Talk:Role-playing game/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Top Description

The first section of this page needs to be entirely rewritten, it does not at all explain what a dice RPG is to a person who has never heard of them before. Also, a table is generally necessary for non-LARPs; though dice can technically be rolled on the floor, that isn't how it's done in an RPG game, and I (being an active geek, thanks) have never heard of the term "CRPG;" it's just specific to be a dice RPG when not obvious, so...if anyone else thinks this term like, exists, say so, but I do not think this term exists. Rayvn (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What's a "dice RPG"? I do not think this term exists. Or "exixts". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think RavynEQ is talking about tabletop RPGs. That said, those do of course exist, being the forefathers of all computer RPGs. De728631 (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"dice RPG" is a much more common term then "pen and paper RPG". Which makes sense considering that pen and paper are not usually used, and dice are almost always used.Rayvn (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a common term in your group, but google doesn't know very much about it. Are you coming from a PBEM/forum gaming context? That would explain the lack of pens and paper, which IME are more common than tables. Anyway, this page is for all role-playing games (in the role-playing sense, not the video-gaming sense) not just those that use tables, or pens & paper, or dice. If you've a source to say people use the term "dice RPG" then that could be added to the lead sentence; if not, then I'm afraid WP:NFT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not role-play on forums, I use the term commonly and everyone I have talked to (whether a friend, a stranger, a member of my group, or an random person I'm IMing, as long as they know what an RPG is) understands it, and some have used it themselves, while others haven't. However, I am not propsing the addition of the term "dice RPG" to the article. I am proposing the removal of the term "CRPG" - from what I have seen (including places that I don't frequent and have vistied only once, etc.) is that "RPG" tends to usually refer to computer or console games, where the type of RPG this article refernce is the one given explanation when not obvious from context, rather then the other way around. (If I wasn't clear - "RPG" most often means "video game" if not specified or contextual, and this article says it most often means "tabletop RPG" when not specified or contextual.) The term "traditional RPG" might be better then "Tabletop, die, OR "pen and paper", due to it's description not actually being verbally inaccurate. But even though I was propsing the removal of the term "CRPG" which IMO seems to be the author's (and maybe a few other people's) whim, the main purpose of my post was to propse a re-write of the entire thing. While it does technically describe what an RPG is, it describes rather then explains - a "soccer mom" or a person living in India isn't going to understand what an RPG is after reading this. I won't be able to rewrite it myself either if people agree, as I am unskilled at creating from scratch.

P.S. Forums don't use pen and paper either :P.Rayvn (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we use something other than 'CRPG' to refer to the games that are the topic of Role-playing game (video games)? If so, I agree. But if you're suggesting we move this page to 'dice RPG', or to use that term with no evidence that anyone but yourself uses it, then I disagree. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I suggest you read my previous posts in order to get the answer to your questions which I have already answered twice, before you asked them. I am not suggesting the page be moved at all. I am "suggesting" that all instance of the term "CRPG" be removed from the article, and the "traditional RPG" be used to refer to regular (dice/paper) RPGs within the section on video games.In addition, the more important thing, is that the entire main paragraph be rewritten if that has not already been done since this original post. I still do not believe there is any such thing as a "CRPG," nor do any of the other real-life people I have asked. I think it is likely that the person who decided to use that term is not a geek and does not play D&D-like RPGs or video games.Rayvn (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the page and this (both things) has(have) indeed been done. Thank you to the Editor.Rayvn (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

CRPGs means Computerized Role-Playing Games. They are the video game RPGs.--Blackmage337 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Spice

This article is in DIRE need of spice, a few pictures and perhaps fewer links. Role-playing games are fun and one of my favourite hobbies and yet I nearly fell asleep after the first section. My first move would be to de-link anything that isn't supremely relevant. From (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On the definition

The first few paragraphs (and possibly further on, I haven't read yet), describe a very, very specific of RPGs. Not all games are concentrated on creating or following a story - there are other types of fun existing within the frame of RPGs. Not at all must a RPG have "formal rules", and not even all games are played "not to win" (Ninja Burger and Agon are examples). This should be revamped to actually include all styles of RPGs, and not just the most ordinary ones. ODDin (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The article describes those styles of play, and where appropriate links to dedicated articles (e.g. freeform role-playing game). As you say, those are not "ordinary" RPGs, they're exceptions; and though they should be included, they should be included as exceptions. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

image

Is there discussion about the image used to represent role playing? At the moment it's a pair of dice. This concentrates on the rules aspect (that tends to dominate table-top) rather than the aspect of "play". Worst, the dice appear on the page for Live Action Role Playing, even though it uses no dice. Could anyone point me in the right direction? exquire@gmail.com 203.109.168.43 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Craig Neilson on 23 December 06:

Is the Great Wall really in Wisconsin and is Frank really Coolio?

A statement at the beginning of this states both of the above. I think they should be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.34.220 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Term: Civ RPG

I've put that up there because I play in a few, and figured that that's what they would be called (I can't really imagine what else they'd be called). Due to rarity, it might not be notable, but mabye it's rare becuase people haven't "decided" on what to call them, or it never occured to them that you could do a Civ-RPG. If that's not appropo for Wikipedia, c'est la vie; where should it go, or what should it be called? Narfanator 01:29 EST, 25 August 2006

To answer your last question, the article would be called Civilisation role-playing game - or Civilization role-playing game if you're American. Whichever one you don't choose should redirect to the other. As long as you can cite some sources which describe Civ RPGs, and don't do any original research, I'd imagine the article could be justified under the aegis of WP:RPG. Percy Snoodle 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth allows a little bit of this style and would be a good source to mention if you do work on this page. It will be hard to cite sources for your page, but you might find some. Bmorton3 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

REIGN—Greg Stolze's up and coming fantasy rpg using his ORE System—will have rules for Oranizations/Nations dealing with conflict with the help of stats and dice rolling rather than just the whim of the GM.[1] This could maybe fall under that sort of catagory if it didn't focus mostly on individual people.
—Asatruer 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's Birthright, which is very nearly a Civ RPG. Percy Snoodle 15:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Civilization III and Civilization IV are definitiely "civilization" genre. They're strategy games in which you match wits against other civilization leaders. Someone removed this section. I am restoring it with examples added. This is a valid category. -Amatulic 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Civ III & IV are computer games, not Role-playing games in the the traditional sense. I recently tried reseraching the so called "Civilization" role-playing genre, and I cannot find a single source, example, or claim that anything like this exists. So unless someone can show otherwise, I'd say this is total Original Research, which, as Percy said above, is not apporpraite for Wikipedia. Avador 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

These are computer games in which you assume a role. This article's scope covers RPGs, whether played on a computer or not. Therefore it's valid to include mention of games like Civ3. If the name of the category constitutes original research then by all means change it, but so far your reasoning doesn't warrant deleting the entire section. -Amatulic 00:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this article doesn't cover computer RPGs. It says at the top, and again further down. CRPGs are covered at computer role-playing game. Percy Snoodle 17:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if this article did cover CRPGs, the Civilization Series are 4X Strategy games.
—Asatruer 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How about adding something along the following lines to the Game mechanics section as a compromise (though to be honest I'm not sure this style of play is common enough to warrant a mention):

A few role-playing games include rules for role-playing large-scale organizations such as provinces, guilds, or entire civilizations. These game mechanics have been variously described as "Interactive History" and "domain actions"; examples include Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth and the Birthright Dungeons & Dragons campaign setting.

--Muchness 19:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems okay to me. Civ3 and Civ4 still qualify under an "Interactive History" heading. -~----—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amatulic (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2006 August 27 (UTC)

See SEIV: Starscape. Civ-style game actively GMed in which, similar to D&D, there are rules covering essentially all typical interactions between players, which are done IC and as the rulers of the various civilizations, as well as unusual interactions and plot development covered by GM-modding. So far, that's the only Civ-RPG I've found that's publically available, but I haven't checked all my sources (wasn't able to get at a few of them until today). I don't think that Civ-RPGs deserve their own page (being so damn few), but I do think the term deserves a paragraph in the existing RPG wikipage. I still haven't managed to find a published example of either this term or another meaning the same, but, like I said, haven't finished looking... so mabye I shouldn't have put it up. Chalk that up to excitability; I love Civ-RPGs and want more people to realize you can play games that way. (Moving it to mechanics is probably correct; it's a method of playing an RPG as opposed to a genre or variety, as well as because many character-RPG systems provide for Civ-RPG play). Oh - and now that I thnk about it some more, there are board-games that Civ-RPGs; Twilight Imperium and Dune are all that come to mind ATM (I'm not sure about Cosmic Encounter having never played it.) They're both civ-style games where players are playing particular civilizations with defined character and abilities. --- I'll contently withdraw my suggested addition until I'm not a lazy source-less netizen, but I'd like to keep discussing it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narfanator (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2006 August 28 (UTC)

TI and Dune aren't RPGs - although their player positions are known as "roles", they don't involve acting out those roles. Nor do CRPGs. Hence both are outside the scope of this article. Percy Snoodle

I can see that. Role-playing then necessarily includes an element of acting, or, rather, communication in the mode of the role? (Also on further thought, TI and Dune aren't because you're goals aren't defined by the charactization of your role, but the rules). So, bad examples. (Also, sorry about the unsigned, my bad) Narfanator

Role-playing in the sense used in this article does, yes. Other senses are discussed in the article on role-playing. Percy Snoodle 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Acting out doesn't make sense by itself. There's RP only if the character can make choices that affect his personality (or ethics it's the same).. this wide concept can embrace both improvization and a strategy game as long as the objective of the game is not just "conquer everyone and expand" , in that case where's the freedom of choice thus an analysys of the role ? Gylfi 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) [comment split by Percy Snoodle 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)]

He's not asking if acting is the sole property of RPGs, just whether it's a necessary one. Percy Snoodle 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but Gylfi is right as well. Both are probably necessary; an RPG without communication as your character is a philosophical exercise (I think; no counter-examples come to mind); an RPG without choices as your character is... a narrative, a pre-written story? Anyway, both seem necessary.Narfanator 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Narf (bat low, 11:08 EST aug 32)

OT Percy I liked my last statement, why did You wipe it ? :) Gylfi 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it was an off-topic, unreferenced discussion of the meaning of Ethics. Percy Snoodle 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree... Variability is important to ethics as it's important to Roleplaying design . Would it be acceptable if i typed "Variability is central to Role-playing design" ? Please delete "most play for fun some for other reasons" (read stupid other reasons) IT has a clear intention of diminishing the following lines (and it hides them! :D) Plus RPG can't be just "fun" , it's discovery of humankind through analysis ... and it's not unreferenced , google "variability realism" and you'll find scientific/computer reference.Infact , Percy, I think you should try googling lines before claiming they're unreferenced. I dare say, guys (i know ill be wronged I don't mean nothing but venting frustration), that We should describe the best and most mature way to play RPG, not also consider in what childish ways it can be MIS-interpreted. Gylfi 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A statement is not referenced just because it can be found by a google search.
Unreferenced means there is no cite in the article to a verifiable and reliable source, and the burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question to supply a reference.
—Asatruer 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

O'course by "search in google" , I meant that it's sufficient to google the 2 words to find articles, books, and words written by whoever needed to be called "a reference" ;) Gylfi 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I read this and it got me reading up on Aria (which seems interesting enough that I probably will buy it, only 14 years too late) and stumbled across the term "Interactive History" in a review, which might be useful. 80.244.74.178 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hickmann Quote

While it's a good point and true, it doesn't cover the entire truth of RPGs and should thus be tempered, resampled, or moved. Not just legal consequences; moral, ethical and response-of-others consequences; there are non-Fantasy RPGs are well. Narfanator 15:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's insane. You take away the most important meaning of RPG and leave the tactics and strategy coming from Wargames ? then RPG means nothing? RPG is inner exploration of any personality in the world and you can't explore it without ethical questions.. Infact I propose to take away that statement as Hickman's quote and make it be just a rule. Even in a non-fantasy setting, a role has to be questioned somehow, It has to face a range of choices with variable outcomes that allow the player to learn about the character. Hickman or not , this is a central matter, folks. If you want more reference take Bioware rpg's. Knights of the old Republic is filled with ethical questions that modify the character's alignments, or consider the new one, Mass Effect.. again stuffed with ethics at every step. Gylfi 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The function of the Role-playing game page is to present what RPGs are in the most NPOV way we can. The claim that ethics is the most important meaning of RPGs is POV, it is a popular POV, but also a disputed one. Check out "GNS and Other Matter of Role Play Theory," "System Does Matter," "Narrativism: Story Now" "Gamism: Step on Up" and "Simulationism: The Right to Dream" by Ron Edwards, at the Forge's article page.The Forge’s article page, the Turku School page at [http://users.utu.fi/mijupo/turku The Turku School (who I suspect you will mostly agree with), the Meilahti School atThe Meilahti School, and the process model at Process Theory who argue that the important values of RPG include Entertainment, Learning, Meaning (roughly what you're calling ethics), Aesthetic Appreciation, Physical Benefits, and Social Benefits. I am not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that the position you seem to be espousing is hotly debated at the moment. By all means mention it briefly along with an appropriate quote. But do NOT attempt to portray it as the only POV, or as NPOV, because it isn't. Bmorton3 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

you wouldn't believe how much I wrote about what's RPG and how to extrapolate the element that makes anything real RPG and what's just "addition" , about immersion in videogames genres , distinctions of them and so on , mostly off forum discussions, I could post it as an essay (would have to arrange it tho).

Er ... and "Essay" on "what's RPG and how to extrapolate the element that makes anything real RPG and what's just "addition"" sounds an awful lot like Original Research. You're familiar with the rules about no OR (original research) right? If you wanted to write a page on "immersion" in video games, that might be appropriate for over in the category "Computer and video game gameplay." If you wanted to write up an non-OR discussion of immersion in non-computerized RPGs that would be appropriate to link to role-playing game theory. Bmorton3 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I was o'course referring to an essay outside Wikipedia (one of the links you posted welcome new essays),thought it was needless to specify ,apologies Gylfi 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another reference (among the dozens in the net) about ethics in CRPG [2] and it doesn't mention just fantasy.

You did notice that this page isn't about CRPGs at all right? Bmorton3 20:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To me There's no difference, RP is one and NEVER changes. This reference works either way, basically because It says the same things as this one below, and it's not CRPG and yet Things don't change because you use a mouse instead of a pen. Plus Ethical exploration is an ethereal element, and for that It adapts to any environment (as i said many times other places), and that's one of the best parts of such system. Gylfi 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And here's a HUGE recent one from RPGNet [3]. This definition shouldn't be "tempered" or cut but very much extended. I propose a whole paragraph in this article about ethics in RP. (o'course leaving these lines in this 1) Gylfi 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying We should portray it as the only or the best way ,even if I WOULD like ot,and even if I strongly believe that some people have to show others what's right or wrong (down with democracy), but this gentleman is saying We should cut 'em out, while I believe it should be made bigger and bigger, not because its MORE important than the others (it would be POV,I can't show it), but for the sake of completion and fairness.. It's right to explain that there are other ways to consider RPG, but I'll be damned I can't see why the ethical way must be the last and least important one.. Out of pages and pages dedicated to RP as strategy, as rules, as "fun", the ethical RP not only has just 5 stinking lines, but people even want to shorten them ? And even before them I have to read ,as a reminder of the "fun dictatorship", that "most play for fun, some find other reasons" which is insulting. Are people afraid of this concept or hate it ? Isn't it POV? Gylfi 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reread my post, Gylfi, and do so /calmly/. And by "resample" I mean that there may be a better selection from the same text. Narfanator 12:40 (EST), 3 September 200k

