The only other thing I can think of that involves "type" changes is Chrono Cross, which has spells that allow you to change a character's elemental affinity (thus changing the Elemental Rock-Paper-Scissors). I'm not sure it's common enough to warrant its own specific description, which is why I lumped it under "misc/other" a few posts ago.
A miscellaneous category makes more sense, but the current sandbox has it written as 'your character type changes to undead, so healing hurts you and whatnot' rather than that.
Note that "Miscellaneous" and "commonly used" are a contradiction in terms. This was never intended to be a "complete" list of status effects by any means; that's what crosswicking is for.
Perhaps you should switch zombie to a more general 'creature type change.'How about "Negatively affects other fixed traits of a character (element, class, species)" ?
I think when you start getting into that much detail, the page really wants to be an index.Supertrope+index. Specific ailments are subtropes (individual YKTTW's pending), but Status ailments in general are a trope too.
Overall, I think the effects are used more than their names, though.It goes both ways. E.g. Damage Over Time can go by many names, but the same ailment label can have different effects between games (best example: Confusion vs. Charm).
edited 19th Dec '12 1:11:34 PM by Stratadrake
No, the other one.
And with game mechanics, I think the actual mechanics are more important than what you call them. A rose by any other name and all that. And a minor note, zombie is like berserk in that it's not strictly negative, but often perceived as much. At the same time, when they are considered negative there are often at least a couple situations where they can be Game Breakers.
Note that "Miscellaneous" and "commonly used" are a contradiction in terms. This was never intended to be a "complete" list of status effects by any means; that's what crosswicking is for.I thought part of what we were doing was retooling it into a general "debuff" page, as a sister trope to Status Buff? In which case, "miscellaneous" would certainly be something we'd want to cover, precisely because the list isn't complete, it just hits the highlights.
No, the other one.
Well, the trope is standard status effects, not status effects. It's about the pattern of using a few specific effects in games, rather than using them at all.
With the current name (and its associated redirects), yes. But if we're also renaming it to simply Status Ailment then that is no longer an issue (though IMHO a list of "standard" ailment names is still good to have somewhere). Another possible idea: One page for Status Ailments in general and another for the stock ailment labels that typically show up in RPG's. Or is that overkill?
edited 19th Dec '12 9:49:43 PM by Stratadrake
One page for ailments is good enough.
I think that Status Ailments is tropeworthy in and of itself. It's something that you can recognize even if the effect itself doesn't fit any of the standard list. If we're not retooling Standard Status Effects into a generic Status Ailment trope, then we should certainly create one.
Thing is, Status Effects can be interpreted as referring to both positive and negative status effects, (see: Stock RPG Spells). Some games classify Status Buffs and Ailments as being in the big category of status ailments.
Well, Status Effects (both positive and negative) is certainly a trope. Whether we want to go like this
- Status Effect
No, the other one.
I kinda think that would be too many pages with too small steps, though I'm not sure what the optimal solution would be. Sometimes I think it should maybe just be one page about status effects in general, soft split between buffs, ailments, and combined, which then links to the individual effects that are their own tropes. Essentially, merge all pages into one, then split the individual buffs and ailments to their own pages, with the main page only for examples that don't fit a subtrope.
edited 20th Dec '12 8:09:44 PM by AnotherDuck
*bump* How's everything going here?
I don't think individual status ailments are necessarily worth individual pages. The thing about status ailments is that you can never really have just one ... I'm leaning towards one page for the ailments as a gameplay mechanic and then one for the common labels assigned to them.
I think our crowner broke. Where was the discussion going again? At any rate, my IMHO current proposal is to launch a page called simply Status Ailment (or Status Ailments, plural, since they're typically part of a system). And there's the writeup at Sandbox.Standard Status Effects for comparison (or should I YKTTW that?) .
edited 23rd Apr '13 11:25:56 AM by Stratadrake
You are of Bajor.
The sandbox page looks more like an Analysis writeup in its current form.
Well, what do you think it should look like? There's been a ton of discussion about what the problem is and how to fix it. We seem to have lost the crowner, but IMO the problem with the page as stands is:
- Not having a page for Status Ailments (one of the pre-established terms) in general, while
- Trying to claim that they are "standardized" when the descriptions (and even labels) attest that many of them are not, and
- Splitting/sorting in-page examples by individual ailment.
I think we need at least two separate pages: one for "Status Effect" as a concept, and one for examples of common types (eg, poison, paralysis, etc). That way it can be used for things like "EarthBound has an odd Status Effect called mushroomized" on the one hand and "Final Fantasy includes almost all of the Common Status Effects" on the other. The question is whether we should split things in terms of buffs and debuffs, and whether we should list things by name (eg, poison) or by mechanical effect (eg, damage over time). I personally vote for "lump" and "mechanical effect", respectively, but that's just me.
The two pages we have already effectively split between positive and negative effects. And note the practical differences, too — namely, that the negative effects:
- Are far more prevalent than positive ones (inflicted more often, last longer)
- Have dedicated cures easily available
edited 1st May '13 6:27:37 AM by Stratadrake
Which two pages do you mean? Standard Status Effects and Status Buff? I think that generic "Status Effect" is a missing supertrope to both of those — and would be useful for categorizing things that have both positive and negative aspects (eg, Final Fantasy's "berserk" status, which forces a character to do nothing but physical attacks, but boosts their physical attack power at the same time). If we want to have separate pages for "Status Buff" and "Status Ailment", then I don't see a problem with that, but having one page that's "a trope about buffs" and another that's "a list of negative status effects" bothers me. I don't see why the two shouldn't be mirrors of each other.
OK, this has been around since 2011. Is it accurate to say that the crowner decided on a split but not on a way to split it?
No, the other one.
Yes, and that's pretty much why it stalled, I believe.
Would it be worth splitting the current list of effects into sub-categories of action/effect on the character, YKTTW'ing pages that cover those categories, and then moving the appropriate folders to those pages once they're launched? That way, we could cut down on the number of pages.
I think so.
No, the other one.
I think that's generally the best way to handle category splits. Start with a single trope page. Then when it gets enough examples that sorting by type makes it clearer you can do that on the page. If any singular category is large enough, it can be moved to its own page. Anyway, I don't have time to check now, but I think one of the issues were whether to split them by name or by gameplay effect. I prefer the latter, as a name by itself doesn't necessarily serve a narrative purpose, while a gameplay mechanics always serve balance purposes.
Page Action: Standard Status Effects
2nd Sep '11 1:18:23 PM