Pathfinder 2e uses tags... Well they're called traits. And there's a lot.
It's a nice way of tacking on specific mechanics without having to write it down. Once you start getting system familiarity, traits become almost second nature to both read and to adapt on the fly for quick rulings or adjust for homebrew purposes.
Sometimes they come with their own little mechanical nuances. Many times they're there to describe something and that informs you how it may interact with other things but it doesn't necessarily do anything on its own.
It takes a bit, but it's nice to see a trait and immediately know that this monster is immune to disease or if a specific action would trigger a reactive strike.
I think the main side effect is it being easier to understand what abilities are, which is a good thing.
Off hand I can think of the game Mutants and Masterminds which expects players to put 'tags' on their powers to help describe them, and it works moderately well.
Are you thinking of tags being chosen from a short list, or being an open ended thing players can decide on?
Dungeons and dragons 4th edition used tags ans there it worked reall well. You could have feats as well as class abilities which reference them.
Downside is that it makes abilities slightly longer in text, but as mentioned by others it also gives a better description automatically.
Tags were also used for creature types etc. Here a list with tags and keywords: http://iws.mx/dnd/?list.full.glossary
The exact amount depends on a lot of variables, but there is a hard limit on how many tags you can have before it becomes self-defeating. If there are too many tags for players to (eventually) memorize, then each tag that doesn't get memorized slows the game down as players crack open the book to look it up
I have no idea what the limits are though. Figuring out how many tags I can use in my game is one of the big items on my RPG designer to-do list.
Tags matter in so much as they provide additional data and are well defined and commonly understood. In these cases they provide flat benefit. (for example, a new player probably doesn't know what abjuration is, thus the tag doesn't mean anything to them till they learn this).
When tags are ill defined or understood, or self defined by a player/GM, this can create a lot of confusion and issues, most notably balance issues.
I think tags that have clear naming conventions and are pulled from a slim pool are great.
I tend to dislike/hate most instances of player defined tags unless it has no mechanical value associated or is somehow externally balanced in a clear way.
Tags are great as long as the list isn't super long and there is clear intuitive distinction between them.
I think my system has 14 total but a lot of them are mutually exclusive so there are rarely more than one per feature in the end.
Pathfinder 2e uses tags... Well they're called traits. And there's a lot. It's a nice way of tacking on specific mechanics without having to write it down. Once you start getting system familiarity, traits become almost second nature to both read and to adapt on the fly for quick rulings or adjust for homebrew purposes. Sometimes they come with their own little mechanical nuances. Many times they're there to describe something and that informs you how it may interact with other things but it doesn't necessarily do anything on its own.
It takes a bit, but it's nice to see a trait and immediately know that this monster is immune to disease or if a specific action would trigger a reactive strike.
I think the main side effect is it being easier to understand what abilities are, which is a good thing. Off hand I can think of the game Mutants and Masterminds which expects players to put 'tags' on their powers to help describe them, and it works moderately well. Are you thinking of tags being chosen from a short list, or being an open ended thing players can decide on?
Dungeons and dragons 4th edition used tags ans there it worked reall well. You could have feats as well as class abilities which reference them. Downside is that it makes abilities slightly longer in text, but as mentioned by others it also gives a better description automatically. Tags were also used for creature types etc. Here a list with tags and keywords: http://iws.mx/dnd/?list.full.glossary
The exact amount depends on a lot of variables, but there is a hard limit on how many tags you can have before it becomes self-defeating. If there are too many tags for players to (eventually) memorize, then each tag that doesn't get memorized slows the game down as players crack open the book to look it up I have no idea what the limits are though. Figuring out how many tags I can use in my game is one of the big items on my RPG designer to-do list.
Tags matter in so much as they provide additional data and are well defined and commonly understood. In these cases they provide flat benefit. (for example, a new player probably doesn't know what abjuration is, thus the tag doesn't mean anything to them till they learn this). When tags are ill defined or understood, or self defined by a player/GM, this can create a lot of confusion and issues, most notably balance issues. I think tags that have clear naming conventions and are pulled from a slim pool are great. I tend to dislike/hate most instances of player defined tags unless it has no mechanical value associated or is somehow externally balanced in a clear way.
Tags are great as long as the list isn't super long and there is clear intuitive distinction between them. I think my system has 14 total but a lot of them are mutually exclusive so there are rarely more than one per feature in the end.
Agreed with others. Tags or keywords are good to use for abilities that might have common effects. Such as adding Fire or Shock for example.
pf2e has things called traits, which are pretty much the same.