The impulse of askers to broaden our deliberately-limited tolerance for shopping questions into accommodating "I'm not shopping, I'm looking for an overview... that I will use to shop" isn't really productive — they already have an effective tool near to hand for those: forums. They don't need to lobby for pulling the SE format out of shape to get their window shopping desire met.

Type 2 overview requests are perfect for forums. They are one of the few types of question that forums, etc. handle really well. We don't need to stretch (or break) our format to accommodate them when they're so easily accommodated next door.

The impulse of askers to broaden our deliberately-limited tolerance for shopping questions into accommodating "I'm not shopping, I'm looking for an overview... that I will use to shop" isn't really productive — they already have an effective tool near to hand for those: forums. They don't actually need us to get their window shopping desire met, and we don't need to pull our format out of shape to accommodate the misplaced question.

Forums are ideal for answering type 2 overview requests. They are one of the few types of question that forums, etc. handle really well. We don't need to stretch (or break) our format to accommodate them when they're so easily accommodated next door.

No, these are just shopping questions that cannot be redeemed by the application of Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. They should not be entertained.

They are distinct from overviews in that they are asking us to just throw things at them until there is enough to browse the results at their leisure. An overview of a pre-existing category is an opportunity to provide understanding the category itself, it's relationship to other categories, and its relevance to RPG industry, history, and community. Meanwhile, asking for an ad hoc list of things that share an arbitrary quality has no value except for window shopping.

This is also one of the few types of question that forums, etc. handle well. Most things that forums handle well are outside the mission of SE by design.

Why overviews can't save "looking for a game" questions

There are two kinds of overview questions:

1. I want to understand an aspect of the hobby. This is an existing aspect of the hobby that is worthwhile understanding for its own sake, not for the list of games that it generates.
2. I want to see a list of games that are in an ad hoc category defined by my too-broad requirements, so I can go shopping with it.

The first is fine, and we can field those. However, type 1 questions will never be initially posted as any kind of game-rec lookalike in the first place, so there's no need for special handling of type 1 questions.

What distinguishes type 1 from type 2 is that the first does not require editorial opinion to pick and choose the games to include. Type 1 forms an existing set: D&D editions for example.

Type 2 games do not form a natural set, they form a set defined by an arbitrary set of feature chosen by the asker. Games that are skill-based is an arbitrary feature — a set (in the sense of set theory can easily be formed from it), but this set will be necessarily large. (Necessarily, because any ad hoc set that's small is already an OK game-rec question.) Paring that large set down to an overview-sized list is a process that is primarily opinion-based, and that's the killer for type 2 overviews.

So type 1 will only ever be asked straight, without having to have the asker narrow the question. Type 2 will always be too broad — they can't be narrowed (since they don't have any more criteria) and can't be left open without us inappropriately embracing primarily opinion-based answering.

Type 1 overviews are not a problem, and aren't really an issue that needs solving here. They fit our format, and don't run afoul of our game-rec rules. Voting on these overviews isn't especially vulnerable to game favouritism, and is done by the quality and completeness of the overview rather than agreeing with the overviewer's choice of representative games.

Type 2 overviews are just shopping questions that can't be fixed by the application of Good Subjective/Bad Subjective. Any voting on answers would be vulnerable to "I like the games you mentioned!" sentiments, and comments would easily fall into arguments over differences in opinion on the games included and excluded.

Besides, this impulse is often just the asker trying to make RPG.SE their one-stop RPG site

The impulse of askers to broaden our deliberately-limited tolerance for shopping questions into accommodating "I'm not shopping, I'm looking for an overview... that I will use to shop" isn't really productive — they already have an effective tool near to hand for those: forums. They don't need to lobby for pulling the SE format out of shape to get their window shopping desire met.

Type 2 overview requests are perfect for forums. They are one of the few types of question that forums, etc. handle really well. We don't need to stretch (or break) our format to accommodate them when they're so easily accommodated next door.

How to handle them

Type 1 overviews are fine and don't need special handling. Vote on quality, and comment to improve the details of the overview.

When it walks like a type 2 duck, handle as usual for game-rec questions: close when too broad or opinion-based, and ask them to provide more criteria. If they can't, point them at the "hundreds of games" meta as an explanation for why the question is staying closed.

Further, when they can't narrow it down, send them to a forum. Asking on a forum is an effortless way to get the overview-for-shopping-purposes that these questions are truly seeking. It makes no sense to struggle and strain here to get them answered, when the tool they need is lying right beside the RPG.SE tool.