You didn't just say resample, tho, good man... but the point is It will go down and down loosing importance, at this pace, until someone just wipes 'em ;) Don't let it happen! This system is not just "some" personal way to conceive Roleplaying, tho I'm all for a "mindless" wargaming style dedicated only to strategy and relax,the reason for using ethics can be traced back to a general exhortation of paying attention to psychological aspects of interactions and ultimately to "use your heart". This deserves more than a few lines even preceded by "the best reason to play is for fun but there can be other reasons", no matter what you had asked for initially, Narf. Gylfi 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're using the word "importance" here in a wikipedia-specific way. It's clearly important to you that people should roleplay for ethical exploration, but Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view on what people should and shouldn't do. What's important here - what's notable - is what people do, whether or not it's what they "should" do. I don't see much evidence that many people play for ethical exploration, so I don't see that much of the article should be devoted to it. If anything, more space should be given to what it means to "play for fun". Perhaps you should start an article on Ethical exploration in roleplaying? As an aside, I find it mildly insulting that you call roleplaying for other reasons "mindless", so perhaps you would like to find another way of putting that. Percy Snoodle 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, Percy, but since You clearly are the one who decides things, I BEG you to make my lines appear at headline. I ask you cause whatever I type it will be deleted pronto.It's not even about "what" the lines tell anymore, I just can't understand why "my stuff" gets pushed over. I was considering making the article , needless to say these lines must stay here. :) Take a look at the links I posted, You'll see the importance for yourself :) "play for fun" works for ANY type of game ; even pac-man. Shouldn't a definition explain what's peculiar in RPg's compared to other games ? Wasn't there a person here months ago posting *I read this definition but I couldn't understand what makes an RPG interesting and unique*. People ask enlightment and We give 'em mess and confusion.. I find playing a role "without questioning the role's psychology" to be slightly Brain-free. It's just about strategy,dice, maths and arguing about rules.. there are many (older) wargames about that. Either way, I'm done here I won't bother anymore, since There's no case for adding anything else about ethics. So Take care everyone , only PLEASE stop scratching my lines, They're too precious, If ever a game designer comes here wondering how He should make his new game, my lines are the only hope for a good game. Bye!! Gylfi 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Read what I say. *Actually* read it, if you ever come back.

I haven't seen your attempted contributions, but based upon what you have written here I have no doubt they needed deletion. Your grammar is wanting and your capitilazation bizzaare. You're also not considering what other people are actually saying. I still doubt whether or not you understood why I disliked the current Hickmann quote; it is misleading in it's treatement of role-playing as is exclusively emphasis /legal/ - not moral, ethical, philosophical, social, environmental, you name it - ramifications of a character's actions, as well as it's exclusive emphasis on fantasy RPing - ignoring the many fiction, science fiction, and universal games. (Well, not so certain about "fiction", but SF, certainly) Narfanator 18:02 EST 6 Sep 2004.

I've shortened the "ethics" section to what I hope is a sensible amount and removed the quote; hopefully we can put this all behind us. Percy Snoodle 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are crazy,Percy ! The lines were needed to understand "What makes an RPG an RPG" , It's what YOU said months ago ! I'll find a way to use them anyway. I wouldn't have said anything else if You didn't delete the lines. Since You did this out of spite , not giving a damn about informing people, I must come back . Just because You dislike someone It's not a good reason to delete his stuff, especially if They're as precious and important as this. It's no problem tho I'll just put those lines without the quote and because They're referenced You'll have to accept them . Answer this : If the goal is informing people of every possible aspect of RP why can't the ethical/psychological way be there too? Oh before I forget please show me the reference for "RPG's are rarely played to win, most play for fun" I wanna see how you found out what "part" of the role-players is the most . Narfanator What do You mean with "legal" ? Ethics in RP includes an evil behavior, o'course (so also illegal, chaotic, schizophrenic and so on just any psychological condition),at this point I must consider you misunderstood the meaning of ethics in RP. Using ethical questions in an RPG is generically like "using your heart" in anything or simply caring about psychology of the role you're playing, how can it POSSIBLY be misleading? also I don't understand when You say it doesn't consider ALL points of view.. RP can be seen in many points of view, this is just one of them. Isn't this article a collection of these "aspects"? and naturally an aspect denies others. Infact most of the things said here emphasize "playing for fun" clearly denying psychological aspect of a role. Isn't it also misleading in a way , or is It just my stuff that misleads ? Gylfi 18:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Please refrain from calling other editors crazy; see WP:NPA. Percy Snoodle 06:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Aw c'mon, You know it wasn't a serious insult, more like a fond ironical admonition, I really didn't think You would or could have wiped my few lines just like that... if There's a "problem" keeping them from being acceptable We can talk it out , I believe... plus this is democracy, people should choose wether they want them or not (voting maybe), instead of two people deciding for everyone. So I beg you to reconsider, rephrase those lines so that there's no "legal" problem whatever It is (cause i really didn't get it) and put them back ! :) Gylfi 10:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, [Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a Democracy|Wikipedia is not a Democracy]], but by all means let's "talk it out". Hickmann's point of view is no more or less valid than the others; to imply otherwise would hardly be a neutral point of view. Hickmann's point of view is less widely held than the other two mentioned (though I can't prove that) and as such, based on the space and balance guidelines shouldn't be given more space than the others. The others are given one sentence each, ATM. So the Ethics section should be given at most one sentence. What I'd quite like long-term would be for all the "purposes" of role-playing to be expanded; but until the others are, the "Ethics" bit needs keeping short. You seem to feel that it's Wikipedia's duty to educate game designers so that they can produce ethically sound RPGs. You're mistaken: that's taking a moral point of view, which we must avoid doing. Percy Snoodle 11:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you put it this way I can't but agree... balance is important. It's an easily fixable issue. Please tell me what other points of view there are that need extension so after They're big enuff the Morality aspect may be at last extended too. All I need is a list for my homework heh Gylfi 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice to have some elaboration on what it actually means to play "for fun"... where the fun comes from; why it's fun to roleplay. There's actually some on this topic on player character, though some of that page could use some attention too. It shouldn't be hard to flesh out the play "to create stories" bit either; Rilstone's quite prolific, and I think most of the White Wolf books go on about that sort of thing in some detail. Also any other point-of-view that we're neglecting - though many of the other "purposes" for role-playing (for learning, therapy or in job interviews) really belong on role-playing not role-playing game, as they're not really games. Percy Snoodle 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Process Model of Role-playing has a published account of the 6 kinds of benefits sought by players of Role-Playing Games, Nicole Lazzaro has done psychology research on "Why We Play Games" including a theory of the 4 kinds of fun. Most of the serious research on player motivations and what makes games fun, (from Yee, Bartle, etc) has come from the computer cases, but a few have tried to look at non-computer RPGs as well, or have articulated POVs about the nature of fun in games in general. Bmorton3 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic I'll take care of that. And as barter exchange I'll get to see the ethics lines back up ? Gylfi 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I missed parts of the discussion. I got sick these past few days. You're still not reading and thinking about what I'm saying, Gylfi. Ethics in RPGs are important. I felt that the *specific* Hickmann quote was misleading in that it (to my mind) presented Ethics as important only insofar as the legal consequences were concerned.

In other news, I saw a good presentation on "most of what makes things fun" (This isn't likely to be a topic you can cover every part of). I don't know if any part of it is published, but I can try to find out. It presented three factors; Inherent interest (caused by dilemmas), immersion and.... Damn, can't recall. So, if I can't find published material, will lecture slides subsitute?

