Topic: Root Faction Tagging Question

There's some weird stuff going on in the root_(game) tag that I'd like to fix, but I'm not entirely sure what the correct way to go about fixing it IS, so I figured I'd ask first.
(Note: If you just look at that tag on its own, you'll get a LOT of Legends of Avantris content. I don't know much about Legends of Avantris - from what I understand, it's an online TTRPG campaign that started out in the official Root TTRPG, hence why most Avantris stuff is also tagged as Root. I'm mostly referring to posts involving the original game, not Avantris.)
For context, Root is a tabletop wargame (and accompanying TTRPG set in the same universe) where you play as one of several factions. Some of these factions DO contain named characters - for example, the Eyrie Dynasties has their four Leaders, the Lord of the Hundreds has their Warlord, and the Underground Duchy has their various Ministers. However, each faction also has an associated design used to represent the generic soldiers of that faction, of which there are many.
Currently, the tagging of Root factions is wildly inconsistent. The main problems are as follows:
- Most of the factions that ARE currently being tagged are either being tagged as characters, such as riverfolk_company_(root), or not being tagged at all. Personally, I feel like it would make a lot more sense for these to be tagged as species, since these are NOT distinct, individual characters, but instead entire groups.
- Several of the currently-used faction tags have notable errors, such as the Marquise de Cat being tagged as marquis_de_cat_(root) (missing the E at the end of Marquise) and the Lord of the Hundreds being tagged as lord_of_hundreds_(root) ("lord of the" vs "lord of").
- The Vagabond has inconsistent tagging regarding its variations - for context, the Vagabond "faction" is one singular character instead of a whole group; however, the Vagabond has a number of different variants that you can choose between during setup, each with a different design. Currently, posts featuring Vagabond variants are inconsistently tagged with either vagabond_(root), the specific version of the Vagabond featured in that post (such as thief_(root) or scoundrel_(root), or both.
I wanted to ask - what, exactly, is the correct thing to do in this situation? I was planning on putting in a BUR to update, imply, and alias the involved tags to fix the above problems, but given just how many different tags there are involved here, I figured I'd ask first. The only thing I'm notably unsure about is whether the factions themselves should be tagged as characters or species - I feel like they should be species, but I wanted to clarify before doing anything.

pumpkinpiehole said:
(Note: If you just look at that tag on its own, you'll get a LOT of Legends of Avantris content. I don't know much about Legends of Avantris - from what I understand, it's an online TTRPG campaign that started out in the official Root TTRPG, hence why most Avantris stuff is also tagged as Root. I'm mostly referring to posts involving the original game, not Avantris.)

Legends of Avantris is actually several campaigns in different role play universes. "Uprooted: Dimwits of the Dimwoods" is the one based upon Root, However, it's only loosely based on Root and they don't use the Root mechanics. Instead, the players adapted D&D mechanics for use in their campaign because they know how D&D works better.

clawstripe said:
Legends of Avantris is actually several campaigns in different role play universes. "Uprooted: Dimwits of the Dimwoods" is the one based upon Root, However, it's only loosely based on Root and they don't use the Root mechanics. Instead, the players adapted D&D mechanics for use in their campaign because they know how D&D works better.

Huh. Well, that's good to know, I guess, but not really what I was asking, lol. Although the tagging of Avantris posts with the Root tag does also seem a bit inconsistent... In any case, like I said, I'm mostly interested in the actual, original tabletop game. I'm not sure anything Avantris-related even HAS any Root-related tags beyond root_(game). If you search root_(game) -legends_of_avantris, you'll see more of the kind of posts I'm asking about.

All root factions are characters. The Hundreds are all rats, rat is their (typical) species. A hundreds is a recognizeable character as their default soldier token, and so the_hundreds is their character.
Individual characters within factions would imply their faction.
The vagabond is several different characters, however their variants can be tagged and imply the vagabound.
As for spelling errors and misnamings, those can either be updated; in the BUR or manually; or aliased into the corrected versions if the error is likely to continue.

peskeon said:
All root factions are characters. The Hundreds are all rats, rat is their (typical) species. A hundreds is a recognizeable character as their default soldier token, and so the_hundreds is their character.

I mean, in the context of the game, "Lord of the Hundreds" is the name of the whole faction, not just the one "Lord" in charge. The leader of the faction is consistently referred to as "the Warlord", with the individual soldiers in the faction being referred to as "warriors", same as all other factions. I mean... technically, the turn order refers to the part of your turn where you command your warriors as "Command the Hundreds", but the rules in general tend to refer to your units as "Hundreds warriors" specifically. For consistency's sake, I feel like it still makes sense to refer to the faction by its official, full name, even if it would technically be more grammatically correct to call the individual warriors "the hundreds".
All of that is mostly semantics, though, and other than that, I see what you mean. I've been under the assumption that the distinction between character and species is primarily supposed to be whether the thing in question is a single identifiable individual, but this explanation makes a decent amount of sense, I think. Alright, thanks.