Talk:Paranoia (role-playing game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Role-playing games Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

So what happend to paranoia? I was under the impression that when W.E.G. claimed 'chapter 11', W.E.G. sold some of their copyrights off. I heard a roumer that Wizards of the Coast now holds the rights and is making/has made a D20 system version of paranoia (game).

From Greg Costikyan's personal site, costik.com: "Eric and I finally got the rights back from the now-defunct publishers. Skotos is currently working on a text-MUD version, and we may find someone to bring the game back into print soonish." 64.231.165.143 08:41, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow, Costikyan deals with Paranoia again? Good news. Well I have heard in 2000 Torg 2 will be released in GenCon 2000, (deleted for security reasons) and I subscribed there to their newsletter on reprint of Torg comic, blah blah blah anyway Happiness is mundatory. Then I think Acute Paranoia and the scenario-I-can't-mention-without-getting-treasonous-points-but-with-a-mustasch-oomigod should be listed on related items. How about them? Have a nice daycycle, Citizen. KIZU 15:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Possible fodder for an external link? Paranoia XP Design Blog DanaJohnson 02:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on a large rewrite of the Paranoia article in my user space, the main idea being to give more information about Alpha Complex and the differences between the editions. Feel free to drop by and edit or leave comments/suggestions in the talk. Vogon 19:24, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

User:Radiant's recent changes ([1]) appear sincere, but they focus too much on specific interpretations. It's particularlly noteworthy given Paranoia XP, which provides for a wider range of play styles (including a low-humor "Straight" game) and discourages intentionally dooming the PCs. I'm contemplating a serious edit to remove big chunks, verging on a revert. (Relatedly, Vogon's rewrite is looking like it's reasonably far along. Any reason not to just drop that in place now?) Alan De Smet | Talk 22:55, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The (non-existant) 5th Edition

I feel that some mention should be made of ParanoiaXP's rather humorous in-character bout of "Product Denial" when it comes to some of the... less enjoyable modules made in the past, including the disasterous 5th edition. I'd do it myself, but I'm worried that I wouldn't be able to keep the academic voice in this case, since I'm a huge fan of the game and find it difficult to NOT use the in-character voice when discussing the game. Fieari 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Who the HEL Sector randomly added XP covers throughout the article? Now it just looks weird and confusing.

[edit] Nonlinear time

Ummm. . . .

Anville 20:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Strange, that shouldn't be. I'll change it back to 1984. --01:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio is treason

Commie mutant traitors have uploaded pictures to your friend, the wikipedia, without copyright classification. Copyvio is treason! Andjam 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha Complex a communist state?

The main blurb states that "Ironically, Alpha Complex is, itself, a communist state, inhabited solely by mutant secret society members". Back in the old days I played some highly enjoyable sessions of Paranoia, enough to remember that much of the fun is derived from the fact that everything is self-contradictory, and that the Computer often "fights" against itself. However, I don't remember the Alpha Complex being communist. Does the rulebook even state this? It is a completely invasive totalitarian state, but that is not the same. In fact, wasn't the Computer built during the cold war in order to fight Communism? To suggest that the Alpha Complex is communist is Treason, Citizen!

(I've modified the original line accordingly; if someone can support the original claim with a link to the rules, I'll have no problem restoring it) 157.92.4.2 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It was referenced in the Paranoia XP rulebook. The original Alpha Complex wasn't communist but it certainly was highly planned and ordered, people had their possessions largely provided by the state and there wasn't much use for money. --Kizor 13:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
As they say, people often become what they most fear. It's a few years since I played 'Paranoia', but could certainly agree that Alpha Complex had become a communist state in an attempt to protect itself from communism: though I couldn't find a definitive quote to that effect. Mark Grant 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Methinks if it's blindingly obvious enough, you might not need a definitive quote. On the other hand, to quote Arthur C. Clarke, it sometimes takes a genius to see the blindingly obvious ... --Yar Kramer 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know how to format, but, I do have information that is relevant. In the new Traitor's Manual, it mentions, under communists, how confused Alpha commies get if they get ahold of actual ancient Communist dogma and literature, as it so resembles day to day Alpha.


