1
\$\begingroup\$

Today this simple yet very useful question about probabilities in Dungeon World was posted on the main site: How likely is success in Dungeon World?

While the question itself is about Dungeon World, Apocalypse World and other Powered by the Apocalypse games use the same roll mechanic. Can I modify the question to make it non-specific to Dungeon World? It would be helpful for anyone looking for the same probabilities for other PbtA games.

\$\endgroup\$
11
\$\begingroup\$

A solid question was asked and was given a solid answer. Leave it as-is.

I'd give that advice if it was your own question, and I give that advice with double the firmness because it's someone else's. Radically changing the scope of someone else's question in a way that clearly doesn't match their original intent with it is not generally OK — it's likely to create a mess along the way that's easily avoided by doing exactly nothing.

If you want to know about other PBTA games, ask that in a separate question. Reference that previous question's existence if you'd like to.

I suggest you stick to PBTA games you're actually interested in for your own sake, rather than being concerned about what's going to benefit others altruistically. They can ask their own questions. Asking about all PBTA games might be likely to get closed as too broad, as there's several of those, each involving their own mechanics which might differentiate win chances (like the Barbarian in the DW question).

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

I would suggest not. We generally advise that questions are about specific problems that the questioner is having, and I think this still holds here. The original querent had a specific question about a specific system, and they got a specific answer. Isn't that exactly the way the site is intended to work?

If we start allowing other people to edit questions to make them artificially broader than the initial querent's problem, it opens up one massive can of worms.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Note: the OP of this question wasn't the OP of that one. \$\endgroup\$ – Miniman Jul 18 '16 at 12:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ In that case I think my argument is even stronger. If we start allowing people to edit other people's questions to make them broader than the initial query, it opens one massive can of worms \$\endgroup\$ – Wibbs Jul 18 '16 at 13:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, absolutely. \$\endgroup\$ – Miniman Jul 18 '16 at 13:22
5
\$\begingroup\$

As the OP of the referenced question (and also the respondent to that question), I thought I should chime in.

Backstory

I asked this question to help someone else figure out a conversion from D&D 5e to Dungeon World. It seemed like a reasonable question that I could answer and keep for other readers, so I posted it as a question on the site.

I did consider other PBTA games. The consideration went like this: "Gee, there are a few other games like this one. I'm totally unfamiliar with those; I should probably just stick to what I know." From that irrefutable logic, I chose to limit it to Dungeon World.

My Opinion

I agree pretty strongly with the conclusions of Wibbs and doppelgreener in their respective answers. Here's my logic:

If any other systems match closely enough that these stats are useful, then great!

If they don't quite match, then I'd say the other system deserves a Q&A like this one. I'd even be happy to reply to that as well, if someone points me toward the rules for that system. However, expanding the current answer to cover rules from other systems would just dilute the content for the original target.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ For a little more context, Joel's decision to post his question arose out of a number of chat-conversations he and I (and others) had regarding DW. His post on the statistics did, in fact, help me and wasn't just some shot in the dark hoping it'd help somebody. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Jul 19 '16 at 12:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for sharing your piece. :) It's often very helpful to get the querent's perspective. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Jul 20 '16 at 5:03

You must log in to answer this question.

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