There is a place on the SE Network that deals with Tool Recommendations and its called Software Recommendations.

As RPG.SE recently abandoned the tool recommendations I would propose to migrate them over to SR.SE where they could live on and be answered and make everyone better off.

The requirements for good questions about tool recommendations are basically the same over on SR.SE as they were here, so everything that once was good here, will be good there. But for better understanding we have put together a guide for good questions.

The only difference that SR.SE would make is that the RPG Context needs to be written out, but I'm certain that can be edited as soon as its over with us.

As RPG.SE does not have an overwhelmingly high amount of such questions, the ones that come will get their attention.

At the same time, I invite you to come over and have a look at our rpg questions. Maybe even subscribe to them, so you get notified when new ones are posted.



2 Answers 2


Yes, tool-recs are off topic here.

I have had very bad luck with question migration over time - just like us, all other new SEs have sometimes tricky rules about how they want to see stuff. Most f not all of the questions we've migrated to B&CG, Arquade, etc. get closed. (And vice versa.) Rather than migrate I'd prefer to point the questioners over there to get the lay of the land and post organically when they are ready. But given that caveat, sure, seems like a good destination for them.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Would a modification of the Close-Message then be a better suggestion? Like: "In its current form its not good here, but you could ask there given you stay faithful of [their rules]" \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 14:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ We don't have a separate tool-rec close reason to edit in that way... I think this would be better handled with a pro forma comment people know to use. BESW is championing getting a set of them going. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 19:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AngeloFuchs: Borrowing the philosophy of e.g. SO's close reasons that point in the general direction of SU's or SF's /about pages, yeah, I'd think so. \$\endgroup\$
    – user17995
    Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 19:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ We are only allotted 3 custom close reasons and they're all used (video games, board and card games, game-recs). So we kinda need to keep the game-rec one generic and add "but you could go to sw-rec" organically as needed. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 19:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk I added an answer with a possible formulation for the close text. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 19:47

Instead of a direct migration path, it would be possible to alter the close reason for game-recommendation questions to be more generic.

This would be one option (feel free to edit, its CW)

Questions looking for recommendation on "what game to play" or "what tool to use" are off-topic. They can be asked on any one of a number of role-playing games discussion forums or for software on our sister site. For more information, see this discussion.

Please note that the SR.SE Link intentionally goes to the "how to ask a good question" meta.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Custom close reasons have a 400-character limit. I put the links inline so that it would be in its final usable form, and using a character counter found that it's 34 characters too long. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 21:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Another concern: tool-recs are a distant minority of the questions being closed as shopping questions, so for most closures the suggestion to look at “our sister site” will either be confusingly irrelevant, or will result in SWR getting people (who don't bother reading things carefully) asking for game recommendations. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 21:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie I've shortened it. Concerning the amount of questions: There are (currently) 400 game-recs and 50 tool-recs. I think we can handle some stray game-rec questions, there aren't that many anyway. But if you think this is a problem, I'm still in favor of the migration path, so I won't argue that this close text is the way to go. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 24, 2016 at 21:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, I think it's rare enough we don't need a specific clause for it as well. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Feb 25, 2016 at 1:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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