IMPORTANT: Just a note on tags for this forum...

Cannibal Smiliest

Smacking around John Sumbitch
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The tags that we're using for the different versions of this game are as follows:

Dungeons & Dragons
Rules Cyclopedia
AD&D 1st edition
AD&D 2nd edition
Dungeons & Dragons 3.0
Dungeons & Dragons 3.5
Dungeons & Dragons 3.X
Dungeons & Dragons 4e
Dungeons and Dragons 5e

Open Gaming License

If you can, using these tags will improve the utility of the tagging feature here in this forum. I've already deleted the D&D tag about five times - I realize that it's convenient, but you only have to type "Dung" before the autofill feature pops up.

NOTE: I used to have it as "Dungeons AND Dragons", but I've gone with the ampersand instead. I am sorry about the switchup.

If you go with an alternate tagging convention - D&D, DND, D & D - it'll get deleted.

-Darren MacLennan
 
Last edited:

Jim DelRosso

Magnificent Bastard
Validated User
Re: Just a note on tags for this forum...

How about "Rules Cyclopedia D&D"?

As someone currently in school that one day I may also bear the title of librarian, Darren, I admire your efforts to turn a folksonomy into a controlled vocabulary, and will abide by your mandates. :)
 

Philotomy Jurament

Registered User
Validated User
Re: Just a note on tags for this forum...

So is "dungeons and dragons" supposed to mean the original (i.e. woodgrain or white-box) edition, or D&D, in general?
 

Cannibal Smiliest

Smacking around John Sumbitch
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Re: Just a note on tags for this forum...

So is "dungeons and dragons" supposed to mean the original (i.e. woodgrain or white-box) edition, or D&D, in general?
It's a generic tag, meant to cover all versions of the game in perpetuity. Use it if you're just talking about the game in general.

I'm still trying to figure out what to call the early versions of the game, and the Rules Cyclopedia version. It may be a bitch.

-Darren MacLennan
 

Philotomy Jurament

Registered User
Validated User
Re: Just a note on tags for this forum...

For the early versions of the game (i.e. before the Moldvay/Cook "red box"), I'd go with "Original Dungeons & Dragons." (or OD&D) That would include the Holmes Basic set, which is kind of in a category by itself, but closer to OD&D than to B/X or AD&D, in my opinion.

For RC, you might go with "Classic Dungeons & Dragons." That would cover the Mentzer basic sets, the Rules Cyclopedia, and later Menzter-based sets I'm not familiar with (e.g. Black Box).

Normally, "Classic" includes the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic and Expert sets, but it might be handy to have a separate tag for those sets (e.g. the existing "Red Box D&D" tag works okay), since there are a few differences between them and the Menzter version.

FWIW, here's how I refer to the editions:

  • OD&D includes the woodgrain box, the white box, the supplements, and the Basic set edited by Holmes (with the "blue book").
  • Classic - includes B/X, BECMI, RC, et cetera.
  • B/X includes the Basic and Expert sets edited by Moldvay, Cook, and Marsh; they have Erol Otus covers.
  • BECMI and/or RC includes the Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortals sets edited by Mentzer. The boxed sets have Elmore covers. Since the Rules Cyclopedia is mainly a compilation of these rules, I lump them together. It would also include later presentations of these same rules that didn't introduce significant changes (e.g. Black Box).
  • AD&D 1e or OAD&D
  • AD&D 2e
  • 3E or 3.X - both 3.0 and 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 3.5
  • 4E
 

Cannibal Smiliest

Smacking around John Sumbitch
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I think that "Rules Cyclopedia" is a good way to describe the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D. I'm hoping.

-Darren MacLennan
 

Jorjowsky

Registered User
Validated User
Re: Just a note on tags for this forum...

As someone currently in school that one day I may also bear the title of librarian, Darren, I admire your efforts to turn a folksonomy into a controlled vocabulary, and will abide by your mandates. :)
I agree. :)

That said, I really don't like referring to 4e as "Dungeons & Dragons 4.0". That .0 at the end is a leftover from 3.Xe, and has nothing to do with the new edition unless WotC releases some sort of "revised 4.5e", which they explicitly have said is not gonna happen. Of course, that could very well change in a couple of years, but for now the new edition is 4e, not 4.0e.

So, could we please change it to "Dungeons & Dragons 4"? Otherwise it's all good.
 

Owesome2

Retired User
Re: Just a note on tags for this forum...

How do folk feel about a standard tagging regime on other common topics? Like:

Resources (character sheets, mapping programmes, counters, etc)
Encounters (Discussion on encounter creation and balance, posted encounters)
Settings (the various create-a-setting threads and setting creation discussion)
Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, etc (with the above-mentioned edition tags serving to deliniate which period in the setting's history the post would be about)

Useful to make a formal policy or not? I'll confess I haven't played much with the tagging feature on here.
 

Sleeper

Red-eyed dust bunny
Validated User
I think that "Rules Cyclopedia" is a good way to describe the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D. I'm hoping.
If you're referring to just the Rules Cyclopedia. But if you want the tag to refer to everything from the Moldvay boxed set through the Cyclopedia, and if you want to use the easily recognized term to users unfamiliar with the boards, it may not be the best choice. A huge number of gamers grew up on the four versions of "Basic Dungeons & Dragons", which in general parlance also covered the later Expert through Immortal sets and the Cyclopedia. As tempting as it is, not as many are familiar with a single stand-alone product that was released a decade later. We had the same discussion a while ago about the index, and it was changed from D&D / Cyclopedia to D&D / Basic.
 
Top Bottom