On the main site, we have a and tag. However, these seem like they are vague. For GMs we have and , and everything else I can find that's tagged [gm] seems to boil down to one of those. Similarly with players we have but not really ...

With I'm really tempted to synonym it to after a quick scrub to find any outliers. With I'm more torn, but both seem very unclear in and of themselves. Is asking about killer GMs from a player perspective, learning to GM from a GM perspective, what?

It doesn't help that just about anything in RPG.SE could be tagged player or GM (or, I guess, designer for the rule/setting creation questions). Seems like a meta tag to me. Thoughts?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Probably not an answer, but I'd say that people use them when they know that the question/issue they have involves the player of the GM, but are unsure of exactly what tag to use. Likely, it gets used most by people who are new to the site, or don't use it very often. \$\endgroup\$ – Zach Mar 3 '13 at 21:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd say that the goal of the tags from a user's perspective is to indicate what options are available for solving the problem and therefore appropriate for answers to the question. GMs typically have far wider latitude for changing things than do players. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 4 '13 at 18:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan That sort of stipulation needs to be in the body, not the tags. Tags used that way are describing the intent of the asker rather than the content of the question—we call such meta tags, and they're all but verboten. (Aside, I think this is what has been bothering me about the [system-agnostic] tag. It's being used to prescribe the answers, instead of describing the question content.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 5 '13 at 1:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie I see your point about gm and player, but for system-agnostic: Doesn't that kind of apply to most system tags? I mean, OK, some questions are specific to a given game, but other times the question is a topic that might come up in any number of games, it's just a matter of it having come up in this case for the tagged system, no? \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 5 '13 at 19:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I'm not sure about [system-agnostic], and it's possible that it's just me. I posted a new meta discussion to explore that, and it's being instructive. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 5 '13 at 20:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's worth noting that gm is already proposed as a synonym for dm. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Mar 11 '13 at 14:17

Neither of those tags is particularly descriptive IMO.

I'd be in favor of synonimizing to ,

As far as I'm concerned can be burninated and we wouldn't lose anything (it's not a solo tag anywhere).

I don't think there is any specific reason to tag a question with in that most of the time questions are either going to be asked form the perspective of the player, or they are going to be asked as a or question.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That would be a bit destructive. For instance: How to handle a 'power-GM'? would go from gm players social to gm-techniques social, which is... wrong. If some finesse were applied to these questions, it'd be better. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 6 '13 at 13:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener you're right, but I'd argue it's currently mistagged already. I've re-tagged it social, problem-gm \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Mar 6 '13 at 13:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Quite possibly! I'm not sure how it would be better tagged though. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 6 '13 at 13:51
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ new tag: problem-gm fits and corresponds to problem-players \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Mar 6 '13 at 13:51
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Should there be a player-techniques to be parallel to gm-techniques? As I go look through player and gm tags, some are being used as a subject and some as a direct object - "How does a player help their GM" is tagged [players] [GM]. Clearly gm-techniques is wrong - player-techniques would be better, and then omit the gm? \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Mar 11 '13 at 0:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk I like it. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Mar 11 '13 at 1:37

I'm in favour of a synonym from to .

I think doesn't have much value, except that people will type it in. I think a synonym to may be an improvement. People will still try adding it, and a synonym to something like would be better than trying to keep it off the site. It's usually used in questions about how to handle players (who may not qualify as ), but that usually means it's a issue.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd be happy for tighter tagging to emerge, but the fact that no one has had a better idea and self-tagged using it means it's unlikely there is one and if there is, definitely unlikely to be intuitive and used organically. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Mar 5 '13 at 15:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk Yeah, and it's an off topic distraction here. I withdraw the reservation: either way, a synonym to [gm-techniques] is definitely an improvement. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 5 '13 at 20:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 Both those synonyms would be very helpful. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 6 '13 at 13:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .