5
\$\begingroup\$

I find the current tagging for world of darkness to be quite confusing. what's the purpose of this? it seems to refer to what is now canonically known as "classic world of darkness" not what is officially referred to as "world of darkness" also known as "new world of darkness" by fans.

with "world of darkness" 2.0 announced/coming out/out (whatever pseudo state it's in) it's even more confusing. So if I want to ask a thematic question about the new "world of darkness" do I tag it ? or and ? because it's been stated, for example, that even though Belials Brood doesn't appear in the Vampire the Requiem 2 core book, they still exist in the setting (meaning they are attempting to retain fluff). if the question is about is that or ?

On that note, how does still make sense, I know the origin, but the rules are being reslated as 2.0.

Does it make sense to tag things ? for example? or should we require two tags ? and if we use what does that mean then? version 1? any version? is even worse on this because technically it's v1 uses wod v2 rules

Basically I'm confused about the current state of the tags and how to tag thematic questions, or questions regarding updates, or questions that may otherwise span games.

update I've asked these questions which apply to bother and but do not apply to classic (which the tag wiki says VtM is the flagship and thus this represents classic and not new).

this question was written to resolve how I should be tagging so I can stop arguing with people on here, and to hopefully remove ambiguity. I would like to see tag updates as a result of the answers, but if there is a clear answer which explains how and why I should use the existing tags that is acceptable (such an answer must explain why a promethean question would get lumped in with vampire the masquerade, and/or why my questions are unacceptable as both). Also if we are deciding to use the pan I would like to see a question that equally applies to cwod, nwod, and nwod2

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Before proceeding, it's useful to review the discussions from Dec 2011 and from Apr 2013. Yes, it's a mess. Various efforts to iron it out are ongoing, but somewhat on pause due waiting on the recent edition renaming's effect on the community to shake out. We could really use your expertise for the taggging cleanup, once you've reviewed the state of affairs, since we've few WoD experts. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 8 '14 at 5:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Welcome to the world-of-darkness fandom. (That's fandom of the tag, as opposed to just fandom of the subject matter. :) We've been trying to balance useful and clear for a while now. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 8 '14 at 11:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ At some stage this week I will product a number of graphics to aid in this discussion. \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 9 '14 at 3:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ xenoterracide and I generally have a disagreement about tagging and wod editions. I am busy at the moment, but I will return to this discussion after more thought later this week. I will return with diagrams showing the state of the world first, then later return with my opinions on how our tagging should reflect the world as represented in the diagrams. Til then I will be keeping up with maintaining: meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/4773/… \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 9 '14 at 3:13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This whole "World of Darkness" mess really is a world of darkness, isn't it. \$\endgroup\$ – Aza Sep 9 '14 at 3:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Emrakul Especially since it's not like the tag confusion is stopping people from asking, finding, or answering questions. It's almost purely aesthetic on the part of tag-fanciers. :) \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 9 '14 at 19:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jadasc I would care less if there was less, you're tagging these wrong, no don't add both systems, no don't create a new tag because... no that doesn't apply. I basically want to resolve the issue so I can stop dealing with being told I tag every questions wrongly because I'm using nwod 1 and 2. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 19:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide From my point of view? If you're legitimately using a blend of pre- and post-GMC content in your game and are okay with answers that reference both, it's cool to have both tags. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 9 '14 at 19:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jadasc I personally concur, but not everyone sees it that way, and get upity when both are used. So I'm trying to solve their problem, in a way that also works for me. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 19:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ We have a discussion, on the particularities of the nwod-god-machine tag here, meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/4773/… I think what is going on there is more or less right for what is on and off topic for, [nwod-god-machine] (to be renamed nwod-2 or similar). Discussion of what is on or off topic for that particular tag and its interaction with the [nwod] tag should go there. Though i think a strong concensus has been reached (comminty view could change), and has been implemented. \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 10 '14 at 6:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Oxinabox looking at the answers it's hard to say what a concensus was about usage. Perhaps you should just sum it up in what you believe it was answer here. Because obviously there's still some confusion given the fussing around the dual tagging of rpg.stackexchange.com/q/47454/1015 and it didn't well covert the problem of 2e on specific games. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 10 '14 at 12:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You all may want to discuss this in chat. So far this is a huge mess with answers largely augmented by 50 comments and with no answer over 2 votes so as a mod I declare this currently unactionable. Maybe discuss it then put together a consensus plan and get folks to vote for it? \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Sep 13 '14 at 18:11
9
\$\begingroup\$

I'm going to chime in with my own organisation proposal here, based on what I've learned from the D&D and Fate tags, which have fairly robust tagging.

That might be surprising, since I don't play these games and you've probably never seen me active in their questions. I have lurked though and learned about how your rules are organised, and recently in light of these issues you're experiencing I've tried to learn more (e.g. with help in chat). This might work out, or it might be terrible, or it might at least satisfy some of your needs and give you something else to build on.

My understanding I'm operating on

If I've made grevious errors in my understanding of the structure of your rules, please let me know.

My understanding is that the structure of the World of Darkness books can be broken down like this:

  • Old/Classic World of Darkness. No core book. A series of splash books (e.g. Vampire the Masquerade), each covering a type of creature for play.
  • New World of Darkness. Core book, new version of each splash (e.g. Vampire the Requiem).
  • God Machine Chronicles comes out. It's effectively a new splash, except it also comes with a nWoD rules update. New versions of each splash (e.g. Blood & Smoke) are released for this rules update.
  • New World of Darkness Second Edition. This incorporates the rules update of God Machine Chronicles.

If we consider how we'd version these, I think it's something like this:

  • oWoD = version 1.
  • nWoD = version 2.
  • nWoD 2e = basically version 2.5, since it's a rules update but not exactly a whole new version in its own right.
    • god machine chronicles's rules update provided the .5 to be added to nWoD. Now that .5 has been formally added in a new release.

Each version of the game has its own splashes attached. These are basically their own game. You don’t play nWoD, so much as you play Vampire: the Requiem. You can mix these together though and play that with Mage: the Awakening, but you have to be careful with doing so.

Because each splash is its own game, it needs its own tag. Even the rules updates like B&S, so as to connect experts with questions on that topic, and to make it clear whether an NWOD 2e player is using the rules update or not.

Here's how I'd structure this in tags

  • for questions about the World of Darkness line of games and settings in general. You may end up using this, or you may not, so use it if and when you eventually need it. See for an example of the questions something like this might contain: it might generally involve version comparison questions, or historical questions, or questions about consistent design choices, or so on.

Now, for splashes: there's several splash lines. Each splash gets its own tag if it's something new altogether, including if it totally supersedes an old splash. Rule of thumb: if you leave the other books on the shelf when playing with this one, it probably deserves its own tag.

So the overall structure comes to:

(Tags are named after the book titles: no '1e' for Vampire: the Requiem or anything else, because the book isn't titled that way. D&D deals with this just fine with and .)

Questions get tagged with the core edition & game(s) the player is running:

Would that work at all well?

Let me know if something's broken, or I've mistaken something in my understanding of how your game works, or I've done something stupid somewhere.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd personally lean towards removing blood-and-smoke from all examples, having only vampire-the-requiem. For the same reason that we want to remove the phrase God Machine Chronicles, Blood and Smoke is only the first of several books using updated rules, heavily laden with flavor and theme independent of the rules updates. \$\endgroup\$ – SurrealAnalysis Sep 15 '14 at 4:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SurrealAnalysis So is it not so much its own thing, as a significant expansion on Vampire: the Requiem, and possibly one of many such expansions? (And similar might occur to the other nWoD splash lines?) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 15 '14 at 4:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SurrealAnalysis I'm currently inclined to leave Blood & Smoke in there, considering it is a completely new ruleset (to the extent that, if I understand correctly, you'd leave your VTR book on the shelf - unless you wanted fluff from it.) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 15 '14 at 5:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ it is worth saying for clarity, blood-and-smoke is going to be rereleased as is after "rebranding" basically the cover will become "Vampire the Requiem, 2e" copyright updates, etc, but no functional changes. (so the question is whether we need a VtR 2e tag (a B&S won't really make sense.) \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 15 '14 at 14:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ I support @xenoterracide's suggestion for vampire-the-requiem-2e. I had missed this post: theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition which suggests it is a much more standardized and unified switch to 2nd edition (their words) then I thought before. \$\endgroup\$ – SurrealAnalysis Sep 15 '14 at 14:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ also nwod-godmachine and nwod-2e are basicallly synonyms and I don't think anyone disagree's with that. Someone should probably open a thread to just migrate the existing tags, and then make the synonym. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 15 '14 at 14:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SurrealAnalysis a question, if we do that, is does the 2e come from VtR? or the core rules? should Demon and Beast be 2e or 1e? (because they both have no nwod 1 editions) \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 15 '14 at 14:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would say Demon / Beast do not have a 2e clarification. vampire-the-requiem-1e, vampire-the-requiem-2e, demon-the-descent \$\endgroup\$ – SurrealAnalysis Sep 15 '14 at 14:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ (note: I'm temporarily downvoting until the answer reflects the clarifications of gmc/2e, b&s/vtr2, and demon (only being a 2e). \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 15 '14 at 14:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ I haven't tagged based on stuff that isn't out yet deliberately - retag and deal with synonyms at that point rather than before. I'm focusing on getting present products in order. Unless it's totally guaranteed that VtR 2e will be an identical product to b&s with a new name and absolutely no other changes, and that nwod 2e is exactly just nwod + God machine and no other changes, or its close enough we can definitely say they're the same? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 15 '14 at 14:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Not 100%, but virtually no changes. From the like I posted before, "We’ll make a few cosmetic changes to Blood and Smoke and re-release it as Vampire: The Requiem, Second Edition." \$\endgroup\$ – SurrealAnalysis Sep 15 '14 at 15:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I like this but let's use the longer "new-world-of-darkness" style for legibility and SEO. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Sep 15 '14 at 22:44
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ i like it, let's do it \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Sep 16 '14 at 2:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide I think so: you only have 5 tags, so limit redundancy as much as possible. If it only addresses one edition, tag it accordingly. If it's tagged owod/nwod that's already pretty clear what it's about. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 16 '14 at 14:24
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Depends. How much is it being used for what purpose today? If in 90% of cases it's being used as "owod" then we should just synonym-merge-unsynonym it and then fix the remaining 10%. If it's used 90% in conformance with the new scheme, then yeah, go take it off. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Sep 16 '14 at 15:29
2
\$\begingroup\$

Let me stop my endless comment chain and put forward a proposal:

I still think the umbrella tag is useful, since pan-WoD fandom continues to be a thing in a way that pan-edition-D&D or L5R isn't so much. But I think this is a good core to start from.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ my only comment on this, is I don't like the lack of specification of 1st edition, as it leaves that ambiguity. which is why I sugested -1 and -2, because without it it makes you wonder if it refers to -1 or both \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 1:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide I can see that. My answer is that when you've only got two editions, the one that isn't two is one. If people start calling the old games "first edition," I'd consider it. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 9 '14 at 2:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ also what do we do in regards to questions that are, for example only tagged werewolf-the-forsaken I know I have a few like that. When 2e comes out (should be soon) is that 1 or 2 \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 2:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide My personal schema says "Tag them with one of the nwod tags, too." I stand by an older post that says that in the broader scheme of things, the game is World of Darkness and the splat is analogous to "class" or "template." On the other hand, it's one of my more out-there ideas. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 9 '14 at 2:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ it's only real flaw is that there is nothing mandatory about it, and werewolf-the-forsaken always implies some form of nwod, much like saying Fedora, implies Linux in on U&L SE. Sure you can tag linux, but it's not actually necessary there. In other worsds, it's not self policing, (much perhaps like my -universe) \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 3:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ also wod-20th... is kind of like oWoD 3e, I think, though honestly I'm quite removed from it, I only really brought it up here, because technically "World of Darkness" is the core book for nwod, and AFAIK there is no "world of darkness" book in classic. The current nwod marketing is that "World of Darkness" refers to nwod 1, and 2, and that Classic should be the prefix for VtM and such. Thus I dislike the tag because of pedantic fandom reasons. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 3:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ this answer doesn't really fully address the problem with questions that don't apply to owod, but apply to both nwod systems. (which is en largess, the problem I'm trying to resolve) \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 12 '14 at 22:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ also, I've updated my question, to clarify it, in regards to my confusion over owod, nwod, nwod2 \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 12 '14 at 22:34
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Let's not postfix for no reason; the tag autocomplete does subsearches. I'd think "classic-world-of-darkness" and "new-world-of-darkness" are fine. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Sep 15 '14 at 2:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also - do we really need to distinguish god-machine? Even the Onyx Path forums don't bother with a different forum or subject line tag for it, forum.theonyxpath.com \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Sep 15 '14 at 2:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk I think we do, if only because of the degree of mechanical change, and because as the 2e versions become more widespread, there's going to be more call for edition specific answers. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 15 '14 at 4:50
0
\$\begingroup\$

