5
\$\begingroup\$

There is an tag that I've recently seen edited into a couple dozen questions. I searched and noticed that there are 300+ results for posts including "antimagic" and all but a handful of them are also tagged for , , or .

By contrast, we don't have tags for or , yet there a few dozen more posts about D&D's counterspell than than antimagic field and 500+ about dispel magic. (I picked those two for contrast because they have similar use cases to antimagic field.) There is, however, a tag that seems to sound system-agnostic, although there doesn't seem to be any tag associated with the dispel magic concept.

This scenario seems inconsistent to me for two reasons.

  1. I thought we don't usually tag for system-specific concepts like one particular spell in one (admittedly overwhelmingly popular) family of games.

  2. If we tag for that one particular spell (antimagic field), it seems we also ought to tag for those related spells that happen to be more popular topics here (counterspell and dispel magic).

  3. If we're going to tag for a concept related to areas that suppress magic then I would think at the very least the tag should be named in a system-agnostic fashion, such as simply or along with any necessary helpful tag synonyms pointing to them.

What is the appropriate resolution to this (as I perceive it) inconsistent tag scenario?

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$
  1. I thought we don't usually tag for system-specific concepts like one particular spell in one (admittedly overwhelmingly popular) family of games.

We do tag for system-specific concepts, e.g. we do have (mostly Fate) or (mostly the D&D family, including Pathfinder). We don't tag for specific spells because there's a million of them: Should we be tagging individual spells?

  1. If we tag for that one particular spell (antimagic field), it seems we also ought to tag for those related spells that happen to be more popular topics here (counterspell and dispel magic).

That's something we could do. They're specific unique mechanics with rules unto themselves. We shouldn't do them for consistency with antimagic though (that's not a reason to have a tag); we should do it if we decide those things are worth tagging in and of themselves.

It just so happens antimagic is a large weird subject with lots of weirdness connected to it, so I feel the tag's worthwhile.

(Actually SevenSidedDie pointed out in comments there is in fact already a tag; I've made an alias of it.)

  1. If we're going to tag for a concept related to areas that suppress magic then I would think at the very least the tag should be named in a system-agnostic fashion, such as simply or along with any necessary helpful tag synonyms pointing to them.

Right now there's only two systems I know of that have antimagic:

  1. The D&D family, where it exists as a field.
  2. Warhammer Fantasy or 40k, where it also exists as a field.

We don't need to go for a system-agnostic name unless it actually helps the tag apply to other situations where we need it. As in: until the naming is a problem, we don't need to change it.

Right now since the antimagic we're tagging is always an antimagic field, it's fine described as-is.

If there were questions about antimagic that isn't a field then maybe we'd have [antimagic]. There's no benefit in going to a term no games are using ([magic-suppression]).

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The important thing to take away from the latter half of this answer is that the tag is for the topic of antimagic fields, not specifically the spell antimagic field, and the matching name is only coincidence because the name of the spell happens to use the name of the larger topic. There is actually consistency with [counterspelling]: the tag name is the noun (“-ing”) for our recurring topic of countering spells, because it comes up a lot, and the tag isn’t named after specifically the spell counterspell. I.e., if dispelling magic needed a tag, it’d be [dispelling-magic] or similar. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jul 27 '18 at 15:21
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ (Personally I think the tag should be [antimagic] because it needn’t always be a field—IIRC there is at least one way to make a thin shell of antimagic in D&D—and it would look less like “tag for the spell”, but I don't feel that it’s currently clearly necessary enough to go altering the status quo.) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jul 27 '18 at 15:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie: I'd agree with a proposal to change the tag to [antimagic]. Though it'd need to be clear from the tag info whether there's any overlap with [counterspelling], and whether "dispel magic"-related questions would fall under it as well. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 27 '18 at 18:33
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The potential that "antimagic" sounds sorta like "countermagic" is part of why I'm a fan of keeping "antimagic field" as the tag for now. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jul 27 '18 at 18:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I can see both those issues balancing enough to just leave it as-is for now. If it ends up with issues, that might be a useful change then. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jul 27 '18 at 20:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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