Talk:Isekai Loli (5e Race)

April Fools template

Having a vague idea of "loli" I looked into this to see how bad it might be. So far, the most striking issue is the repeated application of the AF template and removal. I am requesting a reason that April Fools be applied to this page multiple times, or why the OP and another user removed it 3 times. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

I think the page deserves {{April Fools}} because the concept doesn't seem serious, and it seems like it's making fun of the common anime trope of "character that looks like a kid but is actually 700 years old." — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:03, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

It's not really a big issue. But the concept appears meaningfully serious to me; Though unconventional for standard games, and maybe has a couple references that'd make you chuckle, it's an otherwise balanced, serious, and fit-for-standard-campaigns class. --SgtLion (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply it is a big issue. Only that it stood out to me.

Geo, does humor stem from a previous edit for the age? I struggle finding something “comedic or entertaining” about the page but maybe “Because this mistake, you came back as a little girl” might do it? Otherwise I agree with Sarge the majority of the page seems normal (minus 5e standardization of things). BigShotFancyMan (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

I do not find this page serious. The application of a "little girl" in the campaign, first, does not mechanically work, and second is not a serious proposal for a race. Where is the history, society, etc? The racial traits, like heavy armor, make this race even less serious. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

Agreed. —ConcealedLight (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

You guys clearly don't play the same serious games that I do. The arguments for the template appear to be that it doesn't make conventional sense, and it's not totally complete; whereas I was always under the impression April Fools applies to comedic, 'prank'y type pages. I guess I must be wrong, and again, I don't really care that much, so whatever. --SgtLion (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2018 (MDT)

Hmmm I didn't think playing as a little girl meant things didn't work mechanically? Sure there's things to consider like ability scores but I've considered playing an adolescent before to be the hero like I might have wished I could IRL at that age. Similar to TV shows that have teens as protagonists. Also, {{stub}} seems more appropriate than {{April Fools}} if a page isn't totally complete, or {{WIP}} for something like this needing attention in multiple areas. Maybe the OP can weigh in at some point and help understanding the goal of creating this. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2018 (MDT)

I played a child character once. A wizard. I took some statistical detriments that eventually went away as I got older and it was a genuinely interesting experience from a roleplaying perspective that added to the character I had in mind. The rest of the party and I got to watch and experience this child grow into an adult and then see how they matured and were influenced by those around them(the party especially) and what they'd experienced during the adventure. This race though? Doesn't even do half of that. It's clearly not serious and is just another overpowered and generic anime troupe. —ConcealedLight (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2018 (MDT)

This race shouldn’t do half that; it doesn’t age. Nor does it “mature” but I don’t see playful (halfling) or tricky (name escapes) races being flagged. We also have appropriate templates for {{Design Disclaimer|Overpowered Content}}/{{needsbalance}} pages and {{stub|incomplete}} for generic thingy ma jigs. I don’t mean to be a butt about this or need to be convinced it needs AF. I fail to understand/see how the reasons warrant the template but I don’t think that matters if consensus is the template makes sense. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2018 (MDT)

There's nothing about playing a young character that doesn't work mechanically, GD, though other parts of the page aren't quite rules-compliant; specifically, the sleep resistance, also the fact that the race has you choose your size strikes me as odd, as does the heavy armor proficiency and +3 on a single ability score on the "oppai" subrace. Speaking of which, that entire subrace also makes me think the page isn't entirely serious; that this page has a subrace named "oppai loli" makes it very hard for me to take it seriously. I really think this page does require the {{April Fools}} template, but if others think differently, I'm not so invested in it that I'd edit war over it. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:14, 13 June 2018 (MDT)

Uh. Speaking of the "oppai" subrace, how does this not have an adult theme template on it? Doesn't that term have a very strong connotation with pornography? - Guy (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2018 (MDT)

Google translates the word to “tits”, and the other day my searches for oppai loli generate the topic being young girls with very large breasts. I think adult theme is more than appropriate. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2018 (MDT)

Just a Note

Something I remember from this [[1]]. Bolded portion for emphasis.

"Be careful with edit summaries. They are relatively short comments and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing "Save", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation."

Don't:

• Make snide comments.
• Make personal remarks about editors.
• Be aggressive.

A couple other things I think worth noting. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2018 (MDT)

Question(s)

I have a tendency to enjoy mixing and matching races sometimes, and after this race caught my attention, I started coming up with supplemental subraces for it that mixed with it some other race ideas I'd been making. So, my question(s) would be: would I need to ask the OP (or alternatively some representative, if one exists) for permission to add optional, supplemental subraces to this page, as long as they don't enter into the realm of being too extremely broken (though, you can find two of my overpowered rejects here on my user page if you'd like), or can I just go ahead and do it on my own? I'd add a new segment specifically labeled to make it known that the additions are optional supplements, but I just wanted to ask about this to be safe. - Alice-chan 21:44, 21 November 2018 (EST)

Be bold. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:30, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Advice taken.

On another note, while I was doing that, I noticed further up in the main race traits that the "trait1" field had been commented out, but the "description1" field had not been. I also noticed that said trait happened to be for Darkvision, and had clearly been edited at some point, because the description didn't have the "5e Darkvision" commented out like it starts out when you create a new race page. So, based on that information, I assumed that it was an error and un-commented it out. - Alice-chan 23:11, 21 November 2018 (EST)