1. The basic idea is lost in the background of the post
I understand that you're working to make a point, but the original post is somewhat cluttered with information about other VTC reasons and lacked the technical presentation for a policy that I was expecting. Rule #1 about technical writing (which policy-making is), any effort you make to express yourself that muddies or clouds your message is the wrong way to say it. A title focusing on "Too Story-Based" should lead to a post that's focused only on that VTC reason. If I understand your issue correctly, what you're trying to say is:
In some Too Story-Based cases the question depends on too many circumstances that are not obvious because they can change depending on how the story develops. For example, "which weapon is best?" depends on where the fight takes place, who's fighting, what other resources are available, the defensive capabilities of the enemy, what the weather's like during the fight, etc. In this case, a question should not be closed as Too Story-Based if few enough such circumstances or dependencies are not defined that a reasonable number of answers can be expected. I propose that the maximum number of undefined dependencies be three.
2. Because the post is presented here and not as a solution to the existing Too Story-Based question, it'll be lost
I've been down this road before. No matter how well accepted this post becomes, you'll be forever referring back to it to help remind people it exists. The original Too Story-Based post is linked in the Help Center and the Mods are fanatically against modifying the Help Center, so any solution you come up with here must (not needs, must) show up as an answer there.
Having said that, I've a few problems with your presentation
A) Some Story-Based questions might have limited dependencies, but most don't
Your post is not universally applicable to all story-based questions. In its most general form, story-based questions are either about storybuilding or have too much dependency on storybuilding to be answered according to Stack Exchange's rules.
BTW, that last part, "according to Stack Exchange's rules," is the big kicker. This discussion isn't simply about how to keep more questions open. It's about how to clearly express what our policies are in relation to those rules. If people don't want site rules affecting how they ask or answer questions, they should be using Reddit or Quora.
A brief and by no means thorough list of story dependencies that make a question Too Story-Based is:
- Questions about the plot of a story.
- Questions about the circumstances of action within a story.
- Questions about the decisions and/or choices of characters and/or organizations.
- Questions so broad they are asking us to write the story.
- Questions with any dependency on any of the previous bullets that has not been clearly defined by the post author in the post.
Finally, I'd like to politely refute the idea that if the author doesn't define, as you suggest, three dependencies, that the result is only eight answers. The problem with story-based questions is that they don't fit within the limits of binary logic. In fact, they're often a challenge to answer even when all the dependencies are resolved because there isn't just one answer, thereby violating the fundamental business model of Stack Exchange: one-specific-question/one-best-answer.
Take my earlier example about selecting the best weapon. Even if all the dependencies are defined, the odds of there being one best weapon are slim. There's a reason why humanity has created untold thousands of weapons over its history. Even in one well-specified situation, there isn't one best weapon. Even if we're talking about just one person in one situation and every possible characteristic of the person and circumstantial detail was provided, it's very unlikely that there's just one best weapon.
In other words, letting three details slide doesn't routinely result in just eight possible answers. The question is story-based. There are still dozens (possibly even hundreds) of possible answers. And Stack Exchange specifically wants to avoid questions that lead to too many answers.
B) Besides, relaxing the proverbial speeding laws leads to dead people
I'm using the metaphor of speeding laws intentionally. Honestly, how many of us drive exactly the speed limit all of the time? I don't, and I'm normally a pretty casual driver who isn't in a rush to get anywhere. But I think it's fair to say that pretty much almost everyone violates the posted speed limit frequently enough to rationally wonder why we bother with speed limits.
We bother with them because if you dispense with the law, people start dying in higher numbers and at higher frequencies. It's a frustrating inconvenience we all suffer with because the alternative is inhumane. And it's no surprise that while the police obviously don't catch all the speeders, and sometimes even ignore the speeders, they're still empowered to ticket every speeder and are not wrong to do so.
Now, equating how we close questions to something obviously life-threatening like enforcing speed limits is obviously a bit of a stretch — but the premise behind my use of the metaphor still exists. We don't own this Stack. We are not authorized to ignore the rules of this Stack. We are empowered to create Stack-unique policies that improve the focus of our Stack. And we are expected as good citizens of Stack Exchange to act together to enforce the rules and policies of this Stack.
For every question you present to me suggesting that it should be left open because the result of the question as-written is an on-topic finite list of things and not an off-topic infinite list of things, I can and will prove that the question is, in fact, an off-topic infinite list of things. That's the nature of questions with unresolved story dependencies.
Because in a story, there are never just two possibilities to the outcome of a story dependency, and with every unresolved dependency, you're suggesting we can handle the load of assuming what could be the possibilities.
I've not found that to be true.
And why is it hard to get the OP to resolve the dependencies? I've spoken with a few of them over the years who were honest enough to admit that what they were looking for was a list of options to choose from to forward their story. In other words, they didn't have a question that met Stack Exchange's expectations, what they had was writer's block and they were intentionally trying to get as many answers as they could contrary to what Stack Exchange wants, which is to provide specifically useful answers to specific questions. Helping authors past writer's block isn't why this Stack exists.
