text:
Help transform recommendations questions, desirable?
Not everyone is a hardcore gamer
But almost everyone plays cards and boardgames once in a while.  So they can be a bit "lazy" and ask a question like:

I can't decide between Risk and Axis&Allies, which one is better?

If I have understood well, this kind of question would be closed. However, I think there is a legitimate "ask the experts" element there but doubt that this kind of player is willing to go read the faqs, search for different games info and post a more objective elaborate question; it's just a game right?
If the poster is asked about what he likes and wants, the question can be transformed [edited] a bit.. yes it's a bit of against SE and a bit of spoiling but..
Is a casual gamer (almost anyone) a regular member of B&CG?
I mean, how many monopolies is he going to buy through his life anyways?
So then, what's the attitude towards that kind of questions here?

No, Boardgames.SE has few if any regular casual gamers
A regular user would be someone that logs in once a day, or at least once a week. Someone who is only casually interested in board games is unlikely to search out information on Boardgames.SE, or on any other site for that matter.
Recommendation questions do have an element of expert knowledge that can determine if a game would be a good fit, or with a large enough sample size a poll could reflect which game is the best (like RottenTomatoes with movies and critics/people ratings). The problem with those sorts of questions is, that the don't fit the stack exchange Q&A format:

Open recommendations result in long lists, with no definitive answer. (i.e. What is a good game for 3 players)
Open recommendations quickly become out of date, and are difficult to maintain.
They are too localized (i.e. What is a better game [for me] Risk or Axis&Allies?)
They become a poll of not necessarily the best answer, but the most popular answer.

There are other resources on the net that can provide better answers for these sorts of questions. BGG has a Gift Guide 20xx, and Games Magazine has Game of the Year. SE users are also free to ask for suggestions in chat, which they should be directed to. There, they can be prodded to provide more information that would be necessary to pin down which games would be best for them.

Nice agree on that. But regarding the problems with those questions, I asked if it's worth to correct them: I mean pull of the information from the poster so the question becomes objective, closed and ultimately profitable

@quinestor, it can't be done. Example make your OP question, "Which is better Risk or A&A?". It is too subjective (what is "best" for each person), the question is closed (only has two answers, nothing to fix here), but will not be profitable to later users. Even if you add "Why?" to the question, it just becomes a sort of review of each game, AA has better pieces, Risk can be finished in less time, AA isn't as balanced, ..." StackExchange isn't a review site, how would voting reflect "reviews" of these "Why is Risk better than AA?"

thank you , user1873 ? Weird that sounds unpersonal :)

You make an assumption that a casual player should look up things on this site. I'd like to remind you that having 80-90% of the traffic coming from google searches is one of the goals of most SE sites. I believe a casual player would google "I like Settlers of Catan, what should I buy next?"

@K.L., you will have to remember that I wrote this a year ago, when our numbers were much lower. That being said, I don't think it matters if casual gamers come from Google or not. I don't think that having an answer for, "I like Catan, what should I buy next?" on BG.SE will help improve the site for the reasons I list above. The hardcore/casual gamer split doesn't change the reasoning for why we don't allow those questions on the site, and neither does a users regularity.

I'm not clear precisely what your question is, but it seems to include the assumptions: (1) Casual game-players will find this site and ask questions on it: (2) A casual game-player won't have the time and intelligence needed to ask a good StackExchange question and (3) A bad question is better than no question. I find all of them factually dubious, and in any case you are ignoring the reasons why the BCG rules were created in the first place. Stack Exchange members are not random visitors: they are expected to have some expertise, which they freely give for the sake of improving (the hobby, in this case). I for one would stop visiting if the front page were overwhelmed by "what game should I buy as a Christmas present for my 12-year-old nephew?" questions.

Define casual player. As you put it, only game designers would have any interest in B&CG. Thats not exactly a big audience.

@K.L.: As defined in the question, a casual player is somebody who 'plays cards and boardgames once in a while', but has no particular interest. If you read my answer, I specifically say that such a player may ask good questions. And are you seriously suggesting that the world is divided into game desigmers and casual players?

yes! Because there is no "hardcore boardgame player" label to be attached to boardgame players. For the sake of berevity I put all the people involved in or interested in the making of a boardgame into a sack labeld "people with expertise" or "game designers". You said that every user of this site should have expertise. Well, in my book having played a few (or a lot) of boardgames does not make you an expert. And only experts can have expertise. So if every user needs to be an expert, the site would be only for "game designers". IMHO user != contributor!

I dont really need to be an expert mechanic to come into carfix.se to ask how to fix my broken xxxx, and so I dont have to be an boardgame expert to come to B&CG and ask questions about boardgames. As you can see, the main problem I have with your answer is mainly semantics and terminology. You dont even have to be a member to ask a question! So requiring "expertise" from every asking questions is a bit too much. You can require expertise from people ANSWERING questions tho ;)

I don't like most "recommendations" questions. But I feel that there is an important subset that shouldn't fall under these strictures.
The problem with most recommendations questions is that they tend to be open-ended and therefore "broad." A recommendation question might read, "I'd like a suggestion for a multiplayer game, played with dice, where the object is to acquire objects/properties of value, and ultimately to dominate the whole board and be more powerful than other players. That is a "too broad" question that ought to be closed.
A much narrower version of the question include the foregoing, plus an actual game that you've played. "Besides the above, the kind of game I had in mind is like "Risk." Then a logical answer might be Axis and Allies. Or, "I was thinking of Monopoly. Then a logical answer might be "Easy Money." The additional detail on preferences narrows the question considerably by asking for substitutes, and probably makes it answerable. I created a new tag, substitutes, just to deal with this kind of question.
Of the two, the "Risk" question was a bad one, because the OP didn't tell what he liked about Risk with enough specificity for us to know whether Allies and Axis was an adequate substitute. But the Monopoly question has some specificity and might be worth reopening.

As soon as you specify what qualities and features you like about a board game, you are back to asking "Recommend an X-player board game that has quality Y and feature Z."


text:
Are book recommendations on-topic?
Are book recommendations on-topic for Board and Card Games?  I didn't see a specific reference in the FAQ or in Meta.BaCG about this.
I know many (most?) of the SE sites discourage or disallow questions asking for book recommendations, as they are generally non-constructive.
However, with some games there is an extensive literature, some of which is very topic specific.
For example,

Can anyone recommend a book on how to learn to play Go?

should be closed as non-constructive, as answers would be opinion based.
But what about one like,

I have read a few beginner Go books, and think I have a handle on the scenarios/problems they present, but I am still having trouble with actual gameplay.  Is there a beginner's book that focus more on "how to play" rather than on beginner problems, but is not overwhelming to a new Go player?

Most recommendation questions can be improved by omitting your built-in requirements upon the answer.
Consider your original question:

I have read a few beginner Go books, and think I have a handle on the scenarios/problems they present, but I am still having trouble with actual gameplay. Is there a beginner's book that focus more on "how to play" rather than on beginner problems, but is not overwhelming to a new Go player?

My rewrite would be:

I have read a few beginner Go books, and think I have a handle on the scenarios/problems they present, but I am still having trouble with actual gameplay. How can I learn "how to play" rather than focus on the scenarios and problems.

To my mind, you limit and risk trivializing the answers by assuming that you are looking for another book.  This also gives us the greatest chance of the question devolving into a book popularity contest - recommendation questions are banned to avoid these lists where the interesting bit is only the name of a book or game and the answer as a whole is little more than that.
Trust the community to recommend books in their answers if they feel that is appropriate, but I would expect great answers to relate personal experience either as to how they learned themselves or how they regularly teach others.

Thanks for the detailed response.  I think the rewrite is good approach to take.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Area 51 requirements

Okay – 2.5 answers per question is good, only 1 answer per question
  needs some work. In a healthy site, questions receive multiple answers
  and the best answer is voted to the top.

The first reaction that I have to this rating on the Area 51: Board and Card Games Proposal, is to go over a bunch of old, already answered questions and add more answers to them.
Should I not do that?
What if I have more information to add to an answer or question, or a different view on the topic, even if it is fuctionally no different than an already accepted answer?
Also, the questions per day:

Needs Work – 15 questions per day on average is a healthy beta, 5
  questions or fewer per day needs some work. A healthy site generates
  lots of good content to make sure users keep coming back.

Isn't that inviting to fluff questions?
Thoughts?

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on a nice response to this question, I just keep getting pulled into other discussions. Sorry about the delay, I will post my response as soon as I can!

Thank you very much for the comment! Makes me feel that that it's not being overlooked. Even if I am operating under incorrect observations!

So it looks like a couple of others have gotten to this before I could. Do you still want me to chime in? I feel like they covered the big parts.

Don't forget you can also improve the question:answer ratio by adding answers to questions that have NO answer, and this should definitely be encouraged!

@Aarthi Thank you kindly for the concern, but I feel that I've now got a grasp on what BCG.SE wants to presenet itself as (and how I want to act within it).

