My question concerns this question on the main page: Deck of Many Things: How problematic is each card for a campaign?
It was closed for a mixture of being unclear, being too broad, and being opinion-based. It has caused a vivid discussion and already collected some reopen votes. Independently of whether it gets reopened I would like to tackle possible concerns with this question.
Me explaining what I wanted to get out of the question
It seems to be widely agreed upon that the Deck of Many Things can cause significant problems in a game up to and including ruining said game. This was for example discussed in [this question]. What I am interested in and which is different from that other question (happy to hear your concerns if you disagree) is the following:
- Which cards specifically cause the negative effects that the Deck of Many Things exhibits?
- What makes these cards so problematic?
I suggested using a tier system to explain how likely a card is to exhibit significant problems which may cause a game to be ruined. In retrospect it seems this has caused more harm (i.e. confusion) than good.
Concerns I believe to have seen expressed
It is a duplicate of this question: Why is the Deck of Many Things considered unbalanced?
This question is much more general than my question and the answers talk neither in detail about specific problems nor about specific cards that might cause them.
The question is too broad:
Not sure about this. It is clear that a rather long answer would be necessary because at least one to two sentences would be needed for each of the 22 cards in the Deck. The impression of the question being too broad may also have arisen by me asking both for some kind of rating for each card as well as a reasoning. However, I don't see how leaving the reasoning out could make for a good answer. Of course there could be another problem in this area that I haven't seen now.
The question is unclear:
This is obviously the case, otherwise it wouldn't have caused so much discussion. This does seem easy to fix, however, once the other concerns have been adressed.
The question is opinion-based:
Now this question is obviously not a rules question and I agree that the Deck's effect on a campaign depends on the group. Nevertheless, it seems to me that someone with sufficient GMing experience and who has used the Deck would be able to give an objective answer. Let's take, for example, the Donjon card. In the comments, people said that this card could create problems because it will (at least temporarily) remove a character from the game and (unless it is permanent) require a quest to get the character back. It was also said, and I agree, that this unproblematic if the style of play includes making a new character with no hard feeling whenever a character is killed or similar. Saying: "This card is highly problematic if players are very attached to their specific character. If rolling a new character when necessary is part of the play style, or if a party can simply take on an adventure to get the character back while the respective player plays a different character for some time, it will not cause any big problems." seems like an objective and useful answer for this particular card. I think, my idea with the tier system might be a problem because such a ranking would contradict an answer as nuanced as the example I give above.
What should I do with my question?