Has Role-Playing Games Stack Exchange lost its appeal?

Question

In comments to my answer to the Our beta stats are slipping question, there was a question and answer exchange:

Baelnorn: the site has recently lost lots of its appeal
jprete: Can you elaborate on "lost lots of its appeal"?
Baelnorn: ... answer split over two more comments ...

Since I believe that questions are better as questions, rather than as comments, I ask the question again here. More fully,

If the Role-Playing Games Stack Exchange site has lost it's appeal for you, what caused it and what would you suggest to make the site better?

---

^{I ask to try and find out if other long time users feel as Baelnorn obviously does, and see if we can come up with suggestions to correct those perceived problems. As is recommended for questions which are borderline subjective, I would ask that people provide examples from personal experience in their answers.}

Answer 1

Heck, as a diamond mod I'm dissatisfied with the site at times too. I think we've shaken out a lot of our initial tone problems but still the content is pretty 4e-centric, or at least there's not a critical mass of content for most other systems, which does become a self fulfilling prophecy about people leaving because there's not enough here on whatever game they play to hold their attention. We've had to fight for more general, non-system-specific, questions to not be kneejerk vote-to-closed based on fear of subjectivity or whatnot, but could stand a lot more.

It's somewhat exacerbated by the small number of people in general that play any specific RPG, easily 1/100 of those that play any given new popular computer game, and by the fact that games are all commercially shepherded and publishers tend to have forums of their own for expert game support. The RPG community is fragmented and not driven by the hottest new release that provides some content coherence to e.g. gaming.SE. Unless you are one of the rare birds like myself that owns hundreds of RPGs, it's easy to feel drowned out.

There's the "scaring off newcomers" problem, but I think we've successfully convinced the community to be more welcoming and less "YOU DON'T KNOW THE COMPLICATED RULES HERE YOU ARE CLOSED GO AWAY." Some of that is inevitable because of the "SE way" but we can certainly be 100% friendlier about it, we've come a long way there but of course can always stand to improve.

I've tried to get people in my gaming group and from my blog to come here, but in general the responses I get are "seems fine, but there's what, one question a month on the game I'm playing?" It's not "It sucked I am leaving on purpose", it's "I have a limited amount of time so I'm going to go to the Paizo forums or Dragonfoot or whatnot - even though those are way less signal to noise, there's so much more traffic that there is still more raw signal there."

I think that largely the solution is to keep promoting the site, and to promote it to specific game communities, till we have enough quality traffic per game to keep people interested in that game.

I think that it's also important to make this site valuable in the Stack Exchange way. SE is successful because it is not a forum, bulletin board, or social networking site. I've seen a half dozen "social media site for gamers!" launch and sink within a month. The value of a Stack Exchange, and why it attracts experts and Google search rank, is that it is about people asking real questions they need help with, and getting specific answers. Not flame wars, not random noodling, not spouting off opinions. What we don't need to do in order to make this site appeal is deviate from the Stack Exchange formula - otherwise this is just one in a sea of sites, all alike.

Answer 2

The site moves really fast.

When I visit the site casually, most of the questions have already been answered and upvoted. The quickest answers get lots of votes. The slower answers, even if they're better, don't. Often, the correct answer has been chosen within hours.

Often, the highest voted answer is not the best. For example, in What would you pick as the "four elements of mind", the answer with the highest vote total currently describes the Myers-Briggs test. It's quite a good answer, but it's certainly not comprehensive or significantly better than those based on Freud or the humours. (I mean this with all respect to RMorrissey, whose answer it was.) I don't think that, if a better answer comes along, it will get as many votes. The upvoting has happened very fast.

This often means I don't add answers, especially if they require thought, because they won't get as many votes as the quick answer. And it does mean that my casual visits have declined.

Answer 3

Building on Graham's answer - because I can't leave comments yet - it's very hard for folks who aren't 24/7 online to get enough reputation points to perform even basic operations with regards to the content of the site.

Case in point: I can't leave comments yet, and I've been lurking here since October of 2010. I know it's poor form to add answers like this that should be comments - I see people catching flak for it all the time - but I dont. have. a choice.

This is extremely alienating, and I suspect something as simple as restructuring the locks on things like comments can help people feel welcome, rather than told "you don't matter because you're not online enough to have valuable opinions to share."

Answer 4

I've been holding off to see if Baelnorn would elaborate on his problems, as they seem to be strictly a superset of my own. But since he's gone, I'll go ahead and write up what's bothering me lately.

The cliquishness of this site is really starting to wear on me. There's always been a certain separation of the posters, and to a certain extent there always will be (spheres of interest and so on), but lately I've had the feeling that the most overtly hostile group has won out.

From the reminders that dnd-4e is "a tag many users ignore" (even though 4e currently only comprises nine of the fifty questions on the front page, most of which are in a cluster several days old) to people that would rather see fewer questions they don't like than more questions they do like (http://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/930/our-beta-stats-are-slipping/934#934), it's starting to feel a bit like the console wars in here.

What's really annoying me lately though is the What characterizes a “Modern” role playing game or gaming system? question. Ah, a question asking about the design and gameplay trends of the past thirty years! This ought to be good, yes?

"your last paragraph [about the rise of best practices] is dead wrong, in terms of assumption. As with many market-driven creations, based on poorly-defined focus groups. As are many answers so far."

"Gamers don't like modern things they play all the same games from the 1980s anyway"

"Aw, isn't it sweet, thinking of Amber as an early game."

"You are still right as to the ways some newer games try to GM-proof the game, and as they do this, they ruin tha ability for the above-average GM to create a superlative game."

[Regarding an answer about RPGs in general, citing two specific example lines] "So, more streamlined than 'melee' or 'Tunnels & Trolls'? Doubt it."

So, apparently my hobby is a rotting mass of stagnation that hasn't changed in any positive way in thirty years. Wonderful.

Answer 5

Also, asking merely system or system specific questions is limiting; while creating a niche for yourself as a place that people can expect to get campaign or setting suggestions will increase the traffic as well.

I know "how would you do this?" creates a less precise answer than, "What is the mechanic for this", but how different people approach the same issues is what makes this hobby so worthwhile.

Answer 6

The site's appeal is limited by format (no real sense of community in a pure Q&A format), and by the wide range of gaming styles.

Add to that the D&D-4E centered nature of the majority of questions, and you have a recipe for BLAH.

Also, some moderation issues. The biggest one is the cases of similar but not exact duplicates being closed and labeled "exact duplicate." Not only discouraging, but downright wrong in several cases.

But also, the stifling of discussions in comments that (in many cases) lead to edits which improve answers.

I post her mostly out of boredom.

Answer 7

I'm only speaking for my own use here. The initial appeal to me was the stack exchange platform. Community moderation, upvoting, etc. Now that I've gotten a taste of it, it's hard for me to go back to a phpbb.

However, once that appeal wore off, I went back to forums. The reason is simple. I'm more interested in discussion than in Q&A. Explaining how mounts work in 4e does not hold my attention. Debating about whether or not fudging is acceptable does keep me interested.

That said, I do enjoy this site. It's just not my primary online source for RPGs.

tl;dr I prefer discussion over Q&A.

Answer 8

It has lost its appeal for me too. I had a couple spurts where I thought things were moving slowly so I went through a back catalog of questions and answered any that I thought were interesting. Now, I've caught every question from the start to I guess about 10 days ago that I'm interested in answering. And I find much less reason to come here.

I guess that's one of the things that Stack Exchange has for the rate of new questions being worrying. There isn't enough activity here to sustain people.

There's also a thing with the nature of the site, once there are a certain number of answers for a particular question, there's no longer any point in giving your own. Even if you think you've got an answer that's really good, it'll be drowned out by the already accepted answers, and the 4-6 that have gotten the most upvotes. Even if the question rises to the top because someone just posted something, anyone who clicks on it probably won't see the most recent post. That's something of a problem with the nature of the site.

I also must say that the no rep for questions that become part of the community wiki bugs me to no end. I haven't seen any use to this feature, and it seems anyone with a high enough rep can just tag something community wiki. You can make a good answer, and the reward system that Stack Exchange works with simply gets negated.

Answer 9

I think this site is valuable for rules questions when the publisher or author is unwilling or unable to provide free answers. It is especially valuable in resolving ambiguous game rules by comparing actual solutions developed by users/customers. Although that is common to fora as well, the voting methodology provides quantifiable feedback to those results (unlike fora, where the dominant voice oft masquerades as a majority).

But it seems to me that the downturn in growth (if any) has produced a trend to ask (and accept and reward) questions which can be easily answered by (a) consulting published rulebooks and/or their cooperative publishers, or (b) any search engine. These perceived problems are part of the cause of my waning interest.

I consider questions in the above two categories to be OT for SE, and a waste of my time, but few agree. Were I setting policy, I'd say "Before you ask a question, try the manufacturer. And this is NOT the right place for research."

Answer 10

Honestly, after looking at the Why lock this question? thread I think maybe we need to replace the mods. Their decision to unilaterally lock the question when members disagreed is a perfect example of the kind of stuff people here have been complaining about, and perhaps having them step down and be replaced with some more open minded mods would do good for the site and make it more appealing to others.

Answer 11

I was on here a long time ago and recently decided to drop in and find out how the site is doing. I left originally because I became bored. Unfortunately, I find myself quickly becoming bored again. (Also, there are time constraints, but that's another story.) I guess I should share my reflections on why that may be.

I believe back in the day there was discussion on whether this site should allow discussions. It seemed the majority opinion was that the format was meant to support strictly Q&A activity, and people didn't want it to turn into just another forum with the accompanying infighting. (And now, according to an earlier comment in this thread, it appears that that decision was ultimately an SO decision.) I can certainly understand and appreciate that stance. However, that leads me to why I am not so hopeful for this site right now.

In my mind, tabletop roleplaying isn't like videogaming or writing code. The Q&A format is well geared for those other activities, in which specific, precise information about mechanics is important to success. In tabletop roleplaying, however, the focus is on narrative. Mechanics should (and I assume usually do) take a back seat to the development of story (and I assume experienced gaming here). Mechanics are important, don't get me wrong. But it's the quality of the story and how players are immersed in it that brings about success.

The problem seems to be that something of lesser importance in the hobby has been made the focal point of the site. When addressing a problem we always want to address it with the right tool. A hammer is not the most valuable tool to bring to bear against a leaky faucet, although it might be perfect for other tasks. After browsing the site again for a couple of days, I suspect that an SO format may be the wrong tool to bear when addressing the most important issues that people face when tabletop gaming.

As I write this I start to wonder if anyone here has ever thought about what kind of tool might be best for engagement around tabletop roleplaying. What would the ideal site look like and how would it function? I'm sure there are developers out there who could do it. Are we using the SO system because it is convenient and available? Or is this the format that people think best fits the need? I can't answer those questions for others, but I think it would be a good thing to evaluate what we are trying to do and what might be the best way to go about it.