Guidelines regarding thread names and tags

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

We could use 'author explanation' since a Peter Dell'Orto and Phil Masters can (and usually give) explanations about respective books as well.

Not my idea.

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

Why not "custom settings"?

Looks okay.

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

I'd vote for 'IWcustom'

Nah. Looks counter-intuitive.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Pip Boy

We could use 'author explanation' since a Peter Dell'Orto and Phil Masters can (and usually give) explanations about respective books as well.

It would be preferable, but since "Kromm explanation" is already used by several topics I guess we're stuck with what we've got.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Molokh

...So, what have I missed?

Ummm ... you may be missing the probable futility of what you're asking.

[Figleaf23]

I should add, albeit belatedly, that I would be happy to be wrong.

[Mercator]

Originally Posted by Molokh

So, what have I missed?

"Actual play" for accounts of, well, actual game sessions.

Also, I suggest a note urging people not to over-rely on tags and choose thread titles that are clear and precise, and already include the key words of the discussion. I see tags as useful, but secondary to a good title.

M.

(who has had to wade through too many discussions called "a hopefully simple question")

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mercator

(who has had to wade through too many discussions called "a hopefully simple question")

Yeah, that's really annoying.

[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by Mercator

(who has had to wade through too many discussions called "a hopefully simple question")

<SOAPBOX>I think this shows why, although software search tools make finding information easier, it is still a skill that needs to be learnt. As long as people do not understand or care how to correctly categorise data, the world will still need librarians.</SOAPBOX>

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I should add, albeit belatedly, that I would be happy to be wrong.

I too hope that you are wrong in this regard, but I fear not.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

Does anyone have a good idea as for what to call powers*? (to avoid mixing it up with GURPS Powers)

*as in those amazing abilities like shooting lasers out of your eyes or spitting acid.

Unless you are talking about the book, with bells and whistles and power sources, you are basically talking about "advantages."

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Unless you are talking about the book, with bells and whistles and power sources, you are basically talking about "advantages."

"Abilities" is what Powers calls them, referring to any advantage that's been modified in any way. This helps keep them separate from what Powers calls "Powers", which are sets of abilities.

[TJA]

Muahahaha.

Let that stay "suggestions" :D