as sort of a proposal, I believe we should burninate there isn't enough similarity between classic and new for it to be useful. After we migrate it to a (although would be closer to nwod) (maybe on the name cwod, owod, and long versions would make sense for synonyms)

we should then rename and to and respectively, because it's consistent. Although programmatically I prefer this postfix version, we could do which is nicer linguistically, and then tag synonym the postfix for typing world of...

I believe that we need a -universe tag, to deal with things like Belial's Brood which is mentioned currently only in 1e, but was stated as an official response to exist in 2e, as well as Demons and Angels which only have 2e rules, but technically existed without rules in 1e. It is also important for questions where you may currently be playing. The storytelling is more emphasized than the mechanics. I would like to state that I define fluff as things I can simply describe, where as mechanics count as dots, and rolls. For example Obfuscate exists in all World of Darkness games (including VtM) and I believe the core concept has never really changed, though dots and detail may have in some cases -universe should be fluff only. This is an attempt to address what is (according to @Oxinabox) a consensus that you should not tag both rule systems. However due to single universe one or the other is not necessarily relevant. I would be ok with tagging with all perceived acceptable systems. I just want to resolve the issue of multiple acceptable systems.

for specific games they should also follow which could then be tagged with if someone was trying to convert something to those rules, for example.

since long versions seem to be preferred, we should also make tag synonyms for nwod-*, cwod,owod, etc.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I broadly agree with this. However, I feel that the nwod tag you propose for non-rules questions needs to be changed to make it's intended use clearer. Just using nwod is likely to make people assume it is a general tag in the same vein as dungeons-and-dragons \$\endgroup\$ – Wibbs Sep 8 '14 at 9:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Phil hmm... could do nwod-universe or maybe just make it clear in the tag wiki... \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 8 '14 at 13:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ the latter option of course assumes that everyone reads the tag wikis... ;o) \$\endgroup\$ – Wibbs Sep 8 '14 at 13:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @phil of course, though I'd hope most people glance at the blurbs when adding. still -universe is fairly clear and not overloaded in any weird ways. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 8 '14 at 13:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd put this forward: "CWOD" gets 100K hits on Google; "NWOD" gets about 440K, "World of Darkness" gets 3.9 million. It's a more popular search term by an order of magnitude. I think removing it from the tag is a bad call. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 8 '14 at 22:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jadasc maybe we should call them world-of-darkness-new and world-of-darkness-classic and remove nwod (I like postfix, because it's easier to remember to type world...) problem is that world-of-darkness is general but all questions tagged with it are only related to classic world of darkness (as now branded) \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 8 '14 at 22:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide As it happens, this is one of the solutions proposed in one of the other threads. :) \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 8 '14 at 22:35
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Jadasc I remember, I brought it back up because I feel like the process, went stale. Willing to update my answer if you prefer the long variants, note that should be -new*, short variant synonyms become important though. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 8 '14 at 22:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jadasc proposal better? \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 8 '14 at 23:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide Some! I think the tag that resolves to WoDNU is a touch too long and doesn't explain itself all that well -- I think in cases where the information is true for nWoD 1 and nWoD 2, we just have both tags and have done with it, perhaps? \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 8 '14 at 23:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ as long as @Oxinabox is ok with that... he seemed to be sort of opposed to just tagging both when I was doing it previously, IIRC. Something about the editions being so different. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 0:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jadasc I did tag one question nwod-universe already, if my tag wiki makes it more clear... and how I would intend to use it (easily updated question of course) \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 1:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide Just read it…and I'm still confused. The tag wiki says "not for questions that involve rules," and yet every answer to your question involves rules or systems in one way or another. I could see the use of a tag for questions about lore, fiction, or philosophy, but even those seem to be tied to at least one system, and your question is definitely linked to game play. What you want is an umbrella tag -- which you've said you want to burn -- or whatever matches the version you're running. \$\endgroup\$ – Jadasc Sep 9 '14 at 1:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jadasc yes, but I want to burn the one that is for all ... 6 editions, cwod, and nwod are only remotely related, and I can't see any questions that apply to both. where as the answer regarding belial's brood, applies to both even though the brood isn't mentioned in 2e (though maybe the question I tagged is actually a good example of abuse and you're right, my thought is the question is general, but the answers aren't) \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 9 '14 at 1:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Please don't make unilateral edits to tag wikis to match your proposal when your proposal does not yet have consensus backing. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 12 '14 at 21:22
0
\$\begingroup\$

