Just so we have some stats on the thing, which questions (or other shopping questions) would you all classify "good", "of value", and "answered well."

I'm trying to get a sense for the trends.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Should we exclude from our opinions ones we have asked/answered ourselves? I suspect we'll get a better survey that way. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2013 at 2:49
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ No. If you think a question is good, put it up. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2013 at 2:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Guh. There are ~250 questions to re-read. This time of season, I just don't have it in me. :/ \$\endgroup\$ Dec 16, 2013 at 17:53

2 Answers 2


I actually think that we've got a good framework just by looking at our four most popular questions:

Looking for solo (one person) RPGs - do they exist?

Are there any good tabletop RPGs for young beginning players?

What games are out there that could be played in a single night, with no prep?

1 GM and 1 Player games and game systems?

In this case, we see that there are some pretty simple guidelines here. They look at a specific audience or purpose.

Asking "What game should I buy" is obviously meaningless, without providing an idea of what we're looking for. What can be clearly seen from this is that there are a few core criteria:

  • Specific audience. We either see a number of players (one person, one person and one GM, young people) or a specific condition (people playing for just a single night).
  • Actually not subjective. Only one of these mentions "good". Others are just asking "does something exist within these criteria". Even then, we see objective criteria; "less bloody and dark".
  • Very general. Any of these questions has many acceptable answers, and possibly has many equally valid options. Some of these options will look nothing like each other. While some will be more positively received, there are not a ton of "invalid" answers.
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There's an interesting split in our rec questions, between "I want to find a specific game" and "does a game like I'm looking for even exist". I'm not sure what that split signifies. The "exist?" questions are easier to definitively answer though, I think, because only one example is needed, and voting on an example's fitness to answer the question of existence isn't (as much) a popularity contest. It's useful too, because it gives the asker somewhere to start further research. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 19, 2013 at 18:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure the latter counts as a good question. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Dec 19, 2013 at 21:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Which one? The 1gm 1pc one? Or the "exist?" ones? I think that the exist ones are actually better; they've got a definite objective answer most of the time. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 20, 2013 at 2:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think the "exists?" questions are better suited to the site format; I think they're less interesting questions though. These are two orthogonal ways to measure whether a question is "good", but I think both are valid meanings of "good" for questions. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 20, 2013 at 19:49

This is one I like for how well it did in our format:

It's unusual among game-rec questions in that it's an either-or question, not wide open. That's nicely limited, it gives the answerers a lot of room to answer with a diversity of good subjective experience, and arguments for their recommendation are much more pointed than I'm used to seeing in game-rec. It's also (I think) more widely useful beyond the asker than most game-recs. That may just be due to being about two popular, related systems, though.


You must log in to answer this question.

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