Is there a functional purpose to putting things in code text here?

Question

Fellow member @SteveC has been doing diligent work editing questions and answers to put the names of Dungeons & Dragons terms into code text: from Toughness to Toughness, as an example. Is there a practical benefit on the site in doing so, or is it just an aesthetic preference?

Return to FAQ Index

Answer 1

Code formatting should never be used for non-code markup.

Semantic markup (like code tags) was not added just to make HTML pages pretty, it was added to make the structural meaning of parts of the page comprehensible to software so that it can be rendered correctly. Misusing it can have unexpected consequences, especially for users who use accessibility software to render the page. For example, visually impaired users might hear code tags spelled out, instead of given spoken emphasis as intended.

Code formatting means code (more generally speaking, a copy-and-paste text target), and is not for giving visual emphasis to stuff that isn't code. To give words emphasis (for technical terms or otherwise) that is correct regardless of how the user is rendering the page, we are obligated to use bold and italic, which are provided by semantic HTML precisely to produce an emphasis effect in all contexts.

Answer 2

I feel that other formatting would be more appropriate than code tags. It's highly unusual for that formatting style to be used for every book title and game term, and some users may not appreciate their questions and answers being edited to include a non-standard formatting type.

It doesn't adhere to the HTML5 specification for the 'code' element, which specifies that it is used to represent a "fragment of computer code", including a string that a computer would recognize such as a filename or program name.

I also feel that in the current design, it breaks the flow of text and makes the proper nouns stand out too much, when simple capitals or italics would suffice.

The following are more standard:

• For D&D spells, lowercase italics: summon monster i
• For book titles, italics: Eberron Campaign Setting
• For proper nouns including D&D magic items and feats, plain capitals: Hand of Vecna, Power Attack, Argonessen, Dragonborn, Monte Cook

Answer 3

I prefer putting special terms in bold font, but can live with the code formatting.

I think SteveC's format for DDI links is sub-optimal though and have been pondering mentioning it. I find having the ddi link sitting all by itself in brackets after each linked term interrupts the text.

Answer 4

Code has just few valid aplications for RPG, it should not be used for others:

• proper code in a programming language
  • by extent command code for a plugin/program/page such as anydice
• pseudocode isn't proper code but highly relies on code structuring

Examples

An example for proper code using BASIC. This is a non-aborting loop that just continiues to print the line 10 onto the screen until the program is manually halted:

10 print this SPAM was made using 2 lines of program code
20 goto 10

An example for command code, using the cmd of your PC to access the system32 folder in windows and then listing the contents:

C:
cd windows\system32\
dir

An example of pseudocode, using the TDE rules for HP at 5 or lower. The formating chosen here is "LSL Style":

if (5>=HP>=0) 
  {
   Dying = FALSE;
   if ("Iron Will" == TRUE)
      {Unconscious = FALSE;}
   else
      {Roll = 1d20;
       if (Roll<=CONstitution)
         {Unconscious = FALSE;}
       else
         {Unconscious = TRUE;}
      }
   }
else if (0>HP)
   {
    Unconscious = TRUE;
    Dying = TRUE;
   }

Answer 5

It has the practical benefit of making keywords standing out.

The way this has been done does not meet my personal aesthetic preference.
Also, it's difficult to define a rule when doing this kind of review.

How Deep?

Which are the terms to be formatted?
If a system has a clear definition for attack, should the word attack be formatted? Should it be formatted when appearing as a noun, as verb or both?

How Far?

Should every keyword and definition in a post be formatted? Some technical answers and questions could become a clutter of formatted keywords that really defeats the purpose of formatting them in first place.
Should someone format only the terms relevant to the question title? The, who defines how distant from the original topic a term is?
Should the formatting being used only on the term's first occurrence in the text or every time the term is used?

Answer 6

Yes. Years ago my D&D group got into a stupid argument over the interpretation of a rule. Shocking, I know. IIRC the debate was whether or not Fireball would clear out a mage's Mirror Images. The text we got hung up on was:

Any successful attack against an image destroys it.

Basically we weren't sure if "attack" was a game term or not. A successfully cast fireball attacks an image. But no attack roll is made, so no game term attack has ever taken place.

I would argue that there should be syntax to indicate what is and isn't meant as a game term. Of the available syntax, code makes sense to me. I also wouldn't want to imply that bold or italics couldn't be used elsewhere because they were reserved for game terms. I see no other use for code text, so why not use it in this way?

That said, most of the time applying code is just being pedantic. I wouldn't use it everywhere, only when it resolves ambiguity.

Answer 7

As mentioned in certain comments, there is a practical benefit to putting things in code text: It changes the appearence of the text. Since a largely text-based site is a visual medium, any form of unusual formatting can be used to highlight or draw attention to important phrases and terms. Of course that's useful!

Yes, it could potentially be overused or used poorly, but you could say the same thing about exclamation marks. Are they useful?

Anyway, highlighting is not the purpose the code text boxes were introduced for, but neither was the stack overflow QA site format designed for questions about role-playing games. In both cases, the new use to which they have been put works for us. What's the problem?