10
\$\begingroup\$

sits on five questions currently.

  • Some are about the d20 system titled "A Game of Thrones."
  • Some are about the setting of the A Song of Ice and Fire books and the Game of Thrones television show.
    • Some of those ^^ are about the setting, and about the system (8 questions as of this writing).

So it seems to me that the GoT tag is doing double-duty: covering a published system and covering a setting employed by multiple game (and other) products.


What to do? I see some options:

  1. Nothing.
  2. Restrict each tag to its published game and remove it from questions where it seems to only be indicating setting; trust that readers will understand that questions about either game necessarily imply the shared setting.
  3. rename to and apply that to questions about the d20 GoT game; leave the ASoIaF tag as is, and create a new tag which describes the setting.

I know it's only a dozen questions, but no path forward strikes me as terribly good. Some of the questions are about each system. Some do really seem to be about the setting. And I, at least, was confused by the dual-usage of the GoT tag.

Are there strong arguments for/against any of the above options? Are there better ideas I haven't thought of? Is this a non-problem, and I should untwist my knickers?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ [Westeros] might be a good name for the setting tag, since it's the name of the setting. \$\endgroup\$ – inthemanual Mar 9 '17 at 17:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If I'm counting it correctly [a-game-of-thrones-setting] just barely fits the max tag length, so that would also be an option. \$\endgroup\$ – diego Mar 9 '17 at 19:37
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @diego you could also drop the "a-" and go with [game-of-thrones-setting]. Not saying I'm sold on even having a setting-name tag, just that you could drop 2 easy characters there. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Mar 9 '17 at 20:10
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @THiebert Technically, Westeros is just the name of the continent (in the west...) where most of the main characters are from. Plenty of action takes place across the Narrow Sea (in what is apparently called Essos, a search tells me, though I can’t claim to recall that name from my own reading). \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 9 '17 at 23:29
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan is there a more accurate name for the world as a whole? \$\endgroup\$ – inthemanual Mar 9 '17 at 23:30
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @THiebert I don’t believe so. I have discovered that the world is canonically round, and this is known at least to people of education in the world, but not any name for the planet. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Mar 9 '17 at 23:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ For what little it's worth, RPGGeek calls the setting “Westeros” regardless. It seems that the setting is generally named by fans after the starring continent, rather that having it mean merely that continent. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 12 '17 at 22:15
13
\$\begingroup\$

This rename has been done now.

Of the remaining four questions (after Arizan removed the tag on their question), two are game-recs about the d20 GoT game[a],[b] (which have now been closed), and one is a question in which GoT is just background to a plotting/campaign-dev problem and the tag doesn't describe that problem (which has had the tag removed now).

That leaves a single open question that might just barely deserve the setting tag. However, it's a “how do I make X character from fictional setting Y in D&D 4e” question. We don't make a setting tag for the Y in every “I want to make X character from Y” question we get, so I suspect it may even be an invalid tag on that last remaining question too.

Which would mean there are only a pair of closed questions that merit the tag used as a system tag. In which case, we would have no present need for a GoT/ASoIaF setting tag at all, since we only have a tag if there are questions for it to live on. We would then kick the can down the road on deciding what to name a setting tag.

I propose that we rename to . Although the proper name is A Game of Thrones and we prefer to have a game's tag match the game's title, we do seem to need to add a disambiguating suffix to the tag. Rather than add -rpg, I propose adding the more specific -d20 because it's far less likely to still be misconstrued as “tag about playing RPGs in the GoT setting”.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ There's precedent for that -d20 suffix: call-of-cthulhu-d20, star-wars-d20, deadlands-d20. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 10 '17 at 17:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is there a reason that multiple uses of the tag are bad? We have a 'spells' tag and a 'skills' tag. 'skills' means something completely different in FATE 2.0 than D&D 3.5 for example. \$\endgroup\$ – Please stop being evil Mar 12 '17 at 17:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer Yes, tags should be singular in meaning. Those are the same concept though: “skills” and “skills”, properly tagged as [skills]. The case here is a tag that means both “Game of Thrones' fictional setting” and “Game of Thrones, the specific published RPG”, which are different concepts, making a tag that means both fail the “specific, well-defined category” requirement to be a proper tag. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 12 '17 at 22:10
4
\$\begingroup\$

My apologies. I appear to be one of the perpetrators of this confusion. I have removed the "a-game-of-thrones" tag from my question in an attempt to revert my mistake.

I suggest a mixture of 2 and 3, as that will help make the tags distinct, and to avert further confusion.

In fact, my own mistake was committed out of ignorance: I searched for an "a-song-of-ice-and-fire-rpg" tag, but when I did not find one, I added the "a-game-of-thrones" tag instead. I was oblivious of the fact there was indeed a "song-of-ice-and-fire-rpg" tag (without the "a") until someone else added it.

I do realise it was incompetence on my own part that was the source of this fault, not unclear tags, but I believe it nevertheless to be positive to make the distinction clearer.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't think you have any cause for apology. Not all tags are self-explanatory when they're first created, and those are exactly the ones that need a good look from the community after a while. You inadvertently brought it to someone's attention, and for that we should be thankful! \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 11 '17 at 4:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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