5
\$\begingroup\$

I recently asked a question at: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/87050/how-do-i-convert-the-classes-and-monsters-of-the-dragon-warriors-rpg-to-dungeon

Although I read the guidelines for raising questions carefully, it was deemed to be too broad, and put on hold. However there's numerous questions (please see the bottom of this question) that follow the same pattern (how do i convert system x to system y), and were considered a good fit for this site. In my opinion it is a well defined problem, it can't get any more specific (same as all the other examples that have been posted on the website). So I'd like to get the community's thoughts on this.

Thanks in advance.

Some examples of conversion threads:

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ If you've got other open questions of that sort you've found, would you mind linking (at least a sampling of) them in your question-post? It'd be nice to generate some context without having to re-do your searching over and over again. Additionally, if answerers ended up looking at a different ensemble of comparisons we could end up with a real cluster... here. Thanks! \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Aug 24 '16 at 19:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ no worries at all, that's a fair point. I've now added a few examples. Thanks. \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 24 '16 at 23:32
12
\$\begingroup\$

Normally? Yes, such questions are on-topic and (often) work within our peculiar site structure. It really depends on the individual questions though, and questions are judged less on rules and more on their individual merits relative to broad guidelines.

This question in particular isn't a typical example of conversion questions, as it has several small problems that likely added up to a collective judgement to put it on hold:

  1. It's not well-researched. Dungeon World already explains how to convert monsters, and the question itself says that reading the classes to see if they already work hasn't been done.

    Lacking research ahead of time isn't by itself grounds for closure, but it sets the question up as particularly weak and therefore less likely to be “saved” by community action from any other problems it might be suffering from.

  2. Asking about both monsters and all the classes is kinda broad. Whether it's too broad or not isn't something we can define with a clear rule, but that's why voting is used instead, to judge more effectively on a case-by-case basis.

    In this case, explaining how to convert all the classes and how to convert monsters in general makes for an unfocused question. That alone might not get it closed, but it weighs heavily on the question's overall evaluation.

    Normally such a question would be expected to be split into two separate questions (one for monsters, one for classes), but the problem in (1) mean that doing that might not be useful anyway, again making a hold — to give time to sort things out — more attractive to the community in general.

  3. The question asked and the underlying problem seem to have a mismatch. The motivation for asking appears to be wanting to know whether Dragon Warrior classes and monsters have been made for Dungeon World yet, but the question is asking how.

    This adds to the general sense of being unfocused, or suggests that there's more going on behind the question, which will make it more likely for focused answers to miss the “real” target the asker is hoping they'll hit. Hold/closing is a way to head off the posting of answers when it seems likely they won't even be answering the real question.

  4. There seems to be yet another question asking whether Dungeon World can do low-magic campaigns, buried in the middle of the question. The more questions a question-post appears to contain, the more likely it is to attract Too Broad votes.

  5. Lastly — and this is a really minor point that wouldn't merit a single hold/close vote, but contributes to the sense that there's something wrong with the question that needs to be fixed before it can be usefully answered — it refers to itself as a “thread”. It also expresses a hope for general feedback from people.

    RPG.se is frequently mistaken for a threaded discussion forum but works very, very differently from one. Calling a question page a “thread” or seeming like an experience poll are each a very minor red flag that the original post might have been composed under misapprehensions about what would happen next, based on a belief that this site is a typical discussion forum. Again, not close-worthy, but it's one more thing weighing down a question that is already weighed down with a number of warning signs of being not ready for answering.

The close/hold vote system is really granular, and doesn't really allow expressing every reason, doubt, and intuition that it relies on voters to use to make their judgements, so the overall reason “Too Broad” is often good enough, but sometimes (such as in this case) not anywhere near the full story. It falsely gives the impression in this case that there's one specific axis of problem when it's really many things, and “Too Broad” is just the closest match for the build-up of small problems.

These problems aren't insurmountable though. There are a few things you can do to move forward:

  1. Take another spin through the tour for a review of how RPG.se works in a way that is distinct from a discussion forum.

  2. Finish reading Dungeon World. It answers one half your question already (how to convert monsters), and finishing reading about the existing classes may solve the other half.

  3. If questions remain after (2), keep in mind that questions get better answers when answers only have to answer one question. Ask specific questions about specific problems by focusing on one task that you're having trouble completing.

    Along with (2), this ensures that the question will be written with one clear hurdle that you're having direct trouble clearing, which answers can laser-focus on solving for you.

  4. Decide which question you want to ask about first — the other questions may be moot by the time that first question is answered.

    If you finish reading DW and still want to know if Dragon Warrior classes have been already converted to Dungeon World by someone else, just ask that. If you finish reading and determine that you will convert them yourself, then you ask “how” and stay focused on asking “how” while writing the question. If you want to know how to do low-magic campaigns in Dungeon World, ask that all by itself. (You might not have any of these questions, and may instead find yourself having a completely different or more specific problem.)

    This goes hand-in-hand with (3), in that it ensures each question post only contains one problem to solve rather than a muddle of many problems that could each be individually solved or ignored by any given answer.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't know if some people will call this hand holding, but this is a very helpful answer that can enable the user to improve/refocus the question and move toward solving a problem. +1. (Heck, it was helpful to me as well and I've been around for a little bit). \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Aug 24 '16 at 21:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ some people might also find the use of the term hand holding slightly patronising, and probably unnecessary. But I do agree with the conclusion that this was a well-thought, well-intended and very helpful answer. \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 24 '16 at 22:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie - first of all I'd like to say thanks for taking the time to consider my question and provide useful feedback. It is appreciated. I think the crux of the matter is the distinction that you highlighted towards the end of your answer: that it is actually two different things, \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 24 '16 at 23:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ [...], on the one hand to inquire whether it's been done before and on the other hand to request help for doing the conversion myself. In my mind I had it as an either/or (best case scenario was the former, and the latter was "nice to have" guidelines). I appreciate that this distinction is important in making the question more useful to other users. \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 24 '16 at 23:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ Although I consider the matter closed, I'd like to take this opportunity to give my point of view for some of the points mentioned. We are in meta after all, so this might be useful. With regards to point 2, i feel I may have shot myself in the foot by providing too many details. Especially by mentioning monsters (conversion notes focus on D&D conversions, but yes I take the point that you can “build them” from scratch Du.Wo. style). But if I had instead phrased it as "How do I convert Dragon Warriors to Dungeon World", the question would have probably “passed”. \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 24 '16 at 23:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Regarding point 1, although like you said lacking research in principle shouldn’t be grounds for closure, in practice some of the comments I received amounted to “did you do your homework? no? then we’ll need to close the question”. Which I found somewhat frustrating, especially when the reason cited was that it was “too broad”. As a relatively new user, I have to say that this mismatch between actual reason for closure and the cited reason wasn’t a massively welcoming experience. Anyway these are my 2 cents for what it’s worth. Thanks again for your feedback, it is appreciated. \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 25 '16 at 0:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @polyhedralman Not necessarily. Of the examples in the question, two convert between systems without being more narrow, but they're all related editions of the same game family; the other two are questions about conversions between unrelated games, but they're focused on specific things (PCs in one, adventures in the other). Both ways get more narrowness than a general “convert system X to unrelated system Y” question would enjoy. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 25 '16 at 0:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ ok that's a fair point. But in my mind, 2nd to 4th as well as 3.5 to 1 is quite a lot of work. Perhaps a lot more than would be needed to convert D.W. to D.W. But I guess these things are a matter of opinion to a certain extent. \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 25 '16 at 0:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ To be clear, while "did not do the research" is not a close reason it very often underlies problems which themselves are close reasons like Too Broad or Unclear. The comments were attempting to hit at the heart of the dilemma so you wouldn't fix superficial symptoms and then get deluged with new comments about other symptoms instead of having your question re-opened. (Closer reading of the manual would allow you to remove at least one significant section of the question's many subjects, and perhaps lead you to clarify others.) \$\endgroup\$ – BESW Aug 25 '16 at 0:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @BESW Not sure I'd have removed it tbh. Dungeon World has two relevant sections as far as I can tell. The first section covers building them from scratch which, yes, I agree is an option. In the second section, the rulebook does offer conversion guidelines (targeting D&D sources - it mentions Armor Class and Hit Dice etc.). Which in my mind illustrates the fact that conversion notes for monsters from another system to Dungeon World are still useful. I don't know how familiar you are with Dragon Warriors, but my question was explicitly addressed to people who have knowledge of both systems. \$\endgroup\$ – polyhedral man Aug 25 '16 at 12:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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