Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2006 - Jun 2006
  2. Jun 2006 - Oct 2006
  3. Oct 2006 - Dec 2006
  4. Jan 2007 - (early) Sept 2007
  5. Sept 2007 - Dec 2007

For more specific discussions, see:

Contents


[edit] Tunnels and Trolls links

I attempted to add two links on the Tunnels and Trolls page.

One was to Outlaw press, the principle producer of fan based Tunnels and Trolls material - licenced by Flying Buffalo who are linked - including the print magazine Hobbit Hole. The other was to Vins Trollbridge, the main free forum for discussing Tunnels and Trolls issues.

These were deleted as inappropriate .

As these both relate to Tunnels and Trolls as it is currently played, and i have no vested interest in either (though i do contribute to the forum) i am unclear as to what i did wrong. Perhaps this could be clarified? or i could be allowed to post these links

Thank you

Karlvontyr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlvontyr (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the editor who removed the links, but my take on it is the removed links serve to promote the two sites in question rather than to support the content of the article. Links to specific forum postings would be approriate as references for facts in the article. The fan-material publisher's page might be appropriate as a reference in a section discussing the state of the game, but I doubt it; an independent source would be more appropriate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
See WP:EL. Rray (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

There is an AfD outstanding for List of all d20 sourcebooks, a new article by a newbie user. It appears that the reason it is up is because its creator, being a newbie, has made a mess of formatting and posted a messy textlist of entries. He nevertheless looks like a hard-working contributor. I am requesting that someone in the project talk to this contributor, show him the ropes and help straighten out the mess. Freederick (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sent him/her a nice welcome note and copied their list over to their own talk page. Personally I am not sure of the value of this list. Web Warlock (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notabilty Issues

The following have been tagged for notability issues or needing thrid-party refs.

Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability

*Death Knight - Currently up on AfD. Could use some help wordsmithing and editing the article some. Web Warlock (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

*The Dresden Files (role-playing game) Redirected to The Dresden Files (which needs additional references itself, however). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Web Warlock (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy wargame

Would the article Fantasy wargame (or similar articles) fall within the scope of this project? Such games seem to be the predecessors of the modern role-playing game, and might be informative as historical background. B7T (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue against tagging it as part of the project, but it's definitely worth keeping an eye on. I'll see if I can merge some of the text from history of role-playing games in. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ICE, Merp and The Hobbit Adaptations

In order to source some of the adaptations of the Hobbit, I'm trying to find reviews or magazine articles for several Iron Crown Enterprises boardgames namely the Battle of Five Armies, The Lonely Mountain and The Hobbit Adventure game. I've looked through indexes of Dragon (magazine) and White Dwarf (magazine) but can't find any reviews or references to them (other than the odd advert). I know they are boardgames, not RPG's, but ICE was primarily a rpg publisher, and I was wondering whether anyone could help track down reliable sources and possibly add them to the article, or point me in the right direction. Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going through the White Dwarf mags now. As I find some I'll post them. Would you like me to copy them to your user page as well? Web Warlock (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be great ~ thanks Web Warlock. --Davémon (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, but it is going to take me a bit. Web Warlock (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I found some very brief references in White Dwarf Magazines "News" pages, but alas no reviews. Anyone suggest anywhere else to look? --Davémon (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generic role-playing game system