Finally, I did not, in any way, intend for this discussion to balloon this much. I think we should probably prune it. Narfanator 13:06 EST, 8 Sep 2006

I am sorry Narf, **misleading in that it (to my mind) presented Ethics as important only insofar as the legal consequences were concerned** is absolutely runic to me , I have no idea what You mean and this time It's slightly clearer than before :( .Yet I am glad You think using ethics is important, I had already noticed it in another topic and that's why I couldn't understand why You requested it moved out... but Percy made it pretty clear and how can I disagree ? Still couldn't just the quote be removed ? Hickman said many things about ethics We could find a less "radical" statement. Personally I have fun when learning something new and enlighting concerning a new truth hidden in an aspect of life , but we can't consider fun as cultural interest or It would have to be included in the moral dilemmas/ethics/psychology branch, so I presume we gotta consider "fun" in a more generic way of "laughter with a group of buddies, beer ,brawl and belching" style of playing Rpg's . While "creating stories" is a more interesting topic but again we gotta be careful of not trespassing the "role analysis" boundary that's still off topic. The center of the problem is that in my opinion using ethics is not "an option" but the only way to actually play a role because it's such an enormous concept in that it embraces anything that has a brain and psychology, "everything else would be a lie", in other words in the instant you start considering your role's outlook there's ethics and Hickmann, and frankly to me consequences (be it legal or "unnatural" if that's what You meant) aren't as important as the act of choosing itself. Anyway to me There AREN't other other points of view because they are NOT role-playing but wargames and monopoly at best... I always failed to see my convictions as "subjective" but as a truth most people fail to see . I understand that's terribly self-centered but hey that's why I'm a teacher Gylfi 19:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That kind of opinion doesn't count here. I made that mistake too; I don't fault you for it. Let me try anther rephrase. Hickman's quote made me think that the only RPGs were fantasy RPGs, and that I only gave a damn about ethics because if I didn't, the Man would come after me. Outside source the first bit should be tempered? Let's pick Continuum. Outside source that the second should be tempered? Let's pick the D&D alignment spectrum, notably that LG, LE, CG and CE all exist and are heavily supported. Narfanator 12:07 EST 9 Sep 2006

I didn't understand what you say after "come after me" , what does "Outside source" and continuum mean ? And why do You talk about the alignments (which is the way ethics are used) ? Gylfi 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been sick. I was talking in a less accessible way. By "Outside source" I mean an external way to prove my point; I'nm citing examples. I should also have done Continuum_RPG. I was citing the alignments as examples of ways in which ethics and morals can exist with and seperate from legal considerations (then again what D&D means as "lawful" doesn't necessarrily mean the same as legal). This wasn't entirely appropriate as you weren't so much attacking my argument against the quote as serially misunderstanding that argument. Narfanator 00:38 EST Sep 10 2006

But I don't understand,as You know Tracy Hickman is one of the creators of D&D handbooks, what He said about ethics is obviously coherent with alignments or anything else remotely concerning psychological aspects of RP, how can It deny any other view ? Plus it doesn't matter if what You do has a legal/lawful consequence which by the way is the same word but the 1st is latin ,or not, what's important is that your actions have an effect on your mind. The point of consequences is that if you're playing Anakin Skywalker and You just decided to join the dark side now You should be aware that your personality changed. That's precisely what Hickmann said, it's that simple. How can this be wrong ? Alignments are an important part of D&D rules as long as you use them there's ethics , be it legal/un-legal/criminal whatever, because you CAN'T use the alignment (change it or sticking with it) unless you answer an ethical question, infact this should prove how central to RPGs ethics are. Concerning The fantasy bit the problem is unfixable if We stick with Hickmann so it's sufficient to take the second article (below), It doesn't refer to any type of setting and it still contains every possible thing I may ever desire, if it didn't date 2004 I could swear this guy ripped me off of my ideas. Gylfi 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You know this, I know this - but the way (I think) one should think of Wikipedia is "If someone needed this explained to them...". That's why I didn't like the specific quote; if I imagined myself as someone who needed role-playing games explained to them, Hickmann's quote was misleading. You are also making my point for me; the legal conseqeunces pale in comparison to the personal. "Lawfull" as an aligment type means you follow a particular code and/or set of laws, whereas legal implies more the complicated set of laws that, for example, make up US criminal law.

Select a quote from that article and put it up here for discussion. Narfanator 09:39 11 Sep 2006

Alright so that quote (the legal consequences) was a bit too radical and misleading to you .. personally I took that quote because of "roleplaying requires ethical play and design" , not the consequences part , absolutely secondary. So again why delete all the phrases instead of just that one since it was the one We disliked? Any other person would think it was an excuse of opportunity to remove something uncomfortable for them. I was thinking that as far as i knew, Wiki welcomed whatever is referenced even if someone disagreed with it, I recall no mention in the policy of something that "might be" considered misleading cause to me it sounds "opinionistic". Furthermore the fact that other points of view aren't also described shouldn't prevent one from being posted or any single term of the encyclopedia would be blank waiting for ALL the points of view to be there as well before laying them down... if someone wants to add material to a specific point of view is welcome but not in spite of the other.Anyway i'm gonna Grab a new, and maybe more complete explanatory, quote of Hickmann's.. stand fast. Gylfi 00:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Here it is(the quote): "Science-fiction can portray (also) a moral viewpoint,Cyberpunk is counter-moral (but still ethical), Fantasy is (ONLY) moral" "Conflict is what makes a game work, Games which allow action without consequence are, at best, lazy. At the worst, such games teach a false view of the world to their participants. The nature of conflict requires consequence.Central to the conflict of good and evil is the idea that man has the ability to choose for himself between the two. Free will allows men to see both the light and the dark around them and to gain perspective from the contrast of the two." Gylfi 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is: The first bit, until "Fantasy is (ONLY) moral" is off-topic; it's a discussion of those genres in general, not specifically as they apply to role-playing games. The next two sentences are relevant, but snobbish; though if that's Hickmann's view, so be it. From "Central to the conflict..." onwards is off-topic again; it's a description of morality in general, not specifically as it applies to role-playing games. Percy Snoodle 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the first bit, I didn't take it to be In-Topic. For the last I disagree... whatever He's telling there He applies it to RPG's as rules. I suggest You read the whole page very carefully Gylfi 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote needs to work out-of-context - it needs to talk about RPGs without requiring the reader to read the book. Only the middle bit does that. Percy Snoodle 19:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Percy. I'd go most with "Conflict is what makes a game work, [and] games which allow action without consequence are, at best, lazy. At the worst, such games teach a false view of the world to their participants. The nature of conflict requires consequence." I would like to package this with a quote that made the reader think in terms of ethical and moral conflicts and consequences, since that's what I think Hickmann is trying to get at. And, no, that first about genres - just, no. Narfanator 17:28 EST 13 Sep 2006

I don't get it fellas , I just took the quote to discuss about it and to proove what Hickmann means when referring only about fantasy (that He doesn't exclude Cyberpunk and Sci-Fi from morality, He just points out that while Sci-fi sometimes may work even without morality, for fantasy is mandatory) , why talk about cutting and repacking since You're not gonna get the old lines back up anyway ? Or are you? Gylfi 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. It's still not clear why the Hickmann roleplaying-is-ethics-everything-else-is-dumb school of thought requires expansion, let alone a supporting quote. Percy Snoodle 08:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so why cut and rephrase ? But anyway as I was saying I didn't know there was a policy of "equilibrium" for the sources and informations gathered, I thought as long as It's referenced it can appear in an article,even if You disliked it(and it seems obvious you have a personal dislike against it) But I hope You can show me the specific policy. If any subject had to be filled with all the philosophies related to it before going up every page would be blank... but it's not, a couple of articles I read offer a precise view over a subject, ignoring or even denying the view I knew and studied back then, but this doesn't mean that definition doesn't have the right to be there, since it's fully referenced . So if the ethics part found sources as well why blocking its way to information ? The other theories will come later... If they don't , well , they had not enuff reference/source on them. I'm just trying to understand how this all works. On another subject, if You DO read the whole essay page 3 You will understand why, You will understand that there's no Roleplaying without ethics just like there's no Humanity without a shaver and shoes. Gylfi 10:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll understand that that's the author's opinion. Their opinion is noted on the page, and the article describing their opinion is linked to in the references. That's not bad going, for an opinion. Percy Snoodle 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure but if there's way more to say, if the man made an essay about it and lastly He's the creator of D&D Ravenloft, I don't see why his teachings can't be shown here. I repeat please show me the policy stating there's gotta be balance of theories for a subject. After I see it I'll type a few lines about them. Gylfi 15:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he wrote an essay - it's linked to in the "references" section. That's sufficient. I already did show you the policies.. see "space and balance" above. Percy Snoodle 15:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

