Duplicate Trope: Status Ailment

It does seem like Status Effects is being used as a holonym for the negatives only.

Although, Generals might catch up?

...

But if we have all those tropes for specific Status Ailments, why are we using the very broad Status Effects?

I think it indicates the wicks need to be cleaned more than anything else?

Edited by Malady on Dec 8th 2021 at 10:03:04 AM

And done my check... Sandbox.Status Effects Wick Check

Yeah, really leaning on "Clean", before we decide if we need to do anything else.

Things to convert into are like Forced Sleep, Anti-Debuff, and other things like that?

Catching up...

• Status Effects: temporary change to stats/abilities/rules. Supertrope to
  • Status Buff: positive effects
  • Status Ailment: negative effects

Entries describing neutral, unknown, or a mix of positive and negative effects (doesn't fit in subtropes) go to Status Effects.

If no action is taken via TRS, the above is what the tropes should look like, right?

That's what I want it to be, anyway. At least 22 people in the previous thread wanted to merge Status Effects and Status Ailment for some reason I don't know.

That both of them don't have an examples section... Is interesting. Do we want examples sections?

And the Status Effects Wick Check says nothing about non-Status Ailment / non-Status Buff-s...

So if we want to find such statuses to fill the gap or whatever, we'd have to go elsewhere, like Beneficial Disease or Blinded by Rage.

Edited by Malady on Dec 8th 2021 at 1:29:13 AM

So, what does it tell us? Should 1. negative Status Effects wicks be moved to Status Ailment per Sub-Trope rule and for Status Effects to only keep examples that are neither positive and negative, or should 2. Status Ailment wicks be moved to Status Effects and later done the same to Status Buff, so Status Effects would be a catch-up trope for positive, neutral and negatives?

If Status Ailment is kept, I suggest moving this list of various ailments at Status Effects to there to avoid redundancy.

While at Status Effects, I'd move Status-Buff Dispel to some sort of "related" section, for not being a status. Anti-Debuff, One Curse Limit and Dispel Magic could proably be there as well.

I'm saying 1.

Because "useful" and "not useful" for the player / caster to apply to self are probably important distinctions.

If positive status effects exist, it might be like No Cure for Evil, where only players get to use them or something?

Especially if players and Mooks are quite different types of beings, it makes sense that they don't share skills?

...

Not sure if No Cure for Evil is saying that it's this broad, or that it's saying its a subset of this:

Edited by Malady on Dec 9th 2021 at 7:47:26 AM

Shut off the clock.

I'm personally still inclined to lump.

Well if we do lump...

Anyone against a Situationally Useful Status Effects TLP or whatever a good name for "has both positive and negatives" is?

Because if we do that and lumping happens, then Status Effects will be Status Ailment, functionally, due to how Sub-Trope exclusion works?

...

I guess it's like Cursed with Awesome? Or Blessed with Suck??

Edited by Malady on Dec 9th 2021 at 8:36:27 AM

I don’t think that’s necessary? If we lump Status Effects with Status Ailment would cover both negative and “neutral effects”.

Also, are there really any truly neutral status effects? I think all effects can be used negatively or positively depending on how it’s utilized in game play.

There's no such thing as a truly neutral status effect because status effects are, by definition, conditions that strengthen or weaken the target entity in some way.

A truly neutral status effect would have no effect on its target, so the very concept cancels itself out.

Yeah, I agree with and . An example would be the Pokemon status effect Sleep — it might be tempting to catalog it as negative since it makes one a sitting duck. However the move Rest uses it to restore health, making it a positive if played smartly.

Edited by Synchronicity on Dec 9th 2021 at 11:38:22 AM

That's not a function of the Forced Sleep though, but just that move, so I wouldn't count it, or I'd call it a Play.

And it seems like the only recovery move to cure statuses...? It's like Recover + Heal Bell, that needs the Sleep as a drawback.

That Pokemon's main Status Effects are One Curse Limit-y...

That... Sorta makes them neutral? But that's more about their combat system than the status itself.

Edited by Malady on Dec 9th 2021 at 10:01:30 AM

The point is that the lines between positive/negative/neutral are not always so clearly drawn because combat systems are so varied, which is why I am in favor of the merge.

Edited by Synchronicity on Dec 9th 2021 at 12:02:03 PM

I'm also in favor of merging.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Dec 10th 2021 at 3:35:02 AM

Same

Crowner?

so long as Status Effect explains that in order to throw the player a bone, often devs make Status Ailments that can be exploited by the player for their gain (and that's why we're lumping them together), vs Status Buffs which the enemies can rarely if ever do the same with, then the merge is fine with me

off the top of my head i know berserk/rage status (character's physical strength stats go WAY up at the cost of defense and in turn based combat, the ability to control them), petrification (cant move or take a turn and piercing attacks can 1 hit KO you, but you are now invulnerable to all other status ailments and buffs), and the zombie status (may nullify certain dark magic spells at the cost of making one vulnerable to healing/life giving spells and holy magic) works like that

Edited by amathieu13 on Dec 10th 2021 at 6:21:09 AM

>A truly neutral status effect would have no effect on its target

Not necessarily. There are status effects that have both positive and negative effects. "Berserk" in many RPGs increases the characters's attack stat at the cost of making them just attack, so whether it's good or bad depends on the context and the target.

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Dec 10th 2021 at 10:10:24 AM

A joke status would be neutral as well, right? A spell in a single player game that adds a glitter effect to a target. No in-game benefit or drawback, just glitter for ten minutes that can be canceled with a potion like other status effects.

Yeah, I'd say so. In either case, they don't fit into the strict dichotomy of Ailment and Buff... So we want somewhere to put it and Status Effects would be the obvious one, if we aren't making a Sub-Trope for it.

Status Ailment being Strictly Negative for the afflicted, meaning some (usually) drop in some statistic, regardless of anything special about the afflicted, like an ability that flips such effects.

"(usually) drop" meaning like if there's an Insanity Meter for example, it's negative if it goes up, instead of down, but that's uncommon?

And of course, Buff being the opposite.

Edited by Malady on Dec 10th 2021 at 10:28:22 AM

Which parts of the Status Ailment's description are salvageable to fit into Status Effects? Maybe this requires a sandbox.

Also the courtesy wick link: StatusAilment (249). Should it be kept as a redirect?

So, what is Status Effects' definition and should it have a examples list?

I guess it's All Status Effects except Damage-Increasing Debuff, Status Buff variants, and Damage Over Time?

Edited by Malady on Dec 13th 2021 at 6:23:15 AM

I think that makes sense.

As for the description, we have to rewrite to be more centered towards status ailments and other effects that aren’t buffs. Status Buff shouldn’t really have its own section. I feel like we could move that to it’s trope page.

As for examples, do we have any that isn’t covered by other sub tropes? If so, I don’t mind listing them.