Thread-Naming Conventions

[GnomeWorks]

Greetings and salutations, all... this is GW, if you hadn't figured that out already...

I have noticed, in my long time here in the IC forum, that there are few conventions that we go by... we all have our own ways of indicating games that we run, our OoC threads, and our recruiting threads...

However, you may have also noticed that the IC forum isn't as sparsely populated as it was a year ago... there are literally dozens of games, each with their own recruiting and OoC threads. It is difficult for those looking through the forums to find a specific kind of thread... for instance, if I was new to PbP, and wanted to find a game, I would greatly appreciate all the sign-up threads being similarly and obviously marked, so as to make them stand out from the rest of the threads on this forum.

I don't believe that we can continue working with our own thread-naming conventions. We must have a system - something that we will all be (moderately) aware of that will enable us to recognize OT, sign-up, and IC threads at a glance.

Does anyone else share this opinion? Is there a need for this kind of thing? Could we get mod support for this, if there is enough support (probably from one of the newly-instituted mods)?

 

[KitanaVorr]

well what I find helps is to do this

[D20Modern+FtcF]Name of Game(type of game)

basically list what you're using and then the name of your game and what type it is

[D20Modern+FtcF]The Secret of Wulin Gong(Wuxia)

[D20Modern]Session One: Funky Martian Monks (CowBoy BeBop)

What do you think?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Hmm... perhaps...

However... that second example there, the name should be before the session number...

For instance...

[D20Modern]Funky Martian Monks, Session 1 (CowBoy BeBop)

 

[Shalimar]

Why be so picky?

Besides the name of the session changes with the numbers. The important part is that the type nad rules of the game are listed.

[Recruiting] tag should be added if the game accepts additional players

[closed] tag should be added if it does not accept anymore

That and the game type (Rules/ Game world) is all that you need.

 

[KitanaVorr]

Hmm... perhaps...

However... that second example there, the name should be before the session number...

For instance...

[D20Modern]Funky Martian Monks, Session 1 (CowBoy BeBop)

On that's the naming convention for the CowBoy BeBop anime.

The first episode ('session') and then the name of the session which in this case is Funky Martian Monks.

So putting it the other way doesn't make sense for the CowBoy BeBop game.

 

[DM_Matt]

Why be so picky?

Besides the name of the session changes with the numbers. The important part is that the type nad rules of the game are listed.

[Recruiting] tag should be added if the game accepts additional players

[closed] tag should be added if it does not accept anymore

That and the game type (Rules/ Game world) is all that you need.

The closed tag should only be necessary in a reletively new game or a recruitment thread in the character creation stages, if at all. It probably should only need to be specified if you ARE accepting new players and only then in active games or in the talking to talk forum.

 

[garyh]

I'm a newly-instituted mod, and I support this idea.

---
Here's my thoughts:

"[Recruitment] Gamename" for recruiting games (duh) in Talking the Talk canged to...

"[Full] Gamename" for full games still being planned. Once the game gets underway, this would change to...

"

OOC: Gamename" with... "Gamename - Adventurename" in Playing the Game. --- I don't think it's necessary to include Modern or so forth in the thread title, but I don't object to it either. If used, maybe: "[Rules] Gamename - Adventurename" I also don't think a standardized Session code is needed. For example, I'm calling the first adventure of my Modern Supers game "The OC Eight: Issue #1 - Opening Day" because it's inspired by comics, which use issues. I think a LotR or WoT game using chapters, or a Buffy game using episodes works well and adds flavor. Feedback? EDIT: Spleling.

 

[Yellow Sign]

Sounds good to me.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I'm a newly-instituted mod, and I support this idea.

Good to hear that we have mod support.

"[Recruitment] Gamename" for recruiting games (duh) in Talking the Talk canged to...

"[Full] Gamename" for full games still being planned. Once the game gets underway, this would change to...

"

OOC: Gamename" with... "Gamename - Adventurename" in Playing the Game.

OOC:

OOC: The last one there, I don't think is necessary... the games aren't in this forum, so don't need to be pointed out. I like the other ones, though - I think that's what I was looking for when I started this thread. I don't think it's necessary to include Modern or so forth in the thread title, but I don't object to it either. If used, maybe: "[Rules] Gamename - Adventurename" Adding in the ruleset would be helpful - for instance, I don't own 4CtF, so having games being labelled with that would instantly tell me whether or not I should bother signing up. I also don't think a standardized Session code is needed. For example, I'm calling the first adventure of my Modern Supers game "The OC Eight: Issue #1 - Opening Day" because it's inspired by comics, which use issues. I think a LotR or WoT game using chapters, or a Buffy game using episodes works well and adds flavor. I agree wholeheartedly. While I prefer using 'parts', others prefer 'chapters' or 'sessions'... it's a flavor thing. And again, the IC threads aren't in this particular forum, so we don't really need to worry about that.

 

[GruTheWanderer]

So you are saying develop better labeling for the Talking the Talk threads only. Makes sense, since you wouldn't be looking for new games in Playing the Game. I concur.

Perhaps the ruleset could be an optional tag after the gamename. The type of game could be an optional tag as well (Spelljammer, Cowboy Bepop, etc).

[Status] Gamename (Type, Rules)

Status = Recruitment, Full, OOC, OT

Are there any other status codes we should consider. For example, I'm [Considering] Dragonlance classics, for lack of a better word. Or should things like these just be special cases?