I asked the following question: How do you determine what action belongs to who in a modernist GM-based game?

I got an answer out of it and even some upvotes, and I don't really want or need anything more out of the question. I was thinking about dropping a bounty on Novak's answer, because it has some really good ideas in it, even if it is a bit off base for the question itself - but I think it's probably more appropriate to ask another question that that answer is answering, and if this question's too broad, I'm not sure that's gonna work out great.

In any case, I'm not super attached to or invested in the question anymore.

It has, however, gotten closed. It's got a lot of upvotes, which is a bit surprising to me, and so makes me think that people are finding it useful - and so maybe I should put some work into the question to make it more openable. The thing is, there's not really anything wrong with the question right now (I'm pretty sure it's not actually too broad - it's just very abstract and some people struggle with abstract questions), and I think making the question more concrete would be impossible without changing it into a much less interesting question with a lot less value for future readers (which would also invalidate the many good answers I've gotten so far).

Should I try and get this question reopened? If so, is there an easy way to edit it to be less VTC-attracting without making it a fundamentally different question?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Maybe worth asking: Should the question be closed to begin with? If so, why? I.e., what exactly makes it "too broad"? \$\endgroup\$
    – HellSaint
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 23:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Wait, someone voted to close this question as opinion-based? On meta? That's... What. \$\endgroup\$
    – HellSaint
    Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 6:39
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That's meta, is what that is. \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 6:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Novak Yeah but I'm confused. Meta is mostly about discussion and throwing away opinioned stuff anyway. Voting to close as opinion-based is very awkward. I'm not sure the person thought this was exceptionally opinion-based even for meta or it was someone inexperienced with how meta works? \$\endgroup\$
    – HellSaint
    Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 6:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast The system of modernist conventions I have defined and been talking about before that point. I no longer have a problem in need of solving, of course, because I already got the problem solved via answers. My impression is that 'ask about a problem you are having' is not actually required, though, just advice for making the easiest sort of question (i.e. Concrete questions about specific games). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 22:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast I think if you replace 'within this system' with 'within this framework' or 'within this style' the meaning of the question is the same without the jargon clash. (That said, even though I made the remark elsewhere and got a response, I still think an example of an actual game that embodies that framework would be helpful for other reasons.) \$\endgroup\$
    – Novak
    Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 23:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast While a sign may be a solution to the arguing, it's not a solution to not understanding who owns what actions in a modernist framework. The rules, it would seem, are expected to detail most of how conflicts of ownership ought to be handled, and ignoring the problems because the point of agency determinations is just to make sure no one is ever inconvenienced or emotionally moved by the game fiction and when it comes down to it we can do that directly if necessary is the rest of it (which a sign may help effect, of course). Or so it would seem. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 19, 2020 at 2:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast To rephrase: I think the answer is "read Dan B's answer, but then also read Southpaw Hare's answer, because the rules can only handle so much". \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 19, 2020 at 3:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ OK, it's clearer now, thanks for the more concise summary \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 19, 2020 at 14:48

2 Answers 2


Pursue if the answers do not satisfy your question

You do point out that

In any case, I'm not super attached to or invested in the question anymore.

You've answered your own question. You have completed the SE process.

Where I'd recommend trying to get a question reopened is where you have a question, the few answers don't satisfy you, and you haven't accepted one, and you'd like a better answer than what was offered up. In that case, keep on working or workshopping the question to get it into re-openable shape.

Then, your revised and improved question will have a better chance to attract more satisfying answers.


Up to you

First, let us make something clear: your question is a somewhat strange question in how things happened. From the timeline, the question was asked, received its answers in about 5 hours, had a (failed) attempt to close it within this same time window, got to HNQ, and was closed about 18 hours later. That is, it wasn't clear that the question should be closed to begin with, and as you mentioned, you got many answers in the meantime, including good answers. This is rare: usually people able to provide good answers tend to close questions before answering, so the answer can be given to an appropriate question. In this case, since it wasn't obvious the question should be closed (and even I am not sure it should be, tbh), many people went on and answered it without thinking it should be closed.

We (at least, I) usually ask people to not answer a question under VTC process, exactly so the querent has more reasons and motivation to edit the question into a better question before they get their answers, making the site better as a whole. So, it's completely understandable that, after getting the answer you wanted, you don't care about making the question better in order to get more (possibly even better?) answers.

Ultimately, it is up to you: as you mentioned, you don't have much personal investment any more, so, if you want to spend your time to make the site better, go for it, otherwise, I believe we all can understand your situation :)

A few things to consider:

  • About the upvotes, it's most likely due to the question hitting HNQ (HNQ stands for Hot Network Questions) for about 10 hours.
  • The question already got very good answers as you said, so, it's unlikely that it gets any significant improvement over its current state even if reopened.

So I wouldn't worry too much, personally. Sometimes good questions get closed.

If so, is there an easy way to edit it to be less VTC-attracting without making it a fundamentally different question?

Probably no, unless you ask about your specific problem (i.e., specifically about the stabbing example you gave, with a specific game system, and specific actions/reactions/interactions between the players).

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think you shouldn't answer a questions that's obviously closeworthy, but there's nothing wrong with answering a question you don't think is closeworthy, even if others disagree about that and even if there's enough opposition and not enough support so the question eventually ends up closed. Closed questions aren't deleted or hard to find or anything; the only thing that makes them worse for the site than open questions, afaik, is that they can't be bountied or answered except by people who have already posted an answer. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 7:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Pleasestopbeingevil Yes, that's what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong in answering a question you don't think is closeworthy. In general, people able to provide good answers are also able to identify closeworthy questions, so most closed questions don't get good answers. Yours is a rare exception, exactly because it's not obvious the question should be closed. \$\endgroup\$
    – HellSaint
    Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 7:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ The second statement in your comment is what I was trying to bring up with the bullet: it is not clear that your question will be significantly improved even if reopened. \$\endgroup\$
    – HellSaint
    Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 7:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, ok. Makes sense. Thanks for your feedback :) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 18, 2020 at 7:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .