37

Designer reasoning questions should be banned. I've come to the conclusion that we should consider designer reasoning questions off-topic for the site. In brief, such questions do not have much value to the site, and there is precedent for banning developer intent questions. Additionally, the useful designer reasoning questions can be reformulated into ...


32

Instead focus on: What problem are you trying to solve at the table? When a rule looks weird or feels out of whack, a lot of different questions arise, one of which is "what were they thinking?" "What they were thinking" doesn't matter in our RPG.SE context. I will quote @BESW for a good idea of why "we are here" on this stack: We aren't here on ...


23

"Unanswerable" is never a reason for a question to be closed! If it's truly unanswerable, then it's provably unanswerable and proving it should make for a good, solid answer. Which makes it answerable in the Stack Exchange sense of the concept. If it's not provably unanswerable, then it shouldn't be closed as unanswerable for what I hope are obvious ...


18

My opinion is that we should purge the answers. Designers are the only appropriate source for designer questions If OP wants designer reasons, the only authoritative answer we can give them is going to be based off of designer guidance in some way. Designer guidance directly addressing this issue (or an answer based off of related designer guidance) is the ...


17

I don't think we should. There's a few reasons. We're still in a mess with designer reasons: lots of people are over-sensitive to determining a question is designer reasons, but really the only thing that wasn't working is “explain to me their thought process behind why they did that.” The mod team has had to reopen a lot of questions incorrectly caught ...


16

Yes they are. It's OK for a question to be unanswerable at the time it is posted as long as it meets all of the general requirements the site has for question quality. This happens most often for questions with the [designer-reasons] tag, which is generally included when a question asks why a system does things in a particular way. The only people who can ...


16

Speaking as someone who asked one of them, I think the best way forward is to let 'em burn. They're a hassle for the mods, they end up being a hassle for the people who ask them, and I presume it's annoying to answer them thinking it's simple and then have it deleted. And after all that, what does the site (and the querent) get out of it? Generally either ...


15

Ask a new question using the DMG terminology, and make sure it follows current policies by requesting designer citations. Then flag the old one for closure (either as opinion-based or as a duplicate of the new one, whichever feels better to you) because we open and close questions based on current policy no matter the policy when they were originally asked. ...


14

Designer-reasons questions should be off-topic. An RPG expert isn't substantially more capable of answering a designer-reasons question than a non-RPG expert, because all either of them is going to do is Google until they can find the right blog or tweet or interview. Answering doesn't really require RPG expertise so much as skill with phrasing search ...


13

No - but... Questions about rule intent (RAI) are generally off topic. Just asking "why is this rule here/why is it this way" is asking everyone to air their opinion, which is fine on a forum, but is not what we do here. The tag designer-reasons was mostly acting like shorthand, enabling querents to shortcut describing their actual problem; The rampant ...


13

Your logic was excellent, but according to the title and body of the question (in its latest iteration) the asker wanted to know what the designers themselves have said is the justification for the rule. This means that a correct answer must include a statement from the designer (or documentation indicating that there is no such statement if that were the ...


13

The ban should stand for all games. First of all, we don't need to make the rules more complex around here. "You can't talk about X only for D&D" is both complex and will be (rightly) seen as pretty discriminatory against players of that game. Furthermore, we don't have a good sample set of designer-reasons questions outside D&D but we have no ...


12

Yes The more general question, about whether we allow asking about developer statements which may or may not exist, appears to be yes. That's based on precedents and on it not transgressing any rules. I think it's also fine to leave it as “yes” after meta discussion, since I don't believe it causes any structural problems that the site isn't equipped for. ...


12

This type of question is OK, but will not be allowed to receive speculation, so you should consider strongly whether asking “what's the rationale for why it is this way?” will actually give you the answers you're looking for. We can easily tell you what it does, and whether it really means you can do a specific thing, according to what the text there says. ...


12

Ask away. If the answers provided to your general question have allowed you to formulate a more specific question then that is a different question.


11

You shouldn’t have to, but if you’re going to ask for intent, you have to be really explicit about what constitutes a good answer to the question Specifically, you should state that you really need quotes from developers discussing the topic. You have to strictly forbid speculation or guessing. You shouldn’t have to, but it’s very common in RPG discussion ...


7

From what I understand, there is actually a mechanical difference to unarmed attacks being considered light vs not. Right? You're describing the nature and intricacies of the mechanical difference to us here and in your answer. However, the question is not asking for an explanation of the nature and intricacies of the mechanical difference. It is ...


7

When it comes down to it, there's two things we can do with questions like this. Close them as opinion-based, because they just get everyone's own pet logic-train as an answer. @korvinstarmast alleges that "he's experienced, so he can answer this question from experience" - that's a logical fallacy, appeal to authority. You may have experience with a game ...


7

The argument that adding the tag makes it hard/impossible to give an answer to the question should not be allowed as a reason to ignore the tag's existence on a question. Equally, allowing answers that challenge the need for this tag is dangerous. We generally accept that the use of the [designer-reasons] tag makes answers much more difficult to give, but ...


6

Treat these questions similarly to Charop questions The meta brain trust was able to arrive at a nicely organized "how to write a charop question" meta that helps a lot in getting the charop style of questions to fit SE format, or be closed. It ended up being a community wiki sort of answer, that has three examples of charop, and points to the kind that ...


6

In my opinion the designer-reasons tag does not add enough value to RPG.SE in its current form to warrant the amount of oversight it seems to require to meet restrictions it imparts on the answers. Because of this I decided to put together some pro's and con's for a couple options that could be considered. This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive ...


5

That's not a duplicate It's fine to ask about rules without asking for designer citations. We require designer citations for questions about designer intent, not as a blanket requirement for all questions about how or why rules work. Asking what purpose a rule serves is not inherently a designer intent question-- what the designers thought it did may well ...


5

I believe the answer is yes. While I do not personally like the particular questioning of the RAW in combination with requiring a developer citation, it is a valid line if inquiry. The highest voted response is informative, and clarifying errata may arise in the future. Additionally, digging through archived and cached copies of Crawford, Mearls, or Gygax ...


5

There is no problem in asking. And even if the community rules it is not a different question, we will just close the least-quality one and create a link to the highest-quality question. When I state "least-quality one" does not imply the question can't be upvoted. If it is a well asked question, it deserves upvotes even if it is a dupe. And the other way ...


5

I believe that this may be a place for experience based answers I think that experience is the basis for the answer with a lot of up votes. There have been a couple of design decisions in this edition of this game that remove additional die rolls, fiddly bits, etc, that had been present in the attempts at greater simulationism in other editions. Being ...


5

The blanket ban should apply to all systems because [designer-reasons] is equally unhelpful to all systems. The extra moderation effort on designer reasons is a good reason to ban them on it's own, but the tag in general isn't useful to the site, and encourages question-asking behaviour that is specifically called out in the Help Center as bad. I don't ...


4

What you want is a question about designer-reasons It will give you the rationale from the perspective of the designers as far as that is available. Answers that don't cite sources can get deleted when you frame your question accordingly. Just be sure to explicitly state what part you are interested in. A broad "How is the Warlock class supposed to work?" ...


4

Literal Case This reference to intent is the more clear version: the querent literally wants to know what the authors intended when a certain rule was written. Oddly enough, in my experience, the term RAI is often not used here, possibly because of how common the other use is. Questions A question requesting this sort of information would typically be ...


4

It was deleted because it was not an answer A comment on the post pointed out that the post didn't answer the question. You replied with a comment that seemed to me to say that you didn't think it was necessary to answer the question, because another post already did: I think your commentary is reasonable and accurate, but it doesn't technically answer ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible