0
\$\begingroup\$

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90590/what-rules-effectively-model-severely-over-the-top-style-of-powers-combat-and

is currently marked as a duplicate, but has been determined (post edit) to no longer be a duplicate. How does one remove the duplicate tag and incorrectly linked answer?

See comments for additional points of confusion regarding the question, namely why the question is being deemed inappropriate.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

Typically, duplicates are determined by a combination of feedback from the question-asker and the community's agreement or disagreement (as expressed by people casting or declining to cast reopen votes). In this case, the community doesn't appear to agree that it's not a duplicate.

However, as the other question doesn't seem to solve your problem, it probably isn't a duplicate. So, I used my discretion and super-vote to reopen it to remove the duplicate link.

However again, the question is asking for a solution to a design goal that can be solved in hundreds — perhaps thousands — of different ways, none objectively better than the others. That alone makes it too broad because it makes the voting system non-functional. Additionally, those many solutions can only be expressed by entire complete game systems, making it too broad in another way.

This question simply isn't going to work effectively in our site's Q&A system. It would be quite at home on a discussion forum though — the question isn't bad, it's just that this site is the wrong tool for the job. See I've been told my question is better suited to a forum, but where should I go? for our curated list of RPG discussion sites if you decide to go that route.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not getting the too broad aspect here. Game system is irrelevant. I'm only asking for single rules taken out of context. One rule per answer. That's pretty narrow. Feeling like one has to use an entire game system to answer this question is not a matter of the question being too broad, but rather a people problem where either there is a lack of design ability, or a lack of the ability to concisely state a potential answer. Myself, I obviously suffer from the latter - just look at pretty much any of my questions and answers. So, again, I really don't see at all a "too broad" question. \$\endgroup\$ – nijineko Nov 21 '16 at 19:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you for making the changes to it, removing the duplicate and putting it on hold instead. I'm also apologizing for just not seeing the too broad issue. While I understood your comments, it doesn't seem applicable to my question. \$\endgroup\$ – nijineko Nov 21 '16 at 19:17
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @nijineko Game systems are rules (and philosophy), which wholly work to produce specific experiences. Consider why you had to provide references to entire games in order to provide examples. Those "single rules" are in fact "the majority of the game system", because the more readily identifiable parts of the rules only produce the result they do when used within the context of the larger part. If you want over-the-top powered games, there are entire games with that experience as their singular goal where every rule acts toward that end; there is no "single rule" to extract. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 21 '16 at 19:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ Effectively "give me all the ways people have created gameplay around over-the-top powered characters" is negligibly different to "give me a list of all the games that focus on over-the-top powered characters" (that's not true for every kind of rule request, but it is true here). Further, "give me one rule per answer" is not how we operate. If you have a challenge solving a particular design element in your game, we can help you solve it. We are not going to do that in this scenario by listing all the ways people have impelmented X in games though. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 21 '16 at 19:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You are incorrect about why I used game system references. I have worked with game systems for decades. I always analyse rules out of game context. But I cannot assume the same familiarity for everyone else. That is the only reason why I use references. Also, I am not looking for every way or all ways, just whatever people can come up with or have learned. Nonetheless, your incorrect views have enlightened me as to why others perceive this as too broad, so I must thank you for that. Even if majority view is incorrect to my intent and meaning, it IS how others view it. Thank you again. \$\endgroup\$ – nijineko Nov 21 '16 at 19:58
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @nijineko one thing that makes your particular question seem (to me) a poor fit is that it seems like it wouldn't interface well with the voting mechanism upon which the Stack operates. If ten separate, non-overlapping answers all came in to your question how would I, the voter, discriminate among them? If the answer is "don't, they're all good" then sure, I can cast ten upvotes, but that starts to undercut the reputation system. (If all the answers are equally-good, then all the answerers become equally-reputable, and we no longer recognize expertise as a valuable thing.) \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Nov 21 '16 at 21:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What are list questions? contains a much better explanation of what I tried to get at above. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Nov 21 '16 at 21:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 Now that is an excellent and logical concern that makes perfect sense and doesn't use or rely on assumptions. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Mind making that an answer, by any chance? \$\endgroup\$ – nijineko Nov 21 '16 at 21:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you. (And, by way of fair attribution, it's largely a distillation of wisdom received from higher-rep users around here, SSD foremost among them.) It doesn't really strike me as an answer to the meta Q you posted, though, about how to handle something dupe-closed that's been edited out of duplicate-hood; rather, it struck me as something germane to the continuing conversation you and SSD were having and which I was surprised not to have yet seen mentioned. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Nov 21 '16 at 22:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 I understand your comment. However, it resolved my confusion on the subject and was an eminently logical response actually addressing my confusion. I cannot in good conscience accept the answer currently posted, as it completely failed to "answer" my conundrum. Therefore, if you would be so kind, though I will also understand if you decline, please post your comment as an answer, and by all means do reference the collective wisdom. At least, you should receive some sort of credit for effectively answering my question on the matter. \$\endgroup\$ – nijineko Nov 28 '16 at 0:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Your conundrum given was (until a few hours ago) "why's it closed as a duplicate", and you requested yourself that it be closed for another reason instead if appropriate. This answer explains, well, that has been done. If you want your conundrum settled, would you mind editing your question, or asking a new one, asking outright why it's closed and what you want to know about it? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Nov 28 '16 at 4:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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