My D&D 5e question about whether rounds are just for combat was closed, and I'm confused - a case for reopening

Question

So, my most recent Question Are rounds just for combat, or should we be using them at other times in the game? was closed, with the following reason "Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.", however the community feedback for this in the close notification was "Original close reason(s) were not resolved".

The original close reason was a unilateral close by @ThomasMarkov thinking it was a duplicate of this question, which it wasn't and isn't in my view. I'm asking a much more general question than that specific one, trying to address a class of related problem I want to adjudicate consistently within my game. Just because there are narrower questions, focusing on a specific element of a broader topic, doesn't make a question about the broader topic a duplicate.

I can't really see what is particularly unclear about the question as formulated now either, as I've gotten 4 answers (one of which is a self-answer admittedly).

So, without getting specific feedback about what is unclear in the question I think it should be reopened, or I should be provided specific feedback on what exactly is unclear about my question, because at least 3 other people have found it clear enough to write good and cognisent answers that address the problem I am trying to solve.

Answer 1

Muddled Question

I was one of the close votes, and I voted to close after the discussion in comments (which is now moved to chat) because the whole things seems muddled. I don't understand how the question you are asking in the title:

"Are rounds just for combat, or should we be using them at other times in the game?"

would help you solve the problem you say you are having:

Of particular interest to me, and what spawned the idea for this question as well as the problem it's looking to solve, is the idea of resolving simultaneous effects during longer activities. So for example, a short rest is measured in an hour, a long rest is measured in 8 hours spans of time. Both of these have defined start and end points, and in particular the game specifies a lot of things happen at the end of [insert rest here]. These things happen at the same time and need to have an order resolved for the game to work.

Neither possible answer, yes or no, helps you with that problem. A Yes (i.e., rounds are just for combat) answer just seems to shut your problem down, with no help. A No answer at least starts to lead somewhere if you read the question broadly enough (i.e., rounds are not just for combat, and here is how using rounds for short or long rests helps you...)

And I support reading questions broadly in most cases.

But not here. Because the muddled question also muddles the answers making it difficult to decide whether they're good or bad. They are all (at the time of this writing) "good" in the sense that they answer the yes-no question. They are also fairly trivial in that regard, but they're still good. But they're also "bad" because they don't solve the problem you're trying to address... and most of them say as much. Actually, all of them except your own self-answer say as much.

So it becomes a bit of a fishing trip where you end up getting a yes/no answer that doesn't in any way address your stated issue with simultaneity, but also end up generating disjointed lists of situations where non-combat rounds might be useful.

This strikes me as just an all-around badly phrased question that's trying to do way too much, accomplishes very little, and has extremely questionable criteria for up-voting or accepting answers.

Answer 2

This is a good question with several good answers.

I had originally closed the question as a duplicate of this question: Are there any official rules for or even suggestion of using initiative order outside of combat? The questions are very similar, but illustro points out the substantial distinction in the last paragraph of their question:

While I accept that any time you need to use initiative in the game (chases or combat for example) you need to measure time in rounds, measuring time in rounds does not necessarily require a strict initiative order. For example, solving a complex puzzle with per round effects that repeat on a loop, and demonstrating that loop in rounds, but allowing your players to determine the order of their actions dynamically in each round, without going turn by turn, even allowing for two players actually doing two things at the same time.

To me this is essentially the same question, but about situations where the granular initiative rules are not necessary, but measuring fast-paced, time-dependent events is. Illustro asks for guidance from the rules and/or experience for applying the six-second round structure outside of combat, without the use of a strict initiative order, and then provides a stellar self-answer providing exactly that.

Closure for "needs details" generally applies to questions that need additional details before a good answer can be provided. This is obviously not the case - the question was open long enough to receive three additional high-quality answers. Darth Pseudonym, Non-Human Person, and Austin Hemmelgarn did not need any more details or clarity to provide good responses in addition to the one illustro offered when posting the question. When a question is up for closure review for needs more focus, opinion based, or needs details, and it has already received answers, we should ask ourselves "are the answers the question did receive emblematic of the problem we're closing the question for?". We certainly did not see that this time, and at the time of this revision (four weeks after initial review), the questions has not received any more answers, which is further evidence the question was well scoped.

I saw several comments asking for a specific situation to rule on - requiring that at this point would in some ways invalidate all the existing high quality answers that haven't addressed whatever we try to shoehorn into the question.

Reopen.

Answer 3

Your question follows a typical pattern that makes reviewers cautious.

It all starts with vonBoomslang's question Can you determine the order of "at the end of a short rest" effects?, where you leave your answer that conflicts with this other answer.

Your question is about a general case, but indisputably tied to this subset of the question, and your self-answer will appear like an isolated response to that initial question where your answer only had a small response.

To reviewers, it will appear as if you are unhappy with that outcome and use your specific question Are rounds just for combat, or should we be using them at other times in the game? to settle that argument after losing it elsewhere, and that is generally an undesired type of dispute — so the eyes on your question will be even more carefully looking to see whether you are addressing an actual problem or whether it is subterfuge to convince people to believe a different argument.

You received several messages inquiring about the practical situation where your question applies, and some of your formulation is ambiguous or very clearly tied to the earlier question.

I hope that addresses some of the "why". As for whether your question should be open or closed, I commented on your question:

I'm not sure that "Are rounds just for combat, or should we be using them at other times in the game?" is the best approach to phrasing a general [case], but the general case about when to use time ordering is one that most GMs face eventually when there are weird interactions

I don't think that you need to rephrase, but that is because I'm aware of the context and read and evaluated the comment-thread below your answer – where, among more discussion, I think these comments encapsulate a second part of what makes your question problematic:

You, the querent, didn't specify a specific problem you are having. You specified a generic class of problems that aren't necessarily that closely related

As far as I'm concerned, we should reopen your question. But this criticism is valid, and closely tied to the observation that maybe your specific problem could be the rejection of your solution to a different question.