Tag Suggestions

[HippyCraig]

Hello, I was looking for some input on this. I was setting up a new category to cover spells for 5e, I wanted to create tags for different spell items so there searchable. I was thinking of creating different tag domains (Spells: Level, Spells: Class, etc.) Instead of creating multiple domains I thought of creating one domain, set explicit ordering and make it look like the following picture. Do any of you have any input to this type of setup, possible pitfalls using this, or am I on the right track to keeping things simple.

 

[Parody]

That's a big list of unrelated items to pick from each time you want to pick a tag, which you're going to do multiple times when adding a spell.

It's a lot simpler to keep your domains limited to one subject.

 

[HippyCraig]

All these tags are related to Spells only, there level, school of magic, etc. To show its use see the following, I have multiple fields in the category that will use this tag domain but in different context. As you can see I highlighted the items in red, in the form and on the far right you can see it adds the spell tags correctly. Instead of listing tons of different spell domains, I thinking that having them under one domain like this might simplify thing.

Thoughts

 

[MNBlockHead]

Below is a screen shot of how I've set up my spell article template. The difference is that I've created a bunch of separate spell-related tags. Basically each field has its own custom tag.

I like how your approach keeps all spell attributes in one place. First I thought that it would affect how you can search, but you can do a tag search on multiple values in the same tag that performs the same as if they were in different tags.

One advantage of keeping them separate is that you don't have to scroll down through a lot of values that are unrelated to the fields that your a completing. But that is the only drawback that I see with your approach.

 

[Bobifle]

Guys do you plan to enter each spell from your game system or is it just for the spells you've made up ?

Because that seems to me a s...load of work knowing you probably have everything already in a book ?

I'll be always amazed by some people commitment to the cause

 

[Parody]

One of the big advantages of a database is not having to jump between a bunch of books (whether physical, digital, or a mix) to look up mechanics, setting info, adventure info, and so on.

One of the big advantages of sharing is not having to type it all in yourself, and LWD hopes that enough of us are willing to pay for someone else to type things up that it'll keep Realm Works in the black. :)

 

[HippyCraig]

MNBlockHead, thanks for the input, the list is a little long but the ---- Tag --- help keep things organized and setting a default value helps when modifying to start at that position.

How about anyone else, thought, criticisms, better ideas. I would like to get a few options before I proceed.

 

[Silveras]

I am looking forward to RealmWorks completely replacing my books over time. I expect the content to be a mix of purchased and/or entered on my own.

 

[MNBlockHead]

Guys do you plan to enter each spell from your game system or is it just for the spells you've made up ?

Because that seems to me a s...load of work knowing you probably have everything already in a book ?

I'll be always amazed by some people commitment to the cause

For spells, yes. It is VERY helpful at game to have the spells readily available. Looking up and discussing spells was really slowing down the game. Two things that have really helped are (1) I bought spell cards and have my players take the cards for the spells they prepared and (2) have all the spells in RealmWorks, so that if I have an encounter with an NPC/monster that is a spellcaster, those spells are hyperlinked to the spell record itself.

I love the DnD 5th ed. books for pre-game prep, for browsing and getting ideas and inspiration. They are very high quality and a pleasure to pages through. BUT I hate, hate, hate, having to look things up during the game. Even with tabs, it is a pain. I've had DMs who have taken the books to a print shot, cut off the binding, punched holes in the left margin and put the books in a three-ring binder and I still find that a game-interrupting annoyance.

As more supplemental materials and rules-book errata are released, as well as the ENWorld EN5ider articles I buy from Patreon, it gets even more challenging to manage things on paper at the table.

So, yes, I spend quite a bit of time on game prep and creating aids to avoid having to look up anything but the most obscure rules. So, I have homemade DM screens (the WoTC screens are nice eye candy but functionally not very useful), spell cards, and lots of tables and other mechanics items entered into RealmWorks.

