5
\$\begingroup\$

For consideration:

Do we feel that these have value? Can someone be an expert in those areas?

Note that there was a proposal to burninate [attack] about 4 years ago; the consensus seemed to be burn it, but it doesn't look like action was actually taken.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Two searches I feel are valuable: [attack] as used outside the D&D family and [damage] as used outside the D&D family \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jun 20 '17 at 8:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm marking this as declined since the voting has been pretty steady over the past week in favour of not burninating them with no new activity recently. This isn't permanently binding; it's just being added to describe the current state of this burnination request. New feedback to the contrary may change that status. This also does not preclude revisiting these tags in the future. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jun 26 '17 at 16:34
12
\$\begingroup\$

I'm not keen on burninating — it's being used in Fate questions (also this question) as a tag for one of the four actions, alongside , and .

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ That seems reasonable. Is there a way we could narrow the tag down so that it's clearly for fate and doesn't get slapped on every question that happens to involve hitting someone or something with a sword? \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage Jun 19 '17 at 12:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ObliviousSage We could start using [fate-*] prefixes on these tags. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jun 19 '17 at 12:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm ok with that. [overcome] and [create-advantage] seem narrow enough on their own, but we might as well make them consistent. Just to be clear, you're not objecting to burninating [damage]? \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage Jun 19 '17 at 12:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ObliviousSage That could be viable, though I'd like to assess it in a separate meta. I have no objection or commentary re: burninating [damage]. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jun 19 '17 at 12:15
5
\$\begingroup\$

We should not remove either of these, because they're pretty par for the course.

On RPG questions, once you get beyond the game system, you start tagging with the thing you're fretting about. Maybe it's attack and damage. Maybe it's feats or skills, or a class. None of these things are really things you can be an expert in "across all games" but that's not the bar - the question is, can you be an expert in - or be interested in following- questions about D&D 3.5e feats? Or attacking in 5e? Yes you can, and people are. I suspect the AnyDice Attack Squad would be interested in attack and damage questions for example, so they get to do those lovely DPS graphs.

If these aren't legit tags, which describe large and common parts of many rulesets, then we only have about 10 legit tags on the site.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage Jun 20 '17 at 14:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Jun 20 '17 at 15:01
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jun 20 '17 at 17:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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... \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jun 23 '17 at 8:42
3
\$\begingroup\$

No, you have not demonstrated that there is a problem.

The [damage] tag has 184 uses. Can you please illustrate how it has been misused? There is a distinct lack of evidence in the OP that the tag is not useful. As with the RAW tag, How About Some Evidence?

Show Me.

Using "how do you feel?" as a criterion is inconsistent with objective based answers and issues, and thus inconsistent with Anything.SE.

As they say in Missouri: Show me. Where's the evidence?

The "I feel" approach got us that lovely bun fight about game rec and RAW. Please understand that my lack of enthusiasm is colored by that experience.

\$\endgroup\$
-4
\$\begingroup\$

Let's kill [damage]... with fire!

Doppelgreener has made a reasonable case for preserving [attack], or at least for retagging certain instances of it, which should maybe be hashed out in a separate meta question.

Nobody has come up with a way that [damage] adds any value, though, so I propose that it be burninated.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Would it make sense to make it a synonym of [injury]? \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jun 19 '17 at 17:42
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie I don't think so. Games that use hit points all have damage for reducing those hit points. Injuries are usually separate concepts where the injury represents a discrete wound with its own penalties. \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage Jun 19 '17 at 18:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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