6
\$\begingroup\$

Back in 2018, V2Blast asked about the tags , , and , and a good reason for keeping them separate was provided. So I've no issues with keeping the tags separate. However, I think a small clean up may be in order.

Right now, the tag description of seems to cover (emphasis mine):

For questions primarily pertaining to creatures, player characters, and NPCs being less susceptible to one or more particular effects or damage types in an RPG.

If a question is just about resistance to one or more damage types, I think it should be covered by the tag without , as is described:

Damage resistance represents various mechanics that usually relate to an ability to shrug off or ignore damage of certain types and amounts in various RPG systems. It may be possible to bypass resistance by some means.

Therefore, I propose the following:

  1. Remove resistance to damage types from the scope of the description.
  2. Add a line to the effect of "For questions about resistance to a damage type, use the tag" to the description.
  3. Replace with on the eleven or so questions I found that were about resistance to a damage type.

Maybe I'm missing something here, and I would of course be willing to defer judgment on non-D&D 5e questions to others, but I think these steps will help to make the distinction between these tags more clear, and keep the from being muddled by questions that are just about damage type resistance.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Note, once this is resolved, I probably have another clean up proposal related to [damage-reduction] coming your way. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 18, 2022 at 12:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So are these tags primarily defined based on D&D-family products or are they supposed to be more widely applicable? Both answers to V2Blast's question only talk about D&D-related mechanics. One in terms of 5e the other (the good reason) in terms of 3.X (including Pathfinder). \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Jul 21, 2022 at 10:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The two work pretty differently in GURPS, for example: Damage Resistance is subtracted from direct damage and offers a very small bonus to certain resistance rolls, while Resistance adds a decent bonus to the resistance rolls, but never subtracts from direct damage. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 21, 2022 at 11:40

1 Answer 1

1
\$\begingroup\$

Having gone a week with no objections, I'll outline in detail the actions I intend to take, and give some time for voting and suggested improvements in comments.


Steps 1 and 2: Revise the description of to say:

For questions primarily pertaining to characters and other creatures being less susceptible to one or more particular effects in an RPG. (If your question is specifically about resistance to a damage type, use the tag instead.)

Step 3: Replace with on the following questions:

These are all the D&D 5e questions that would have tags revised; I'd ask that someone else with sufficient system expertise review the other systems.

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • \$\begingroup\$ Does that mean that the tags should not be defined in terms of D&D? If so, then I'm not sure how [resistance] is to be used. It's simply too broad. It's for resisting anything that's not damage. This includes magic resistance which can vary greatly between games. Even between different editions of the same game. There are also various statuses that might be resisted - stun or daze might be relatively common between games. But there might also be other types of resistance - to being coerced or resisting other influences or changes. Should all of this be covered by a single tag? \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Jul 25, 2022 at 19:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @VLAZ To be clear, I’m more trying to align tag descriptions and a few stragglers with what is the general practice of these tags, rather than making a claim about what is the best way to categorize these questions. There may be a better way that involves changing all these tags wholesale. That’s not what I’m proposing. I’m saying “here’s how I see these tags generally being used, let’s tidy up our descriptions to match that usage”. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 25, 2022 at 19:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ And I believe this to be insufficient. This leads to circular logic - if the tag is defined by its usage and it's mostly in D&D content then it's just a D&D tag. If it's used for other games this would be only where the usage overlaps. I believe proactively looking at what the tag should be about is how this should be resolved. This wasn't done before. In fact, nothing really was done before. If tags are to serve the site, then slight reshuffling does the opposite - bends the site to the tag usage. And since they are used the way they are used, we've come full circle. Like the tag logic. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Jul 25, 2022 at 20:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @VLAZ Every tag that describes a concept in D&D is mostly describing D&D content by virtue of the D&D content share. But all of these tags describe content in other games. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 25, 2022 at 20:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ Should they describe other content? Because seems like you're saying they shouldn't. They just sort of happen to. Even then barely the [resistance] tag is used in all of 2 non-D&D-related questions. One is about spell resistance, the other about damage resistance. Bringing down the total to literally no non-D&D-related questions. \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Jul 25, 2022 at 21:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd propose that the tag, if it is to live, list a few ways it behaves differently in different systems. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 26, 2022 at 12:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ That being said there probably fewer than ten non-D&D questions with those tags total... 🤷‍♂️ \$\endgroup\$ Jul 26, 2022 at 13:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I made some minor edits to the proposed tag guidance; feel free to review them and make changes as needed. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Jul 29, 2022 at 0:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .