7
\$\begingroup\$

When this question was initially posted, it was quickly closed as not being a good fit for the site. The questioner came into chat and a few of us hammered out a version edit that we thought would mean it would be acceptable.

However, following the edit that we worked out it seems that there are still site users that feel it is not a good question, and it has gained three vote to closes. There is also an issue regarding which tags people think the question should have.

As the comments on the question are getting out of control, I thought it would be preferable to move the discussion to meta, hence this question.

So, is the question in its current format acceptable? If not then why not?

\$\endgroup\$
10
\$\begingroup\$

Well, then allow me to stand for my question (not that I believe that it's bad moving it to meta, I just believe that it's format is indeed acceptable).

The first issue that people saw with the original version was that it's scope was broader than accepted. I failed to see that, but I may also be failing in expressing my point of view (and I think that I dind't was that much clear anyway). So, okay, let's rephrase it.

The second version is really narrower, but people seems to believe that it's not enough. I ask for a process framework or guideline that the amazing folks at White Wolf may possibly have used. I don't know if there is such a thing, and if there is not, than it's as valid a answer as any other. If no one knows, then well, that's it. An unanswered question, but not unanswerable.

I don't see the issue of which tags should go along with the question as an issue at all. Maybe the correct tags don't exist, maybe that aren't popular so no one brought it up. Anyway, IMHO the correct tag list is more a matter of housekeeping, and so is not a reason to label my question as invalid.

One possible issue that has come to my mind is that this question deals more with game design than with the game itself. I believe that RPG SE covers game design only partially, as this arguably one of the jobs of the DM, at least. I know that there is a limit to that coverage. Yet, I believe that setting creation is something totally in the domain of RPG SE, simply because it's so widespread.

Anyway, I may be again failing to write this question in a good way. If that is so, I'm open to suggestions. And again, I don't think that it's bad to move it to meta.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree that the current question is answerable and will reopen. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Feb 25 '14 at 18:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – Metalcoder Feb 25 '14 at 18:38
-1
\$\begingroup\$

I fail to see what is the problem with the question. I think the question is very difficult, but I don't see the harm.

A question too vague can result in a lot of comments talking about different subjects. A question too subjective can result in flames with the responses.

I think those are situations which justify the question to be closed, but I can't see how the question is being a problem for RPGSE community, so I can't understand why so many people are so concerned in closing it.

Maybe we have to avoid losing sight of what are the purposes of our own rules, and use that rules to preserve that purposes more than treating those rules as sacred.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ You did look at the revision history, yes? \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton Mar 8 '14 at 8:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ Did you mean the first formulation of metalcoder's question? Yes, I did. I did not see nothing harmful then. \$\endgroup\$ – Mu_ Mar 12 '14 at 10:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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