Timeline for Should we burninate [attack] and [damage]?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2017 at 8:42 | comment | added | Chris | As a thought perhaps a link to a reference question using the attack tag with commentary on why the question is made better by having that tag. The few I glanced at didn't really look like they were added to by having an attack tag... | |
| Jun 20, 2017 at 17:19 | history | edited | mxyzplkMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Jun 20, 2017 at 17:07 | comment | added | doppelgreener Mod | Sometimes an experienced player's "read the book to them" is a new player's "help them understand these indecipherable runes and explain how the game works at all" (these old chat messages of mine are relevant). Sometimes they're just bad. If there is a broad troubling category of questions, it's actually better for us to have a tag collecting them to point to. Removing the tag won't mean we stop getting those questions, it just means we won't have a tag grouping them anymore. | |
| Jun 20, 2017 at 15:01 | comment | added | mxyzplk Mod | Bad questions in all of these tags are "read the rules to me." Good ones are more complicated. The various kinds and categories of attacks and/or calculating damage in e.g. D&D is a more than sufficiently complex system. We don't need to get rid of a tag because we think its questions are low quality, that's the tail wagging the dog. | |
| Jun 20, 2017 at 14:05 | comment | added | Oblivious Sage Mod | I don't object to [feats] or [spells], because those are broad swathes of content that people can be highly knowledgeable about. I don't object to [grapple] or [skills] because those are (usually) complicated mechanics that, again, someone can be highly knowledgeable about. "Damage", on the other hand, is basically "read the rules to me" for the vast majority of systems. | |
| Jun 20, 2017 at 13:36 | history | answered | mxyzplkMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |