3
\$\begingroup\$

The question I answered is What's a good system for many (6+) players?

My answer, deleted by a mod, read:

Personally, I'd go for Warhammer Fantasy RP, either the first or the second edition. (I have no experience with the third one, but that might suit you as well.)

It's grim, dark fantasy by default, but you can tweak it to your needs, obviously.

Character creation, if you know the system well, can be done really fast. Ignore rolling, make up the numbers, or, what's even faster, take some pregenerated characters from the book(s), change their names and a few numbers within the range allowed by the rules and there you go.

The combat (and skill) system is basically a percentile roll and a damage roll (if I remember correctly.) Read through it (it's no longer than about 10 pages?) Strip away most of the optional rules, as well as anything "non-optional" (because for the DM, anything and everything is optional.)

It does play fast even with most of the official optional rules in place. When we played it, turns rarely took longer than what you require.

It has as much combat in it as you put in it. ;) Be warned, though: combat can be pretty lethal, unless you multiply everyone's hit points fairly.

It has very few tracked conditions indeed, especially if you strip away the optional rules.

Note, please, that the above practically holds true of most BRP based systems - like Call of Cthulhu, for example - as well. The reason why I'd go for WFRP is that it's fantasy, and it has an excellent, extensively described world (a lot of description in WFRP1, a bare 10-20 pages in WFRP2, but tons of expansions and novels and whatnot if you have the time and are willing to read up on it. If not, filling out the blanks between the ribs of the skeleton is rather easy.) Also, it's the fantasy BRP-like system that I definitely have experience with. :)

I got a comment from the mod who later deleted the entire answer asking me to provide personally identifiable information, err, I mean, a request saying "Please indicate your experience with very large groups with WHFRP." He also posted a comment below the original Q (people must be flocking to read comments and requirement added by others than the original OP, I guess) warning people of deletion. Later on, he posted a rather insulting additional comment, "notifying" everyone of the deletions.

I chose to delay and consider fulfilling said mod's request for various reasons - least of which is that I think I had a valid answer without the requested info. I answered all the sub-points, recommending a game that matched most and was (is) worthy of consideration. Despite the title of the Q, the OP did not ask for detailed personal experience, and my answer, even though it did almost explicitly imply I had such, would not have been made better by listing said experience(s) in long-winded paragraphs. In my opinion this might be reason enough for some to downvote an answer (though even that's weird, considering that my points satisfied all the points raised by the Q), but for deletion? Seems definite overkill.

I've checked out the "Why was my A deleted" section, yet still can't seem to identify the reason for the deletion. The aforementioned section says the following:

Answers that do not fundamentally answer the question may be removed. This includes answers that are:

commentary on the question or other answers asking another, different question; “thanks!” or “me too!” responses; exact duplicates of other answers; barely more than a link to an external site; not even a partial answer to the actual question

My A does not match any of these. It was not commentary on the Q or other As, was not "thanks!/me too!"; wasn't a duplicate of any other A; was way more than a link; and was, again, way more than a bare partial answer. Apparently, it simply did not fit a certain mod's taste.

My questions here are: Why exactly was my answer deleted? Why was there no explanatory warning about a possible deletion below my A (because, frankly, I usually don't have the time to check back for comments on the Q or others' As)? Will this be a widespread practice on rpg.SE from now on? Are we, users, required to obey mod requests for information and/or answer-expansion?

Just curious. (But feel free to "delete, delete, delete" this Q as well in case... anyone doesn't like it.)

\$\endgroup\$
9
\$\begingroup\$

I didn't delete it, but I'll tell you why it was.

As this is a question, please adhere to both the FAQ and the rules for subjective questions as outlined in Good Subjective, Bad Subjective. In particular, all responses should be based on actual experience and contain references and examples whenever possible. Specifically here, if you haven't run a social gathering style game with 8-10 players, and justify it in your answer, it'll be deleted.

This is the standard warning about game-rec questions, tuned to this question, which Brian posted first thing. It's the same as every game-rec question. "I'm sure X would be good" is not a sufficient answer. "I have done a very similar thing with X" is. Period. As usual this guidance is in Are game recommendation questions on topic?, a frequently linked meta question. That link is also in the tag wiki for game-rec.

Brian left a comment on your answer yesterday reading:

Please indicate your experience with very large groups with WHFRP.

As it was ignored, the answer was deleted 3 hours ago, along with all the other answers that couldn't be bothered to explain their Good Subjective experience with running large 6+ player games with their recommended system and how it works at that scale. This is SOP and was warned both on your answer and on the question in general to all the noncompliant answers.

Yes, if a mod asks you to alter your answer, it's in your best interest to do so. I'm not sure why someone would have to say those words out loud.

