Is our interpretation of "too broad" too narrow?

Question

Background

As suggested by @doppelgreener I am posing this question here in response to the closure of How does surprise work in D&D 5e?

Please accept and remember that I do not believe and I do not wish to infer that the people I mention who hold different opinions from me are in any way acting maliciously or capriciously or that they are in any way not 100% admirable human beings. I just think they're wrong and they think I'm wrong :).

The Originating Question

The question is as stated: How does surprise work in D&D 5e?

As originally posed it referenced all the Questions I could find on surprise and suggested that they were specific instances of a general misunderstanding of the surprise mechanic in DnD-5e. The answer was posted Q&A style as a Community Wiki and is essentially original.

Both the question and the answer received a large number of up-votes a favorites.

It was then closed as "Too broad".

As currently posed (post-hold) it quotes the 3 paragraphs from the PHB about surprise and asks for an explanation of this mechanic with examples.

What this site says about "Too Broad"

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/closed-questions says:

• too broad - if your question could be answered by an entire book, or has many valid answers, it's probably too broad for our format

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow down the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.

And at https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic it says (my emphasis):

The best questions are those that have specific answers; RPG.SE is not a general discussion forum. In general, if you have a question which covers:

• A specific problem with playing or running a table-top RPG;
• RPG rules or mechanics;
• RPG adventures and campaigns;
• Tools and equipment used while playing table-top RPGs (including running them online);
• Information about RPG campaign settings;
• Techniques for running or playing RPGs; and
• Matters which are specific to table-top pen and paper RPGs,

then you're in the right place!

and also:

We want the questions on our site to be valuable sources of information for the whole Internet, not just our community members, so we try to keep subjective opinions out of our questions and answers when we can. Share your personal play experiences and viewpoints, but avoid argument.

Community members can and will edit your questions and answers to be clear and grammatically correct.

Community members will vote up clearly asked, cogent, reasoned questions and answers and vote down off topic, incoherent, or inflammatory questions and answers.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask says:

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK. (Discussions are of course welcome in our real time web chat.)

The Discussion

Please take the time to read the discussion that took place in the comments because it is really these that are the source of this question. I will attempt to summarize the positions taken by the protagonists; it is not my intention to put words in anyone's mouth or misrepresent what was said, you all have enough reputation to edit this question so I you feel I have done you a disservice please do so so that the summary acurately reflects what you meant.

• @GMJoe said the basis of the question as originally posed i.e. as a one-stop-shop for surprise with links to other questions was inappropriate for the forum. I accept that and as a result edited the question so that it stood on its own merits.
• @GMJoe suggested that it was "Unclear" as "It's trying to solve all possible problems with surprise without specifying what those problems are." and "this question isn't trying to solve a real problem that someone faces"; in this he was supported by @Miniman who said "questions of the type "how does this mechanic work" are too broad. The site deals in specific problems." Questions on how mechanics work are specifically permitted on this site; they are a permitted class of question that exists independently of those that are attempting to solve a specific problem.
• @SevenSidedDie & @Miniman both had variations on the theme that high up-votes on question or answer do not save a poor question. I accept that position but they surely must serve as an indicator; if 20+ people think a question is worthwhile then the 5 people who voted to close it should be open to having another look. As my father is very fond of saying to me when I express a strong opinion "Never overlook the possibility that you could be dead wrong."
• @Miniman & @GMJoe both quoted "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face" from https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask. I do not understand this at all. The question posed is practical (surprise is an inherent part of most DnD 5e combats), answerable (clearly it is because I answered it) and its an actual problem I face (until I looked at these paragraphs thoroughly, I was playing it wrong).
• @BraddSzonye said "The single, very good, not terribly long answer is strong evidence that this close reason does not apply. Voting to reopen." That's what I'm saying ;).

Compare and Contrast

As my English essay questions used to say ...

The answers I would like to see will demonstrate, within the guidelines this site provides how How does surprise work in D&D 5e? is too broad while the following are not:

• How can I suggest the DM stop trying to kill us?
• Without a magic item economy, what is gold for?
• How can I play monsters and NPCs up to their potential?
• Why does the experience-to-next-level not change between some levels?
• How do I get my PCs to not be a bunch of murderous cretins?

Not all of these are rules focused so answers can and should address if this is in itself a factor in deciding issues of "too broad".

Please specifically reference the relevant parts of the sites various "how to" pages and the specific questions cited as referenced above.

Answer 1

This is too broad.

