We already have a great general question about how to think about the ratio of skill vs. luck in a game. Heck, we even have multiple ones.

So do we really need to have a question that asks for a specific game whether there is a "considerable" amount of skill (where considerable is undefined)? The question was closed and then re-opened apparently because people wanted to discuss the specifics of that game, but most of the answers boil down to "there is some skill". Whether it is considerable or not is very fuzzy, and ultimately it seems like the existing questions do a much better job of helping people come to their own conclusion about what is always going to be a subjective. Do we want to encourage people to ask this kind of question about individual games, whether they are famous or not?

| |

The question is poorly fleshed out, but there is an answerable question in there. The asker honestly wanted to know whether there was an element of skill to Monopoly, and the answers pointed out the specific parts of Monopoly that were skill-based. At the moment, it's fairly opinion-based, because the asker didn't give us any criteria to judge by. With a little work, it could be a much better question.

For the record, the Monopoly question should not have been closed as duplicate (and I'm glad to see it was re-opened later; duplicate is definitely the wrong close reason). It was similar to the general "how to measure luck" questions, but the answers from the general question are not proper answers for the Monopoly-specific question. The "duplicate question" close reason should only be applied in cases where the questions are such close matches that the answers to one will be appropriate for the other, and vice versa. I believe the question was re-opened because it should not have been closed as a duplicate, and because the question, even in its current form, is answerable. (It's still a pretty poor-quality question, though. There's a reason that neither it nor the answers have many upvotes; it isn't entirely opinion-based, but it's definitely getting in that direction.)

We should not be aggressively trying to close these questions. Each question still has to get past our usual requirements to be a good question, and the question of how much luck matters in [Game X] is still a useful one.

| |
  • Based on this meta question question and answer, I improved the answer to the Monopoly question by first rephrasing the question so that it was more precisely phrased and had criteria. I think it should cause at least some objections to be addressed. – Joe Golton Feb 13 '14 at 21:26
  • @Joe I guess that is better. "Classic dice games popular with children" is still a bit hard to quantify. Yahtzee and Parcheesi would both seem to meet that, and arguably both have more skill involved than Monopoly. – bwarner Feb 13 '14 at 22:42
  • @Joe So if I asked "Does Risk have more skill than classic dice games played by children?" would you also consider that a good question? – bwarner Feb 13 '14 at 22:45
  • 1
    @bwarner I do agree that the question is not worded well, though I think the intended question is good. This isn't the first time I've salvaged a poorly worded question with an answer that reworks the question. I think the intent of the question was clear in this case because I've been asked the question in person several times in my life. The person who asked it is new to the site and rather than scare them away despite having a good question (that was badly worded), I'd rather welcome them with a good answer and hopefully educate them about how to better word questions in the future. – Joe Golton Feb 13 '14 at 23:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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