21
\$\begingroup\$

I play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (aka 1e) and have for quite some time. Mostly I've been the DM. I've started to ask questions here about the rules to help better understand the game as it was written.

When I ask a question, I tag it . The tag description says it refers to 1e. This clarification was called out in a meta post - adnd is 1e

Most times when I ask a question, someone comes along and asks in the comments: "What version of dungeons and dragons are you playing?" or "Are you actually playing the 197x version".

I don't expect this to go away, but it's annoying and I'd love to have a canned response I can give the commenters. What's the appropriate response for someone who tries to disbelieve my tag?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ For reference, it has come up on a comment on these mainsite questions (some of those comments have since been cleaned up): Is there a standard frequency for wandering monster checks in a dungeon?, How does a non-thief listen at doors? There have also been other questions where people seem to have confused the [adnd] tag for the general [dungeons-and-dragons] tag or that of a different edition besides 1e/2e. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 21 at 23:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And, of course, you preemptively clarified it in the question itself here: What is the carrying capacity of a large pouch? \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 21 at 23:14
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast HA! It's true, I have preemptively clarified there, but I'd rather not have to include a standard footer ;) \$\endgroup\$ – munk Jul 21 at 23:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast I'm guessing there's a reason why the tag can't be renamed to include 1e in it for clarity? IIRC mods have tools for mass-renaming a tag? If yes, then why not rename it? \$\endgroup\$ – vicky_molokh Jul 22 at 8:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @vicky_molokh: The tag already has [adnd-1e] (and [adnd-1.0]) as synonyms. We could change which was the main tag if there were a strong push for it, though in the past meta discussion linked in the post, there seemed to be agreement with [adnd] staying as it is now. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 22 at 8:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast Well, maybe proposing such a solution would be useful (but I don't have enough of a dog in the AD&D race to be the go-to candidate for phrasing one). \$\endgroup\$ – vicky_molokh Jul 22 at 9:12
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ In case you missed it, munk, we do have a discussion about changing tag:adnd-1e to the main tag. As one of the primary users of the tag, your input would be most welcome. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 24 at 1:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I did not see this, thank you for the heads up! \$\endgroup\$ – munk Jul 24 at 3:36
13
\$\begingroup\$

A short confirming "yes, I play 1e", understanding what they are doing.

I am going to highlight some of the things people1 coming to your questions are seeing.

  • A relatively low rep user (don't worry about it, we've all been that at some point)

  • Asking fairly short to one-liner questions about concepts that aren't specially tied to one system

  • Tagged with

The problem? People, especially new users, tag things incorrectly all the time. No system tags, just the tag, so we need to take it with a pinch of salt and if it looks like it could be a mis-tag, we ask for clarification/confirmation.

The tag in particular adds to this, because there are several editions which could all be referred to as AD&D and so tagged such by someone who doesn't know. The fact that you know and use them correctly is great, but it doesn't change how it looks to others.

So, when someone asks, answer them understanding that they are trying to help you get the answers you want and not answers for a different system. Remember to be polite and clear so something like "Yes, I play and ask about 1e".

Now, I'm guessing the reason you've put up the discussion here is that it keeps happening. The first few times it was fine, you're taking part in a niche part of the hobby (I'm basing this on the frequency of questions coming in, which apart from you isn't a whole lot for 1e) so it's fine, but it wears thin and tiring quickly. So, what can you do?

The broadest tip: give people confirmation inherent to the question. Show your research (" I looked through whatever applicable source book, but couldn't find anything", etc.), show your context ("I know it works like this in X system, but"), or tie questions to system mechanics (This probably isn't applicable to all your questions, but it might be worth keeping in mind).

Now this might not work, if the commenters don't know enough about your edition to confirm based on this, but asking a higher quality question (research effort etc.) might make people more inclined to think you know how to use the tags. But, if you want to make sure: "cheat", include the system in the question, such "How does X work in 1e?". You've done this for this question, but that solution feels... inelegant, maybe?


1: These people (also we/commenters/etc.) ended up coming up a lot; it intends to refer to those users who look through questions for this that need/should/could be corrected/improved. If you've been active enough, you might recognize some usernames that recur in comments and edits.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ "You've done this for this question, but that solution feels... inelegant, maybe?" - I think a more natural way to work this into the question text is simply to mention AD&D 1e explicitly in the body of the question, and to specify what books OP has already checked (which you also suggest). I considered simply editing that question to do these things, but figured it wasn't exactly necessary for me to do and since others could do so or suggest it if they also felt similarly. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 22 at 2:19
9
\$\begingroup\$

Make a clear statement in the text of the question

"AD&D 1e is the system we are playing." For the moment, unless we make a tag change, that simple one liner will suffice.

I think we are being inconsistent with our tagging logic

Way back when this site was establishing some best practices, mxyzplk made an observation about the AD&D tags during a tagging discussion.

There already are separate tags, [adnd] and [adnd-2e].

I observe that for other D&D systems we have , and . We have an OSRIC tag as well.

Since we offered to identify 2d edition AD&D, perhaps we should replace the tag for 1e with to be consistent in our methodology. I make this suggestion because not that many participants on our site seem to display detailed understanding of the tagging system.

Counterpoint: is a new tag name really necessary?

If any of us mouses over the tag, the info is right there:

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (a.k.a. "AD&D", "first edition", "1e") was written by Gary Gygax and released in three volumes between 1977 and 1979.

How often do people mouse over the tag, I wonder?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I often mouse over tags I'm not familiar with. How else will I learn what they mean? But having done some research in areas adjacent to user interface design, I just don't expect all others will do that, no matter how much we want them to. Therefore, I think changing the tag name to be as explicit as possible is the best solution. \$\endgroup\$ – Novak Jul 22 at 22:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ ...I was not aware that mousing over tabs provided more information. \$\endgroup\$ – Taxi4Dave Jul 22 at 22:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Novak Thanks, I wasn't sure if I was alone in this feeling. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jul 23 at 18:37
9
\$\begingroup\$

Speaking as someone who very recently got confused by the tag on one of your posts and didn't realize that wasn't the same as the generic tag until after I'd already made a fool of myself in the comments, I think the fault is solely on me and my inability to do five seconds of research and check the tag's wiki to find out that it doesn't mean what I think it means lies with the fact that the tag looks like a generic D&D tag and is easy to mistake as such.

So if the users of this site are amenable to it, I'd like to propose reconsidering making or the primary tags for this edition, to make it clearer that those editions are what are being discussed, and that the use of is not just a misuse of the tagging system.

Proposal here: Should we Rename the [adnd] tag to [adnd-1e]?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ We both seem to have the same idea, not sure if it's a great one or not. Do you want to start a meta with that proposal? Seems to be about what I was suggesting in my answer. \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Jul 23 at 18:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Indeed, if you think [adnd-1e] should be the primary tag, it should probably be suggested as a separate meta, since this issue is a bit more narrow and not everyone will click/vote on it. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 23 at 21:18
4
\$\begingroup\$

Put your canned response in the body

Any lasting clarification should be put in the body of the question, because comments are ephemeral. They can be gone at any time, so it is most logical to put it on the body. Imagine if you put the clarification on a comment, then someday it is gone, then another user ask the same question again.

By putting the clarification on the body, you are helping yourself and the community; by keeping the question clean from already addressed comments.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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