Area 51 » Recreation

101

followers

Announcements

I added card games, because everyone likes discussing War strategy. – Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 14:01

So this is basically a Stack Exchange version of boardgamegeek.com? – mmyers Jun 10 '10 at 16:26

Can this site possibly exist without every other answer pointing to boardgamegeek.com? BGG already has a dedicated rules forum for nearly every game in existence, it has a high signal:noise ratio, and many designers and publishers already post there to answer rules questions. What is to be gained by splitting traffic off to here? – jdl Jun 19 '10 at 19:42

show 10 more announcements

56 Example Questions (14 closed)

active newest votes

up vote 23 down vote

added by Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 10:41

This would be a core kind of question: a lot of the time rules are worded ambiguously, especially for complicated games. – Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 10:48

This would be a great example, if it was clear that the question should ask for a specific clarification. As worded, it doesn't really communicate what it's asking. – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 13:43

Particularly, "In [a board game], if [a specific situation occurs], what happens?" One that immediately comes to mind: "In Trumpet, if you have a card of the suit led, are you still allowed to play a trumpet card?" (The published rules are ambiguous, so we have a house rule for that situation.) – eswald Jun 17 '10 at 17:06

eswald, that's a good one (the template example you give first). Welbog, can you change this question so it's more in line with eswald's suggestion? – bignose Jun 18 '10 at 7:35

up vote 22 down vote

added by Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Jun 10 '10 at 12:40

In other words: should bridge and other card games be on topic? – Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Jun 10 '10 at 12:41

No, card games can get it's own site. – Adam Davis Jun 10 '10 at 13:27

Some games blur the line between board and card games. I think card games are fair. I've added card games to the scope at the top. – Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 14:00

If only you were playing truco... – voyager Jun 10 '10 at 15:02

if card games aren't supposed to be on topic, then "card games" needs to be removed from the title of this proposal. – Jay Atkinson Jun 12 '10 at 20:31

up vote 20 down vote

added by Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 10:43

"RTFM" questions, even though they're easy to figure out on your own, should belong in the spirit of having every conceivable question answered on the site. – Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 10:46

up vote 20 down vote

added by rlb.usa Jun 12 '10 at 15:25

Immediately raises the response “like it in what way?”. Can you improve the phrasing to address that? – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:32

Especially for people that aren't familiar with lots of games, it might be hard to articulate exactly what makes them like a game. I think the community should be able to answer a question like this with "Try X for another game with mechanic A. Try Y for another game with mechanic B." – Brent Warner Jun 17 '10 at 15:15

The problem is that questions aren't great for a StackExchange site unless they are phrased such that there will be one “right” answer. – bignose Jun 18 '10 at 7:43

could generalize the question. I like X, what games are similar? – Gordon Gustafson Jun 21 '10 at 20:07

up vote 19 down vote

added by Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Jun 10 '10 at 11:31

This is phrased poorly (as a yes-or-no question). – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:35

This is phrased poorly (as a yes-or-no question). Can you phrase it instead as “What published formal game-theory research exists ...?” – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:47

up vote 16 down vote

added by Adam Davis Jun 10 '10 at 12:01

The first part of the question is ok, but the second? It's a move. Not a technique, and certainly not a strategy. It doesn't make much sense to call a move 'defensive or offensive'. It's like saying 'is moving a pawn forward a defensive or offensive move?'. – ire_and_curses Jun 12 '10 at 1:20

up vote 15 down vote

added by Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 10:41

May sound a bit subjective, but people who play the game in question enough should be able to answer it definitively. – Welbog Jun 10 '10 at 10:47

