Especially in modern times,most popular series appear to get a TTRPG attached to them. Examples include Dishonored, A Song Of Ice and Fire, Warcraft. Are lore questions regarding these games considered to be on topic or is being on topic reserved for things that started their life as tabletop games and expanded (such as 40k and Vampire The Masquarade)?
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
4
-
1\$\begingroup\$ ^ That question is specifically about WH40k, but I think it generalizes just fine to this question. \$\endgroup\$– Thomas MarkovCommented Mar 4 at 14:42
-
\$\begingroup\$ There's the one I spent half an hour looking for this morning! \$\endgroup\$– nitsua60 ModCommented Mar 4 at 15:12
-
\$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 I tried a few different searches before I remembered it was specifically about warhammer, which is how I was able to get the search to cooperate. \$\endgroup\$– Thomas MarkovCommented Mar 4 at 21:41
-
\$\begingroup\$ My brilliant approach was "I'm pretty sure mxy wrote convincingly about that" and then skimming though their 400-plus meta answers. When, as you know, it was KRyan's all along :headdesk: \$\endgroup\$– nitsua60 ModCommented Mar 5 at 1:24
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
9
Yes
There is no need for a double standard. If one game is allowed to have non-RPG lore sources, then so should another.
It should be all or nothing. Trying to ban lore questions on the basis of the source - whether it is "originally a TTRPG or not" is just senselessly unequal. Either ban all or none.
-
\$\begingroup\$ I don't have strong feelings on this, and so have not voted, but I am very curious as to the rationale behind the downvotes. \$\endgroup\$– NovakCommented Mar 13 at 1:04
-
2\$\begingroup\$ @Novak For my part, this post argues for an all-or-nothing policy that is completely unnecessary to argue for. The answer can just be “yes, those are fine”. Nobody is arguing against these games being allowed. There is no double standard or attempt to ban lore questions in sight needing to be argued against. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 15 at 14:21
-
2\$\begingroup\$ Meanwhile, attempting to establish an absolute requirement that every single game must be allowed forever or else none is nonviable: absolutely we can reserve the right as a community determine “actually we can't handle lore for this one game very well here” if the need arises. It is, also, completely unwarranted hyperbolic to even try to argue for here—literally all that was asked was “can I ask about this thing?” and the answer only needs to be “yes, that thing is fine”, not “absolutely everything must be allowed or we must ban everything”. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 15 at 14:24
-
\$\begingroup\$ There is strong consensus not to handle some games with rather ugly content. Games that shall not even be named \$\endgroup\$– TrishCommented Mar 15 at 14:57
-
\$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener I'm only saying that it shouldn't be based on the origin of the game. Not literally all or literally none. \$\endgroup\$– VLAZCommented Mar 15 at 15:33
-
2\$\begingroup\$ @VLAZ Your answer literally says “all or nothing” and “either ban all or none”. The potential scenario where we may one day ban something based on the origin of the game is the exact kind of scenario I raised in my second comment. We absolutely can ban some and not all, and there is no call whatsoever for establishing an all-or-nothing approach either in general or in answer to this question. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 15 at 16:00
-
\$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener And then immediately after continues with "Trying to ban lore questions on the basis of the source. I've edited to clarify that point. \$\endgroup\$– VLAZCommented Mar 15 at 18:23
-
\$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Ah, I understand. Philosophically, I disagree mildly, but I also definitely understand what Trish is getting at, and that trumps philosophy. Thanks for eplaining. \$\endgroup\$– NovakCommented Mar 15 at 21:28
-
\$\begingroup\$ @Trish, ah, I understand what you're talking about, but would not have thought of it myself. Thanks for explaining. \$\endgroup\$– NovakCommented Mar 15 at 21:28