My question about adventure time has been closed on the grounds of it not being constructive, for the second time, despite being re-opened. I've tried to fix it so that it is more constructive.

How can I fix it so it can be opened again?

| |

Here's the thing. "Build me a fictional character in game X" is a meat and drink of a forum kind of question. Chatty, no real objective best answer, no real subjective best answer following the rules in Good Subjective, Bad Subjective (unless someone happens to have played a 4e Adventure Time campaign I guess). These are usually just speculation and funsies. Despite common opinion, SE modes do not hate speculation and funsies, but it's not on topic for a SE, which is specific actionable questions helping you with a real game.

I can see a possible vector here which is that "I was wanting to play a character like X, that does this specific thing, and I'm trying to figure out how to model that in some game." Where X is an example, not the goal. You're edging that way with the question - "I want to play a striker style paladin, which the character Finn in Adventure Time seems to pull off for example. I've done X so far, how do I get Y in there?"

But let me warn you and everyone - the mods are unanimous on this and are not planning to change our minds. We are lined up waiting to close fictional-build questions. Questions trying to just cast themselves like the above just so they can sneak in a fictional-build question are going to be subjected hard to the "smell test." We will be ruthless.

Let me step back one level and explain something just to make sure everyone's on the same page.

In the end, we don't have rules on SE. We have guidelines designed to illuminate the Golden Rule of Stack Exchange - that it's for questions about real problems you face which can have answers that are either objectively true or can be supported by real-world evidence. That golden rule and the wise interpretation of a mod team is how that happens. Meta questions, FAQs, etc. are all subsequent artifacts designed to illuminate that, but imperfect in their nature. In other words, trying to play fundamentalist/lawyer doesn't work. Questions that truly are of the type the site is for will go in, questions that are not will go out, plus or minus an error margin accounting for human frailty.

| |
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think my issue is that I don't want a full build. Originally I did want idea for a purely speculative character, but the more I thought about it the more I considered that a character like Finn would be fun to play and I began to want an answer so I could play this character. I tried to reword it so that it was clear what I disliked about the paladin class Finn was pegged as by his creator, and that I was just looking for a way round that. If that isn't clear, how can I alter the question further? \$\endgroup\$ – AncientSwordRage Feb 26 '12 at 14:38
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Take a step back and consider. What specifically do you want, now? It's not clear to me any more from the question probably because of the half-evolution it's taken. If what you want is a specific actionable question, write it up from scratch, delete what's there and paste it in. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - SE stop being evil Feb 26 '12 at 17:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've taken my step back and considered what I want. How does the question read now? \$\endgroup\$ – AncientSwordRage Feb 29 '12 at 22:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Better, it's now more "how do I play an offense driven paladin" just using Finn as an example. One moment. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - SE stop being evil Mar 1 '12 at 1:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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