How do we handle "game survey" questions?

Question

Recommended reading:

• Are game recommendation questions on topic?
• How to deal with questions that just don't understand the scope of the RPG landscape?
• What's so problematic about a recommendation question having potentially hundreds of answers, anyway?

Observe recent question Are there any perk based RPG systems (e.g. Fallout III, Skyrim, etc)?. Compare to a question like Overview of D&D retro-clones.

I believe this question isn't really an example of a game-rec question, as the poster isn't looking for one game that fits a set of criteria - it's a survey question, where it's asking for a primer in a certain area. The retroclones question is a good example of this - instead of sweating the OP on "what exact retroclone do you want" we had some good answers explaining the space.

From time to time we have questions like this, where they are asking for games but really it's a theory question asking about mechanics or techniques, and wants to know if they exist/what they're called/what major games use them.

We discussed this way back in Diceless Technique Question but that was in context of Community Wikis and stuff. I think in the modern regime, we should consider guiding posters with questions like this away from the game-rec rules and towards asking something like,

"I am interested in RPG mechanics like the perk-based advancement in Skyrim/Fallout - no classes, but with leveling, and advancement defined by increasing skills and gaining specific perks (abilities) related to those skills. Does this concept exist within tabletop RPGs, if so what is it usually called, and what are examples of major games use it?" (Note this is more focused than the current linked question, it is not a good question as it stands yet).

Obviously there will be some temptation for people to answer these poorly with just a single game ("Champions durr, peace out") but it'd be pretty obvious to downvote those.

Should we adopt this approach to people seeking general understanding of an area, or force them down the "super specific" game-rec path?

Answer 1

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 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.

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.

Answer 2

Yes, a question asking for an overview is acceptable

This site shouldn't be one's introductory RPG destination, but its contributors are better equipped to provide an overview of systems than most, and its format means grokking an overview is far easier compared to sifting through a forum.

I see little problem in permitting questions like...

• What are the most important X role-playing games and why?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of X role-playing games?

Examples for X could include class-and-level, point-based, archetype-based, d20, fantasy, science fiction, vampire, or whatever. These are probably still too broad and would require further refining, but the premise is sound. A warning that answers should focus on the question and not the examples might be useful.

I don't think this information's conveniently available anywhere else. A quick Web search revealed no repository that classifies and details role-playing games like this.

If there is such a site, instead of answering such questions here, let's further popularize that site by linking such questions to that site in such question's Closed notice.

Answer 3

Overview questions are awesome and totally on topic. Confer Is this overview question ok to ask here?

A good overview question has a limited scope. As @Hey I Can Chan alludes, this isn't the site for beginners, and questions like "What are RPGs like, give me an overview" are uncool. The overview should be reasonably expected to fit within our format's length limitations, and probably should expect answers much shorter than that.

A good overview question is asking for an introduction to a subject. I strongly disagree about this not being a site for introductions to RPGs. I consider myself an expert on a variety of RPGs and even RPGs in general, but when I am moving into a new system for a specific purpose (cf. Is Microscope a good game for a conflict-avoidant, disaffectionate player?) or dealing with edition changes in an RPG franchise (cf. What are the major differences between AD&D 1st Edition & AD&D 2nd Edition) an introduction (albiet not necessarily an overview) is what I'm looking for. Expert level intros to RPG systems or a specific classification of RPG systems are extremely helpful to RPG experts and are probably among the most useful stuff this site produces, from an expert point of view.

Because a good overview question is asking for an introduction, a good overview answer will provide suggestions as how one might proceed in further research if interested (a Further Reading section or some such).

A good overview question clearly indicates that it is an overview, and not just confused about the size of the RPG landscape.

A good overview question asks for an overview of something in which there really are multiple different parts, and the relationship between those parts is interesting.

Because a good overview question is overviewing entities that differ in interesting ways, a good overview answer should at least briefly explain why the differences exist and what the differences are, not just list the different categories present.

If an overview question is good, it's definitely on-topic. If it's not, then it might not be, but not just because it's an overview question. These questions do not need a smaller scope. They also don't need to be limited to 'games showcasing X mechanic' (which will almost always be bad) or 'different implementations of X mechanic in published games' (which will almost always be good). Any subject of which an overview is appropriate an overview can be requested for.