I'd find it less subjective if phrased “... what significant effects will that have?” – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:31

up vote 15 down vote

added by ire_and_curses Jun 12 '10 at 1:32

Better phrased so that the answer directly addresses the question. Currently, “Yes, there are such games” is probably a correct answer. Better as “What cooperative board game could I safely play with my [significant other / boss]?” – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:22

boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15062/… although its somewhat involved. – Gordon Gustafson Jun 21 '10 at 20:08

up vote 13 down vote

added by Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Jun 10 '10 at 11:30

up vote 9 down vote

added by bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:27

Community wiki could be a good way to converge on a canonical set of rules where nothing official exists. – Ben Gartner Jun 21 '10 at 21:36

up vote 9 down vote

added by Brent Warner Jun 17 '10 at 13:29

up vote 8 down vote

added by Craig Jun 16 '10 at 22:06

up vote 7 down vote

added by Ben Gartner Jun 18 '10 at 4:50

up vote 6 down vote

added by fretje Jun 10 '10 at 11:43

	Please phrase as a question that actually asks what you want to know. “Does anybody know...?” is a yes-or-no question, which is unlikely to be what the questioner actually wants answered. – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:34
	@big: Sorry, English is not my native language... better now? Don't hesitate to propose a better fix ;-) – fretje Jun 17 '10 at 7:43
	It's still a yes-or-no question, and not what the querent really wants to know. (Imagine getting the simple “Yes” answer.) The real question that should be asked is “What extensions are there for the travel edition of Settlers of Catan?” – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 13:46
	@big: There you go. Thanks for the heads up! – fretje Jun 17 '10 at 14:02
	@fretje, Good to go :-) – bignose Jun 18 '10 at 7:38

up vote 6 down vote

added by Daemonic Jun 16 '10 at 20:43

“best” for what purpose? This question would be great if it allowed one right answer. – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:43

too vague - "best" in what way? and for some games, that will vary based on who you're playing and their styles – warren Jun 17 '10 at 13:35

Wording a bit better? – Daemonic Jun 22 '10 at 15:50

up vote 5 down vote

added by ire_and_curses Jun 12 '10 at 1:27

	Specific technique/training advice question, for a fundamental procedure that can be very frustrating to master. – ire_and_curses Jun 12 '10 at 1:29
	If you're asking how, you're not teaching yourself, now are you? – mmyers Jun 22 '10 at 19:51
	@mmyers - I disagree. I think you can 'teach yourself' something by reading it in a book. Why not from a Stack Exchange answer? There's a big difference between hearing or reading the answer, and learning to apply the answer effectively. The phrase would have a very narrow definition if you had to learn everything from first principles to qualify! – ire_and_curses Jun 22 '10 at 20:34
	that said, it's still an awkward way to phrase the question... What's wrong with "learn"? – Shog9 Jun 23 '10 at 5:45

up vote 5 down vote

added by eswald Jun 17 '10 at 17:35

Magic already has its own Stack Exchange site, and has so many potential rules interactions that questions for it should probably be redirected there. However, should CCG questions in general be on topic? – eswald Jun 17 '10 at 17:38

I would say it's a question of community. CCG questions may be too sparse to attract the CCG community. The topic of "board games" is already very broad. This makes it harder to provide good answers, because you have to shift through more questions before you find a question that you can answer expertly. My opinion? Magic should have its own exchange, and other CCGs should have their own exchange (if they can support one.) However, if the beta group has enough expertise on CCGs, it may work to have the questions here after all. – Ben Gartner Jun 18 '10 at 4:48

I think CCGs should be on topic. And according to the Area 51 FAQ "Don't worry about whether a question might be asked on another site. Your goal is to make the best possible site for this community" CCGs are definitely a card game, most of them won't have their own SE, and I bet the members of this community would be able to answer many of the questions, so I say go for it. – Brent Warner Jun 18 '10 at 20:23