New Paragraph (or Article)

Take a look at this article [4] by this Conan McKegg person and someone please suggest where and how to put the most relevant phrases in this definition :) They're considerations about generic RP (be it CRPG or Pen&Paper) with no mention of any specific setting whatsoever ;) If Hickmann focused too much on particular elements which may maliciously considered mis-leading and biased, that new article there should solve the problem. I'd like to remind all the editors that It doesn't matter if one doesn't agree with a new definition , as long as It's referenced It can stay in the encyclopedia. Gylfi 19:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, Gylfi. I recommend once again that you start an article on Ethical exploration in role-playing games. Percy Snoodle 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You , but I'd rather have a paragraph here. maybe called "RP Ethics".. What do you think ? If it's really not possible then at least I hope the new article can be part of this ring Gylfi 10:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about in-context links so you don't need large articles. You want mentions of the topic - enough to get a basic idea of what it is and, much more importantly, how it applies to *this* article, and then have the seperate article. For instance "Ethical considerations about your character's actions play a very large part of a role-playing experience. Large enough, in fact, that entire games are built around such Role-playing Ethics". Narfanator 09:56 EST 11 Sep 2006

I've finished writing the new definition :) I'll first apply the simple text , then fill it with all the bows and trifles . Gylfi 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to put it here first, so we can make sure we all understand what's being said and why. Percy Snoodle 14:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's a bit long to toss it here or it wouldn't be a new article, and for that I can't put it in a discussion page of another article but trust me , it's all referenced and there's no why except information. What do you mean "make sure we understand what's said" , do you assume I can't type in my own language ? Gylfi 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From past experience, your first attempts tend to get reverted on clarity grounds. If it's too long to post here, how about a user page - say, User:Gylfi/RP ethics - which we could have a look at? Percy Snoodle 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on. more than clarity I see it as "silliness grounds" but that's just me... I always despised "correcthood" , considered it a way to be Hypocrite without being it... but that's a different subject. I'll have you know when the new article is up on my user page Gylfi 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately many of us are quite keen on being correct. I hope you're not calling us hypocrites? Percy Snoodle 11:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

O'course not. On the contrary I AM hypocrite. Gylfi 14:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indie isn't a Genre

We presently have "Indie" as a genre of games, which it isn't. Genre is the superset of setting and story elements the default game setting draws upon. Indie is a means of production. What do folks think about moving Indie into a new section about means of production, along with accompanying "Mainstream" and "Small Press" subsections? Assuming there's no complaints with that plan of action, I will be doing just that in a couple days. Joshua BishopRoby 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of a section on the RPG industry sounds a good one to me. I'm not sure the Genre section is the best way to put across the information that's there, either; I think it might belong better in Campaign setting. Percy Snoodle 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't especially like classifying game books by genre in general. I think it's misleading and not especially useful in the end. However, it's sort of common parlance for describing roleplaying games, so I find it appropriate here, in the sense that it complies with common usage. Joshua BishopRoby 16:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is really appropiate to list Indie as a seperate 'genre' per say, as an Indie game can be of almost any type of of genre (Fantasy, SciFi, Horror..). I think it would probably be better to classify it under a 'movement' scetion, or something similar. Avador 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement that Indie is not a genre. If anything, it would be the sort of things to mention in an article about Role-playing game publishers. How is Indie defined anyway? When compared to Arc Dream Publishing or Pagan Publishing that seems to be two or three people, or Greg Stolze or Dennis Detwiller's ransom model of free/purchased product releases?
—Asatruer 02:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

After Percy moved the genres out of the main article and slotted "Indie" under a blank "Industry" superheader, I've gone in and written a paragraph or two on Publishers and updated the Indie subhead. Review, beat with stick. Thanks. -- Joshua BishopRoby 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit biased, dontcha think?

This article seems to take for granted, at least in places, that the story is the point of an RPG, explicitly saying as much at one point. This is a controversial claim among gamers (note that it is only one of the three goals recognized by the rgfa Threefold or the GNS theory), and the fact that D&D, which appeals primarily to Gamists, is well over half the market all by itself suggests this is not even the majority view. I also see some other related myths in there, such as that V:tM emphasizes "role-playing" (presumably meaning in-character voice-acting - this equation is itself a myth) over rules. I'll start chipping away at this at some point, but I wanted to mention it here first. PurplePlatypus 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm... In-character voice acting? Don't see how you get that out of "role-playing". In my experience, all RPGs involve "IC voice-acting", but using that phrase entirely glosses over the important point that the lines are generated by the play. It's that part that makes it RPing. I might be misunderstanding your post, but the article is written under the assumption that an RPG without such "roleplaying" - which usually involves a story (GM has a plot) or causes a story to develop (players create the plot for themselves) - is a 'game' rather than a 'role-playing game'. An RPG is more than the effect of it's rules. I may have been insuffeciently clear and understandable, please ask questions so I can clarify, etc. Narfanator 19:57 17 Oct 2006 (EST)

Are you familiar with either the Threefold or GNS? (I'm not crazy about either theory myself, but at least they offer a common terminology for discussing these issues.) I get the impression that you're not, both from your failure to understand most of my post and from some of the content of yours. I am saying, primarily, that the article seems to be highly slanted toward what GNS would call a Narrativist approach to RPGs, leaving out other equally legitimate approaches. PurplePlatypus 23:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You say "explicitly saying as much at one point" - do you mean the Rilstone reference? If so, that's a reported opinion, not one expressed by the article itself. Percy Snoodle 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on a re-read it explicitly says so at several points, starting with the very first sentence under "concept". PurplePlatypus 23:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This article reads a little defensive, at least in the beginning. As if it has to prove to the world that RPG is legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.32.193.30 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Genres list

I'm considering moving the genres list to Campaign setting - it dominates this article, and I'm not sure it adds more than simply stating that games can be set in any genre of fiction. Percy Snoodle 13:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Support the move, though I'm not sure the Universal and Indie sections belong in the campaign setting article. --Muchness 20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also support the move. I think Universal does have a place with in Campaign settings just because it is essential free-form setting. Indie is really more of a buisness model, or variant on Role-playing game publishing, and should be merged off to an article more along those lines. The only existing article I can think of is History of role-playing games.
—Asatruer 23:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I've put Indie in an "Industry" section - hopefully someone who understands the role-playing game industry can fill in more. Percy Snoodle 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the article

Hello! This is one of my first posts on Wikipedia. Just a warning! I haven't read the archives for this page; I hope I am not going to stir up a hornet's nest here... but I have some reservations about the current state of the article:

In the concept section, it is claimed that "[a] consistent system of rules and realistic setting in games aids suspension of disbelief. The level of realism in games ranges from internal consistency to full-blown simulations of real-world processes". It is my experience that this is not the entire truth: I have played games in which the system of rules is not meant at all to aid suspension of disbelief, and yet were "consistent" (at least in the logic sense of not contradicting themselves). Also, it seems to me that some games do not attempt to model the "physical interactions" of the imaginary characters at all. In that sense, it seems that realism is not addressed at all. Perhaps this is a simple misread on my part. Nevertheless, I suggest the following change:

"The ideal game is designed to have an internally consistent set of rules, which informs player action with respect to the goal of play." The idea of immersion, or other goals of play can maybe be addressed in a further section of the article.

I also object to saying roleplaying games "rarely being played to win", although I agree that playing in a "zero sum" fashion is probably rare. Perhaps it would be better to simply say roleplaying games are rarely designed to be zero sum; I believe the original meaning of the sentence is kept, but is more precise. This way, everybody wins.

Lastly, I think independantly published roleplaying games do not fit in the Campaign setting section as a category. I suggest simply placing some independant games in their corresponding genres, and putting a nice little "see also" thingumbob sending the reader to "GNS" or whatever the indie game scene page is. For this, I would have to trust someone else, who has the necessary knowledge of the relevant games (and agrees with my assessment).