Ok, I am going to throw some ideas out in this answer, because it is too long for a comment.

I am going to use owod and cwod interchangably throughout this post. They are the same thing, owod == old world of darkness (opposite of nwod), cwod == classic world of darkness

owod 1st ed, owod revised, owod 20th anniversary.

As I understand it, revised just incorporates more or less an errata. 20th anniversary incorporates another errata, and adds rules for things that weren't invented when owod first came out -- like mobile phones and the internet.

Thus these all deserve one-tag between them, if it matters that a question is not using the errata then it can be clarified in the post.

(Correct me if I am wrong, I am not really too cluey about oWoD, I'll mark this community wiki).

Commonality between all three systems(owod, nwod 1.0, nwod 2.0):

Setting elements

They all have vampires, wizards, werewolves... but so does Dresden-files. So does Buffy. So does Supernatural. (all of which have RPGs). Things that are common between all 3 editions, are common in all urban fantasy. If someone is in a situation where they have a question that general, they should use a more generic tag.

("What does the average modern person know about vampires?" would go under a tag (since it is actually asking about characters, who are in the dark about setting specific elements anyway) , "How to create dark atmosphere?" would go under a and maybe )

But really, they are not asking a WoD question at this point.

There is no real usecase for a tag for setting elements common across all 3 editions.

Setting elements the asker assumes (or even knows) to be common to both editions should use the tag for the game they are playing. Since they could be wrong about that assumption, and it could change with new books coming out.

If the goal is to compare elements between the editions, eg "What happend to the Malkavian Clan?" then this is a good use for using two tags. It is specifically to two editions.

When WoD reachs truely deep numbers of editions like dnd has, by that stage it might be worth having a global that is for questions like "How have vampires changed across WoD editions?", but for now that isn't useful. It is better to not have that global tag their to confuse people.

Rules

The rules are boardly similar, but so are the rules for Sion and Exhalted.

In general small difference in rules matter. People come to the site when things are unclear, and alot of that time it is boarder cases when things are unclear.

Small differences in rules matter enough for the tagging to change. The exception being if the difference is from using an erata, as I suggest the owod editions are, and that nwod-gmc is not. (Dark Heresy for example has had 3 erratas, we do not have 4 different DH tags)

So common rules is no motivation for a common tag.

No reason for a common tag across all 3 editions.

  • Common Setting elements are also common to all
  • Rules are not similar enough to be useful

The only concrete thing they have in common is the current rights holder (not even a common publisher). and any question that is , is going to be along the lines of "What is Onyx Path's policy on Fan-created Books?", not a WoD question at all.

nwod 1.0 vs nwod 2.0

See discussion: Lets get a clear consensus on the use of [nwod] vs [nwod-god-machine]

The issue we have right now, is that over the next few years, onyx path will finish republishing all the content they intend to cross over. Right now there is the implict (and sometimes explict) understanding that most nwod 1.0 supernaturals are assumed to exist in nwod 2.0. Eventually, all of them will come across. But as we have seen with Vampire, and from what I have heard of Werewolf, and from how Second Sight minors were merged into core, they will not make the transition without major changes.

Such questions have the final purpose of being used with and should be tagged as such. Given time, the new books will be out and they will have canonical nwod-2.0 answers, that will be better than anything from nwod-1.0. People looking to answer will for now be familiar with both systems, and by the time that is no longer the case, all content that is going to be offically republished will have been. Thus in those cases is all that is needed.

This is distinct from questions specifically about the differenced between nwod-1.0 and nwod-2.0 which definately should be tagged with both.