There is no direct mention of Alpha Complex being communist, but in XP there is a paragraph that mentions how the Computer carefully controls the economy and takes "from each according to his ability and gives to each according to his [CLASSIFIED]" (This is an approximate quote.)

The society of Alpha Complex, especially in pre-XP editions, was clearly based on the Soviet Union's implementation of communism, with a focus on the discrepency between the the claims and the reality. In theory all citizens are equal, but in practice many are more equal than others. Citizens theoretically rise to their optimal level of service, but the system is deeply buerocratic, corrupt, and disfunctional. All of a citizen's necessities are supposed to be provided by the state, but in reality people turn to black markets and illegal contacts to survive. XP's addition of semi-private service firms is a clear echo of perestroika (the Soviet attempts at economic reform). I deleted the claim that Alpha Complex is instead a totalitarian dictatorship, it's not mutually exclusive (it seemed to work for Stalin), and it's not relevant (The point is the irony of Alpha Complex being anti-communist). Alan De Smet | Talk 02:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (Editted to clairify and correct own points. Alan De Smet | Talk 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tone of "Secret societies" section

The society descriptions are a marvellous read and - here's the thing - due to the nature of Paranoia, work far better as descriptions than bland, serious ones would. Whoo. --Kizor 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanka. I really put some thought into it. Although, I see they're putting it up as needing Cleanup. Seriously. I'm all in favor of equal, even information distribution on Wiki, but, for something like paranoia, the zing is what makes it appealing The societies lose their edge if you try to bare bones lay them out. It's a commie plot, really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.145.167.215 (talk • contribs) on 27 August 2006.

I'm not about to slap the cleanup tag back on it, but the secret societies section needs an overhaul. As an encyclopedic article the goal is to factual and succinct, not amusing. Coverage of humor should explain the humor, not attempt to be funny in and of itself. Alan De Smet | Talk 23:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Secret Societies section needs to be split into its own article. It gets in a little too much detail for the main entry on the game.JBPostma 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it really notable enough for its own article? To me, it seems like trivia, and if we look at formal criteria, I'm not sure if it satisfies the "multiple independent sources" criterion (all the sources seem to come from the publisher of Paranoia). If it gets in too much detail, the other alternative is to abbreviate the section. I would support split if there existed for example "rpg-philosophical" works that discussed how the secred society system adds to the role-playing experience.Punainen Nörtti 06:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrubbing the article

The article has gotten more than a little out of control. It's a little too much into the game, reading more like an enthusiastic review and less like an article in an encyclopedia. It's full of unexplained in-game terminology. Listing names for fictional foods eaten by various security clearances is useless for a reference work. There are lots of jokes (especially about treason and executions) that are inappropriate (this is a reference) and simply incorrect for the Straight style of play. I've gone through and scrubbed several sections. More work is needed. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I Swear I'll get an account soon. Me again, The one who wrote the too-goofy Secret society blurbs. Well, I've had another crack at it, and expanded on some of the ones left short. I've tried to keep it drier this time, so as not to be seen as overdoing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.167.215 (talk • contribs)

[edit] No Paranoia game by Manifesto Games?

I deleted the claim that "Greg" from Manifesto Games is planning on creating a Paranoia game. It lacks a citation. It's implausible as the point of Manifesto Games is to support other developers, not develop games itself. It's not been announced anywhere I can find (including the blog of Greg Costikyan, the founder of Manifesto Games, nor the MG site itself). My guess: someone suggested such a game could be created, and Greg said it sounded great and he'd love to add it to what Manifesto Games offers. If someone finds some evidence to support this claim, you can find my edit here, the better to reapply it. Alan De Smet | Talk 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Email from Greg:
Just for the record, I never said any such thing. But hey.
--AdamM 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox graphic