 

[Fox Lee]

Hello, I was looking for some input on this. I was setting up a new category to cover spells for 5e, I wanted to create tags for different spell items so there searchable. I was thinking of creating different tag domains (Spells: Level, Spells: Class, etc.) Instead of creating multiple domains I thought of creating one domain, set explicit ordering and make it look like the following picture. Do any of you have any input to this type of setup, possible pitfalls using this, or am I on the right track to keeping things simple.

Personally, I think you (impersonal you) generally get better and more future-proof results when using the structures as intended, even if it isn't immediately obvious at to why. With tag domains in particular, there are lots of terms which would fit into multiple domains IF you grouped them by what you want to tag with them, rather than whether or not they are conceptually-related terms. If that makes sense.

For clarity, examples! The school of magic might also be a useful tag to apply to a class, feat or character, not just a spell. And why add class names to a domain intended only for spell tagging, when you could add them to the classes domain and use them on all the OTHER things that want to be tagged with a particular class?

So, in my opinion, it's better to get the tags from the domain where they belong, than to make a new domain just to group tags.

 

[Bobifle]

So, yes, I spend quite a bit of time on game prep and creating aids to avoid having to look up anything but the most obscure rules.

I completely understand the benefits from what you are doing. It's just too much work for me :bow:

However I have a slightly different approach vs rules during play : whenever neither the player nor me know exactly the mechanics, I just make it up, usually to something that benefits the story or the combat. It's sometimes pretty obvious it's made up but if it's not targeted against the player, it's mostly well accepted and can bring a lot of fun as we sometimes get crazy.

Some players won't like it though, it brings inconsistency to the world.

 

[HippyCraig]

Fox Lee, you make a very good point, thank you for your input. I haven't created any spells yet with this template, its still in a design phase. I am trying to way the pro's and con's of different setups, and this help as well, still not sure which way to lean but this seems to have sparked a lot of ideas, please keep them coming.

 

[MNBlockHead]

I completely understand the benefits from what you are doing. It's just too much work for me :bow:

However I have a slightly different approach vs rules during play : whenever neither the player nor me know exactly the mechanics, I just make it up, usually to something that benefits the story or the combat. It's sometimes pretty obvious it's made up but if it's not targeted against the player, it's mostly well accepted and can bring a lot of fun as we sometimes get crazy.

Some players won't like it though, it brings inconsistency to the world.

While I have certainly used the make-it-up to keep the game moving method, and while I am a fairly theater of the mind style DM, I also enjoy it as a game. Part of the fun is seeing players come up with novel ways to leverage the rules to their advantage. So I do encourage rules lawyering, though it is more collaborative in my group. 5th ed. is new to all of us, but some of my players have been hard core gamers for decades, so I have no problem throwing out a game mechanic question. But, for me, this only works if we are not spending 20 minutes flipping pages.

Also, this game is new to me, so if I took your approach, I would be just winging it the whole time. I just haven't had enough time to absorb all the rules. For me, the rules are part of what makes the game fun, if you can access them and resolve any mechanics questions quickly.

 

[Gord]

I've used an almost identical tag setup as MNBlockhead for 5E but have added a tag for the source material. Entering the data is fairly fast if you disallow multiple tags where possible. I use the 100 character field to the right of each tag for things like components and special cases.

 

[HippyCraig]

Gord, I want to be able to sort on tag as well so I can find all spells that belong to a school or archetype. Having that data in a text field would make the search a little more difficult.

 

[Gord]

Gord, I want to be able to sort on tag as well so I can find all spells that belong to a school or archetype. Having that data in a text field would make the search a little more difficult.

That's why I did it too. If I want to find all Abjuration spells or even 4th level spells usable by a Cleric, it is easy. There are sites that can do that of course but they are prohibited from showing descriptions so aren't as useful to me. I didn't bother with breaking out things like Paladin (Vengeance) or Warlock (Old Ones) as a tag since there are not that many of them. Paladin or Warlock would be in the tag and then "Paladin (Vengeance)" or "Warlock (Old Ones)" would be in the text field. Perhaps it is better with a tag for this too but I didn't think it worth the effort due to the few times they come up.

 

[HippyCraig]

Thanks everyone for you help, I decided to split them into separate tags, like most suggested having separate domains will make it easier to fill out as well as search.