, YAFB [
only if OOC thread posts count, but given the number of OOC posts in threads without OOC threads it only seems fair], Perplexicon, and Multiworld Madness) in. Any lower number would be pretty arbitrary; by halfway down the first page, post counts are similar enough that one can't really pick a convenient dividing point.
Now, let's check the main FGaR board. I don't want to copy-paste a page of numbers again, so trust me or
verify, your choice.
An even dozen threads, all games, lie above the 10k-post limit, whereas 26 threads and (if I counted right) 22 games lie above the 5k-post limit.
Now, let's consider what would happen if we had 20-40k as the minimum posts required: ER would be the sole RtD, and the only other games to make it would be LaFotM, The Land of Lost Dimensions, Twilight Academy, and Rise of the Magic Girls. (And those are for the low limit of 20k--40k would require leaving out all but TA and RotMG.)
In conclusion, while people were suggesting limits in the quintuple digits, only the very lowest possible limit of that magnitude would avoid leaving ER in a nearly isolated subforum.
There are two logical limits, which correspond to small "gaps" in reply numbers (for RtD's, at least) and which are round numbers: 10,000 and 5,000. The former would let a total of thirteen games in with ER as the only RtD, while the latter would allow ten additional games to enter said subforum.
Having an open sub-forum for 'epic' RTDs is just a bad idea on the face of it- that would end up seeming like a class of 'superior' RTDs.
I think, right now, the issue is that one RTD has grown to the point of requiring so many threads that it clogs up the RTD forum quite noticeably. We want to free up the board a bit, not turn it into a ghost town as everyone and their dog rushes off to make multi-thread "epic" RTDs in the new subforum. 
Slippery Slope fallacies are the new black.
I highly doubt that many would actually do something like that. Especially if the new board couldn't have new topics started in it, which one board clearly demonstrates is possible...but even without that, epic takes a lot of work.
Not actually a slippery slope. Thank you for playing. 
"If we set up a subforum for epic games, people will start trying to make allegedly epic games!"
Sounds a heck of a lot like SSF--and it fits the spirit (Claims that things will go to an improbable and unsubstantiated extent) if nothing else.
Slippery Slope fallacies are the new black.
I highly doubt that many would actually do something like that. Especially if the new board couldn't have new topics started in it, which one board clearly demonstrates is possible...but even without that, epic takes a lot of work.
Even if it is a "slippery slope fallacy," you have to accept the possibility of it happening and try to do what you can to minimize the risk, because frankly, this is pretty much a forum experiment on the side. If this fails, we could see even less of a chance of these kinds of things happening in the future.
Yes, there is a chance, but people shouldn't talk about it like it's inevitable and people shouldn't use it as a reason not to do it.
