This question already has an answer here:

This stack appears to be entirely designed for Rules Lawyers and has little to no useful content for players who want to enjoy the game they choose to play, any suggestions for somewhere else one might find a more congenial community? I feel this issue is systemic affecting all aspects of the site and since it stems from the core rules the stack is based on it can't be remedied. So, please point me at a more useful and roleplay rather than roll-play relevant community.


marked as duplicate by mxyzplk discussion May 29 '18 at 22:38


locked by doppelgreener May 30 '18 at 13:06


Read more about locked posts here.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Does it have to be a stack? or will you accept suggestions of not SE forums? \$\endgroup\$ – GcL May 29 '18 at 20:08
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Grosscol well there isn't really another RPG stack, so I hope they're accepting non-stack sites. :P \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 29 '18 at 20:10
  • 13
    \$\begingroup\$ I've downvoted for the numerous perjorative characterizations of others: "designed for people who actually want to enjoy," "entirely designed for Rules Lawyers," "roleplay rather than roll-play," for example. Even if those were accurate characterizations of the community (rather than the barely-veiled insults that they seem, to me), they'd run afoul of our respect for a diversity of playstyles. If you're not intending to insult people I suggest you edit your post to explain your actual problem; as is it comes across as just getting a dig in. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 May 29 '18 at 20:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think you need to explain in greater length what you think is the problem. I do agree that the site has a lot of rules questions. Why do you feel that stems from the core rules of the site and what would you change? \$\endgroup\$ – kviiri May 30 '18 at 7:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @kviiri It's not the questions, it's how they're handled, chapter and verse is the only acceptable methodology, and god forbid one points out to a GM or player that they have caveat. \$\endgroup\$ – user40081 May 30 '18 at 12:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 As I am pointing out to you that the site itself runs afoul of that particular ideal in practice you can imagine my total lack of caring. You might also imagine that pointing out that such a thing exists simply reinforces my current disaffection with the community here. \$\endgroup\$ – user40081 May 30 '18 at 12:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you give an example of what you mean? I'm still not following. \$\endgroup\$ – kviiri May 30 '18 at 12:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well you asked it for some reason, and I'd like it to be something else than just venting out frustration without any constructive feedback. \$\endgroup\$ – kviiri May 30 '18 at 12:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @kviiri I spent over a year quietly looking at this stack without signing up because I saw the content and rules were skewed toward a pure chapter and verse approach to gaming, which ignores that 1. people play very games based on the same rules and 2. every rulebook I've ever read says something to the effect of "if you need to change things to suit a particular situation, do it". I signed up only because good experiences in Worldbuilding and other stacks convinced me it couldn't be as bad as I thought, I was right, in practice its worse. \$\endgroup\$ – user40081 May 30 '18 at 12:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ You've been asked a few times in good faith to provide examples of what you're talking about. If you're not willing to or interested in doing so that's fine. But it's not fine to keep insulting the userbase here in vague/diffuse terms. I'll be deleting any more nebulous declarations of how bad things are. You are welcome, of course, to explain any particular problems you have with posts, stated policies, or even individual users (referred to by action). Otherwise, stop. \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 May 30 '18 at 12:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nitsua60 Any example I might have provided has been deleted. The fact that you can't understand what I mean when I state that there is a very particular issue with disallowing answers based on gameplay rather than a purely rules-as-written citation based approach to games is the specific symptom I'm talking about. \$\endgroup\$ – user40081 May 30 '18 at 12:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm locking this since I don't think it's appropriate for us to keep pressing you for details, and I want to prevent this from escalating to the point where something bad happens. We have a feedback thread but this isn't the time and place to be pressing for it. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 30 '18 at 13:06

I'm sorry to hear you haven't enjoyed your time here.

You can find any number of other communities we'd recommend for discussing games here in this big list of forums and other communities:

Best of luck & happy gaming.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I up-voted one of Ash's answers that was utterly correct, but got locked/closed by a diamond mod due to infringement on Be Nice. (I provided an answer to the same question that was similar but not quite as harsh). Ash is not the first user/visitor who has had the same reaction to how this particular SE attracts a particular style of answer (due to being an SE, with the limitations that the format brings). \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast May 30 '18 at 13:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Heh, I just noticed a few answers that demonstrate the opposite of what is being complained about ... here is one of them \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast May 30 '18 at 13:29


There are subreddits for role playing, D&D, and so much more. They also have voting and comments. You can post things that aren't just questions.