I think the article Generic role-playing game system is very misleading. None of the game systems discussed are actually generic, but are actually Proprietary. This article needs to be rewritten so that it can be understood that so called "Generic" role playing systems can only be used in new games under licence from the copywrite holders. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The term isn't misleading. The article does not need to be rewritten. Rray (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As soon as Rray says "there is no problem", you can guarantee there is a problem. I was not sure until now, but now I know will put this issue forward for RFC to bring in third party opinion could be benefical. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice assumption of good faith, there... The term "generic" is the one that is used in the industry itself. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Asking questions is appropriate. Refusing to understand the answers just wastes other editors' time. Rray (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not so much refusing to understand, as it is intentional misinterpretations, word-twisting, and not really caring what the answers would be in the first place. BOZ (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Generic only seems to be misleading to you Gavin. I suggest you do some research and come back only when you have learned something. Web Warlock (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's calm down a bit here, and get to the point. What's at issue here is the definition of the term "generic" as it applies to RPG's. It does not, as Gavin seems to assume, mean that it is a non-proprietary product free of intellectual ownership. Rather, a generic roleplaying system is one that is suitable to various genres: it can be used to play a game in a fantasy setting, a sci-fi setting, etc. This is understood in opposition not to a proprietary game system, but to a dedicated game system (e.g. such as might be used to play fantasy games only). This usage is well established. Hope this helps Freederick (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at Generic we have:
generic mood, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
generic antecedents, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic role-playing game system, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic drug, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic function, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic programming, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
GENERIC, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic filter, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic point, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic property, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic brand, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
GENERIC formalism, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Genericized trademark, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Porter generic strategies, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Semi-generic, which is not the opposite of proprietary.
Generic Flipper, which is not the opposite of proprietary.

I also note Gavin hasn't tagged any of those other articles as disputed even though they don't match his definition of generic, either. Edward321 (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excess gameplay description template

In conversation with Gavin, it was noted that there isn't a cleanup template for articles with excessive detailing of gameplay. I've created one at {{gameplay}} - there's no documentation for it yet, but other than that, what are people's thoughts? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In general I think it is a good idea. We do not want excessive amounts of what could become meta-game trivia. But we should also consider when dealing with some games what makes them unique and/or notable and some of that could be "game guide" material. For example the sanity rules of Call of Cthulhu, the Damage system of Mutants & Masterminds or the drama point system of Cinematic Unisystem. In my mind the worse offenders of these might be the Star Fleet Battles games, but that is only my off the cuff guess. Web Warlock (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks good to me too. It's quite similar in function to the video game template {{gameguide}} – perhaps WP:RPG could work on a content guidelines page in the vein of WP:VG/GL, and link to it from the gameplay template? --Muchness (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't get to the point. Excessive gameplay is very rarely an issue. In fact, I don't think I have ever reviewed a video games article with that comment. The real issue is lists: lists of spells, items, weapons, minor characters, etc. Putting these under the header of "gameplay" is true but detracts from the real point. User:Krator (t c) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While I do think that WP:RPG should codify its style guides on a separate page, I don't think it's appropriate for us to commandeer a generic games template. Perhaps we could move {{gameguide}} to {{videogameguide}} and use {{gameguide}} as a generic version? Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea to move the current one to a video game specific one sounds like a good idea. Though I have to agree with Krator about what the most common issue is. I've had more lengthy conflicts with other editors about including character and item lists in articles than I have about excessive gameplay descriptions. Most times its excessive descriptions about the contents of the game, and not how to play the game itself. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Supernatural Role Playing Game

Supernatural Role Playing Game fails WP:Crystal and is a possible candidate for AfD. Is there another article this could be merged into before this happens? --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Supernatural (TV series), perhaps? A small section there, and a redirect to it, is probably appropriate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
At least until the game is released. Last I heard now was April 2008. Web Warlock (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Merging with Supernatural (TV series) is a good idea. Rray (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] howto, fiction and RPG articles.

