Talk:Map

Can we get a note clarifying that this is the terminology being used in Douglas's system, rather than in standard RTT, in particular elsewhere on this Wiki? Also, can we add a category to these pages which are part of Douglas's system and which use this alternate terminology? Mike Battaglia (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(The above comment was from Mike, he just forgot to sign it) Mike If it would be convenient for you, I don't have a problem with it if you want to create a category on the wiki and add it to all pages I've contributed to. Again, I list the contributions that I care most about on my user page, so that could be a quick reference for you.

Given Keenan's recent rewrite, yes, I think it would be a good idea to mention as another example that the 1st and 3rd bullets are the way Dave and I use it too. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

To Mike: I disagree on this. I believe Douglas and I both share the sense that we only want to maintain one RTT, and that fragmentation is the last thing we want. While I'm not fond of some of Douglas' terms, I feel strongly that "standard" RTT shouldn't only grow in the greenhouse. FloraC (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Flora: Douglas and Dave already have a project on here which is openly from their perspective and in which they use terminology differently, and present their reasons for doing so. So if this usage of "map" is part of the terminology they are using in those pages then I don't think there's any harm in putting that explicitly within the page. Are you saying we should incorporate this usage of "map" into "one RTT?" Or incorporate *everything* they've done into "one RTT?" Mike Battaglia (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike, I am not trying to host a "project" here. I know I have tried to convince you of this many times in the recent past. You're still mischaracterizing my intentions. Flora has got me right: I don't want to fragment information. What I am trying to do here is contribute to the collective understanding about RTT. And this "map" page was written with that intention. If you're still thinking about recent conflict we had about the term "defactoring", I thought we were past this; a state on the wiki has been achieved where "defactoring" is merely proposed terminology, and yes it happens to have been invented by Dave and me. We use it in stuff we write, and others use it too. It is not stated anywhere that it is accepted terminology. And also critically, I do not intend to quarantine myself or to be quarantined behind labels that automatically say "here terminology A is the case, there terminology B is the case." Every page starts on the same blank slate, of "one RTT". As Keenan said on Facebook, just say what convention is going to be used on the current page and go with it, or perhaps it will be obvious through context. So if you don't think this "Map" page is correctly starting on that same sort of blank slate, let's continue revising it together. I don't want to claim "map" as part of "D&D RTT" or something. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten this with lots of additional information about the ways the term "map" has been used in RTT, much of which is mutually incompatible with the new definition, just so it is documented somewhere. I also left another note clarifying precisely how the new definition differs from the old and which authors use which definition where. This is a starting point, so feel free to edit further, in particular Douglas and Dave's section is just my best attempt at explaining and I am sure they will have edits. Mike Battaglia (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)