There is also the case of asking how to do the conversion, which is more problematic, think should be tagged with both, (I don't know if we have seen any such questions though so this may be moot)

Questions that are for final use with nwod-2.0 include:

  • Qashmallim, and the similarity to Angels? : which will actually I believe be concretely answered in the Promethean: The Created Second Edition, coming out in Spring. Til then speculation can be made based on the existing nwod-1.0 books. But it is speculation.
  • How can I make a shapeshifter that takes human forms? The question asker is playing nwod-2.0, but is willing to port content from 1.0. Since as GM he can create new supernaturals, and since is is going to have to do alot of rules work anyway, limiting the scope to things that have appeared in a past edition of the setting is likely unnesc. He just wants to know about shape-shifting monsters. This question I think might be better tagged: [nwod-god-machine] [urban-fantasy]

We will be wrong

An issue we will see with questions about 1.0 setting elements in 2.0, is that we will be wrong. That is Ok however, so long as it is clear.

If someone had asked me before Blood and Smoke (aka VTR 2.0) came out: "Could I have a GMC plot, where the party ambusses vampires while they are sleeping and kills them by openind the blinds?, I am willing to port content from 1.0", I would say "Sure here are the 1.0 rules that support this idea. It will be a fairly easy fight, so easy that I don't think vampires would be foolish enough to be in such a position" but now with 2.0 my answer would be: "Sure, but it will be hard. Sunlight hurts vampires abit, but not enough to disable them before they kill half the party. Their occult checked should tell them this. They might be better off barricading the doors and torching the place."

Some questions will be unanswerable:

"If a changeling takes a physical condition, eg Blinded, with-in a dreamfight, what happens when he wakes up?"

We can speculate but can not answer. We strongly expect there to be changeling in God Machine, but we have no rules.

I think between nwod-1.0 and nwod-2.0 we are doing the right thing.

I asked about this in Lets get a clear consensus on the use of [nwod] vs [nwod-god-machine]

I believe there is enough clearness there to solve any issues.

Applying it to the example questions:

