2

Would questions in this format be allowed?

What's you favorite dominion kingdom card that you thought up yourself?

What interesting new Citadels characters have you added?

What roles have you made up for Pandemic that aren't in the base game or expansions?

All of them would be a one-suggestions per answer deal.

Questions about house-rules or suggestions to solve a specific problem are usually allowed, but I'm afraid that these will get cracked down on for being in a poll/list format.

If they are not allowed, could they be rephrased like this to be more 'objective'?

What's you favorite home-brew dominion card to add more inter-player interaction?

What interesting new Citadels characters have you added to make the offensive cards a little less devastating?

What effect will adding this home-brew card to pandemic have?

I ask because I think there could be an interesting question, but I'm not sure if the rules currently allow it. If they don't, could someone please explain how disallowing questions like this improves the site?

| |
7

Having seen two examples now,

I have a couple concerns

  • Both creations have been edited based upon the first answer received.
    • That appears to be "forum-like" behavior. While editing questions to improve them is cool, changing the meaning of them invalidates previous answers
    • Doesn't scale well, I envision a succession of edits that interest fewer and fewer people continually being bumped to the front page, ie "How does this card look NOW?" If a discussion like that is going to occur, it should be done through comments, if at all.
  • With the quick edits, I surmise there has been no play testing on your part.
    • My preference would be that this site not become the initial feedback mechanism for any proposed house rule/change to all games.
    • I think limiting ourselves to discussions about cards/items that have undergone initial playtesting would lead to more interesting questions.
      • "This card seems to work well for our group. Is there something we are overlooking?"
      • "The concept for this card really resonates with my group but in this one situation it seems broken/weak. Can you suggest a fix?"
| |
  • 4
    I posted simultaneously to this, but this answer (especially the second half) says what I wanted to say... just more clearly! I'd like the homebrew questions to be asking for a fix to a specific problem, rather than for general impressions. And I'd really like the posts not to be continually edited under my feet. I've been having to edit my answers to compensate and it is both tiring and confusing! – thesunneversets Feb 10 '11 at 22:01
  • could you delete those questions then? It seems like this is not where they belong. – Gordon Gustafson Feb 11 '11 at 1:47
  • @crazy - I could, but I am continually reminded that I ought not to take action that the community can handle. In this case, I posted to meta because I thought the conversation would be valuable. 2 upvotes here and 0 close votes on your question indicate that the community hasn't rendered a negative decision to your questions. – Pat Ludwig Feb 11 '11 at 2:57
2

I would strongly prefer the latter set of questions over the former, because (as you suggest) the latter are more objective and the former sound a bit too much like GTKY questions. I would consider the more targeted questions to be acceptable.

| |
2

The first set of questions is rather .. imaginary.

https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/faq#dontask

we are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”

The concepts are more interesting, so long as the concepts are based on the actual game as it exists in reality.

| |
2

I'm currently finding your Citadels homebrews to be a little fatiguing; in the sense that you ask "what effects would this card have on the game, and would you play with it", which requires an extensive, well-thought-out answer - you can't answer with a one-liner! Having said that I like considering the implications of homebrews and house rules, and I'm a bit sad that someone is downvoting these questions (perhaps because they don't think much of your card ideas?)

I think to be more valuable, your homebrew card questions could start with "this feature of [game X] could be improved. Would [my card] improve things in this respect, or else what would you suggest that would help the situation?" To be honest I'm not seeing how your Gambler and Usurper cards make Citadels better - they both seem to want to add a big whack of randomness to a game that thrives on the fact that you can (or hope you can) predict what's going to happen. But I guess if you're jaded enough with Citadels, the mere novelty of new cards might re-enliven your games!

| |
  • Could we make this a little less specific to me? I don't mind the feedback, but don't think people want to come to this question and have it be all about my 2 questions. :P – Gordon Gustafson Feb 11 '11 at 1:49
  • In the future I'll take them somewhere else more appropriate and stop annoying you guys. :) – Gordon Gustafson Feb 11 '11 at 1:52
  • @Crazy: Sorry, didn't mean to pick on you - it's just hard to talk generically about homebrew questions when the only ones (I've seen) on the site are your two! As I hope I implied, I actually liked them. I guess it would just be good to hash out what makes an excellent homebrew question as opposed to an average one. Your pioneering work is invaluable in working out the answer to that! – thesunneversets Feb 11 '11 at 7:37
  • @Crazy: Actually, I tell a lie, I posted a homebrew Ticket to Ride rule at some point, didn't I? And no one apart from you was really interested in that one either. I guess it's just us who are into that kind of thing on this site (For now)! – thesunneversets Feb 11 '11 at 15:06
  • @crazy: I'm not nearly as keen as @thesun as far as liking to discuss homebrew stuff, but I am grateful that you are willing to ask those questions. During the beta it is very important that we properly define the site. I think it is impossible to do that without also defining what doesn't belong. I'm not yet willing to say that these questions don't belong. Wishing more folks would weigh in here. – Pat Ludwig Feb 11 '11 at 19:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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