Having explained myself, I'm going to try to be bold (as is encouraged, apparently) and make the changes (or at least try!)

Whew... so few changes, and such a long post!... Poiuyt098@hotmail.com 02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Realism and self-consistency are currently being discussed. That portion of the article is currently in flux. I would point out that self-consistent realism is not limited to accurately modeling physical interactions between players; see the D&D trick of "What happens if I put a portable hole in a bag of holding?" Self-consistent reality models give good answers to such questions.

The issue with saying things are not designed to be zero-sum is that most people don't know what that means; while this is the Wikipedia, I'd suggest that'd be the second way you explain it rather than the first.

RPGs, by there very nature, do not have "win-conditions" established by the game mechanics. As such, I don't see how you could design an RPG to be zero-sum, or play one to "win". Winning in an RPG is defined by the player, that's part of the point.

I dunno about the Indie part. They deserve recognition as being Indie, and the indie "industry" deserves such mention as a whole, but you're right, they're not a campaign setting.

Narfanator 00:34, 19 Oct 2006 EST

Agreed - "zero sum" isn't quite the point being made; a non-ZS game can still have winners and losers, but not be ZS - consider the prisoner's dilemma. Conversely, in terms of quantifiable gains, most RPGs are zero-sum; the participants gain and lose nothing tangible; the game is played simply for enjoyment. Percy Snoodle 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I still cringe at using the term realism in any sense, including that of logical consistency. Realism has an intuitive meaning which is different from logical consistency in many respects. Furthermore, I have played games, such as My Life with Master and Breaking the Ice, which do not address realism, or even consistency, at all in the rules. I mean, the rules of MLWM just say who wins a conflict between characters. Thus, the *rules* are logically consistent, but they do not bother at all with the actions of the imaginary characters. Thus play can be *plot* inconsistent or *reality* inconsistent or anything like that, but the rules themselves are consistent, in the logical sense. But still, I'm a little happier with the sentence as it stands then before. I maintain that rules sometimes simply inform player action, and not create color, setting or the like, and thus are sort of kind of irrelevant to "game-world realism", but I'm willing to cede the point...Poiuyt098@hotmail.com 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

About the "win conditions". Some games do have ending conditions. Value judgements can be (and have been) made based on the positions of the imaginary characters at the end of the game. These value judgements on occasion occur explicitly within the game mechanics (see the Shab al-Hiri Roach). Seriously, it's awesome. Counterexample! RPGs can have win conditions, be played to win, etc. See GNS Theory—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poiuyt098@hotmail.com (talk • contribs) 10:34, 2006 October 20 (UTC)

Okay, sure, End conditions exist and whatnot. But the point of an RPG is that your "goal" is defined by your character (your role), which is defined by /you/. This isn't always true for computer RPGs, but this isn't an article on those. GNS theory, as explained there, does not support your claim that RPG win conditions are anything other than player/GM-decided. As for rules creating content, the ideas/rules that magic/dinine powers work like this or that can easily cause world-construction. The rules of an RPG define local reality; local reality and rules jive so long as the rules are self-consistent. You can't blame plot inconsistency on the system; that's the fault of the players/GM. Narfanator 06:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am expressing myself poorly. You claim that the point of an RPG is that the participant's goal is defined, ultimately, by the participant. I agree wholeheartedly. However, I do not see how that disproves my claim, which is that role-playing games are, on occasion, designed with competition as a main goal. By this I mean, without equivocation, that a participant can win such a role-playing game; the mechanics explicitly address winning. Also, we obviously seem to have some sort of disconnect in regards to the realism issue. I am making the explicit point that some games' rules do not address setting, color or "what happens when" in anything but the vaguest way. Indeed, it is my position that these things are not necessary. As I said, I am happy enough with the state of that part of the article. I just feel my position is being misunderstood. Perhaps, also, I am misunderstanding yours. I suggest taking this discussion to my talk page. I look forward to a discussion of the topic! Poiuyt098@hotmail.com 00:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for warning me that the GNS theory page does not have any info on game design. I will see if I can petition a knowledgeable designer to help modify the article. Otherwise, I will do my best to fill it in with what knowledge I can accumulate. Regards, Poiuyt098@hotmail.com 00:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"slow demise of the hobby store"?

"Exposure to potential customers is an essential and difficult element of the business model, especially with the slow demise of the hobby store which historically served as the publishers' portal to customers." Where did this come from?! Cite your source or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.34.159 (talk)

Done. -- Joshua BishopRoby 17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Publishing Section

Wow, there's a lot of unsourced, biased material there. First of all, the "three tier distribution system" is simplified, indie newspeak. Most successful companies have sold their games using multiple venues for as long as a given venue has existed. For instance, White Wolf sells via distributors, through direct sales to hobby stores, from its website and through the book trade. In fact, you would by hard-pressed to find a company other than WotC that does *not* make extensive use of direct sales. So that's no good.

Then we have the marketshare numbers, which are kind of wacky for several reasons. First of all, there are no public figures for marketshare and secondly, the most consistent *estimates*, from Game Trade and Ken Hite, don't match the numbers in the article. By Hite's year to year estimates, WotC normally has 50% to just under 50% and White Wolf has less than 20%. Eveb leaving these figures aside, their very unreliability suggests a major rewrite is necessary.

Lastly, observations that successful companies endure are either inanely self-evident or are in fact not true. Shadowrun is an example of a game that did not allow its parent cpmpany to endure, and TSR has been dead since some point in the 90s, making its anecdotal relevance rather sketchy.

I can't answer the first two point other than to ask you to provide better information if you have it. As for the third, an older version of the page did indeed make the point that the industry was very cutthroat, but it was "corrected" by another editor and left there; I, for one, didn't know enough about the subject to feel comfortable reverting the changes, but if you do, then please be bold!. Percy Snoodle 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above concerning the need to cite references and verify figures. Unless someone can back it up with sources, most of the discussion of the game industry should be deleted. It should be easy to find articles about types of distribution models. As for claiming which distribution models dominate or how they are enforced: I doubt solid, verifiable, published figures exist. Although I'm sure they exist in shareholder reports, I don't know where to begin looking for published WW/WOC sales figures. Vampyrecat 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Forum rps?

Hmm, a question perhaps? What about the loose rps you find in forums? Here there is a form of rping that is story based and usually is tons more loose on character creation. They also use different forms of posting, such as "True Open." An example site would be www.pirate-vs-ninja.com/forum... ...but seeing as it's down currently, not like that example helps at all, otherwise I'd link ya straight to one of before-stated rps

69.247.202.232 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

These types of games are covered in the online text-based role-playing game, play-by-post role-playing game, and simming articles. --Muchness 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Each game is set in a fictional world"

Really? I'm not sure, but i saw several pretty nice historical RPGs, which were not set into a fictional world. For instance <a href="http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dzikie_Pola_(role-playing_game)">Dzikie Pola </a>or <a href="http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/ww2/">GURPS WWII</a>. Someone mind changing that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.135.142.41 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

All RPGs are set in a fictional world. If the fictional world happens to be based on the real world then so be it. As soon as you describe a character doing something other than what happened historically then it has deviated from the real world and then is a fictional world, in just the same way for instance that Sharpe novels by Bernard Cornwell are fiction not fact. DaveTheTroll 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Long Life Cycle Compared to What?

The last paragraph of the Business Models section presently states that "Typically, RPG publishers have a very long life cycle once they manage to generate an initial successful game." I'm not sure what this and the rest of the paragraph is even trying to say. RPG publishers have a long life cycle as compared to what? Other publishers outside of RPGs? Hardly. Publishers in other markets are almost uniformly stable affairs with long histories. TSR lasted what, twenty years? That's a blip compared to the lifetimes of the Tribune, McGraw-Hill, or Simon & Schuster. This appears to me to be a mistguided attempt to legitimize or defend the hobby businesses from criticism, and as such has no place, here. Can somebody explain why this paragraph should not be struck? --Joshua BishopRoby 18:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding a community

I added 3 times up to now this paragraph (* E.S.Pai.Ro.S - This is the forum of a Greek society (club, playground) recognized by Greek authorities (under the ministry of culture) whose purpose is to make popular the hobby in Greece and provide a playground to RPG,CCG, Board and War Gamers. At this moment there are 2 playgrounds at Athens and Serres in Greece.) This is not a shop nor we sell anything. We are a non profitable organization/club/playground/community above all whose purpose is to help our beloved hobby to become recongnizable in Greece. Now in our forum we talk about RPG and culture, ethics, gaming styles and generally anything has to do with RPG (and the other hobbies of the game). If you consider this as advertisment I will simply stop trying to edit this page. Thx in advance for your response. Sorry if I seem to attack your article. Actually I'm pretty newbie at wikipedia. --Nocture ag 14:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Nocture_ag 13:59, 13 September 2007

Welcome to wikipedia. We get a lot of advertisement links, so we do need to make sure of things before we let them go on. I don't know enough about Greek culture to know what to make of your link. Is recognition by the Greek Ministry of Culture an unusual thing, or do most societies in Greece get registered that way? If the former, then it might be worth creating an article about your society rather than adding the link to this page; if the latter, then there probably isn't enough to set the society out from the many other game forums that are around, and the link probably doesn't belong on wikipedia. Hope that helps. Percy Snoodle 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To become a recognizable society (in order to be able to rent places to play, create game fairs or other things in Greece you need to have a legal person that is either you are a business or you have some legal form like becoming a non profitalbe club under any ministry, in our case the ministry of culture since we are actually playing hobbies that help socialization and promote culture. We are also the only recognizable society/club in Greece and that because in order to register a society you need a min of people to sign up and lots of money to do it. Our forum is open to anyone and not only to our members. Our goals are to promote the games by either creating new styles, new ways or new ideas in general. Of course in our forum we speak Greek but by checking your links this is not a problem as I see. To create a page in wikipedia is a challenge but for now as we see fit we belong as a link to this page. If you think that this is not the case then thanks for your time and I will try to see what we shall do further. About now the last part that someone else should add the link... well although i didn't need too I was honest enough to say that I belong to this society, though it is not my property or I run it. Your call people... --Nocture ag 14:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The other thing to note here is Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline: it is strongly discouraged to add links to organisations which you have an affiliation with. If your organisation is important enough, someone else will add the link in good time. Cheers --Pak21 14:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

CONSENSUS NEEDED - use of the world "tabletop"

Recent edits made by User:Percy_Snoodle deleting the word "tabletop" in non-computer RPG articles has compelled me to request consensus on the use of the term. He cited the main role-playing game article as the basis for his decisions, but I could find nothing in this article to suggest that it is incorrect to make the distinction between computer role-playing games and traditional "pen and paper" or "tabletop" role-playing games. Indeed, when I pointed this out to him on his talk page, he edited the main role-playing game article to remove most occurrences of the word "tabletop". Now there are confusing statements which could be interpreted as being related to all RPGs, computer or non-computer based. User:Percy_Snoodle considers the term "tabletop role-playing game" as potentially "derogatory," and seems to suggest that the "co-opting" of the term "RPG" by the computer game industry as something to be resisted (See our conversation on his talk page).

I am going to revert his deletions of the word "tabletop" in this article, and I request consensus on the value of its use to describe the difference between two types of games-- computer-based non-computer-based. Ukulele 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd firstly like to say here as well that I altered the article not to support a POV, but because as I saw it Ukelele had pointed out that the body of the article was inconsistent with the lead section. I'm happy to let his reversion stand until consensus is reached here.

He's right to say I regard "tabletop" as derogatory, as well as misleading. There's nothing about role-playing games in general that requires a table; the only ones that do require one are ones such as D&D which focus on the skirmish-wargame parts of the rules. I've no problem with those games, but I don't like to see it suggested that they're the sum of what's possible in an RPG. I feel the same way about "pen and paper".

My preferred terms would be "role-playing game" and "computer role-playing game" or "role-playing video game". I certainly don't think a qualifier is needed in the body of this article, as the disambiguation statement and lead section make it perfectly clear what the article means when it says "role-playing game". Elsewhere, if we must put a qualifier before traditional RPGs, then I find "traditional" less objectionable than the other two terms. Percy Snoodle 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We are not creating this "qualifier," published sources already have. Industry leaders in non-computer-based role-playing games such as Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf refer to their role-playing game products as "tabletop roleplaying games." A quick Google search found these two examples:

• http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/
• http://www.white-wolf.com/Ravenloft/?articleid=276

The term role-playing game is more ambiguous that it was twenty years ago. Using this qualifier simply makes the important distinction between different types of role-playing games, established by creditable published sources. The fact that one does not technically need a "table" to play these games seems to be a pedantic point. Traditionally these games were indeed played around a table, and have become known as thus, as supported by published sources. This is an issue of what is published about the subject of role-playing games. Published creditable sources do indeed recognize that there are different types of role-playing games, and "tabletop" or "pen and paper" is one of them. If Percy Snoodle can provide creditable published sources supporting his assertion that qualifying non-computer-based role-playing games with the word "tabletop" or "pen and paper" is incorrect, misleading or derogatory, then I would support his edits.Ukulele 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't cite any independent sources to back me up, so I'll probably have to just agree to disagree about whether the term is derogatory. Direct observation will tell you it's misleading; play one of the less combat-focused games, and the table will play no more part in the game than the walls or ceiling. However, you see that as a "pedantic point", which doesn't make it wrong, but does make it very difficult to argue, so I'll probably have to give up there too. Oh well. You say 'there are different types of role-playing games, and "tabletop" or "pen and paper" is one of them'; I'd say there are different types of games, at least two of which have been given the name "role-playing games" and "tabletop" is a word used when discussing both. This article makes clear early on that it isn't discussing both, and so there's no need to pad the article by using it. But if your version is the correct one, there should be some set of features that all of your "role-playing games" have - so what is it? If you answer "role-playing", please explain how the role-playing in RPGs is the same as the avatar-watching in CRPGs. If you can do that, then we should move this article to tabletop role-playing games and have a master article describing the whole topic. But I'd be very surprised. Percy Snoodle 08:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Broadly eschewing the established and descriptive term "tabletop" based on the lonely fact that one does not technically require a "table" to play is not a strong argument against its use IMHO. Technically one wouldn't even need to role play. Some "role-playing" games direct the players to play as themselves. Does that make the word, "role-playing" misleading or derogatory when referring to a genre of imagination games as a whole? You may be headed toward the slippery slope of attempting to make an argument against the use of idioms in general. Reliable published sources use the term "tabletop" (among others) to further describe the genre. Therefore, I cannot see how describing a type of RPG as "tabletop" in this article, or individual articles about RPGs, which are neither computer-based nor live action, could possibly be misleading or derogatory. Nor do I find the seven occurrences of the word out of close to 4000 words of text in the body of this main article to be excessive. Ukulele 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've explained why it's derogatory and misleading, you've said people use the term; that's not a contradiction. The article already states that people use the term, but you still haven't given a positive reason why the article should repeatedly and redundantly use it itself. Percy Snoodle 08:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tabletop role-playing game" is a poor term as far as accurate description goes. "Verbal role-playing game" is a better term, accurately describing all conventional role-playing games while excluding computer RPGs, larp, text-based roleplaying, etc. I've seen it used here by a larp expert and here by a D&D player. --Ryan Paddy 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I really don't think this argument should be about how "accurate" we feel this description is-- we can get as technical as we want and nit-pick other descriptions which may be interpreted as "technically non descriptive" (once again, I appeal to idiom here). I believe, as a Wikipedia article, the descriptions should reflect widely accepted community standards of identification, as referenced by reliable 3rd party sources. If you feel that more gamers (or those otherwise involved with RPGs) refer to non-computer-based or non-LARP role-playing games as verbal instead of tabletop or pen and paper, and back it up with reliable 3rd party sources, then I would feel more comfortable supporting your position. - Ukulele 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Percy: I don't see your rationale on why you consider "tabletop" or "pen-and paper" derogatory, only that you assert those terms are derogatory. What makes them derogatory?

