I was reading Actual Play of Don't Rest Your Head one-shot exemplar and wondered why this makes a good question.
Don't get me wrong: it's well written, I understand the need to find what he's looking for, it's clear and concise, formally, it has all we can ask for.
But what would a good answer look like?
An embedded Youtube video? A link? A bunch of links?
Looking at the other questions tagged session-summaries, that's exactly the answers they get: a list of links, ordered by popular opinion. Because the answer must by definition be a link, that's the point of the question. And there is no other way to rank them then personal opinion. Apart from spam, there cannot be a good, better or worse answer. One answer is as valid as any other.
From my point of view, any question rightfully being tagged session-summaries is most likely offtopic for any Q&A SE site.
Alternatively (I have been wrong before...) what would convince me of the opposite is a possible answer to the above mentioned question, that, if stripped of any markup and links, is still a valid answer to that question. That is the general SE guideline of where the line between "good answer with link" and "bad, link only non-answer" is drawn and we don't have any more specific ruling here.
Try for a minute to imagine the above question would have been asked for dnd-3.5e instead of the rather obscure system. Would you want to read the flood of answers, would you think them to be SE quality?
Another site in the SE network said in it's off-topic help:
Asking a question that doesn't draw upon the community's expert knowledge [...] but rather asking it to be a crowdsourced search engine falls into this area.
And I think that's a good description. I can feel the pain of not finding something with google. But we are a Q&A site, not a natural-speech-configurable search engine.