9
\$\begingroup\$

related: Carrying misconcepts from previous editions - is this Question fine?

We've all seen it.

Does Brunchin and Braggin - Third Edition require me to start the game with a full stomach?

In a vacuum, that question doesn't make any sense, and is a bad "didn't you read the rules?!" question. ... Buuuuuut, if you recall that B&B 2e required all players to begin the game after having just eaten, then you can see the confusion.

How should we treat cases of Edition Baggage, and should there be some sort of denotation? Perhaps a tag? or something similar?

\$\endgroup\$
22
\$\begingroup\$

Edit the information explicitly into the question

I'm going to stop short of weighing in on whether a tag would be helpful or appropriate here, but this is definitely information that should be explicitly in the question.

For example, a question like this:

I'm new to 5e from 2e. Does [insert feature] allow/work like/etc. [whatever].

A 2e expert or OP can edit into:

I'm new to 5e from 2e. In 2e [feature] worked like [this]. I have looked through the 5e rules and it doesn't seem to be the same. Am I missing something?

The latter gives much better context for the source of the confusion and signals to voters and answerers that there may be more going on than a simple case of not reading the rules.

Of course all this assumes that this actually is the issue and that should be confirmed with OP before making any such changes.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Tags are for describing the content of the question for categorisation purposes; they aren't for adding or signalling new, additional information not found in the question. (System tags are the sole exception.) This means an edition-baggage tag would be inappropriate unless the content of the question described how it was indeed edition baggage, exactly as you're suggesting here. That would make the tag correctly unnecessary for conveying this information (that isn't a tag's job anyway). \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Apr 26 at 7:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener agreed. I was more indecisive about whether a tag would be appropriate for questions that specifically have that content in them. I think mxy makes a good case against that as well though. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Apr 26 at 11:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree, they do too. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Apr 26 at 12:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ How is a person asking a question supposed to know that they're only asking a question due to edition confusion? \$\endgroup\$ – GMJoe Apr 30 at 10:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ They aren't necessarily. But that kind of information or realization is often something that comes out in comments when pressing a querent for more details. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Apr 30 at 11:08
10
\$\begingroup\$

No, a tag for this is not good. It's a meta tag that does not stand alone. Assumptions of any sort should be stated in the question, there's 1000 different assumptions someone can make and a tagging taxonomy around them is not useful.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

I think usually a person asking such question won't be knowing that the confusion was caused by this issue, and so won't be adding this tag when creating the question. I think this very much reduces its usefulness.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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