Should I to go over a bunch of old, already answered questions and add more answers to them.
No. If you believe that the current answers for any old, already answered questions are poorly worded or could be improved. Make an edit, the author will be notified. If the current answer is completely inaccurate and cannot be corrected without completely changing the intended message, then post a new answer. The majority of questions on B&CG.SE are rules questions. Rules questions invariably only require one, correct answer. This means that on average, if the first answerer gets it right, no future potential answerer will attempt to provide a competing answer (what would be the point). I would expect a healthy amount of answers/question to be between 1-2 and dependant upon the ratio of rules questions.
5 of expected 15 questions / day, Isn't that inviting to fluff questions?
Unfortunately yes it probably does. Do not feel tempted to ask fluff questions. The biggest mistake we can make as a community is to increase the number of poor question or answers to make the arbitrary site metrics look good.

Answers per question
I wouldn't worry about this metric. It's not actively bad and, as user 1873 said, a lot of our questions do have a single canonical answer (e.g. a quote from the rulebook or author -- though some of these questions definitely do have room for multiple answers just because of differences in how you explain the rules).
If we really want to increase the number of answers per question (e.g. if it starts to dip significantly), my advice is to write questions that go deeper than a rule reference. Many of the strategy questions on this site generate 3-5 good answers, for example.
Questions per day
This is a problem. I think mostly it's an issue of site population. So the ideal activity for fixing this is to raise the site's profile -- use the "share" button, write good answers to commonly-searched questions, &c. And be welcoming to new users. ;)
Also, remember that "Answer your own question" is an option. I don't think you should make up questions just to post, but if, for example, you run into an issue in play and resolve it yourself, it can be a useful service to other players to go to post the results of your research on the site.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How to handle questions asking to make a copyrighted game
Recently there was a question asking for help to recreate a copyrighted game and I was wondering what is our stance on this? Should we be closing and deleting those questions as they could encourage people to create (and maybe sell) homemade versions of copyrighted games? Or should we leave those questions be because we don't control what the readers do with that information and only remove it if a publisher files a complaint?
Ticket to Ride Marklin vs. Germany Destination

Making an exact copy of every part of a typical board game may well be an infringement of copyright, depending on the age of the game. But it will often be possible to create a version of a game which does not infringe copyright but has a very similar, if not identical, play experience. I will call such a reworked game a "clone".
Game mechanics and rules are not protected by copyright. In some cases the actual wording of game rules may be protected, but the concepts are not, and a rewarding will remove any protection. Thus rewritten rules may be used in a lawful clone.
The name of a game may be trademarked, and so may associated images, but that only is relevant if someone is trying to market the cloned game. Creating a copy for personal use is not a trademark infringement. To sell a clone, a new name and logo might well be required, one tht foes not imply endorsement or approval of the clone by the original maker, nor lead to reasonable people confusing the clone with the source game.
The graphic design of a board or of cards or pieces may be protected by copyright, but a variant could in most cases be devised that would not be protected. Such a variant could be used in a clone, althoguhnthe original might not be lawful to copy.
In the case of the linked question the OP, as I understand it, merely wanted to complete a partial set without repurchasing, and basically wanted a contents list. That in no way violates copyright.
I have voted to reopen the linked question as edited, and urge others to do the same.
I think questions that do not call for an answer that would itself be a copyright infringement (quite unlikely IMO) should be left open. Even if it seems that the OP intends to engage in a possible copyright infringement, we should not try to judge that, that is for the copyright owner and, perhaps, a court.
Actual Game
A comment reads, in part:

I am not talking about game mechanics but the actual game itself, I don't see at all how you can claim recreating a game isn't a copyright violation or piracy.

That depends on what is meant by "copying the actual game". A game consists above all of the rules. It may include of pieces of various kinds. It may include a board, which will consist of some kind of layout, often with added art. It may include cards, either standard or specific to the game.  In the case of game like MTG, the cards pretty much are the game. Lets consider each type of component, and to what degree it is protected by copyright.  "Piracy", by the way, is not a legal term in copyright law. The correct term is "copyright infringement".
Rules
The rules as written generally may not be copied word-for-word without permission.  But game rules are usually quite concept-bound, and concepts are never protected by copyright. A rewrite of the rules preserving all the concepts while changing the actual words is likely to be held not to be a copyright infringement on this basis, depending on the details. The rule concepts are also known as "game mechanics".
Pieces
The design of game pieces my or may not be prosecutable by copyright, depending on the level of originality that they display. Pieces which are simple disks, or blocks, or pawns, such as those in checkers, parchesii, Sorry, or Risk will have no protection. A particular style of chess set  might be protected. although most classic styles would be long out of copyright. But the concept of the chess pieces: king, queen, rook, bishop, knight and pawn, would never have been protected, and could be freely imitated even if chess have been developed last year. Similarly pieces of a different design but with the same game functions would not be an infringement. Thus a clone might need alternate pieces, if the source pieces were sufficiently original to be protectable.
Such game equipment as Monopoly Money could not be copied exactly, but the idea of game currency could not be protected by copyright, and bills of a different appearance would not be an infringement.
Board
The exact layout of a game board may be protectable by copyright, if it is sufficiently original.  A simple track such as is used in cribbage or Sorry, or a simple array such as is used is Scrabble or chess would not be original enough. Even where the layout was protectable, a modified layout would probably not be an infringement. Images and art on the board would be protected, but different images or art would not be an infringement.
Cards
Standard cards are, of course, not protected. Cards that are just numerical series, such as those used in Flinch, could not be protected at all by copyright.  Cards that are just game instructions, like the "Chance" and
Community Chest" cards in Monopoly. might need minor rewrites, but the concepts and directions are not protectable by copyright, and cloning these would not be an infringement.
Highly individual cards such as those used in Cosmic Encounter or particularly in MTG and similar games would have their images and the wording of their texts protected.  But the game mechanics, the game effect of each card, cannot be protected by copyright. Creating new versions of such cards with different names and art, but the same game effects would not be infringement. Such new versions could be used in a lawful clone.
The Game  Itself
Very few of the elements that go into a game, besides the art and the exact wording of rules and other text, can be protected by copyright at all. Creating a clone game that has identical play, with modified text and new or omitted art will probably not constitute an infringement.
Simply photocopying a game board, cards and rules might well be infringement, although if done for purely personal use might constitute fair use. But modifications of detail may well produce a game that is not an infringement but which has near identical play. Details will matter, of course.
An important concept here is the  "idea-expression dichotomy", which dates back to the US Supreme court case of Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879). Copyright never protects an idea, only a particular expression of that idea. A different expression of the same idea is not an infringement. When an expression is just a list of ideas, or is so bound up with the ideas it describes that there is no originality in the expression apart from the ideas, the expression may not be protectable by copyright at all.
Legal Sources
in US Law, 17 USC 102(b) provides that:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

Game rules and game mechanics constitute such procedures, processes, systems, and/or methods of operation, and as such are not protect able by copyright at all.
The US Copyright Office's Circular 1 "Copyright Basics" says on page 2:

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Copyright does not protect:

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries
Works that are not fixed in a tangible form (such as a choreographic work that has not been notated or recorded or an improvisational speech that has not been written down)
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans

Circular 33 - "Works Not Protected by Copyright" says on page 2:

Names, Titles, Short Phrases
Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combinations of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words. ...

On page 3:

Layout and Design
As a general rule, the Office will not accept a claim to copyright in “format” or “layout.” The general layout or format of a book, page, book cover, slide presentation, web page, poster, or form is uncopyrightable because it is a template for expression. Copyright protection may be available for the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the specific content that is selected and arranged in a sufficiently creative manner. The claim, however, would be limited to the selection and arrangement of that
specific content, not to the selection and arrangement of any content in that particular manner.
Blank Forms
Blank forms typically contain empty fields or lined spaces as well as words or short phrases that identify the content that should be recorded in each field or space. Blank forms that are designed for recording information and do not themselves convey information are uncopyrightable.

