8
\$\begingroup\$

How was the "target" of a spell chosen for the Roll20 Information Block?

That question was recently asked and has comments and various votes about whether it should be open or closed. Is it on-topic? To quote the current form of the question in full:

The PHB specifies that there are two parts in a spell description, the block of information and the spell's effect:

Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.

The block of information contains the seven headings listed above.

D&D Beyond spell blocks of information retain the seven PHB headings but add two more; attack / save and damage / effect.

Roll20 Compendium blocks of information retain the seven PHB headings but add two more; target and classes.

In the PHB, a spell's target may be listed in the spell's effect, but then again it may not, which can lead to questions about what the target of a spell actually is. For many spells it simply is not clear what the target is.

Thus, the explicit listing of the target in the Compendium entries could be a valuable source of clarifying information, if they were official, which I doubt.

What was the process of selecting the target of a spell for the Compendium write-up?
Was it confined entirely to the Roll20 team, in which case the target listed there is clearly not RAW?
Did the WotC Design team offer guidance and suggestion as to the target listings, in which case a listed target might have the status of RAI?

The actual questions asked are those last three. Are they on-topic for this site?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Clearly I think the question is on-topic or I wouldn't have asked it, and certainly I am biased in that regard. That aside, from the comments on the question itself, I am picking up a subtext; people seem more willing to declare a question off-topic if they think it is unlikely to be answered. This isn't the first question I have had where people seem to confuse 'I don't think we can answer that' with 'that's off-topic' or 'that shouldn't be asked'. Especially for questions of historical fact, these are two different things, and I would hope that answers here address that distinction. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Jan 30, 2022 at 20:49
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt We absolutely can answer it, at least, if the answer exists, as is the case with every other question that asks “have the designers said?”, so that isn’t (and never has been) the reason we close designer reasons questions. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 30, 2022 at 22:02

4 Answers 4

6
\$\begingroup\$

This is a design intent question, which is off topic.

Roll20 designed a web based compendium of Wizards’ print material. As a part of this design, Roll20 made an interpretive choice by adding a “target” section to the spell descriptions. The question asks about the process behind these spell interpretations that Roll20 included as a part of their compendium design - why or how did they choose one interpretation or another? The question then asks if this design choice is related to Wizards’ own intent for the rules. This is the classic formulation of designer rule intent questions that we routinely close as off topic - “Why did X designer make Y decision about rule Z?” - which we do because the signal-to-noise ratio on those questions is so low that allowing them has historically had negative value.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "...which we do because the signal-to-noise ratio on those questions is so low that allowing them has historically had negative value." It's not enough to say that we routinely close them as off topic. \$\endgroup\$
    – fectin
    Jan 31, 2022 at 13:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @fectin You mind if I just copypaste that into the answer? \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2022 at 13:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ I absolutely do not mind! \$\endgroup\$
    – fectin
    Jan 31, 2022 at 13:23
3
\$\begingroup\$

Only very few people are involved in the design process of a database. In that, it is very much akin to the design of a game.

Who can tell us why a game (or in this case: a derivative database) is how it is? Only those that made it can. In some very rare cases, there is design commentary that explains those decisions, but in general, the community can't know such things.

One of the very few cases where such commentary exists is the Maid-RPG Nun-Approved File, which is the translator commentary on all the little and big changes, which not only sheds light on the intended tone and ideas of the game. Without such a file, we have to guess or need to be one of those people that have been part of the process - or fail at the Good/Bad Subjective and citation expectations!

As such, this question is asking for - and thus Off-topic due to the moderation effort.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Or we could ask an e-mail inquiry and wait for that/leave the question unanswered until someone comes along who can do so. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 30, 2022 at 18:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu the common stance of companies is "No comment", but you can try. \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Jan 30, 2022 at 19:01
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu Do we have some special expertise in sending email that would justify the question being on the site, rather than the asker sending such an email query themselves? \$\endgroup\$
    – Oblivious Sage Mod
    Feb 1, 2022 at 0:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ObliviousSage I emailed a county official in Wyoming to answer a question over on skeptics.se. So you could say I’m a bit of an expert. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 1, 2022 at 6:39
1
\$\begingroup\$

It is on topic.

