The meta post concerns this question: Can I understand the 'right to dream' by choices central to the agenda?

The question is on hold for being too broad. I really don't see why this is the case, as I explicitly say what kind of answer would be good and provide examples, which are not very verbose.

A good answer provides an example of right to dream / GNS simulationist agenda and the central creative contributions/choices therein, or argues why providing such is not possible (and hence why this interpretation of creative agenda concept is flawed).

Earlier, I give examples of central creative contributions. One of them, quoted here for reference:

Tactical figure chess; the system might be for example D&D 4: The central choices are the actions you take in tactical play - where you move, what powers you use, etc. The central choices are framed by character build, fictional events in play, and previous tactical choices. The consequences of the tactical choices clearly show up in play and reveal whether the choices were good or not.

An answer of similar nature, but related to a right to dream agenda (princess play, for example, but any sim agenda is equally acceptable), would likely be of similar length and an acceptable answer. A better answer would consist of a couple of such examples.

Alternatively, an explanation why this is not possible would also be an answer. It would likely be a longer one, though I don't know how long. A brief argument should be manageable in the format of this site, I think.

How and why is this question too broad?

Someone also voted to close as unclear. As should surprise nobody, I also don't see this.

The structure of the question is as follows:

  1. I give a way of understanding a theoretical concept.
  2. I state that I can understand A and B very well in this way. Can C also be understood in this way?
  3. I give examples A1, A2, A3 and B1 that apply this way of understanding the concept to A and B.
  4. Can this be done for C also?

I also edited in part 2', which includes the common definition of the concept in question.

  • \$\begingroup\$ At least one close vote on it was for Unclear. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 31, 2016 at 10:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ Language is too soft, not clear enough, though in part this is related to the topic and the terms you are referring to in one of the models. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 31, 2016 at 14:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ From what I am able to understand from you edits, paragraph four contains your thesis statement/thesis question. Why/who/what/where/when/how would be useful interrogative terms to use (or the list to choose from) in building this question since you are looking for examples of how to apply something to something else. I learned the hard way that asking a good question isn't a given. the tougher the subject, the tougher getting a good question for it. \$\endgroup\$ Commented May 31, 2016 at 19:38

1 Answer 1


I don't think it's too broad, but it has a common trait we see in questions that are too broad but trying to narrow themselves artificially:

Experience has shown that a question which assumes it already knows what a good answer will look like is artificially narrowing its scope by turning away answerers whose solutions are in a form the asker didn't think of (isn't the point of asking for help to get alternate viewpoints?). Good questions tend to present challenges and ask the Stack for any solutions its expertise can bring to bear on the problem.

I do think it's quite unclear.

The difference between the Big Model's standard definition of the Creative Agenda, and your own definition of the same, is nigh impossible for me to pick out:

Definition of creative agenda on the big model wiki: "The players' aesthetic priorities and their effect on anything that happen at the table that has any impact on the shared fiction"


My formulation emphasizes (or at least tries to) the way the aesthetic priorities of players have an impact on the shared fiction.

Your formulation seems to be just a pithy re-phrasing of the first one: each is defining the creative agenda to be the players' aesthetic priorities as that modifies the play experience through table-level action.

Since your "alternative" seems to be just the same thing re-phrased, your question boils down to "Can I define the creative agenda with its definition instead of its definition?" Which sounds like nonsense.

If that's not your intent, the question needs to be drastically re-written to better demonstrate how your definition is substantively different from the existing one. And please do also try not to tell answerers how to answer.

If you'd like some help copy-editing your question for clarity (eg, "This method is the central creative contribution" is the first use of the word method in your question, so it's very unclear to what you're referring by "this method"), I'm sure someone will be happy to oblige.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The part you quote is a rephrasing of the standard definition (which I added as an evidently misguided edit). This is not: "I prefer to understand them by the central creative contributions, typically choices, that players make and the group appreciates when playing according to the given agenda." Maybe I should revert that edit? \$\endgroup\$
    – Tommi
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 10:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm more confused by that first line, as it's very imprecise. The phrase "I prefer to understand them" implies a contrast which isn't explicit: What comes prior is just "the three agendas are families of creative priorities that apply to a period of play," & I don't see anywhere in your question where you challenge that, so it's super unclear what you're presenting "central creative contributions" as a preferential alternative to. (Additionally, it takes another paragraph or more to figure out if "them" means the three agendas, the Big Model/GNS, or the periods of play.) \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 10:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ I edited this meta post to show how I understand the structure of my question. I do not see it as particularly unclear (except to the extent the theoretical concepts are), but it seems I am not communicating this very well. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tommi
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 10:36
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ The whole question is, I'm sad to say, riddled with that kind of implied reference and sudden jump where you know what you're talking about, but you don't give us enough flags to follow your train of thought. I can see the structure of your question well enough; it's the content I can't follow. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 10:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, thanks for your patience and for working with me. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tommi
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 10:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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