3
\$\begingroup\$

I'm referring to this question: How to create meaningful relationships with NPCs

The question's been mod-reopened from its unclear state already, and all comments deleted. I have no idea what has happened in comments since, and have had little chance to interact with the asker and see what they've said. This line has been added to the question:

I am not looking for a specific game rules solution to this, but instead techniques to get the players to feel attachment to these fictional characters.

That's fine, but the reason I voted to close was not so we could offer rules-based solutions, but because the problem may be rules-based: from the asker's other question they may be playing Pathfinder, and in a system such as that, there are all too many reasons the players would behave they way the asker is describing. Understanding the system context, and directly addressing the way the system may cause this behaviour, is instrumental to a proper solution, hence me voting to close it as unclear: more details are needed to fully address the situation.

This is similar to Brian closing this question on the basis the mechanics involved are pivotal to a proper response, but were entirely unexplained, and reopening it once they were provided.

As I recall, other comments were left requesting additional detail, none of which have been addressed either.

(I would leave another comment requesting detail so that we can understand the problem, not so that we can provide rules-based solutions, but I expect it may wind up deleted under some impression it violates clean-up and has already been addressed.)

I am concerned moderation has been far too swift in this instance and not allowed time for the problems in the question to get properly addressed, nor for public discourse to run its proper course. (Unless it has. But I am oblivious to what has happened in deleted comments, and the problems with this question do not appear to have been addressed at all.)

In order to let this stuff occur properly, I believe the question should be re-closed and the comments undeleted, and that reopening in this instance should be done by the community once it observes the question is fit to reopen.

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
\$\begingroup\$

Feel free and add additional comments asking for clarification.

I do not see any good reason to undo the cleanup and reopen. Five brave souls may reclose if it is merited.

Do keep in mind that system-agnostic questions are legal here and this seems to me, at least, to be a pretty clear cut question around a standard trad-game syndrome of PCs treating fictional NPCs as just set-dressing; I do not personally find it confusing or unclear.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I've left a comment. I do not find it confusing or unclear either, except insofaras important details are missing. Answers can easily suffer from being, bluntly, useless and ineffective, because we won't understand the cause of these problems. We'd be like doctors asked to treat an ailment without being given the opportunity to perform a diagnosis: "help, my knee hurts, how do I solve it?" needs more information about why it's hurting. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Dec 2, 2014 at 3:30
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also, please don't confuse this with some kind of problem with system-agnostic questions in general. I am fine with them being here and do not contest their legality. As you've said, though, they can be unclear with their words. I think this is a case where attempting to keep the question system-agnostic is unclear in itself, though, because the system itself is such an important detail. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Dec 2, 2014 at 3:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ there's a distinct difference between wanting an answer to be system agnostic and having the question not have the system mentioned. This is why I've raised a fit @doppelgreener and others before for changing tags to be more or less system agnostic (when I didn't mention the system and it was removed from the tag because I put it there, or it was added as a tag and system agnostic was removed). \$\endgroup\$
    – xenoterracide
    Dec 2, 2014 at 14:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ basically what I'm saying is that although system agnostic is relevant, certain games have certain themes that apply across other games. for example I think WoD probably has more in common thematically with Call of Cthulu and Chill than D&D and Pathfinder (which are similar). So whilst a question might be appropriate to a pair (or more games), it may not apply to all games ever. \$\endgroup\$
    – xenoterracide
    Dec 2, 2014 at 14:23
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @xenoterracide System-agnostic doesn't have to mean it applies to all games ever, just not to any one game specifically. If we did decide that [system-agnostic] could only appear on questions that applied to all games ever, it could never be used because there's always some weirdo indie game that has rules for (e.g.) how PCs make friends with NPCs or whatever the question is about, which would make the question's answer inapplicable for that one game and others like it. [system-agnostic] is fine on questions that have themes or details that can't apply to some games. \$\endgroup\$
    – SevenSidedDie
    Jan 31, 2015 at 18:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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