As usual, it's always an option for us to discontinue allowing game-rec questions if people can't provide answers based on our guidance (most other SEs have disallowed them for this reason). It is our hope RPG.SE users can understand and follow these guidelines so that we can preserve this popular type of question.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks. I think I do understand how game-rec Qs and As are supposed to work. However, I don't think my A (cited above) failed to indicate having personal experience, and I don't see how explaining "Yes, we've played WFRP with seven people years ago on a long wintry night or two, and it's those few but thorough experiences I'm basing my answer on" would make my answer more reliable and/or better. (Also, I'm not sure how anyone could verify such a claim, in any answer.) Thanks again for your answer, but I find it a bit too generic. Please, consider addressing my sub-Qs too in view of this. \$\endgroup\$ – OpaCitiZen Nov 13 '13 at 10:11
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @OpaCitiZen The difference is: you failed to explicitly state you played WFRP with seven people and that it went well. Nothing in your answer actually implies you did that - you just identify traits (like fast turns) which in your estimate probably scale well to seven people. Unless you've tried it, however, you won't know how well, or what other traits might make the game break down for 7 people. It takes adding one sentence ("I played this with seven people a few years ago, and it went well") to dismiss those concerns and make your answer reliable. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 13 '13 at 11:50
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ If you don't want to add that one sentence, your answer remains in the class of speculation-based unreliable answers that are quite problematic for game-rec questions. You can go ahead and leave it there if you really want to. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 13 '13 at 11:56
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanHobbs In my opinion this is self-righteous nit-picking, whereas the deletion is overkill (downvoting should've been enough), not to mention my opinion on its communication ("delete, delete, delete..." etc.) Also, if that single sentence makes my otherwise complex and detailed answer more reliable, there's a reality check in order for some, I'm afraid. :) \$\endgroup\$ – OpaCitiZen Nov 13 '13 at 12:11
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @OpaCitiZen You can go ahead feel like it's self-righteous nit-picking if you want. Nevertheless: this is based directly on the advice given in good subjective / bad subjective to have people share experiences of what has been demonstrated to work, not opinions of what will probably work. Opinion-based answers aren't helpful, and historically they are especially unhelpful in game-rec. Go ahead and do not answer such questions if you don't have experience on the matter. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 13 '13 at 12:20
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanHobbs has it right. Add the damn sentence. Sure, since this is the Internet it's not provable and you could be lying, an idiot, or crazy. But specifying your personal experience is what makes the answer valid; invalid answers are deleted. Valid but poor answers get downvoted. Your answer as written on the page, not in your mind, is invalid. If you "know the game-rec rules" then follow them. I've addressed your other sub-questions already above. There was a warning on your A, this is always widespread practice, yes you should listen to mods. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Nov 13 '13 at 12:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk The problem with this approach and tone (especially the tone) is that they can discourage, if not alienate users and unregistered visitors. But heck, whatever, if everyone here thinks rpg.SE is good this way, I can easily live with that. It ain't worth putting more energy into this, but was worth a try. I'm accepting your answer, and, of course, the rules. (Even though I don't like all of them. Such is life. :)) \$\endgroup\$ – OpaCitiZen Nov 13 '13 at 15:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree it's nitpicking, especially if you answered all of the other questions asked in the post. \$\endgroup\$ – Jim Barrows Nov 13 '13 at 16:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OpaCitiZen You might consider the tone is because sometimes mods get sick of having to do the same thing again and again - especially when there's long term site members involved who should know better. It's one thing to explain it more nicely to a noob, it's another to have to go clean up yet another mess from those who are old enough to know how to not make a mess. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Nov 13 '13 at 16:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk Even though I see and accept your point and think I do understand the frustration, tone can be corrected later, when attention is drawn to its inappropriateness. It doesn't take more energy than deleting answers, for example. Also, while we're usually thankful for the job you do, nobody forces mods to be mods, and such incidents are part of the job (facing sometimes frustrated people like myself - sorry, but users can have bad days as well), just like maintaining a welcoming and presentable face for the site. If nobody watches the watchers, you should watch yourselves. \$\endgroup\$ – OpaCitiZen Nov 13 '13 at 17:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have reviewed the comment "Delete, delete, delete the answers which don't follow requirements. You are all welcome to try again, this time, basing your answers on your personal experience. " I fail to find anything offensive about it nor can I think of any edits to make it better. Maybe I'll change it to "I have deleted the..." for grammar. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Nov 13 '13 at 17:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk Thank you. I guess it's subjective, but I, for one, found that part and wording pretty irritating. Now it's better, more impartial and informative. \$\endgroup\$ – OpaCitiZen Nov 13 '13 at 17:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Well good. Now go and sin no more. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Nov 13 '13 at 22:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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