  • Qashmallim, and the similarity to Angels? This is actually a different question dependign on if it is tagged or . It if it about then the answer will be based on the Sample Adventure from Saturnine Night and on the core "Secret Histories", if it is then it is based on the paragraph from GMC-RU and whatever can be gleaned from demon, as well as the upcoming Promethean 2nd edition. If it is tagged both then it can not get a really good answer. Because the God Machine is presented differently between the books.
  • How can I make a shapeshifter that takes human forms? This question is very broad. It is asking about something to use with nwod-2.0. It wants to take inspiration from nwod-1.0, but it is for nwod-2.0. The nwod-1.0 tag might attract people from 1.0 who can answer, but that is similar to asking a question about and also tagging it on Unix.SE. While answers for might help and you might be willing to convert them, its not actually about
  • Does Blood and Smoke invalidate previous Vampire books? is the a listed example of something that should use both, it is asking wether books from one can be used for the other (and the answer is no)
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I like this answer, though I think that the Qashmallim aspect is not entirely fair, as it's only asking about lore, I expect that they will not go away, so the answers may change, right now we're fuzzy, hopefully PtC2 will make it clear. The shapeshifter question you have a point, though in Unix SE I would suggest tagging it with shell but I think part of my question has been trying to find an acceptable way to do shell. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 13 '14 at 2:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Qashmallim: Lore problem; Shapeshifter: Transitional Problem; B&S: Transitional Problem \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 13 '14 at 2:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Other thing with the Qashmallim question is that I'm not entirely sure God Machine Angels even exist in nwod-1.0. I think it is a fantastic nwod-2.0 question, that for now will have to be answered primarily with speculation from nwod-1.0 resources. But i think it is a nwod-2.0 question. \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 13 '14 at 3:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ actually Demon mentions that their is an Angel in a PtC thing (IIRC) I found references to them in 1.0 games. Also worth noting I run bash and zsh on my systems, so if I were scripting, I'd either have to tag those or posix (again, we don't have a good "posix" variant) as I can't rely on tagging bash to get code that works in zsh. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 13 '14 at 4:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough, as I said I wasn't sure if there were angels in 1.0. Good to know there are. I think this shell analogy is good. To coninue using it. We don't have a posix tag because that doesn't exist in the world. Both zsh and bash are extentions to the features required by posix standard. the different WoD editions are not both extentions to a underlying standard (Fate systems on the other hand Are) I suggest that if nwod-1.0 is bash then nwod-2.0 is more like fish. While they look similar at first, they are so different that there is no point grouping them. \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 13 '14 at 4:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I suggest that the shell equivalent, for when you need a thing that is for bash and zsh and fish is [urban-fantasy] meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/4956/… \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 13 '14 at 4:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I object strongly to the usage of [urban-fantasy] for broad questions: "What does the average person know about vampires?" is basically unanswerable in that scope. Preserve a broad [world-of-darkness] tag for situations like that; then you can work on WoD's own assumptions, and if they vary from edition to edition, you have 3 editions to address rather than any urban fantasy story at all. We could likewise ask what the average person knows about demons, and that's totally unanswerable in the [fantasy] scope, but answerable within specific settings (e.g. [golarion], [points-of-light], etc) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 13 '14 at 6:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Essentially, if you're asking about urban fantasy in general in some useful sense, go ahead. But if you're asking about WoD and pretending it's the same as generic urban fantasy, that's littering the [urban-fantasy] tag space, like it would be if we decided generic D&D questions were the same as generic [fantasy] questions. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 13 '14 at 6:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ thank you for bring this here doppelgreener. I see your point. I still think there is insufficient in common (and too much that contradicts) between the 3 WoD editions to merit a tag for cross edition lore. \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 13 '14 at 6:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The same is experienced in [dungeons-and-dragons]: such questions mainly boil down to comparisons between the vastly different elements of each edition. Still, you do need a broad system tag for any such questions that do exist. [urban-fantasy] will not help you - you need a [world-of-darkness] tag to say "this is talking about the assumptions generally present in WoD's settings". \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 13 '14 at 6:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have clarified what I mean by use [urban-fantasy]. Directly comparing editions should use both tags. Setting elements the asker assumes (or even knows) to be common to both editions should use the tag for the game they are playing. \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 13 '14 at 6:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Oxinabox "what happened to the malkavian clan" in my opinion is a good example of a bad cross question. Again these are different worlds, in cwod, malkavian still exists AFAIK (or if it doesn't what happened is a different answer) in Nwod they never existed (Malkovians are not the same thing), Malkavians did not become Malkovians. A better question might be, how can I create a Malkavian in nwod. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 13 '14 at 14:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Oxinabox so if I ask a question about "Belial's Brood" in my mixed bag rules game (because we started a WtF on GMC rules, but WtF2 isn't out yet)... what should I tag that? (note: VtR doesn't mention the Brood, but Onyx Path response on site was they still exist). There is 0 2.0 material at this time, and my game isn't pure 2.0. \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 13 '14 at 14:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener would love to see a really good example of a question that applies to all 3 versions \$\endgroup\$ – xenoterracide Sep 13 '14 at 14:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide don't need one. Just telling you: if you're asking about all 3 versions, that doesn't make it an [urban-fantasy] question. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 13 '14 at 16:06
0
\$\begingroup\$

This question is failing to achieve consensus. Evidenced by the fact that most answers have equal number of upvotes and downvotesm and even the best has multiple downvotes.

Last time this was tried, the implementation did not occur, even with the stronger concusses.

Possibly this is because it is too big to get a handle on.

This answer suggests that it may be better to not tackle the problem all at once, but subpoint, by subpoint. This has been happening and has been making forward progress:

Thus in this answer I recommend the creation of more meta questions focussing on fixing specific issues with WoD Tagging.

This is community wiki, feel free to add more targetted questions here.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I dunno man, my answer's sitting at +7/-1, that sounds like consensus achieved, especially on a topic that historically has low votes. Last time it was tried, did anyone follow it up by actually doing any retagging? I'm not convinced this needs more meta topics: there's a big-picture solution now that appears to have significant agreement, and it just requires doing stuff now. What more do you need? Why is the solution to have even more meta questions? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 17 '14 at 23:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree, your answer is achieving consensus, it was less clearly getting concencus when this was written. I just wanted to put this out there as an option. It is not my preferred option, but on that i thought was worth baring in mind \$\endgroup\$ – Lyndon White Sep 18 '14 at 0:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, I just saw this was posted 2 days ago, around the time of my own answer. Timestamps earlier said it was just from yesterday. So I misunderstood the circumstances under which you posted this, I apologise. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Sep 18 '14 at 0:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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