You are simply saying "explain a rules system to me." You may as well ask how combat works, or how spellcasting works. Your question indicates no problem, nothing you are clear on or specifically unclear on. It does not appear to be a real question based on a problem you have - "I want someone to read it to me" is not a real problem. What is the specific problem you have with the rules? Seems to me that since you're self-posting an answer you are just trying to make a faq or dupe target and like most question seeding the problem is that it may or may not help someone with a real specific question about surprise. The SE way is to answer those new questions, not artificially extend some master community wiki to do so.

So no, this isn't what we do, and it will stay closed.

Answer 2

The question at issue is definitely "Too Broad"

The question does not do nearly enough to define its scope. Stripping out the rules quote, the question can be reduced entirely to "Explain surprise to me". These kinds of questions are ruled as "Too Broad" for a few reasons:

• They don't present a problem that is solved by RPG expertise. This question is solved by reading the rules, and maybe by playing out an encounter. There is no expertise involved, just reading.
• They don't present a specific problem. The guidelines of the site are based upon making it valuable for future readers. With a question that is this nonspecific, it's unlikely that a future reader will find it as a solution to a problem they are having.

One way to evaluate whether a question is likely to be "Too Broad" is whether it is capable of having multiple valid answers. Most questions are formed such many valid answers of the form "Yes because X", "No because Y" exist. Not all of those answers are good, but they are all valid. If we contrast with the question at issue, it fails this test on two counts:

1. There is only one correct answer because multiple answers would each address separate parts of the question. A valid answer must stand alone and address the entirety of the question.
2. There is only one correct answer because the answer is just repeating the official rules text.

Answer 3

The problem isn't the question, it's the game mechanic

It's three years later, and I finally take up @SevenSidedDie's suggestion (made in a comment) to offer an answer. The question on the main site was wrestling with the hot mess that surprise became in D&D 5e due to previous edition carry over. A lot of us walked into this edition with expectations on how surprise works and what mechanical if/then conditions are met for surprise to exist, based on the previous editions of the game.

After playing this game for a while, and seeing different DMs apply surprise differently, I find that the question needs to be left as closed but available as a resource. We have a great many old questions that are closed for a variety of reasons. Dale's effort to make sense of surprise is a result of something @nitsua remarked upon regarding an early question about advantage:

I just think neither TSR nor WotC has ever done a good job of assembling a PHB to be accessible to someone who hasn't already mastered a previous PHB.

When asking "what problem are you trying to solve" Dale's question asks about a problem that every DM and every group I've played with has tried to solve: how to make it work so that it is clear at the table how surprise works.

The answer appears to be:

Forget anything you ever knew about surprise in D&D, and pretend that this is a brand new game feature.

I'd even offer that as an answer if the question were re opened, even though to a great extent Dale offered a rational way to treat it as a new mechanic in his comprehensive answer. But after reviewing the comments and this meta, I agree that it should remain locked; I don't think it ought to remain deleted. Per Seven's comment then:

locked by SevenSidedDie♦ Oct 4 '15 at 3:56 This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed.

Recommendation

Undelete, but leave locked.

Experience based piece of this answer

I found that Answer very helpful in discussing how surprise works and doesn't work in three different gaming groups for full group discussions, and with two other DM's in one-on-one discussions. The link to that answer was a key enabler to all of those discussions.

All of us had engaged in quite a bit of head scratching over 5e's presentation of surprise. This comprehensive answer is a worthy bookmark, but it is useful only people can read it.

Bottom Line

Please leave locked, but re-open so that it is viewable. The caveats in the comments under the question are quite clear on why it is locked.

Answer 4

Your question is not too broad

It is as broad as it needs to be.
Surprise is a confusing topic, its parts could be and were covered in several standalone questions, but the more parts it is broken into, the harder it is to actually understand it.

Your question helped a lot.

Our interpretation of "too broad" is too narrow indeed

Unfortunately it encourages duplicates, and decreases the usefulness.

Duplicates

We have about 20 questions about the relationship between multiclassing and spell slots in 5e, one asking about Eldritch Knight and Wizard, some Eldritch Knight and Cleric, some all casters combined.
They should all be linked to a sufficiently broad question, and closed as duplicates.

Decreased usefulness

Frequently comments ask for more details about the situation. Sometimes it is necessary, but mostly not.
Yes, the question about Dual Wielder can be narrowed down to 3rd level Elven Trickery Clerics, and the answer tailor-made, but than the answer is only useful for dual wielding 3rd level Elven Trickery Clerics, so basically one person.
I do not think this should be our goal, so I always try to go broader in the answer at least.

I think the current habits are diminishing the site's usefulness.