I don't want go get into a gold badge open/close war, so thought I'd just bring it up here :)

What systems can I use for a small scale battle?

The question itself does seem to be a duplicate of these:

In comments, it seems that OP is unhappy with the answers, but that's not a reason to re-open. It's a reason to put a bounty asking for better answers on the duplicates.

Should this be closed as a duplicate?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'll point out that when I reopened it, I forgot I was a gold [dnd-5e] badge holder; I wasn't intending to insta-reopen it :S \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NathanS Oh! I may drop the hammer to close and then we can discuss reopen? Argh! \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Well, my only point would be that they'd gone to some effort to explain why UA didn't help in their case, so any dupe with answers all about UA can't really be a dupe (or at least, there must be a way that this question can be made into not being a dupe of the other two on account of specifically not wanting UA answers)? \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, I know that dupe questions are dupe questions irrespective of answers, which is why I think that the question should somehow be changed to be different enough that it's not a dupe, and therefore the OP can get some answers that would help them. I originally thought that their edit was good enough for their question to not be considered a dupe of the other two anymore, hence my reopen vote... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:33

Their question should be reworked into something that isn't a duplicate

Since their question is essentially the same as the other two questions, but their answers all talk about UA: Mass Combat, which the OP has claimed isn't suitable for this case, their question should be reworked into something that is not a duplicate of the other two questions (i.e. and therefore the answers about UA: Mass Combat do not apply), but still something that is helpful to the OP's original scenario.

In the meantime, if the question is not yet currently sufficiently refined enough to not be considered a duplicate, it should perhaps be closed (maybe as something else like "unclear" or something?) until it can be reworked into something more satisfying for everybody. Closing it as duplicate still implies that it's the same question, which is at the very least clearly against the OP's intent.

  • \$\begingroup\$ But until then, should it be closed as a duplicate or not? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch See new 2nd paragraph. Just a proposal, but dupe seems to go against the OP's intent, so perhaps some other close reason? \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:42
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Well, if it needs to be reworked because it's currently a duplicate...then it's a duplicate. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Of course, only a mod can insta-close as anything other than dupe... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Intent for it not to be isn't the same as not being it. But I agree if it can be reworked to not be one, we should do that. Goal isn't to close questions, goal is to give people useful answers. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch But we know that the OP wants something that those other questions clearly don't help with, and that at it's heart, this question isn't really a dupe, it just looks like one in it's current form. I'm trying to see what the OP really wants rather than what is currently stated. Of course, there is a danger with leaving it open with what's currently stated, hence I agree that it should be closed in some way until it's ready... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think our comments are somewhat out of sync :P \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Regardless of all that has been said, given that the OP has chimed in on this meta, then if it were closed as a dupe again, if the OP knows that our intention is to rework it into something that isn't a dupe, then there's "light at the end of the tunnel", so to speak, rather than the "close as duplicate... again!" feeling too final like it might without their involvement in meta? \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Closing as duplicate/unclear aren't final - which is a good lesson for Matteo Devi to learn! It's not a bad thing, it's just an opportunity to fine-tune without attracting unnecessary questions. Or it may lead to the realization that it is just unhappiness with the answers to the potential duplicates and then someone (me?) can put up a bounty. Happy to do so if it comes to that. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Well, some discussion is now happening in the comments under your answer, so hopefully with the OP on board, it can be closed as whatever in the meantime... And yes, it is important for new users to learn that [on hold] != "closed forever", but it can be demoralising without that involvement... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:51
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Oh don't worry about me, I totally get why you are doing this and i want to state that i love your work! You guys are amazing! \$\endgroup\$ – Matteo Devi Sep 25 '19 at 15:51

Option 1: It's currently a duplicate

Those questions are about the exact same topic: running larger battle scenes around a party where the battle is involved.

If the asker of the new question doesn't find the answers contained sufficient, then the recourse isn't to ask the same question again, but to put a bounty up asking for more attention/better answers.

While the OP clarified the problems in the answers to the potential duplicates, that still doesn't mean it's a new question. It's that they have a concern or issues with the answers to the same question on how to run this type of scenario.

We can then workshop the question to not being a duplicate either here in meta or on [chat].

Option 2: Close as Unclear

Same need to workshop here, but bypasses the concerns around being a duplicate. I'm still not clear how it's not, but this may be the more comfortable route.

  • \$\begingroup\$ For a new-ish user with such a low amount of rep, though, this isn't really a viable solution. As mxyz once said, that's "insider baseball stuff", not something newer users would think of. I still think their question should be workshopped into something that is not a dupe and is helpful to their case. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ I guess I'll throw up an answer to that effect, just so people have something to vote on besides my comments... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NathanS Then it should remain closed until that's been completed. As it stands, that hasn't happened. Their question is just listing concerns about the current answers. And while new users might not think of it/realize it/have the resources, it's still our policy. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think my question is a bit different: my question is "does a system with rules to manange combat and movent of small armies in a DND context exists?", while the other questions are more "how can I handle this situation where normal combat won't work?" \$\endgroup\$ – Matteo Devi Sep 25 '19 at 15:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Yeah, that might have been my fault for insta-opening it; I thought it looked good enough at the time, but forgot my "gold badge powers", so having it closed again and reworked further might be the best way forward at the moment... \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 25 '19 at 15:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Matteodevi I'm still unclear as to how that's fundamentally different from the other questions. BOth are your scenario and providing answers on how to handle your scenario. And your commentary ont he problem with the answer also seems to point to the questions being the same, but that you have concerns about the answer options. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Uhm, maybe i should change the question in: "Does something like UA:Mass combat, but more suited to small scale encounters exists?" with the explanation on why my UA: mass combat doesn't really work for me (I hope it's clear why it doesn't). \$\endgroup\$ – Matteo Devi Sep 25 '19 at 15:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ It still seems like the mass combat rules would apply, but that you don't like the mechanics of them. Is that incorrect? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Technically yeah they could apply. But then the question would not be "How to handle the situation" but "Are there other system like this?" \$\endgroup\$ – Matteo Devi Sep 25 '19 at 15:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Matteodevi And then that goes back to the duplicates where UA mass combat was presented :( I totally get your frustration that you don't like the UA mass combat rules, but those questions are asking for ways to do this. Im' trying to think of a way to ask it differently, but every time i keep returning to those questions. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 15:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ But if the question is "are there other set of rules like UA: Mass Combat", how can the answer be "UA:Mass Combat"? I mean the answer could be as well "no" \$\endgroup\$ – Matteo Devi Sep 25 '19 at 16:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Matteodevi Ah! That's where it's tricky. The linked questions aren't asking about UA Mass combat. THey're asking what you're asking: how to run combat like this. UA Mass combat is an answer, not the question. THat's why I think it's a dupe with insufficient answers (which is where bounties come in.) \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 16:03
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Matteodevi I'm happy to put up a bounty stating something like "UA Mass Combat is an option, but I'd like to see other systems that people have actually used successfully." \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 16:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, I think a complete rewrite of the question is in order. Should I edit the question or open up a new one? \$\endgroup\$ – Matteo Devi Sep 25 '19 at 16:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ If it's entirely different, i'd suggest just deleting it. But here is still a good a place to workshop that new one. What do you plan on asking? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Sep 25 '19 at 16:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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