to prevent confusion i think it shoudl be decided how much content of a specific RPG needs to be explained that may differe it from others that could be thought of as howto's or isntructions to play. while some may see a small amount of game mechanics to mean the article instructs one how to play a game via its article it only tries to seperate itself and show its own ways of implementing things during the game. a total lack of game mechanic explanation would leave people to probably believe the article is about a work of fiction rather than a game, and lack of enough "fluff" may lead people to think its a how-to article. so where do these two world meet in creating good RPG articles? ideas? is there already a standard for this? shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky - the right answer depends on the topic. The only good measure I know about of how much to write is how much has been written elsewhere - if there are many secondary sources describing a game's mechanics or setting in detail, then more detail is justified on those matters than if there are few, and if there aren't any then a single descriptive sentence in the lead sentence is probably right. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several that list a "Cleanup needed" when the description is of historical value in understanding RPG's; a description of the nature of the mechanics (while not being the mechanics itself) is a useful tool; it is, in fact, the major element I look for about old RPG's, like Starfleet_Voyages (which see). Labeling the discussion of the mechanics as a "How-To" is both blatantly in error, and leading in a counter productive direction. In fact, these sections are the most useful part of the entries. Using Starfleet_Voyages as an example, the section is NOT useful in learning to play the game, but is sufficient for me to recognize it is a derivative of the earlier Star Patrol design by the same author. To be blunt: Discussing game mechanics is not a how-to, and labeling a review-level discussion as a how-to indicates a rather complete lack of knowledge of what is being discussed.

Wfh (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RPGproject: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 40 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus sought for spinout articles

Contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Gygax reassessment

Hey there. Just found it strange that the virtual creator of role playing genre is assessed as high importance instead of top. Usually, book WikiProjects assess creators at the top importance (for example, J. K. Rowling is top importance for Harry Potter WikiProject, J. R. R. Tolkien is top importance for WikiProject Middle-Earth, Margaret Weis is top importance for WikiProject Dragonlance, etc. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and uncontroversial to me. I've made the change. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss here. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for some RPGs

Having mentioned this to a few other people I thought I'd share it here. Check out the book Hobby Games: The 100 Best, edited by James Lowder (2007 by Green Ronin Publishing). This is a collection of essays done by game designers about their favorite games (they couldn't choose their own, or one in which they had a financial interest). It's the closest thing to an "academic reference" that you might find for many modern games (i.e. ones published in the last 25-30 years or so). The coverage is more geared towards board/card/war games, but there are some articles on RPGs. Now go forth and improve more articles.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am off to go get this now. Web Warlock (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Web Warlock. I'd suggest checking this book out in your local bookstore or library first before purchasing it. While it's interesting, frankly it's not the best read in the world (and I don't really mean to insult the contributors to it, at least not much). But as I said, it does give a reference for various board/card/role-playing games. I've used it on Ogre (now GA), My Life with Master (GA-nominated), and The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Münchhausen so far. (On a side note, I find it amusing that the only citations in the Baron Münchhausen article are the ones I've added about the RPG.) Am working (slowly) on Once Upon a Time and have a few plans for other games such as Twilight Struggle. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup! I got it from my library, it was in their new book section. Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Good! Enjoy! Some articles are definitely better than others (but haven't read them all). On a side note, if you have happened to run across any magazine reviews of My Life with Master, I'd appreciate any help on that article. I think that I've generally tapped out the online references (but of course could have missed some, my "Google Fu" is sometimes lacking). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] True20

Hey all, I need some help improving the True20 article. It is up for AFD. True20 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True20. Check those magazines! Thanks. Web Warlock (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on locating the references that you inserted. I'm still trying (somewhat half-heartedly) to locate older out-of-print magazines (not for this RPG, but just in general). This is both difficult and potentially costly. I would love to find copies of the old White Wolf magazine, but I think this could be quite costly, unless I run across some granny who's chucking away her (grand)son's old magazines or something like that.  :) --Craw-daddy | T | 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the biggest problems seems to be that most role-playing magazines for the last 15 years or so are in-house and only talk about their company's products, therefore inapplicable to demonstrating notability… SamBC(talk) 10:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vampire: The Masquerade

