Why is it "too opinion-based" to ask about good role playing for the purpose of giving out experience?

Question

This question was closed for being too opinion based. To be fair, I got enough answers, but I'd like to bring it up here, because I feel almost every question under gm-techniques and problem-players is opinion based. I feel that this question was broadly applicable, and yet well scoped enough to not be too broad.

I think the "opinion based" motivation was created for questions that on this site would be, D&D3.5 vs Pathfinder, or even D&D3.5 vs 4.0, where answers are both so broad and are likely to result in answers that are simply flame wars. Categories like gm-techniques don't have scientific answers; you can't glean the answer from a rule in the book like rules-as-written; there isn't years of scientific research on the art of being a GM; so by definition they are opinion based. There are even questions that are too broad and too narrow at the same time (I'd close this one because it appears the question is simply about a very personal case and as worded I feel it's unlikely to help others, also answers are likely to be simple advice and just opinion: talk to her, leave, yada).

My point is that I feel my question has enough quality to be reopened, and that it is at least at par for this site.

(I would also like to state that I don't feel the suggestion of restricting it to be system specific actually improves the question, because I personally don't think "what makes good roleplaying?" when restricting it to table top, and for the purpose of handing out xp for it, varies that much.)

If people do not believe it is of that quality, I would like to understand why it is worse than the existing opinion based questions.

Answer 1

Because there are a lot of different games and theories of play - too many for an answer to this without narrowing it down more.

This question is like asking "How do I know if someone's programming style is good so I can promote them?" Do you not think you'd be met with a cavalcade of "what language? What kind of programming? What's important in your environment?" Similarly, there are a lot of very different RPGs and they go about defining and rewarding roleplay very different - trad games vs Apocalypse World or Fiasco are very different in their approach to a character, even.

This question is both too broad and, as it's very broad, any answer would be totally opinion based. Provide some more criteria, and it will narrow and a less randomly opinionated answer might become possible.

Other than that, subjectve questions are fine within bounds; we use Good Subjective, Bad Subjective to analyze both questions and answers for legitimacy.

We also encourage people to ask about their problem here. If your problem is how to award XP for RP in WoD, ask that. Artificially widening it does no one any good; you'll get worse answers to your problem and others will be dissuaded from asking the question in a more appropriate context later since a general one seems to exist.

Answer 2

What is good roleplaying is a matter of taste

The reason it's closed is because it can't have objective answers or Good Subjective answers. Any answer to what is "good" roleplaying is, inherently, a matter of taste.

Not only is it a matter of taste and therefore completely (not even just primarily) opinion-based, it's also incredibly broad. There are myriad axes alone which to slice "good roleplaying" that focuses on different behaviours or experiences, and there are even more ways of judging those axes, again according to personal taste. And they're all valid slices and judgements, because there is no accounting for taste.

Consider these options, all equally valid: is metagaming good author-stance, or bad actor-stance? Is "but my guy would kill you all in your sleep" excellent roleplaying or being a huge jerkface? Is speaking in purple prose good roleplaying or bad hamming? How about 3rd- versus 1st-person speaking? How a person answers these has no basis in objective reality, just in taste. Each of these alternatives is "good" roleplaying to someone and "bad" roleplaying to someone else. There isn't even a way to make an answer to these choices Good Subjective by providing experience with them working — "working" for this purpose isn't quantifiable or qualifyable except with "it resulting in play that was to my taste."

"Good" roleplaying is, therefore, completely a matter of what you want out of roleplaying. You can't even built that into a question as constraints on the answers, because once you give your criteria, those criteria are your taste in good roleplaying and answers have nothing left to do except nod and say, "Yes, those are your measures of good roleplaying. Use those." And then it gets closed as "unclear what you're asking" or a custom close reason to revive the "this isn't a question" close reason.

GM techniques and how to deal with problem players are not a matter of taste

There's opinion in gm-techniques and in problem-players, but the opinion is susceptible to being Good Subjective because it can be backed up by experience with them satisfying play objectives that the questions are (presumably) specifying, rather than reducing to a matter of taste. The rubric of these questions are also not self-answering once written, unlike questions of taste.

That's the real dividing line here: things that are susceptible to the Good Subjective guidelines are going to be answerable, even if they involve some degree of opinion. Being able to satisfy criteria, according to experience or citations, is enough proof against rampant opining that we'll field the question. If a question is subjective and can't be made Good Subjective, then it'll be closed as primarily opinion-based.