The originality requirement for copyright protection was addressed by the US Supreme Court in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). This is now considered the leading US case on the originality requirement, and is frequently cited. In the majority opinion, joined by seven other Justices, (with an 8th concurring in the result) Justice O'CONNOR wrote:

(a) Article I, § 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. ...
The Copyright Act of 1976 and its predecessor, the Copyright Act of 1909, leave no doubt that originality is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works. The 1976 Act explains that copyright extends to "original works of authorship," 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), and that there can be no copyright in facts, § 102(b).
...  Even a compilation that is copyrightable receives only limited protection, for the copyright does not extend to facts contained in the compilation. § 103(b). Lower courts that adopted a "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" test -- which extended a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves -- misconstrued the 1909 Act and eschewed the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas. Pp. 499 U. S. 351-361.
...   That there can be no valid copyright in facts is universally understood. The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that "[n]o author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539, 471 U. S. 556 (1985).
...
The originality requirement articulated in The Trade-Mark Cases and Burrow-Giles remains the touchstone of copyright protection today. See Goldstein v. California, 412 U. S. 546, 412 U. S. 561-562 (1973). It is the very "premise of copyright law." Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1368 (CA5 1981). Leading scholars agree on this point. As one pair of commentators succinctly puts it: "The originality requirement is constitutionally mandated for all works." Patterson & Joyce, Monopolizing the Law: The Scope of Copyright Protection for Law Reports and Statutory Compilations, 36 UCLA L.Rev. 719, 763, n. 155 (1989) (emphasis in original) (hereinafter Patterson & Joyce). Accord, id. at 759-760, and n. 140; Nimmer § 1.06[A] ("originality is a statutory as well as a constitutional requirement"); id. § 1.08[C][1] ("a modicum of intellectual labor . . . clearly constitutes an essential constitutional element").
... . The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected. Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright; accordingly, copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author. Patterson & Joyce 800-802; Ginsburg, Creation and Commercial Value: Copyright Protection of Works of Information, 90 Colum.L.Rev. 1865, 1868, and n. 12 (1990) (hereinafter Ginsburg). Thus, if the compilation author clothes facts with an original collocation of words, he or she may be able to claim a copyright in this written expression. Others may copy the underlying facts from the publication, but not the precise words used to present them. In Harper & Row v. Nation, for example, we explained that President Ford could not prevent others from copying bare historical facts from his autobiography, see 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 556-557, but that he could prevent others from copying his "subjective descriptions and portraits of public figures." [Boldface added]
...
... Not all copying, however, is copyright infringement. To establish infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. See Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 548. [Boldface added]

See also "Not Playing Around: Board Games and Intellectual Property Law" by Daniel J. Schaeffer,  Published in Landslide, Vol. 7, No. 4, March/April 2015, by the American Bar Association. In that article Schaeffer writes:

To discuss copyright in board games, we must look back to an 1879 Supreme Court case ironically having nothing at all to do with games. In Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99 (1879), the plaintiff had developed a new method of bookkeeping and published a book containing an introduction, an explanation of the method, and some examples that consisted mostly of blank bookkeeping forms. His book met with little success, but when another publisher began successfully selling a book containing very similar forms, his widow filed a copyright infringement suit. The Supreme Court held that although the book was subject to copyright, the bookkeeping method itself was not a suitable subject of copyright, and because the forms were merely implements for performing the method, they were not copyrightable subject matter. Justice Joseph Bradley wrote

[W]hilst no one has a right to print or publish his book, or any material part thereof, as a book intended to convey instruction in the art, any person may practice and use the art itself which he has described and illustrated therein. . . . The copyright of a book on book-keeping cannot secure the exclusive right to make, sell, and use account-books prepared upon the plan set forth in such book.

The principle laid down in Baker v. Selden was later codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, which says clearly:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”{17 U.S.C. § 102(b)}
Thus, the idea-expression dichotomy that is fundamental to copyright law can be traced back to Baker v. Selden.

Therefore, the systems or processes that make up the core of a game—generally referred to as the “game mechanics”—are not subject to copyright, even though the written rules, game board, card artwork, and other elements—often referred to as the “theme” of the game—may be. Game mechanics can be as simple as “roll dice and move a token along a track,” or far more complex. Regardless of the complexity or originality of a given game’s systems and processes, its game mechanics will likely not be protected by copyright. [boldface added]
...
Board games occupy a somewhat eccentric niche in intellectual property law, often not fully protectable by copyright, trademark, or patent, and thus susceptible to knock-offs and alternate themes. A would-be board game designer should understand which kinds of IP protection apply to which aspects or components of the game, and take appropriate steps to protect them accordingly ...

BoardGameGeeks page on "MythBusting: Game Design and Copyright, Trademarks, and Patents (US Law)" states:

Protection of intellectual property is an important concern in this forum, but I've noticed that the same questions are regularly asked followed by some of the same wrong answers, often finally corrected.
I am not a lawyer, but have run my own book publishing and apparel company for over 6 years, and am now getting into game publishing. I regularly encounter people - even veterans in the publishing industry - who have little clue how copyrights, trademarks and patents really work. US law is a bit of a mess (thanks to some Mickey Mouse lobbyists).
I highly recommend the sources that have I have learned from, Copyright.gov and Nolo Law Press (whose books are very cheap as PDFs).
...
According to the U.S. Copyright Office:
Quote:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. [Boldface added]
Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufﬁcient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

I trust these sources will help establish that the statements about what elements of a game are and are not protectable by copyright in the earlier parts of the answer are correct under US law.

I am not talking about game mechanics but the actual game itself, I don't see at all how you can claim recreating a game isn't a copyright violation or piracy. This isn't about copying mechanics but the game and the game pieces itself.  It doesn't matter if you are trying to sell your results or not the end result is still the same.

@Joe W  It depends what you mean by "the actual game itself". A good response is too long for a comment, I will edit the post above. You might get a better reposne on :aw.SE, where I hold a category badge on the "Copyright" tag at the gold level.

@Joe W I have significantly expanded my answer to address your comment.  key idea in copyright law that is important here is the "idea-expression dichotomy".

I still don't see how you can justify recreating copyrighted material. I see no evidence that what you are saying is true and that if someone was to make their own copy and attempt to sell it how they would not face legal issue for it.

@Joe W I have further expanded my answer, citing ,multiple legal sources, including the US Copyright office, US law itself, the cases Baker v Selden and Feist v Rural, a BoardGameGeeks page, and an ABA publication. See also the "Copyright" tag on L:aw.se. I have also added a section at the start clarifying just what sort of copying I argue is lawful, and what sort is not.  I hope you will reread it, and realize that copyright protection is significantly more limited under the law than you may have thought.

I still stand by my statements that it would violate laws if you tried to sell a self created version of a game that was created in a method that is being asked about. Just because you can't copyright everything about a game doesn't mean you are legally allowed to recreate the full game without purchasing it.

This isn't about the individual parts of a game but the complete game itself.

@Joe W The OP in the linked question didn't propose selling anything, nor creating a sellable copy, merely an improvised set that could be played. I take it that I have convinced you that the statements in my answer are based on real law. You say "it would violate laws if you tried to sell a self created version of a game that was created in a method that is being asked about." What law do you think would be violated? Not copyright.  A game is composed of individual parts. If one can lawfully imitate or replace each part, one has a complete game. [...]

@Joe W  [...] In any case this is not, in view of the limitations of copyright cited above, an open and shut legal violation, and I don't think it is a valid basis for closing, much less deleting, a question.

The issue isn't if they claim or don't claim to make a sellable copy but the act of making a copy itself. While it might not matter for a major game maker for the smaller ones people making their own copies could be the difference between a game company making more games or stopping work due to lack of interest. In general I don't feel we should support questions where people are trying to recreate a game that would take money away from the developers. And your case still seems to be about the bits and pieces rather then the game as a whole which is what the question is asking about.

I think you need to realize that we are not talking about recreating parts or mechanics here but an entire game itself which is not what your answer is addressing.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Ticket to Ride Tags
Based on this question What should the ticket-to-ride tag represent? it seems we want to have a tag for each version of the game to make it clear what version of the game is discussed.
Based on that should a question that is about a version of ticket to ride also include the base ticket to ride tag? For example a question with the ticket-to-ride-united-kingdom that is about that version should it also have a ticket-to-ride tag?
My opinion is that the ticket-to-ride tag is unneeded for questions about a specific version and should only be used for questions about the entire family of games.

I agree, that sounds like the best way to do things. But we actually also need a ticket-to-ride-usa tag to not mix these up with general Ticket to Ride questions for the entire Ticket to Ride family of games.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Front Page Not Updating
Not sure if anyone else is noticing this but I am not longer getting notifications of new/updated questions on the front page of the site anymore. Other Stack Exchange sites that I have open in different tabs are still showing the X number of new posts notice in the tab and the page itself but I am not seeing this on Board Games. Now I am having to manually refresh the page to see if there are any new posts.

Just tested it, it's still working for me: https://i.sstatic.net/cuHbA.png

@Glorfindel Thanks for the response. Makes me wonder why it works for some Stack Exchange sites for me but not others. I just had to refresh to see recent changes and no indication of any changes beforehand

I think I am also experiencing this. I don't think I have seen that notification banner recently.

@murgatroid99 Interesting, seems this isn't just a bug on my side and wonder what is different between us and Glorfindel

I’m voting to close this question because it's reporting a problem that can no longer be reproduced.

@doppelgreener Maybe you can no longer reproduce it but that doesn't mean it isn't happening to others still. This has not been solved for me and I don't see that as a reason to close the question.

I see, OK, my mistake. I've withdrawn my vote to close.

@JoeW Is it working now?

@ThomasMarkov As of Monday night it was still not updating but I am currently traveling and won't be able to check again until next week.

@ThomasMarkov Got back and the issue is still there.