This is a question that is much to specialized for an umbrella stack exchange site IMHO. The depth of a question should have some relationship to the breadth of the on-topic questions. That is why I would say this is off topic for board and card games, but on topic for a MTG exchange. Since the MTG exchange is narrower in scope, the questions can get much deeper. This is also a meta-argument for a feature to allow questions to be moved from one exchange to the other. – shemnon Jun 22 '10 at 15:32

up vote 5 down vote

added by Craig Jun 21 '10 at 22:23

up vote 4 down vote

added by Adam Davis Jun 10 '10 at 12:02

up vote 4 down vote

added by Jaydles Jun 11 '10 at 19:43

This would be a candidate for “community wiki”, rather than a question with a “right” answer. – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:20

up vote 4 down vote

added by Ben Gartner Jun 21 '10 at 21:39

up vote 4 down vote

added by Joe Zack Jun 22 '10 at 16:41

up vote 3 down vote

added by Tadeusz A. Kadłubowski Jun 10 '10 at 11:34

closed as off topic by Welbog, bignose, Beska, bdonlan, Space Hobo Jun 20 '10 at 7:38

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Why is this on-topic contrasted with area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/5220/… ? – bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:45

This seems like a legal question that has nothing to do with gaming itself. – Brent Warner Jun 17 '10 at 13:32

up vote 3 down vote

added by Mike Woodhouse Jun 17 '10 at 11:36

up vote 3 down vote

added by Brent Warner Jun 18 '10 at 16:11

I'm interested to see whether discussions of variants is considered on-topic. Does it matter whether they are "official" variants or not? – Brent Warner Jun 18 '10 at 16:12

up vote 3 down vote

added by Kristo Jun 23 '10 at 20:00

up vote 2 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 21 '10 at 20:11

up vote 2 down vote

added by emptyset Jun 22 '10 at 16:21

up vote 2 down vote

added by shemnon Jun 24 '10 at 14:42

up vote 1 down vote

added by Shog9 Jun 10 '10 at 16:42

closed as off topic by Welbog, voyager, antony.trupe, Amir Rachum, Pops Jun 12 '10 at 20:23

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

Off-topic: not directly concerned with game mechanics, and also too localized. – Shog9 Jun 10 '10 at 16:42

while highly localized, I'd say it's otherwise good - especially if it landed in the category of building-out local playing groups – warren Jun 17 '10 at 13:37

There are resources for board gamers like nearbygamers.com that could be of use for everyone. So, "Where can I find gamers to play with in [New York] isn't a great example." but "where can people go to find gamers who live near them" might be better?" – McKay Jun 24 '10 at 14:51

up vote 1 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 21 '10 at 20:12

up vote 1 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 21 '10 at 20:13

up vote 1 down vote

added by asandroq Jun 22 '10 at 16:54

up vote 1 down vote

added by Kristo Jun 23 '10 at 18:46

I would expect this one to be Community Wiki. – Kristo Jun 23 '10 at 18:46

up vote 1 down vote

added by McKay Jun 24 '10 at 14:52

up vote 0 down vote

added by bignose Jun 17 '10 at 7:26

closed as off topic by warren, Space Hobo, Daemonic, silk, Scott A. Lawrence Jun 23 '10 at 13:04

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Brent Warner Jun 18 '10 at 17:08

closed as off topic by fretje, Ben Gartner, asandroq, McKay, Michael Kohne Jun 23 '10 at 18:55

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 21 '10 at 20:10

closed as off topic by Ben Gartner, emptyset, asandroq, silk, Brian Webster Jun 23 '10 at 1:07

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Gordon Gustafson Jun 21 '10 at 20:13

closed as off topic by Ben Gartner, Daemonic, asandroq, Willbill, Michael Kohne Jun 23 '10 at 18:58

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

up vote 0 down vote

added by Craig Jun 21 '10 at 22:23

closed as off topic by Kristo, bignose, Brian Webster, Justin L., asandroq Jun 23 '10 at 13:44

This question does not relate to the topic of the proposal.
It was closed as part of an automated migration of off-topic to close votes on September 29, 2011.

	I say off-topic. Brain dumps of new game ideas are likely, at least initially. IMHO, it would be better to encourage specific targeted questions. – Kristo Jun 22 '10 at 20:12
	It also fails to be a good StackExchange question since it doesn't lead to a single correct answer (other than the literal “No, we won't”). – bignose Jun 23 '10 at 0:08