Curious as to why the representative picture in the infobox is from the 2nd edition cover rather than the most recent version. TheBrigand 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related Publications tweaks

I've refined this list slightly - previously it was a list of fifteen or so Paranoia books from all editions of the game ending with "...and many more". Now it's sorted by edition and (I think) includes all published books. A previous editor put in full book citation entries for a couple of the books, which I've left untouched... Not sure if such extra detail should go here or on a seperate page - Paranoia RPG Publications, or The Paranoia Timeline or something. For the same reason, I've refrained from attempting to put the books in a logical reading/playing order, or subdividing 2nd edition into Classic / Secret Society Wars / Crash / Reboot eras. Do we need a second page that goes into more detail on the line, what each book is etc? Would that exist alongside wiki pages for each individual book, or replace them? Dantheman123 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The list isn't so long as to justify being on its own page. Putting a full citation is appropriate (the book acts as its own citation), but if a given book has its own page, the citation becomes redundant (but basically harmless) here (of course the book's own page should have the full citation). Ultimately I'm not sure it's that important. Nice edits, by the way. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like 'em. Per the book list, fair enough. I still think a guide to playing/reading order would benefit interested readers, but perhaps this is beyond the remit of an encyclopedia and should be composed elsewhere (and linked to from here). For now I've added a note on Metaplot to the Second edition description, which adds a bit of context to the alphabetical title listing. BTW thanks for tweaking my previous lot of tweaks, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm not yet up to speed on footnote generation and whatnot :) Dantheman123 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultraviolets reprogramming the Computer

A recent edit to the security clearances section says "even Ultraviolets reprogramming the Computer is treasonous"... I don't think that's true. Can someone who has the rulebook to hand check it out? I thought they were entitled to reprogram the Computer, hence the name "High Programmers".Dantheman123 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's absolutely false. "High programmers" = "the Computer trusts them enough to alter its code." —Yar Kramer 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thought so. I've removed the offending sentence, and added a note near the beginning of the section which emphasises the role of trust in security clearance.Dantheman123 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That publications list (again)

Alan, I see you've started standardising the list to include full citations; while I can see the reasons for this - this is an encyclopedia after all - the resultant list is not very readable. Once you've completed the annotations, is there a way of formatting it that improves readability and usability without violating Wikipedia guidelines? Also, can some repeat information (such as the publisher) be stated only once in the list? (Just asking at this stage; I'm not going to randomly format or alter your edits)

I suppose one way of dealing with the info-density of the resulting list would be to have wiki entries for each individual book, those pages having bibliographic info and perhaps a guide to where they fall in the "continuity" of editions. That's a fairly big project, though... Dantheman123 13:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that one of the existing entries used the template, so I figured, "What the heck" on the theory that more information is better than less. As you say, it does harm readability. I'm hesitant to start new articles these days, my tolerance for notability deletion fights is pretty low these days, but I'm not against it. Perhaps another solution is to stick the full citation in as a <ref>. It's a bit weird, but arguably the full listing is a reference showing the books existance? I'll give that a try. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility is to tabulate the data. Like on this D&D books page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_adventures Then if anyone fancies a crack at creating a new page for a particular Paranoia module, they can. Otherwise they get the bibliographic data, and maybe a one-sentence summary of the book content, laid out in a more retina-soothing fashion. Either way, it's appropriate to have the biblio detail in there *somewhere*, so the layout is something to think about after that's done.Dantheman123 08:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Paranoia fifth.png

Image:Paranoia fifth.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Paranoia2nd.jpg

Image:Paranoia2nd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Theres no XP in PARANOIA

Just so you know. One other company made them remove the XP from the game title. So the newest PARANOIA is not PARANOIA XP its just PARANOIA. With caps.. And they removed it a long time ago.. Source: http://www.costik.com/paranoia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.214.215 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What's te problem? The edition was called Paranoia XP originally, and the name was changed. The article notes this. (That they want the name in ALL CAPS is marketing and irrelevant.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)