Is this question about alternatives to the word humanoid too broad or opinion-based, or is it well-scoped?

Question

The question: Is there an alternative word to be used in place of Humanoid?

At time of writing this meta, the question is on the verge of being reopened without modification after its initial closure for being "opinion based".

The question is clear, but the scope is a concern. In particular, we see it stated:

My campaign is DND 5e set in Eberron, but any term from any setting or TTRPG or otherwise would work.

Also at the time of writing this meta, the question has had three answers deleted from review, and 9 of the 11 remaining answers contain no citations to any source describing "any setting or TTRPG or otherwise".

Is this question adequately scoped as is? If not, can it be modified to be so?

Answer 1

I think that the scope of the question is fine, and is adequately defined. If the asker is interested in any word used in any setting, that defines a standard against which answers can be assessed. It is in no way opinion based-- words mean what the asker wants, or they don't.

What causes some trouble for the question is is whether or not it is on-topic for the stack. It might be a good worldbuilding question as-is, but to be the best fit for RPG.SE it should depend on knowledge of TTRPGs, which "any setting" doesn't really establish very well.

As for citations in answers, I think that this is a case where they are less important than is often the case. If I added A Fire Upon the Deep as a citation to my answer, it would have a citation for the word sophont being used in a setting, but that would add nothing to the question or answer as currently defined.

Were the question to be edited to ask specifically for in-universe terms in Eberron (5e) only, then the citations become more valuable (to establish that they really are used in-universe). But that's a preference for the asker to determine and express.

Answer 2

Well-scoped, but room for improvement

I think the question is fairly clear, although more specifics are always helpful in narrowing down to potential answers that best fit the bill.

Honestly, this seems a bit more like a general language question as-asked and not necessarily a RPG question. Narrowing the scope to asking about words that work within a specific setting would likely be helpful, but not necessarily required.

The bigger issue is that we're now generating answers that are undifferentiated and many not supported. When questions draw answers like that, we can either close as opinion-based to stop the flow, or see what we can do to tighten it up.

I have a feeling that increasing scope may reduce or invalidate many answers, or even make the final answer null. Which isn't bad, but also isn't helpful to the querent. It also retains the issue of inappropriate answers with many upvotes that we're now stuck with.

But is this on topic?

That's a whole other question, but I'd like to address it here. If the question remains as it stands without a narrowing of scope to a setting, then really anything is on the table (as we're seeing in answers.) Such a question would be a potentially better fit for the Worldbuilding, English, or even Sci-Fi stack if they want what others have created in other industries.

But if we want this to be an RPG question, it should be focused on a setting that is relevant to the querent.

Improved! Now, a new problem.

The querent has clarified that they are only looking for TTRPG terms, but we've got quite a few answers that are no longer relevant. It is my belief that we should ask the answerers to remove those answers or change them to TTRPG terms.

Answer 3

The question as written is appropriate for RPG.SE, and doesn't require any change. Although the question could be directed to other Stacks, it is acceptable given our current guidance. Currently it's unknown what exactly is motivating the question, which leads to differing perspectives on how to fix it.

Full disclosure: I am one of the users who answered that question.

The scope is appropriate.

The current question is scoped appropriately. It isn't asking for all terms from all games, or even a set of terms with a given property. The querent's statement that information from any RPG or setting is a (loose) constraint, not a part of the scope of the question.

Does it belong here?

Our Help page explains:

Questions about a general real-world topic such as history, geography or economics, whilst relevant to RPGs, may be off topic if they are not RPG-centric (or better belong on another Stack Exchange site, such as History). A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself:

Would an RPG expert give me a better/different/more specific answer to this question than a Historian, Geographer, etc?

If yes, then feel free to ask it here.

This question could be on topic on World-building, ELL, or a number of other stacks. However, insofar as the querent is interested in advice that is specific to the RPG community and informed by our norms and needs, then it is appropriate to remain here.

Improving the Question

Basically we know what OP wants, but not why.

Is the problem that the players are misinterpreting what is happening? Do they direct their characters into a den of bugbears expecting a human settlement? Is their current communication functional, but socially awkward? Are they concerned about the post-structuralist criticisms of defining personhood in relation to any particular group?

If the querent were more specific about the practical problem they are running into, then we could provide better tailored advice.