Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > In Nomine

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 01:34 AM   #11
ISNorden
 
ISNorden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Default 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?
__________________
Ingeborg S. Nordén
ISNorden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 07:33 AM   #12
JCD
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Birthplace of the Worst Pizza on the Planet
Default 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.
JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 08:42 AM   #13
Rocket Man
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
Default Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags

Quote:
Originally Posted by ISNorden View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
[*]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 (IMO, it can replace the outdated sticky for the Asmodeus playtest.)
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking”
--Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor

Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger"
Rocket Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 09:29 AM   #14
ladyarcana55
 
ladyarcana55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellflower, CA
Default Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags

Quote:
Originally Posted by robkelk View Post
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
ladyarcana55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 07:41 PM   #15
robkelk
Untitled
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: between keyboard and chair
Default Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD View Post
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).
__________________
Rob Kelk
“Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
– Bernard Baruch,
Deming (New Mexico) Headlight, 6 January 1950
robkelk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 07:48 PM   #16
Rocket Man
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
Default Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags

Quote:
Originally Posted by robkelk View Post

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"? :)
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking”
--Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor

Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger"
Rocket Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:38 AM   #17
Methariel
 
Methariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Freiburg i. Brsg., Germany
Default 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.
__________________
"In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing."
(Oscar Wilde, "The Importance of Being Earnest" , act 3)

Last edited by Methariel; 05-27-2009 at 09:49 AM. Reason: Making a better post out of it. :)
Methariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:46 AM   #18
Rocket Man
Petitioner: Word of IN Filk
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Longmont, CO
Default Re: [meta] Standardizing Tags

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methariel View Post
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.
__________________
“It's not railroading if you offer the PCs tickets and they stampede to the box office, waving their money. Metaphorically speaking”
--Elizabeth McCoy, In Nomine Line Editor

Author: "What Doesn't Kill Me Makes Me Stronger"

Last edited by Rocket Man; 05-27-2009 at 09:52 AM.
Rocket Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:00 AM   #19
Methariel
 
Methariel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Freiburg i. Brsg., Germany
Default 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.
__________________
"In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing."
(Oscar Wilde, "The Importance of Being Earnest" , act 3)
Methariel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 10:02 AM   #20
ladyarcana55
 
ladyarcana55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellflower, CA
Default 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]
ladyarcana55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
meta, tags

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.