This question is on hold as being too broad/not specific enough, and I'm looking for ways to improve it.

To explain the kinds of answers I'm looking for in the question/the kind of question I'm looking to ask:

A more specific example would be based on the linked question in the body there (ie, what can I do to more seamlessly incorporate someone who's chosen to play a monk in my campaign, when his choice stands out as particularly difficult to play compared to other players' choices and the campaign I'm running). That example sounds too specific to me, though - how often, really, will other people want to play monks in campaigns which are substantially similar to mine?

I imagine, though, that other DMs have run into similar situations - a player has obstinately chosen to play a particularly hard to play character, given the party and campaign - and, all "experienced players deserve what they ask for" aside, eventually have to find a way to rescue the player/character/party from getting to an end which would damage the campaign as a whole.

Ideally, I'd like to get a few, preferably original, ideas for smoothly handling this situation. Backstory twiddling is an easy/obvious one, but can only be milked so far before it becomes obvious/a god-hand manipulation. "Accidentally" providing the character with exactly the unique magical items he needs to be successful is also very godhandy - as are all other similar techniques.

Any suggestions on how to rewrite the question, so that it both produces the kinds of answers that I'm looking for and meets with the requirements to fit the RPG site? Is that even possible?

  • \$\begingroup\$ For record, the question's been automatically deleted by the system. It can be recovered through editing + a flag, or a new and improved question can just be asked in its stead if the topic's still of interest. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 18, 2015 at 2:14

2 Answers 2


That example sounds too specific to me, though - how often, really, will other people want to play monks in campaigns which are substantially similar to mine?

This doesn't matter. "Too specific" is not a category of problem with a question. Please do tell us about your exact situation and ask us about your exact problem.

What's important is that your question has a clear question, and contains all the information necessary for us to give you a useful answer. When you unnecessarily generalise your question, we begin to lose the information necessary and it might get closed, and if it stays open, you suffer for having less specifically helpful answers.

Consider: if you're having problems with a monk in your specific dynamic, would you prefer answers that are broad, general, airy-fairy, and can only talk in sweeping unspecific ways about varieties of classes and dynamics (and might not even mention the ones you're dealing with), or would you prefer answers that tell you how to handle that specific kind of monk in your specific dynamic? Which one's more helpful? I'd pick the latter, but answers can only be as specific as your question is — so be specific.


You seem to have a pretty good idea of how to fix your question! It was put on hold for being too broad, indicating that you need to make it more specific. You've got a more specific example in mind already.

I can understand your concerns it might be too specific, but they're unwarranted. "How can I help a player who wants to play a Monk maintain equality with the rest of the party?" is a perfectly valid question; in fact, we have a very similar one here.

In general, deliberately generalizing a more specific question is probably not the greatest idea. Check out this meta for support. We see far more questions closed for being too broad than for being too specific. In fact, there isn't even a close reason for being too specific. Answers dealing with a specific example can often be useful for others dealing with a similar situation.


You must log in to answer this question.

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