Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   In Nomine (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   [meta] Standardizing Tags (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=58949)

ISNorden 05-26-2009 12:34 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
The [canon] tag also suggests its opposite, a [heresy] or [house rules] tag: in my campaign, the "heresies" that don't fall under an existing tag might include (1) the existence of Gray Celestials and (2) the "333 = Ethereal Intervention" rule. Do miscellaneous variations like that deserve their own category, in your opinion?

JCD 05-26-2009 06:33 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
On things like Is Norden, I would suggest 'variants' as a tag instead of hereasies. While cute, it might confuse those who aren't familiar with her phraseology, particularly in a religious game.

Rocket Man 05-26-2009 07:42 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ISNorden (Post 795425)
The [canon] tag also suggests its opposite, a [heresy] or [house rules] tag: in my campaign, the "heresies" that don't fall under an existing tag might include (1) the existence of Gray Celestials and (2) the "333 = Ethereal Intervention" rule. Do miscellaneous variations like that deserve their own category, in your opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCD (Post 795483)
On things like Is Norden, I would suggest 'variants' as a tag instead of hereasies. While cute, it might confuse those who aren't familiar with her phraseology, particularly in a religious game.

Already covered (though obviously, it can be discussed):

Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 795310)
[*]canon for discussion that follows the Rules As Written; heretical for discussion that diverges radically from canon.

And while I know there's a tendency to have too many stickies, perhaps the "tags list" should become a permanent one, so that newcomers can easily see it and understand the terms we're using. (IMO, it can replace the outdated sticky for the Asmodeus playtest.)

ladyarcana55 05-26-2009 08:29 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 795352)
Which is why I asked which term would be better...

If I have to choose one, I would go with Adventure.

Plots are assumed to eventually become adventures and, thinking about it now, I am not sure I would want to be that specific. I don't think we need to be. Just to keep things simple, I would go with Adventure

robkelk 05-26-2009 06:41 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JCD (Post 795483)
On things like Is Norden, I would suggest 'variants' as a tag instead of hereasies. While cute, it might confuse those who aren't familiar with her phraseology, particularly in a religious game.

It's the term that's used in the Game Master's Guide for this sort of campaign. I thought it best to follow the source material here...

Compiling the suggestions:
  • Start with the list I posted at the start of this thread.
  • Change canon from "Rules As Written" to "Setting As Written".
  • Add pop culture for pop-culture references - appropriate music, inspirational fiction or artwork, fantasy movie casts, examples of the various character stereotypes, and so on.
  • Add adventure for adventures, adventure seeds, campaigns, plot seeds, and the like.

Anything else?

Edit: Something for Play-by-Post and other methods of playing at a distance, perhaps... but what? I'm drawing a blank on an appropriate term (assuming it's even something useful).

Rocket Man 05-26-2009 06:48 PM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by robkelk (Post 795806)

Edit: Something for Play-by-Post and other methods of playing at a distance, perhaps... but what? I'm drawing a blank on an appropriate term (assuming it's even something useful).

How about net play? That would seem to cover most of the alternatives, since I doubt many of us do play-by-snail-mail.

And while our valiant Archangel doesn't descend to give rulings as often as the Mighty Kromm, it might be helpful to have a tag that indicates the rare "official pronouncement." May I suggest "real mccoy"? :)

Methariel 05-27-2009 08:38 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
I think that there are systematic problems at the moment concerning the resources-tag, since at the moment there are other tags proposed which are, essentially, subsets of it (like artifacts or roles).

You could, of course, eliminate the subsets and have everything that is counted as a "resource" in the Core Rulebook (like Relics, Artifacts, Servants, Skills etc.) fall under said tag. It would avoid having too many tags around, though it might be confusing, especially to newcomers. And it could mean too much generalization.

The other way would be to eliminate the resources-tag and add every Resource individually, although this meant that you'd have a whole bunch of tags essentially referring to the same "main theme".

I'd go with the first option since I don't mind the generalization too much and think that the "newbies" will get comfortable with it soon.

And what about capitalizing those tags that are capitalized notions in the system (like Resources, CDaU, Superiors etc.)?

M.

Rocket Man 05-27-2009 08:46 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Methariel (Post 796069)
Well, to avoid too many tags being around, I'd propose that you used Resources for Artifacts and Roles as well, eliminating the latter two from the "tags"-list. And what about capitalizing those tags that are capitalized notions in the system (like Roles, Resources, Superiors etc.)?

M.

Capitalizing tags doesn't work; the system automatically lower-cases them.

As far as the other, I see your point, but I must respectfully disagree. "Resources" is an extremely broad category to use for a tag-search; if I'm searching for a thread on Songs, I don't want to have to wade through a bunch of discussions on skills, vessels, and artifacts to get there.

Still, I may be wrong. I'm sure there may be situations I haven't thought of where a broad tag may be useful.

Methariel 05-27-2009 09:00 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
I agree upon it being useful to know at first sight what a thread is about (although they sometimes tend to deviate heavily here ;) ), so maybe the broad "resources" isn't so good an idea as I thought first.
But then you should be consistent and have tags for all different kinds of resources so that none is left out; I believe we all can cope with the number of it.

A broad "resources"-tag might have its uses if you want to discuss something that affected every resource equally, but the only example I have for this would be the spending of character points on resources or the general character point cost of them. But since this is something that is more concerned with game-mechanics than with the in-game effects of whatever resource, I think it should be labeled with the appropriate tag for game mechanics. (By the way, is there one?)

M.

ladyarcana55 05-27-2009 09:02 AM

Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags
 
How about double tagging it in that case? Resources so that we know it's the general category, and the specific type of resource for easier search?

such as...

[Resources-Songs]

[Resources-Relics]


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.