Could someone have a look at the articles in this category? Some deal with topics that could be notable, but others not. I have prodded a lot of articles here (although it does against my generally inclusionist attitude). Some of the prods have been removed, and, of course by stating this here. it's quite possible that all of the prods will be removed. However, most all of these articles suffer from the problems of having all plot, no notability, no real world context, and so forth. (Sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record that has been played much lately.) It's likely that a few, much better, articles could be written using some of this material, but a lot of the plot detail needs to be removed and lots of sources found. I thought that someone more familiar with this system than I am would be much better suited to look into this. Thanks. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect mass-merging might be a good idea, but that's not something you'd want to do boldly, I suspect. SamBC(talk) 10:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I whole-heartedly agree that mass merging would likely be best, as I suggested above. As you say, though, I fully expect much resistance in doing so. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we ought to come up with an initial list of things to merge, and articles to merge them to (preferably already in existence); then we template and list at WP:PM in the hope of broader participation to counter the partisan outcry. SamBC(talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this will be the best way to go, especially given what's already happening at this debate? I should have considered doing something like this before I put that for AfD. I really am an inclusionist, but I do question some articles such as these. I mean there are 83 articles in this category, when there probably should be about 5-10 at most, focusing on the games and any significant (i.e. notable) other aspects. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; I'd say I veer strongly towards inclusionism when considering content, but not when considering articles. SamBC(talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to make a concrete proposal here in the next day or two about a merger. I'll also try to work on the article Book of Nod as there are reviews out there that can add something other than in-universe material.

I'll have a look at these as well. While there is a lot that is very notable about V:tm and WoD (and it may have been written about more than any other game besides D&D) some of the articles are very merger worthy. Web Warlock (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not trying to delete the main articles about the game (they are quite notable), but as I said above, the 83 articles in this category should be reduced and at the moment a significant number are all about game content with zero references (to non-game books or otherwise). I'm not trying to antagonize people about this, and want to do this constructively. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your intentions have been clear and well reasoned. We could do for some triming here on the WoD articles. Some of the books are notable beyond the core for various reasons, mostly due to their adoption by the "real vampire" goth subculture as their own "rules". Web Warlock (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note to those people that might come here to discuss this merger, it's quite possible to write an article about something with which you may not be too familiar. I've done this with Ogre, a game that I have never played nor owned, yet managed to help get to GA standards. (I did start with some reasonable baseline, but added most all of the references there myself and fixed up the text in many ways). My Life with Master is a GA candidate, and I have never played that RPG, nor own a copy of that rulebook (although I'm trying to get one). --Craw-daddy | T | 12:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the consensus would be against the keeping of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconnu (World of Darkness) and for the keeping of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbat (World of Darkness). There might become a need for an article Sects in Vampire: The Masquerade, combining the information concerning the less significant sects and describing shortly the more significant sects. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm too busy to do it myself, especially for something I'd actually have to read up on first, hating WoD with a vengeance. That doesn't affect my opinion of the articles or notability in any way, I know a lot of people love it and it is notable, even some seemingly-minor details are, but I personally dislike the setting and the system. Off-topic, I know, but I slept badly. SamBC(talk) 10:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
@Jhattara... That's exactly one of the things that I would propose (although like SamBC, maybe I'm not qualified to do the actual writing as I'm not familiar with the WoD background). As I said above, at the moment, almost none of these articles have any references beyond source material, making no claim to notability, etc, etc. Combining many of these articles into one would lead to a more focused article. Sources would still be needed for the notability, but I would think it's easier to make a case for notability for Vampires in the World of Darkness or Sects in Vampire: The Masquerade (or some such article) than it is for the many individual sects/clans. This is why I brought this up here for input. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I can do some of the work at some point, but deleting the articles at this point wouldn't IMHO be a good solution. Maybe we should in here make a short outline of which sect, clan and other pages should be kept as independent and which should be merged into composite articles. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Some of the articles were already deleted. And some of those should be restored. Others could be merged under a single article. I think that at least the major clans (7 original Camarilla, 4 big independents, 2 sabbat founders, 2 or 3 WDA major clans that became practically extinct by VTM) should have their own articles. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 08:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter: the Vigil

I've edited the article for Hunter: the Vigil. I've added the Infobox, and will add a lowres thumbnail of the cover once that image is released. I have also added references, and more known, verifiable information. Since this is the first major revision I've made, before all I have done is reverse vandalism and correct spelling, could someone take a look and see if it's good?

There's not enough information for the game yet, as it's unreleased, so that article will remain a stub for some time, I think.Pdboddy (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)