It seems that this is a bug in SE code around ignored tags and has to do with the setting to hide them versus graying the question out. I was changed it from hiding (not sure how that got set that way as I had no ignored tags) to graying them out. After that change it started showing updates as expected.
This was found after I asked the question on Meta Stack Exchange and a helpful user was able to find the bug and explain it. More information can be found in the question and answer on Meta Stack Exchange
Front Page Not Updating For All Site


text:
Migration Targets
Now that we are out of beta could we get some migration targets for questions that are a better fit on other sites? I was thinking it would be good to be able to migrate questions to the RPG site and possibly others such as the chess and poker sites.

Have you seen a significant number of questions that should have been migrated to other sides, and weren't migrated in a timely manner?

@murgatroid99 I have not, but I was thinking it might be useful to have now that we are out of beta.

Migrating questions is the use for those tools. If we're not getting questions that need to be migrated, they won't be useful.

It's been a pretty long settled thing that while games like chess, poker and go have their own SE site, they are still board and card games and thus on topic for us. There's a lot of overlap between different SE site in general, pretty much the standard is to allow anything to stay where it was asked.

First, I want to clarify that a moderator can always migrate a question that needs to be migrated. The purpose of those migration targets is to allow regular users to migrate a question when closing it. That is only really valuable when the volume of questions that need to be migrated to a specific other site is high enough that it is no longer an "exception" that moderators can reasonably handle. I don't see anything close to that volume; I don't think I have seen a single flag for migration in months, so I don't think adding migration targets will be necessary or useful at this time.
In addition, the existence of migration targets, especially to sites whose topic largely overlaps our own, can actually be detrimental. Many questions that can be asked on the Chess or Poker sites can also be asked here, and the existence of a migration target may encourage people to close questions that are on topic here. We already get comments about allowed questions "belonging" on other sites.


text:
Updating answers to point to latest rules
I noticed that an answer for a Settlers of Catan was recently updated to have a link point to a newer version of the rules and I am not sure the impact this has on the answer. While the edit summary said it was because the other link was no longer working it could change the meaning of the answer if the rules had changed between the versions which could invalidate the entire answer.
What are the thoughts on edits to answers that change the version of the rules it is pointing to?
https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/posts/44378/revisions

Replacing broken links is almost always a good thing. A broken link has no value, so changing it to point to something relevant is always a net positive. If a new link target can be found with the same text that is quoted in the post, there is no downside to the change. This can be accomplished by finding a new version with the same text, as the linked change does, or by finding the same content on a different site, or by linking to a copy of the original content using the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.
There may also be value in updating rules links to point to newer versions of the rules, whether or not the existing link is broken. The best way to handle this depends on how the relevant rules sections have changed:

If the current rules contain the same text that is quoted in the post, any user can edit to replace the link with the newer one. It is generally more helpful to readers to show that the answer applies to the current rules than to show that it applies to some specific past version of the rules.

If the current rules contain different text that does not materially change the answer, any user can edit to replace the link and the corresponding quotation.

If the current rules contain different text that invalidates or materially changes the answer, only the user who wrote the post should make the change. Any other user should go through the normal process of making a material factual correction to a post: make a comment on the answer describing the correction and/or post a new answer with the correct information.
Now, whether these changes should be made at all may depend on community norms for the specific game. In Magic: the Gathering, new rules always supersede old ones, so any answer that is invalidated by new rules is simply incorrect, and should be changed as soon as possible. Other games may have independent version-specific rules. Those should already have version-specific tags, and when making edits users should make sure not to change what version of the rules they reference.

In the first two cases, if the link is not broken, these changes may not be substantial enough to justify an edit, though making those changes is perfectly valid if the answer needs other edits too. In particular, when a new version of a rulebook is published you should not edit every answer that references the rulebook to point to the new version.

Would it be fair to say if you are editing an answer to point to a new version of the rules you should ensure that the answer is still valid afterwords? For these cases would a new answer make more sense?

When you make an edit, of course you should verify that the answer is still valid after the edit. That is simply true of all edits. As I say in the answer, sometimes when an answer is invalidated by a rule change the information should be provided in a new answer, but that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the owner of the accepted answer is responsive to comments, it would be good for them to make that edit so that the accepted answer provides the correct information. If not, a new answer is probably the next-best place for that information.


text:
Offtopic: Where to purchase
Should we consider adding a reason of "where to purchase" or something similar to the off topic list for questions asking where they can buy a game? Also would some types of this question be valid?

Where to purchase physical copy
Where to purchase digital copy (print and play)
Where to purchase computer version (physical copy)
Where to purchase computer version (digital copy)

Personally I would lean towards them being off topic but I am not sure if they warrant a close reason (either from lack of these questions or just in general).
I am asking in response to a question about purchasing a print and play copy that appears to be a kickstarter exclusive.

Shopping questions are generally frowned upon if not off-topic by consensus across the network. The only sites that explicitly allow them are specifically for shopping questions, and have a very tight list of criteria to ensure high quality, and still are closing a lot of the questions they get.
The questions are too broad to be reasonably answered for a majority of users, and answers are going to be outdated fairly rapidly or inapplicable for most users.
They should be treated no differently from recommendations, and in fact this is a superset of that existing close reason, which should be changed to read

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because... shopping questions are off-topic on Board & Card Games SE. This includes questions asking for game or supplier recommendations.

I know they are generally off-topic but there are some sites with exceptions so I wanted to verify what people thought here.


text:
Magic The Gathering auto card for pre release cards
How should auto card be handled on cards that have been previewed for an upcoming set but are not yet in gatherer? Should the auto card be used with the knowledge that it will be broken until the set releases or should that wait until it is released?
As a side note if auto card is done on a pre release card should it be edited out until after the release?
Personally I am of the mindset that they don't need to be added to pre release cards and they don't need to be edited out if they where added.

The purpose of card links in a question is to have a useful quick reference to see card text and other information that may be useful to understanding and answering the question. A broken link does not in any way serve that purpose, so it has no value in a question.
The priority should be having a working link that provides the necessary information. Many sites, including MythicSpoiler, Scryfall, and TCGPlayer provide card information for cards that have been revealed but not published. It would be better to include links to any of those than to include broken autocard links.


text:
Tags: Specific Criteria Tags
When asking questions looking for something in a game meeting certain criteria such as cards that have a specific effect how should they be tagged. The reason I am asking is because of a related question about handling questions that end up with a ever growing list of an answer because of regularly scheduled content releases.
For questions like this should a new tag be added to indicate that the answer is going to be a list of cards that meet the criteria and will change with each new release?
As a side note do we need multiple tags for different game types such as tcg and non-tcg?
Questions that attract new answers due to new expansions being released

I don't think we should have a new tag for this. It doesn't really make sense to look at questions like this across games because each one is still very specific to the game. And we just don't get enough of these kinds of questions that we need to start sub-categorizing in this way.
In addition, tags should not be about the expected content or properties of any answers, just the topic of the question.


text:
Questions that attract new answers due to new expansions being released
Recently I have noticed a couple of older questions asking about cards which meet specific criteria in a game get new answers due to the game getting a regular expansion and new cards that meet the criteria. This got me to thinking how should a question be handled when the answer it is looking for can and will be expanded with each new scheduled release?
When we get a question like this should a new answer be posted when release adds new cards to the list? Or should we try and get one answer set up as a community wiki that can be edited to be a complete list and updated as new cards are added.
Is there a card similar to Lugia from Fates Collide that targets GXs instead of EXs?
Can poison counters be removed?

I think that the current state of affairs, with some questions getting multiple answers over time as new cards are released, is acceptable and does not need to be changed. Asking "Is there a card that does X in game Y?" is very similar to asking "How can I do X in game Y?". It is generally considered acceptable on these sites for such questions to get multiple different answers from different people.
In the case of questions like this one, where the initial answer has a list, it probably makes more sense to preserve that list and update it over time, but I think that should be considered in a case-by-case basis.
One final thing to keep in mind is that these case-by-case decisions can be updated over time as the state of a question changes. If a question gets 10 or 20 different answers each suggesting a single card, a new community wiki answer can be created to aggregate that information. So there's no real need to frontload that decision when the first answer is posted.

I do agree that I think that what we have is working, was just thinking as I did see a question with 4 answers and the most recent one was just adding a single card from the recent set. While not an issue now I was thinking that down the road it could be so why not think about it now.

I've added more information to my answer to hopefully address that concern.

When we get a question asking for a card (or cards) that meet a specific criteria for a game that is still getting regular updates a community wiki answer should be started to compose a master list of cards that match what is being asked about. This will allow for a list to be maintained which anyone can update regardless of reputation. Having anyone being able to edit it will allow for newer users to help keep the answer updated without having to post a new answer or wait for an edit to be approved.
As a side note I think it would also be helpful to be able to have a notice on questions of this type to remind people to post the answer as a community wiki and to edit the answer instead of posting a new one when it needs to be updated.

Do you have a particular reason for suggesting community wiki? In general that functionality should be avoided, and I don't think it should be suggested here without a strong reason.

