3
\$\begingroup\$

I've had this question about sources for price benchmarks for typical items/services closed as off-topic. I would like to request either one of two actions, or an explanation of the logic behind what seems to me to be an inconsistent treatment of between similar questions.

The inconsistency I see is that questions other campaign settings which happen to be bigger franchises with multiple games and non-game materials are considered OK. E.g. gets used for lore questions about FR, even though FR comes with multiple games (AD&D2, 3, 4...) and non-game works (novels etc.), and people asking questions don't tie themselves to a specific game set within the setting; similarly, has this question about a mapping tool that's not tied to a specific game set within it, but has stayed open and received answers. Yet apparently I did a faux pas by asking a lore question about Star Wars. What fundamental difference am I missing about my question?

If there is no difference, then I'd also like to request that my question be reopenen.

If the question is definitely off-topic and non-openable, then I would request a migration as hinted at by these two upvoted comments.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ At a glance, the Traveller question does appear to be "off-topic" for an entirely different reason: it seems to be a tool-recommendation "shopping" question, which are no longer allowed on RPG.SE. (That doesn't invalidate the rest of this Meta question, though.) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 8:52
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ I think the distinction is that the Forgotten Realms, for instance, is primarily a D&D campaign setting and rpg.se is the appropriate place to find an expert about it; the Star Wars setting is used in some RPGs but is not primarily an RPG setting and experts on its lore are more likely to be found on scifi.se. OTOH I suspect your question would not be contentious if you had asked it about a specific SW RPG system rather than trying to be agnostic. \$\endgroup\$
    – Carcer
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 8:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Since it is demonstrated that not all users are seeing that you are asking for material from the RPG sourcebooks, it might be worthwhile editing to further highlight that aspect (clarify the wording, maybe bolding the actual question is sufficient, I don't know). Part of the problem is that a wealth of different media has been published for star wars, so a touch more specificity might be in order. Other users not seeing something may well means the answerers don't see it either. \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil Mod
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 12:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ While this looks like a shopping question to me, I note that doppel already re-opened it so I'll just watch how things go. \$\endgroup\$
    – KorvinStarmast
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 19:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ I VtC'ed again too, yeah, this is a standard resource request shopping Q. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Mar 11, 2020 at 16:51

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
\$\begingroup\$

I've reopened the question and left the following comment:

Reopened. This is a question about a genuine tabletop RPG setting. If folks can ask about the Forgotten Realms in the scope of RPG play (but no specific RPG), they can do the same about The Galaxy Far, Far Away. RPG players will give a better, different, or more specific answer about TGFFA issues because they will be context-aware as to this information's functional purpose, as opposed to it merely being trivia.

I'm concerned the question may have some other scope issues, but it may not. I'll leave that to others to work out. For this issue though, it is on topic to ask about TGFFA lore here in the scope of RPG gameplay.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ Were all original close votes for off topic or were some for scope? \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 11:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Out of the five people who voted to close it, only two left a comment and both were about topicality. As you can see from the close reason, 3+ had voted to close as off topic. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 11:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I understand the majority, but was asking if we know the specifics as o also think that it has scope issues. Kind of a bummer to have it mod reopened because of a majority reason if there other reasonable closure votes that are now negated and those users can't vote again. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 11:37
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I'm not sure I'm allowed to reveal information about how individuals specifically voted to close. If I could I'd give you a clear answer. I am pretty sure the only public information is whether they did vote to close and what the ultimate outcome was—you can see the review as well, that's about it. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 11:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Okay, wasn't asking for who but what. Either way, I've voted to close as needing more focus. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Commented Mar 10, 2020 at 11:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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