I posted a community wiki question yesterday "A Grimoire of Magic Item Curses and Boons". There were several objections raised in the comments:

  1. It wasn't really a question.
  2. It was asking for user created content.
  3. It was outside the scope of this website.

It seems like a number of folk have been watching from the sidelines. I'm now asking for people to chime in.

  • What do you think about the content and particularly the "user created" question?

  • What do you think about the structure?

  • Is this a format/style of organization we want to use? why or why not?

  • If the problem is the format/style is there an alternative you would suggest?

(I checked this a community wiki because others may have questions they would like to add.)

  • \$\begingroup\$ My thoughts are pretty well summed up in Discussion Questions?. Thank you for coming here to meta to discuss whether this belongs. For all those who don't think it belongs, use your close votes!!! \$\endgroup\$ – C. Ross Sep 27 '10 at 19:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ Despite my strong opinion that we shouldn't do this sort of thing, I do appreciate this being experimented with to see what the community thinks. :) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 27 '10 at 21:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ Chat about this here \$\endgroup\$ – C. Ross Sep 29 '10 at 15:26

User created content doesn't work here IMHO.

SE sites are designed to answer questions. Creating a list of house rules doesn't meet that criteria.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Personally, I'm less concerned about introducing a new mechanic in an answer. There may be times when it is called for and I wouldn't want to stifle the community prematurely by making a hard and fast rule. Judging from the votes, the community has rendered a verdict on that particular answer though. Whether you leave it, or delete it is up to you. \$\endgroup\$ – Pat Ludwig Sep 27 '10 at 20:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If the question can only be answered by user created content, that's where I would personally draw the line. There will be a lot of answers that people come up with on the spot, which is fine. It's actively soliciting on-the-spot creation doesn't really suit SE to my mind. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 27 '10 at 21:45
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't think it's that "house rules" is the problem, I think it's that it's not a question and has a very vague scope. I would tend to be more happy about some very tightly scoped house rule question as opposed to a big wide-ranging list. We could always have a "real" wikia wiki as an adjunct to the site if people really do want to just collect "net.book" kinds of stuff... \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Sep 28 '10 at 14:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ For the record, I do think that collecting people's house rules (in an appropriately scoped question) is probably within the mission of RPG-SE. It's the on-the-spot dev that feels wrong. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 29 '10 at 4:32

This is a comment I left on the original question:

Would you say the question "What are properties that when added to a magic item bump its effective level up by one?" is within the scope of this site? Would that be a valid community wiki question? That (and several closely related variations) is the question implied here.

If that question is OK here, then the reservations people have at that post is with the formatting/organization/display of the information, not the information itself. Then, reworking the content into a different form that is more appropriate to this site is what needs to happen.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This question is still asking for house rules, and hence shouldn't be here (again IMHO). \$\endgroup\$ – Pat Ludwig Sep 27 '10 at 18:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ That question would be OK if its answer wasn't "none." The answer only becomes other than "none" if someone makes something up. SE is many things, but it's not a development platform. So, if the answer isn't "none" and answering isn't a violation of WotC copyrights, then it would be fine. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 27 '10 at 19:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That said, I still think it's a cool project. I just don't think that everything that would fit on a wiki elsewhere would be appropriate for our community wikis. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 27 '10 at 19:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie: Thanks! :) \$\endgroup\$ – yhw42 Sep 27 '10 at 20:23

Following the train of thought that user created content is frequently sought by people interested in rpgs, and thus is perhaps an implicit question when looking at the site lends some weight to allowing within the scope of the site.

However I would argue that the real definition of this site lies in what it is not.

There are obviously questions that are not being asked here even if they definite questions about roleplaying games with reasonably clearcut answers "What is the highest DPR that can be obtained with a level 14 living forgotten realms character?".

The Grimoire CW is designed so be a collection of user created content, but what about other collections of user created content? Where does it end? Does allowing list of house rules, or list of new magic items, invite collections of DnD character builds? Which in turn invites posting character builds and asking for critique? Or posting adventures and asking for critique? Are these desirable?

  • \$\begingroup\$ The difference to me is whether the question is being used to ask for people's already-created content, or if it's being used as a forum to develop brand-new content. The latter doesn't seem like a good idea here. // A list of house rules would be OK (by me) given a tightly-framed Q; new magic items I would judge in the same way as the Grimoire: good if pre-existing, not good if encouraging on-the-spot creation. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 29 '10 at 4:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ Lists of D&D builds for specific purposes would be fine, I think. (Such as "D&D3.5 druids with maximum shape-shifts per day", although that's implicitly, and better-phrased as, "How do I maximise shape-shifts per day with a D&D3.5 druid?") Anything that is a "Here's my thing, can I get some critiques?" definitely belongs on a forum and not in a Q&A site. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 29 '10 at 4:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ The distinction between asking for user generated content only if it was "created before the reader read the post" rather than "created in response to the post" seems impossible to draw... I certainly agree with the sentiment of (more specific versions of) "what cool stuff have you added to your game", but I also think such questions encourage "dream up cool stuff to discuss" \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Withers Sep 30 '10 at 1:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ The distinction can't really be made regarding the answers, no. But (assuming that's the right line to draw), we can judge the questions themselves by whether they're asking the answerers to make stuff up on-the-spot. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 30 '10 at 19:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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