@murgatroid99 I was thinking of community wiki mainly as it would make it easier for members without the edit privilege to contribute to. Also I wasn't sure how to deal with situations where an answer is greatly expanded overtime by other users and could gain a lot of votes.

I think we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves here. We've never had a situation that would play out like you describe, and I think there is good reason to believe that we never will. Most of these games only have a few new sets a year, and most sets won't have new cards with whatever specific criteria is asked for. Plus, there are better tools than community wiki, like comments and suggested edits, that don't needlessly take away someone's reputation points.


text:
Are questions asking what expansions are available accepted?
I've been looking to find a list of expansions for the DC Deck Building Game, but it's proving difficult.  My assumption was that board game retailers would have "Expansions" as a section on the base game's entry, but the ones I looked at did not.  The closest I've gotten is this reddit post dated March 2018 with a note reading:

This thread is archived.
  New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast

I'm unfamiliar with the way reddit works, but to me it sounds like the list there cannot be updated (and there is at least one expansion not listed).
I thought about asking here, but I know SE tends to disapprove of list-style questions, which asking for all the expansions for a game would likely fall into.  The closest meta I found was this, but it doesn't really answer my question.
Are questions asking for which expansions are available for a specific game on-topic?  Would it be better to ask where one could find such a list for a specific game?

I don't know if it's on- or off-topic, but here's a list of [presumably all] 28 expansions.

@TheChaz2.0 Thank you for that.  This is exactly what I was hoping would have been in an answer.

Boardgame Geek is always a good place for information like that.


text:
Are questions about tournament play/behaviour on topic?
Specifically I am referring to games like Magic: The Gathering, which have large tournament/competitive play scenes.
Are questions not necessarily related to the rules of play, but around the subject of playing these games at tournaments on topic?
The question I was considering asking which brought me to meta was:
Are there any reliable methods to secure my belongings at a large tournament or event?
Would the above, and questions like it, be considered on topic?

I think questions about tournaments -- structure, tournament-specific rules, game logs (for games/tournies that produce them), etc are all on-topic.  We've seen questions about things like that.
However, your question isn't really specific to a tournament; it's the same question as "how do I secure my belongings at a large {conference, training class, meeting, SF con, etc}".  There's nothing game-tournament-specific about it.  So that would be off-topic here.  (On the other hand, if, say, GenCon did something special about security and you had a question about that, that would seem to be borderline on-topic.)

I disagree: tournaments in general have specific rules about what you can and cannot bring in (to prevent cheating). Also the logistics of tournaments are different than a conference. While the answer might be hard to formulate into an objective, answerable question, that's due to the nature of the question itself, not because of the on- or off-topic-ness of the question. (I'm sorry. Off-topic-ness is not a word. But this isn't ELU.se! :-)

@corsiKa, government facilities, hospitals, certain workplaces, and airports also have restrictions on what you can bring in.  I grant that a question in this area could be on-topic, but it would have to be something about the game con itself, not about the general practice of securing your belongings where answers might involve your car, the hotel safe, leaving things at home, etc.

if I bring my Magic cards to build a deck to the waiting room at my hospital, I can easily identify what is mine - it's the only magic stuff around. At a tournament (which includes LGS tournaments) it becomes much trickier. And, the answer may actually be "the same general practices apply" - but that answer is based on the experience of experts who have been there. You can't rule out a question because of its answer.

OTOH, if I have to deposit my smartphone at the entrance to the government lab, it probably looks a lot like the others that have been deposited.  (I also read "secure" as being about theft, not identification.)  I think a question about bringing cards to an MTG sealed-deck tournament would be on-topic because of the context, but one about where to stow your iPad wouldn't be.


text:
"How to clone a legendary permanent?" appears to be becoming an unbounded collection. What should we do?
How to clone a Legendary permanent? appears to be becoming an unbounded collection question, with many answers mentioning only a single card that could do the trick. Sorting from oldest, we see the following undeleted answers, scores in brackets:

[19] Comprehensive answer, covering several cards and general mechanics
[2] Helm of the Host
[2] Rules Lawyer
[1] Spark Double
[0] Comprehensive answer, covering several cards and general mechanics
[-2] Sakashima of a Thousand Faces
[0] Sakashima of a Thousand Faces (again)
[1] Helm of the Host (again) (while mentioning a way to overcome the steep cost)
[0] Double Major (not mentioned in any prior answer)

What types of questions should I avoid asking? says this kind of situation is not good: every answer is equally valid, because every answer is mentioning a solution. That said, the more comprehensive solutions are arguably better answers.
Is this a problem? If so, what can/should we do about this?

This question does not have the problems of list questions because it is not asking for a list, and there is nothing wrong with a single question having multiple valid answers. This question is asking for a tool or strategy for accomplishing a goal; an answer that provides a single complete strategy for accomplishing that is a valid answer. There can be many such answers and there is nothing wrong with many of those answers being posted.
As an analogy, consider a StackOverflow question about how to accomplish a programming task. An answer that suggests a tool to accomplish that task is a valid, complete answer. It is not invalidated by the existence of other tools that could be used to accomplish the same task, and it is perfectly valid for others to post other answers about using those other tools.


text:
What should the ticket-to-ride tag represent?
Should ticket-to-ride represent:

Questions specifically about the original US version of the game (e.g. What is the maximum score in Ticket to Ride USA, and how to aim towards it?)
Questions about the family of games in general (e.g. How Unethical Is A Purely "Blocking" Move In Ticket To Ride?)
Something else

and if either of the first two options, how should questions about the other option be tagged?

For what it's worth, I have no strong views on this other than thinking it would be useful to separate the two concepts.

It is best for a single tag to not be used to represent multiple separate concepts, so this tag should be divided:

ticket-to-ride-series for questions that apply to the family of games in general (the simple ticket-to-ride tag would still be ambiguous).
ticket-to-ride-usa for questions about the USA version of the game in particular.

The guidance for the tag shows it as referring to the series:

The original game is set in North America. Several alternatives with different maps and some extra rules also exist:

I can see a few issues here. First I believe the question was asked correctly and Philip was asking for clarification that had been given, the questioner specified the full name of one of the games in the series, which happened to be part of the name of all other games, and in my opinion this is the correct way this should be handled.
Do we really want to explode tags? Ticket to Ride as a series has over a dozen versions now, will we have one tag for each? Do we do the same for Poker, have a Texas hold 'em, a Caribbean Stud, a 7 card stud and more? A tag for each possible version of Dominion? I know that's a ridiculous extreme but it is kind of the direction separating series tags like this could go.
I see tags as meant to be the broad strokes categories, for many games that only fits one thing, for others that fits the series as a whole and the question content should narrow that down.
That being said, a tag can get big enough to deserve this kind of splitting, we have mtg-commander as an example separated out from magic-the-gathering as a broad category, but there are nearly 5000 Magic the Gathering questions on this stack, there are a total of 120 for Ticket to Ride, I don't think it's anywhere near that point.

There is very little downside to having many tags, or to having tags with few questions. You cite, [tag:mtg-commander], the most populated [tag:magic-the-gathering] subtag, but there is also [tag:mtg-archenemy] with one question, and that's fine too.

@murgatroid99 I believe you misunderstood - I cited mtg-commander as one of the tags under the umbrella of magic-the-gathering, and that magic-the-gathering has so many sub-tags because the umbrella of mtg as a whole, not any specific sub-tag, has thousands of questions. mtg-commander has only 285 questions out of the 4995 total for magic-the-gathering currently. I feel because of that size Magic needs that 5k broken down, even if those sub-tags only have a few questions.

I think it can represent many things.

Questions about the base game
Questions about the family of games
Questions about expansions when used in conjunction with the expansion tag

This then leads to issues with questions like this https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/59521/how-should-the-final-round-be-carried-out-in-ticket-to-ride (which is what prompted this meta question) where it is unclear whether the poster is asking about specifically about the original, an arbitrary unspecified entry in the series (perhaps because they are not aware of other versions) or asking whether this is something which applies across all/the majority of games in the series.

@PhilipKendall I don't see the issue with that question and it was answered just fine. If they are asking about a different version that has a different ending mechanic they should include that in the question.

One of the main purposes of a tag is to communicate exactly that kind of information in a question. If the tag is ambiguous, it doesn't serve that purpose effectively.


text:
Request: reopen one of the Big Parasol questions
A user recently posted a question about the Big Parasol Pokémon card. This was somewhat unfocused, so I commented to this effect (and voted to close); the question is now closed.
Now while I fully agree the best course of action would have been for the user to edit the existing question, they instead posted a new well focused question - but we've now closed that as a duplicate of the unfocused question.
There's clearly a good question here, so we should reopen one of these. I don't particulary mind which but closing them both isn't fair on the user. (I fully accept there was no malice on the part of the close voters).

Should I vote to close a duplicate question, even though it's much newer, and has more up to date answers?

@Rainbolt There is a difference between two different users posting questions that can be closed as duplicates of each other and a user posting the same question again because the first one got closed due to issues with the question.

We shouldn't reopen the second question as that can encourage users to repost the question instead of editing the original question. Instead that user (or someone else) should edit the old question to match the better one and vote to reopen that one as should have originally happened.

Why do we care if the user reposts or edits? Closed questions that meet certain criteria are automatically deleted. The original question has now been deleted. And how would "someone else" edit the original question to add focus? Arbitrarily choose one of the multiple questions in the post, and delete the remainder? The title doesn't tell you which question was the "primary" question.

@Rainbolt Because we shouldn't be encouraging people to keep asking the question over and over again until it doesn't get closed. That first question could have and should have been edited into a better question to get it reopened. If the OP can reask the question they can also edit the first one into proper shape.

I understand that you don't want to encourage people to keep asking questions over and over again until it doesn't get closed. I asked why you feel that way. Maybe you think it's self-evident why posting a new question versus editing is bad, but I don't. I thought maybe you were concerned about polluting the site with dead questions, so I explained that closed questions are automatically cleaned up if they meet certain criteria (and this one certainly met those criteria, because it has been deleted).

@Rainbolt When I made this answer it was not yet deleted and it was still very easily fixed with an edit and reopened. Now that it is deleted that isn't really an option but it was at the time. Now this user has a downvoted deleted record in their history which can impact their ability to post new questions and that could have been avoided by salvaging the first question instead of just letting it get deleted.


text:
Could someone add a "Mississippi Queen" tag please?
I've a question relating to this game but no way to tag it.  Thanks.
(Is this the right way to make such a request?)

This is not the right way to get new tags.
The way to get new tags is to simply ask the question, providing bogus tags or no tag if there is not one that matches your question.
Optionally - Flag the question as needing mod attention saying that there was no tag, or add a comment/note at the end of your question.
Higher rep users will see the new question, look at it, and fix/create the tags for you.
How to tag unlisted games

Thanks.  A couple of comments. 1 I'd already read the post you linked to, where the answer is "the short answer is: please do ask" - so I asked :-)  2. It would be helpful to either add this guidance to the question page, or maybe have a tag that means "help-can't-find-suitable-tag' or some such.

@Cheeseminer 1. I think by 'Please do ask' means, just ask the question, not ask for the tag. 2. I agree it would be helpful to have it on th question page or FAQ. I think the untagged tag filled this role previously, but it was decided that we would rather not have it as these types of problems do not come up that often.


text:
Are MTG card identification questions on-topic?
I have a foreign card that I just cannot identify. I figured the community would be able to help me identify it, but I wanted to make sure this sort of question is allowed on this site.

I think the arguments for and against this sort of thing are covered pretty well here.

I think it should be allowed. As long as you provide a picture, the question is clearly answerable. I'd suggest that you just ask the question. In the worst case, your question is closed an you lose a few rep.
As an aside, this mirrors Arqade's game identification policy. They allow it, but only if you provide a picture, video, or sound clip.

This question is now moot. Most of these questions are answered by this one.


text:
Are questions about adaptation and rule changes to other mediums allowed?
For example I want to adapt a game to play by forum and wanted to find any rule changes that may be implemented to optimize for forums.

Mediums? Mediums? Perhaps you're looking for "media"? :-)

That seems on topic to me. But be careful: that kind of question could be considered primarily opinion-based depending of how you ask it. Try to put objective goals in it so the answers can be judged based on those goals.


text:
Alice, Bob, and Carol — Should we encourage using placeholder names for the players?
Yesterday I edited a question and its accompanying answer to change players from A, B, and C to Alice, Bob, and Carol, common placeholder names. The edit was rolled back by another user, before being reapplied by the OP.
Since at least one other user agreed with the rollback, I thought I'd take it to meta to discuss this, since I've done edits like these occasionally and would like to keep doing them, since I think they improve readability.
Searching for Alice yields a bit over a hundred results; searching for questions only (Alice is:q) yields about fifty.
I see three options, which users should feel free to add here as answers to vote on. I will provide the option I like the best as an answer.

Yes, we encourage usage of names of letters, actively editing questions to replace letters with names.
We don't care either way and don't go out of our way to change it.
We actively discourage it.

Leave it up to the asker how people are represented in their question - be that with names, numbers, or game specific terms (AP/NAP for MtG; BB, LB, BTN, etc for poker) - If anything I would personally discourage the use of proper names and encourage game specific terms or generic terms where these don't exist.
Using names doesn't really add to the question or answer - it makes things easier to read for some people, but harder for others who may start to associate the names with people. It can also detract from objectivity and draw prejudice into a question by giving the characters an identity (sexism from gendered names, racism from ethnic names like  Andrew vs. Aaliyah) we may not want to think about this kind of bias, and may not recognize it, but using names in the question can introduce implicit bias into the reader and answerers.
As long as players are clearly identified we should not try to force a specific identification system on people, and I would have also rolled back a revision myself where the only edit was changing a valid system used by the asker (in this case player A, B, C) with one that the editor prefers (Alice, Bob, Carol).
I'd also like to point out that this edit was made and there are comments on the question referring to A, B and C - the answer also was rolled back and not re-edited. This change creates a disconnect between the edited question, the comments (that now cannot be edited) and the answers (unless all also edited to match) and that can cause even further confusion in readers. This example is not as severe as it could be, since the original identifiers were the same initials, but the change from numbered players to names would be more jarring.

All Magic: the Gathering judge exams and practice tests use proper names beginning with "A" or "N" rather than "AP" and "NAP". They also always clarify who the active player is. This improves reading comprehension without leaving any room for assumptions. With that in mind, I would not blanket discourage the use of proper names in favor of AP and NAP even though that may be your personal preference.

@Rainbolt I've taken those tests, and yes they do use A and N names, but those tests have a single, definitive answer known to the asker, and with that in mind using names may also help push potential judges away from biases - SE questions are different, there's no passing grade, there's no direct reward, and there is no definitive answer at all sometimes, and when there is the asker doesn't usually know the answer ahead of time.

As long as the post is clear about which player does what, it should be fine, and does not warrant an edit. This can be achieved by naming the players A, B, C, D; or Timmy, John, and Keith; or Red, Blue and Green, depending on what the author chooses. Of course, A, B, C, D implies player order, so is useful in case that matters. Then again, naming players Mary, Mario, and Manny might be confusing, and should not be recommended.
I don't think the particular names Alice, Bob, Carol etc. are that common names in games as they are in cryptography. The rulebooks of many games use other names, use player colors, name the players by their nation/faction/other such, or are indeed written so that they don't refer to players by any name at all. (That last group appeared surprisingly common in the games on my shelf.)
Therefore, there is no reason to enforce the use of any particular set of names.

I'd leave it to the writer's preference. If the writer uses letters, let the letters remain. If the writer uses names (Alice, Bob, ... or Ahi, Boris, ..., Player A, Player B, ... or whatever) then let those stand.
None of those is incorrect or in need of editing.

I largely agree with @Andrew.  Many games have names that would be more appropriate than the names of the players.
In particular, in games with named factions, you should use the names of the factions (such as country names in Diplomacy, house names in Game of Thrones, etc.)
If the game does not have named factions, this is a stylistic choice.  Using actual names has a readability advantage but implicit biases as a disadvantage.
One thing I would advocate for if using "A", "B", and "C" as player names is to refer to them using the full "Player A", "Player B", and "Player C".  Otherwise, there is ambiguity in the sentences starting with the word "A" as it is not immediately clear whether it is the article "a" or the player "A" (it is usually clear from context, but may require people to reread a sentence).
For example, the sentence: "A playing technique would complicate the situation."  Does this mean "Player A playing [the card] Technique" or "An arbitrary player using a particular technique of game play"?  Hard to tell.

I don't think it matters as readers can still understand the question if is says Players A, B, C or Alice, Bob, Carol. If a question choses to use them it is okay and if a question choses not to use them it is okay.
What I do think matters is editing a question for the sole purpose of changing the the names of players in either way. If there is nothing else wrong with the post to edit it just causes the question to unnecessarily get bump to the top of the question list.
If you are making other edits to the question and want to change the names I don't see an issue with that.

I definitely agree with the overall conclusion that names and letters are both generally fine, but I actually think this means the last sentence isn't the best guidance. If two choices are both okay, and the OP has picked one of those choices, then editing to fix other things is not sufficient justification to override the OP's choice. (The general scenario in which one edit permits another is when there's a minor but definite improvement that wouldn't be worth editing for on its own.)

@Cascabel After seeing other answers I agree with your statement but I felt it was best to just leave my original advice as other answers have put it much better than I have.

Yes, I think we should encourage using placeholder names instead of letters. They make the question read more natural, which improves readability.
There's a large number of names we can use for this purpose, the first six of which are usually Alice, Bob, Carol, Dave, Erin, and Frank.
Other names are equally valid of course, but where questions use terms like first player, second player, or just plain letters, we should edit to use names instead for improved clarity.

I think other answers have covered things pretty well, but just in case this helps you think about editing in general: when you find yourself saying something like "read more naturally", that's a very good sign that you're talking about style, and so even if you have a preferred style (which is thus easier for you to read), that doesn't make it a universally better or more readable style.


text:
Is Capitalism (or any other games of that sort) not a valid card game here?
why are there no questions on caps? I have searched the site and have found nothing on games of that sort.

sorry if this question is nonrelevant...

i sorta cant...

Are you sure? Unless you're somehow question banned there, questions can be equally asked here or on this site's meta. (That is also not the global meta stack overflow)

...my rep is too low

Oh, right. Meta requires 5 rep, I forgot about that. I've put a vote in to migrate it there in any case.

ok thanks. whitespace doesn't count? darn

Please go ahead and ask your question.
Traditional card games are within scope for the site.
There aren't any questions about Capitalism because nobody has asked one yet (at least, under that name — I haven't searched all the variants).
Don't worry about that when asking your new question: the only real consequence is that a higher-rep user will have to come in later to add the tag.

I  don't hang around on the meta for this stackexchange, so apologies if I missed anything specific to here.
Are you sure there are no questions? Many standard deck card games go by many names, for instance what you call capitalism is known by (from this site)
Scum, Asshole, Arsehole, Rich Man Poor Man, Bum, Landlord, Emperors and Scum, Root Beer, Butthead, Capitalism, Warlords and Scumbags, Trouduc, Trou du Cul, Einer ist immer der Arsch, Hűbéres, Sluitspieren and Klootzakken.
I kind of cheated by including the foreign names to get to 17 names, but there are 11 English names for that game, so finding a question about it can be complicated, as everyone will use their own name.
To make things more complicated, it is hard to answer questions about these games since there are nearly as many rule variations are there are names.
I believe that a question related to these games would be valid, but I would not know a good way to standardize given that there are many games like that.

that is a good point :)


text:
Differentiating between different versions of a game
A Game Of Thrones: The Card Game is getting a major reboot in the coming months. Although similarities are going to exist between the current and new version, there will also be major changes. What approach is taken?
Do we just create a new tag for the new version e.g. game-of-thrones-lcg-2ed

I don't think that a new tag is necessary. For example for Axis and Allies we only have the one axis-and-allies even though there are several different version of the game with different rules. We would do the same thing with A Game of Thrones: The Card Game, if the edition matters include it in the question, if the asker doesn't include it add a comment asking which version they are asking about.


text:
Referencing non-written rulings
Again, related to the game-of-thrones-card-game - the rule set for this game was not very well defined and due to the large card pool, certain interactions are not easy to rule upon.
The community usually relies on the rulings of very well known players (former world champions etc) to explain how these things work. How would we go about referencing their rulings, especially if they are littered throughout facebook groups, skype chats, dedicated forums and other places which are not generally accessible directly to the public without registration?

I would say you need to at the very least summarize (or quote) the source, state who it is that is providing the ruling, and what standing they have to issue that ruling. An example of this would be my answer on the question Is it possible for a person to lose “Pirate Islands” Seafarers scenario before the game even starts?, where one of the people that works on the game offers a fix for the asker's problem.
If at all possible link to the location of a ruling, if it is somewhere that requires registration note that with the link, something like:

Reference (requires registration to view)


text:
How should we handle tagging of board games with different editions?
Board games are hanging around long enough these days that newer editions of them are being released with vastly different mechanics. For example, Arkham Horror 3rd Edition has been recently released and it is very different to the 2nd edition which all of the current questions are about.
Should the existing tag be changed to arkham-horror-second-ed or something along those lines?

A new tag should be added for the new edition and existing tags can be updated as needed if they only apply to an older edition. There will always be questions that can apply to all editions and those should still get a general tag.


text:
Are questions about sports cards on topic?
I want to ask a question about how to store the mini cards in the Allen & Ginter series by topps and was wondering if that would be on topic?
It is collectable cards without a game.

That would be off topic. Per the help center our scope is focused on board (and card) games which are required to be actual games with rules:

How do we define Board Games?
Please see this meta question for the full discussion, the summary is:

Be playable on or around a table
Have objective rules of play and win conditions
Offer dynamic challenges, either through other players, randomization, or both
Be playable by hand, by human players implementing all of the rules

While some expertise related to storing card games could transfer to storing baseball cards, baseball cards themselves aren't topical.


text:
Are legal questions on topic?
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether legal questions are in fact off topic. The only information I can find on the topic is Card Game Legal Questions are off topic (apparently) can this be added to the of topic FAQ?, which assumes they are off topic and asks that it be written down somewhere.
So, are legal questions on topic or not?
I'm specifically looking for an answer that addresses both of these categories:

Legal questions that require knowledge of a board or card game to answer
Legal questions that mention a board or card game, but do not require any game-specific knowledge to answer

"Legal questions that require knowledge of a board or card game to answer" - I find it hard to believe there could be situations where you need to know a board/card game to interpret the law. Why can't you just describe the situation with enough detail such that knowledge of the game is optional?

@KenHerbert Who said you can't? Users can absolutely ask questions that only span a single topic, but that doesn't mean they will. I listed two categories of questions, not because I think both are necessary and good, but because they exist.

I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am saying that I don't believe there is a real world situation where a legal question would actually require knowledge of a game to answer - it doesn't stop people thinking that as they write a question.

@KenHerbert Fortunately I think the meta question of whether the two categories are on topic is answerable without worrying about whether you ever need to know anything about the game in order to answer the actual legal question.

@KenHerbert No matter what situation I come up with, you'll respond with "But you could have included  in the question, so then it wouldn't be required." So... you win?

Obviously my intentions here are being completely misread, so I'm just going to stop.

Poker. Roulette. Blackjack. There's three games that you would require knowledge of, to answer potential legal questions. Then add any variants and any games that are played in casinos. Such games are often legally defined, so knowledge of game process is absolutely key to answering the legal question. The criticism is not legitimate. @KenHerbert

I'd strongly prefer that legal questions (of either category) be off-topic.
I get that people are interested in such questions, and it'd be cool to get actual answers. But although legal questions can come up around board games, law isn't really a fundamental part the subject in the way our normal question topics are. On top of that, these questions tend to lead to a lot of semi-informed speculation from non-lawyers. Some meta discussion today on the question you linked even fell into that trap a bit.
So I'd say, let's stick to what we're actually experts on, and people can always try to head over to http://law.stackexchange.com/ if they have the right sort of question. Note that they don't provide legal advice for specific matters, and generally questions need to be clear about the jurisdiction (i.e. not just "is X legal?"), because laws vary.

Not to mention that the laws in question can vary a lot from country to country so a valid answer for USA may not be valid in China.

@JoeW That's exactly why I noted that questions over on law need to be specific about jurisdiction.

Oh, sorry I missed that part of the answer.

It is hard enough to avoid questions which ask for specific legal advice on Law Stack Exchange itself, when we have moderators and experienced users that have fine-tuned the skill to tell apart the questions which are okay from those which are not.
Note that The Workplace Stack Exchange allows some questions of the "is this thing legal/illegal?" form, with the guiding principle being that if a regular human resources department member or a manager should be aware of the legal aspects, it's okay for that site, but again specific legal advice is barred.
As Jefromi has pointed out, the community on B&CG simply doesn't have the experience or knowledge to collectively do this as well as others. Leave legal questions to the legal areas and keep game questions to the game areas.

As an active Workplace User, it is true that some borderline-legal questions may be on-topic there, but most of them (+90%) are off-topic there also. To be accepted as a Legal TWP question it should be answerable by users with HR experience, or be a "legal" question answerable by some member of a company. However, as you correctly pointed out, legal advice Qs are also off topic there. In fact, we can conclude that asking for legal advice is off-topic everywhere on the SE network... if someone requires such advice it is better to consult a lawyer.


text:
Should an answer quote the rules of the game in question?
This question was written with MTG in mind but it could apply to any game with a clearly defined source of rules.
Should an answer always contain a direct quote from the relevant rules?

Was there a specific incident or comment that prompted you to ask this question?

@murgatroid99 Yes, your comment on my answer here. I frequently don't answer questions I can't prove the answer to. In that specific instance it was late at night so I just didn't care so I answered it anyway. Given it's positive reception now I'm rethinking my normal mode of operation.

An answer does not need to contain a quote from the rules, but it is a good idea even in situations where it is not necessary.
Most questions are from users who aren't interested in a breakdown of exact rules that create the end result. They just want a simple explanation of what that end result is. In this case a quote is not necessary so long as what happened can be explained. A rules quote would improve an answer but is not necessary for it meet the askers need.
If the user did need a more detailed breakdown the rules in debate a the other answer might still be of use to other users who might feel overwhelmed by the technical nature of the rules.
In a nutshell: If you know the solution don't hesitate to answer a question because you can't find rule to quote, but if you know the relevant rule then quote it.

For the specific case of MTG, I think it's also really important to sometimes also quote rulings from gatherer or even sometimes the basic rules, instead of only quoting the comprehensive rules. It can be really tough for people to understand the comprehensive rules when they're asking more basic questions.


text:
Are questions that ask for card recommendations for Magic: The Gathering on-topic?
I'm (for example; it doesn't have to be this specific example) in the middle of building a deck, but I have one more slot open and was wondering what card would be good there (the options are fairly limited; you don't need to be very familiar with more than ~30 cards that I have as options). Would this be an acceptable place to ask what would work best given the criteria I'm already looking for?

Questions like this are on topic, but they may not be well received. One one hand, this question is what we call "good subjective"; you are asking for a recommendation with criteria specific enough that the relative pros and cons are enumerable and someone could write up a complete answer explaining why one choice or subset of choices is best. We generally like questions like that, and it would be on topic.
However, a question like the one you describe is unlikely to help any other visitors. Nobody is going to come along with the same partial decklist looking for the same last card. That might cause the question to attract downvotes. You can mitigate this by trying to make the question more generally useful, but it would be a balancing act between making it too broad ("What is a good blue card to add to my deck?") and too specific ("Here are 59 cards and n choices for the last card, which is the best choice?").
I recommend that you ask your question. The worst that can happen is that your question gets closed (so you don't get an answer) and you lose 2 or 3 percent of your rep to downvotes. And the rep loss would be cancelled out if the question gets even one upvote.

Naturally, while writing the question to ask, I end up stumbling upon an amazing card to use and thus rendering the question unnecessary.

Let's start with one thing we can all agree one. We do not want this to happen:

(Today) What is a good card recommendation for my mono red aggro deck in the current standard?
(A year later) What is a good card recommendation for my mono red aggro deck in the current standard?
(Two years later) What is a good card recommendation for my mono red aggro deck in the current standard?

These types of questions can be improved to a point where they meet my "good subjective" criteria. Others may disagree with me, but card recommendations just don't cross into good subjective territory. Process recommendations do. The question should ask for a process, not a card. Here is how I would transform the above example:

What is a good process for choosing cards that fit in a mono red aggro deck in standard? I am building around Card X and Card Y because of Reason 1 and Reason 2.

Sometimes you can't transform a question without stripping away the original intent of the author. If the author is hell-bent on simply getting card recommendations for his specific deck, close the question. Helping people is nice, but there are better outlets for this type of thing, such as TappedOut.net, a site dedicated to building specific decks and getting specific feedback.


text:
(yet another) game recommendation question: How to search for a specific set of game mechanics?
So, I'm relatively new to StackExchange, and completely new to this forum.  I scanned the various first half dozen or so posts on why game recommendation threads in general were bad for here and what to do instead.
My question relates to the following:   If you have a question of the sort "I'm looking for a game with features X,Y, and Z",  I've already seen plenty of explanations as to why that's unacceptable and suggestions for the alternative, such as board game geek's search site.   However,  using that site I did not see the specific game mechanics I was looking for, which I didn't think was that obscure.
So,  with the preamble out of the way,  would a question of the following format be acceptable:   "How would one go about searching for a game with the following criterea?"  That seems like it avoids the pitfalls that are wanted to avoided.  (Big list questions, opinion questions,  questions without closed answers, questions that would not be of use to future users).    But it skirts pretty close to things that seem to be verbotten, so I thought I'd ask here first.

Just a heads up, try not to call a Stack Exchange site a 'forum'. For some reason, people go absolutely freaking insane if you call it a forum. "Oh, we're not like those forums." Even though, you know, a forum is simply a venue for communication, which SE sites totally are. They just get pissy when you say it. Just letting you know. =)

It will probably be fine. The only precedent I can find for your type of question is this question, which stayed open and was pretty well received.
The advice I usually like to give for these kinds of questions is: just try asking it. In the worst case, your question gets closed and maybe a few downvotes.


text:
Downvoting other answers to increase vote ratio with self answer
This is a question that can be asked in any Meta but I decided to ask here as it happened here. I won't name anyone but you can see I have only one answer so you will know whom I am talking about. I answer a question and get two upvotes. Another guy answers the same question and cites my answer and got two upvotes-one from me. Now this third guy comes up and he just gives an example, not giving a good answer or anything so I don't upvote him. He instantly downvotes our answers so it is now 1-1-0 (0 is his answer). I don't whether someone upvotes him or whether he uses an alternate account to obtain an upvote...but now he attains 1-1-1. So from 2-2-0 to 1-1-1. He now has better chances to get his answer chosen and upvoted. Is this fair? Should this be reported?

Just let it go. Upvotes and downvotes happen, and the only thing you can do about it is post quality content to encourage people to upvote.
You shouldn't flag it. People are free to vote how they want, and besides, you don't know who actually cast any of those votes. As a mod, I don't even have access to that information.

WHAT!!! A moderator should have access to do that...does that mean that no one has access to that?

StackExchange employees have that information. The fact is that the only hard rules we have about voting are the ones against serial voting and fraudulent voting, and those are mainly handled by a script that runs on the servers.

This has been discussed at length over on the main meta site:
Should you be allowed to downvote the competition?
Answerers Should not be able to vote/comment on other Answers to the same question
The answer to tactical downvoting problem?
The consensus has always been not to try to block it.
Note that people are encouraged to upvote rival answers on questions that they have answered.  Do it 100 times and earn the Sportsmanship badge.

Wow...I was unaware. Thanks a lot. I am unable to delete my answer...help me delete it please.

You can delete your own answer.  There is a delete link just below your post  - next to the edit link.


text:
Is the collecting aspect of collectible card games on topic?
Most players/fans of the popular trading card games either...

play the game
collect the game

or do both.
So for example, Pokemon Trading Card Game is first and foremost a card game, but the trading and the collectible aspect of this game is another huge side to it. The collectible aspect is clearly not about playing the game and more so about enjoying the card game as simply collectible items, the meta-game. This at first seems off topic to me, but I am not sure.
Some example questions pertaining the collectible aspect would involve asking about the rarity of certain types of cards, acquirement of cards, asking about value, questions about availability or about the release of new series/sets/types of cards, etc...
Is the collectible aspect which does not actually involve playing the game, on topic?
If not, should it be?

IMO, the reason why I think it should, is because the experts and knowledge base of these games are already here and the community is united as fans of the game. Experts of playing trading card games most likely also have excellent knowledge of the collectible aspect.
Conversely, a proposal like this has no common uniting theme aside from all being collectors, and the collectionable items are just too vastly different. Sending card game collectors from this site to another site feels like separating the card game community to me.

Can you give an example of a collecting related question that you think would be appropriate for the site? The problem I anticipate is that most questions like that will be either entirely opinion-based or quickly out of date.

There was one question recently that matches one of the examples.  I personally downvoted it for "not show[ing] any research effort" (There's a booster pack insert that explains the rarity levels, how can you not know this), but other people seemed to receive it well.

@jwodder, I agree that question does not show any research, I would personally DV that too. The sorta questions I am thinking of are not as trivial. To be specific, I want to ask about the rarity of reverse holos (RH) and holos (H) for Pokemon.  There is ongoing debate whether RH or H's are more rare. On one hand you are guaranteed a RH in a pack, the H isn't guaranteed, but on the other hand, RH's are said to be harder to land on a rare because even commons can be RH, making chances of finding the RH you want a lot harder. Yet RH's are valued less for some odd reason. Not trivial IMO.

And although it could be opinionated, I believe it can be answerable with some % chance calculation and also some reasoning and explanation. @murgatroid99, questions confirming misprints, availability of certain cards in different regions/countries, rarity/worth of promo cards when they are reprints, explanation of new types of cards or changes to the rarity/rating system, etc... although I agree that a lot of other questions will fall under your category.

@jwodder That was not always the case and with older cards there was no way to determine the rarity outside of card listings.

Yes, questions about the meta-game are on topic here. See: Question About Games in General
Board and Card Games is not exclusively about in-game play situations and rulings. It's about the games itself. That includes the stuff that occurs outside the game.
We get meta-game questions about non-TCG games like chess:

What techniques should I use to teach my 5-year old to play chess?
Did tactics training improve your chess significantly?

And we have many questions about stuff outside the game in MtG, some of which are even related to collecting:

How Is the Magic Core Set 2015 "Deck Builder's Toolkit" Different From Other Core Set Offerings With Respect To Cards?
How do I identify non-English Magic cards?
How can I tell the difference between early Magic: The Gathering card editions?
What can I do if I still do not understand an interaction from a DCI online test?
How do I identify the role of a singleton in a well-tuned deck?
What chance do I have of my foil being a rare or mythic?
Are cards that interact with sacrificing rare, and why?
Are cards of the same "rarity level" really equally rare in MTG?
Why do cards have different rarity levels in Magic: The Gathering?
What is an efficient way to organize my magic collection?

The key thing is just that the questions are appropriate for players of that card game, and that they fit our model.
The collectible aspect is fine and on topic.

Ohhh, good to know! That's a good list of examples.