What was the process of selecting the target of a spell for the Compendium write-up?

Someone in our general sphere knows this, and no other stack supersedes us in that query. That the people who'd know the answer are likely to leave your question unanswered doesn't matter.

You are also gleaming at designer intent, which, if it would be the focus of the question, would make it off-topic.

Did the WotC Design team offer guidance and suggestion as to the target listings, in which case a listed target might have the status of RAI?

But your question itself doesn't invite speculation (that you might do on your own based on the result), our reasoning about rule intent generally doesn't apply because the first part is the core of the question. That the querent wants to also use the result for speculation or to conclude about intent is irrelevant. The question is about the historical fact of collaboration.

You might still attract many unfounded and speculative answers regardless of your careful wording — if that happens, we still might close it - as that is site practice. We shouldn't close your question before that might happen.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't understand the phrase "gleaming at designer intent". It doesn't seem to fit uses of the word 'gleaming' with which I am familiar. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Jan 30, 2022 at 23:58
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ We ruled designer-intent questions off-topic because we found that their very nature invited speculation; no matter how much the question insisted on answers being backed up, some questions still got nothing but tons of speculation. Those that explicitly invited speculation were always closed, and often edited and reopened, and sometimes they were still problems. This answer seems ignorant of the policy and the history, and is in any event incorrect. I don’t even like the policy anymore, but this sort of question is precisely the sort of thing we voted against. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 31, 2022 at 0:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan It doesn't apply because the first part is the core of the question. That the querent wants to also use that for speculation is irrelevant. It is about the historical fact of collaboration. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2022 at 8:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt A small stream of light - shining light at/illuminating; figuratively hinting at. — briefly but strongly apparent. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2022 at 8:24
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I do not see what distinction you are making between what your first quote asks for, and designer-intent. Everything you’ve written about it justifies its general typically on this site—which is absolutely true, absent the specific policy against them, designer-intent questions generally are on-topic here—but since it falls under the specific policy against designer-intent, I don’t see any relevance to it. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 31, 2022 at 14:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I honestly never liked the policy, though perhaps for different reasons. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 2, 2022 at 16:30
1
\$\begingroup\$

With the recent edit, this is now a question of historical fact and it is on-topic

The question asks:

Did the WotC Design team offer guidance and suggestion as to the target listings?

This is asking whether or not WotC and Roll20 collaborated. This is a question of historical record and no part of it is about the intentions of WotC or Roll20.


One could argue the question still has an intent related bit:

What was the process of selecting the target of a spell for the Compendium write-up?

However, this sentence is immediately followed up with an explanation of what is specifically being asked:

Here I do not mean what was the intent behind it, but simply was the decision confined entirely to the Roll20 team, in which case the target listed there is clearly not RAW?

So even if the process question is a problem (personally, I dont think it is), that's not what's being asked for. The only thing being asked is about whether or not Roll20 and WotC collaborated. The potentially troublesome bit, in all honesty, could simply be removed and nothing about what's being asked would change.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What you said is correct about the part of the question you address - whether or not they collaborated is certainly not a question of intent. But that is not the only part of the question, and I am quite certain that part of the question is not the controversial part. You really should address the part of the question that asks about Roll20’s process, which I contend in my answer is necessarily a design intent question, since that part of the question is the reason we’re here, not the objective question of collaboration. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2022 at 0:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov Changed the title slightly to match then. I'd just quote "What was the process of selecting the target of a spell for the Compendium write-up? Here I [...] mean [...] was the decision confined entirely to the Roll20 team** [...]?" So we now have explicit confirmation of what they meant to ask at the very least; which is what this answer addresses \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2022 at 0:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why would the process question be problematic in the first place? It seems as absurd as closing an inquiry about an illustration in a rule book because it might display the design intent of the colours used, (e. g. a blue Tiefling, sure someone can conclude that blue Tieflings are a thing in universe, but that interpretation is up to them.) \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2022 at 11:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Akix I agree that it's not. But other answers here clearly don't. I'm arguing against them \$\endgroup\$ Jan 31, 2022 at 11:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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