"Tabletop" isn't misleading at all. So what if you don't technically need a tabletop? As Ukelele pointed out, that isn't a strong argument against using the term. And generally, one still uses a table as an underlying writing surface and a surface for rolling dice, so I see nothing wrong with the term "tabletop".

I don't really like "verbal role-playing" because that can describe computer games; remember those Infocom text-based adventures? That's as verbal as you can get. -Amatulic 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider the term derogatory because it (a) describes only a very narrow section of the possibilities of RPGs, and to use "tabletop RPG" to describe all RPGs suggests that all RPGs lie within that section, and (b) because it makes RPGs sound like a spinoff of CRPGs. I don't understand why people feel we need to use a qualifier at all when the article makes it perfectly clear what sort of game it's describing. Where the article read "tablewtop RPG" it is less clear - does it mean all RPGs, or just the glorified-wargame sort? If the former, why does it say the latter? "Verbal RPG" may be more accurate than "tabletop RPG" but both are less correct and more insulting than just "RPG". Percy Snoodle 06:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Percy, I agree that using tabletop or pen and paper to refer to all games labeled as a type of RPG would not be correct. But this article does not do this, nor do the articles you edited, where you removed these terms. This main article describes several types of RPGs and tabletop is but one of them. The other articles , where you removed tabletop, were specifically about traditional non-computer-based or LARP RPGs. I see nowhere in this discussion where anybody has suggested that all RPGs should be labeled as tabletop, pen and paper, traditional, etc.. I am attempting to make the point that there are indeed several types of games, which may be referred to as an RPG-- tabletop is one of them, as supported by many reliable 3rd party sources. - Ukulele 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed hypocritically suggesting that ALL types of RPGs can be referred to as "tabletop" or "pen and paper" RPGs, except for video games. Considering that video games is the only type of RPG which would not fall under this category. Removing all instances of those qualifiers in an article about the games that can be referred to as pen and paper RPGs is the appropiate action, because the games we are referring to at the moment are, when talking to your friends, writing an article, or otherwise mentioning them, simply referred to as RPGs and nothing else. Have you ever called up a friend and said, "Hey, would you like to join a traditional RPG group with me? We haven't yet decided which game we are going to use." No, you have not. If you have, you are extremely strange. The use of the qualifiers was added in relation to video games, before which no other type of RPG existed. They are not at all necessary unless video games are also mentioned in the same article/section/paragraph. This article does have a section on video games, and the only appropriate pace to use a qualifier before the word 'RPG' is within that section. However, it is not deragatory, just inaccurate and/or redundant.Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of any term to mean non-computer-based is an example of recentism and systemic bias in favour of video games. I'm aware that WotC and WoW feel they have to make the distinction that way, but it's because they both sell video games too; publishers who don't, don't. As such, it should be avoided if possible, and since the main RPG article makes it clear it isn't talking about CRPGs it's entirely unnecessary to use "tabletop" in that way. Since wikipedia's bias in this area is well-established (see {{future game}} for another example) I tend to assume that that's how people are using it, and so remove it when I see it; I apologise if I've jumped the gun and removed any instances that weren't used in that way. Use of "tabletop" to mean not-live-action is more of a gray area; whether to use it or not is a matter of personal preference; it's a POV call in either direction. My preference is not to use it, since LARPs are pretty much always labelled as such we can safely assume that not-live-action is the default. Percy Snoodle 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that a LARP is always labeled as a LARP, but since there is no such thing as a game which "is" or "is not" a LARP other then within the specific group who is meeting to play that game in a specific place at a specific timeslot, it would be absolutely ridiculous to claim to use a qualifiewr to "oppose that it's a LARP"... or something.Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory is a pejorative term, and your justification for using does not appear to be consistent with your argument for it's lack of accuracy. Percy, you are a prolific and recognize contributor, and I assume good faith with you, though your use of pejorative terms such as derogatory and insulting when referring to tabletop or pen and paper strongly suggests a personal point of view. I humbly ask you to reconsider the importance of established community standards here. - Ukulele 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [split]

I apologise - I don't mean that the terms are used in order to cause offence, only that they do cause offence. It's certainly a POV issue, so I'll try to stop mentioning it; it's merely one reason why I think we shouldn't use the term unnecessarily among several. Percy Snoodle 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider myself to be an RPG expert-- my research in this matter is pretty much limited to simple Google searches. If you or any other contributor can show that tabletop or pen and paper are not established and accepted qualifiers for a type of RPG, and do so properly with reliable references, then I would consider myself better educated on the subject and have no issue with their removal in RPG-related articles. - Ukulele 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are not a geek then you should not be arguing so heftily about whether or not the term is appropriate. Those involved in the culture would have much more information on that then you, and Google searches are not necessarily always the best way to get information as far as repetitiveness goes. The terms are used extremely frequently, because there are extremely frequently occurances of talking about both regular RPGs and video game RPGs at the same time. Please do not edit an article or comment on an edit's merit if the ONLY thing you ever knew about the subject was due to a Google search you did today... the exception of course being something factual such as if someone had said a certain hotel was located in the wrong town or something. If I say to you "Would you like to join an RPG?," the only possible way in which you would believe I was referring to anything other then a "traditional RPG" (which includes LARPs because LARP is just a choice of whether or not to act out your roles fully in the game), is if you don't know a lot about RPGs. In the WoW forums, the term "traditional" or "pen and paper" will be sued every time they are referring to one, because the forum is about a video game RPG. Game Informer will also *usually* include this qualifier, because it is a video gaming magazine. However, if there is an article about it (like the one I read recently, for example), the qualifier would be included only in the title, because outside of the title it is inherently obvious what "type" of RPG we are referring to - and "type" ACTUALLY refers more to genre then to this debate... B.E.S.M would be a different type then Vampires, which would be a different type then Star Trek traditional RPGs, for example. A magazine like Shonen Jump, however, would not make this qualification. Similarly one will not refer to their drink as "sugar pop" unless diet pop is nearby or entered into the discussion, or unless that person normally drinks diet and is informing someone who knows this that they would like a sugar pop this time. Common knowledge is generally an accepted standard for Wikipedia edits - most people believe that you can't really prove that 2+2=4 (and the fact that 2+2 doesn't always equal four would unlikely make the removal of the '4' from the article an appropriate action if this were actually a relevant simile.Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any facts or figures at my fingers either, so we may just have to agree to disagree. Percy Snoodle 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My own sense from reading reviews in magazines and online (though I have no hard statistics) is that 'tabletop rpg' is the more accepted term. The Bearded One 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

More than "pen and paper" or more than just "rpg"? Percy Snoodle 09:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My sense is, yes. The term "rpg" is too broad, covering rpgs that are computer-based, MMOs or live action. "Pen and paper" does seem to be used a bit more in Europe than in America; that's part of the reason why there's no firm consensus. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English does not seem to give any clear guideline except to say that a redirect page should be set up for whichever term is not used. The Bearded One (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the redirect pages have been set up, so we're OK there. I don't think anyone's disputing that RPG is used to cover the various things that people call RPGs; my issue is that people seem to suggest that, when describing the role-playing games that the article currently describes (not CRPGs or the CRPG aspect of MMOs), they usually use a qualifier. I don't find that to be the case, and in fact when no distinction is needed I find that people almost never use a qualifier. But, as has been said elsewhere, evidence is hard to come by. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming the more specific meaning of verbal as meaning spoken communication. However, I agree that there isn't proof of the term verbal role-playing being in sufficient use to justify using it here. Another downside for tabletop is that wargamers sometimes refer to their hobby with terms like tabletop games, making tabletop role-playing somewhat ambiguous.

I'm inclined to agree that tabletop role-playing it should be used at the top in establishing the specific sort of roleplaying being discussed and describe common terminology, but not repeated throughout because its use is contentious and arguably misleading as it will reinforce the misunderstanding among non-roleplayers that role-playing games are a variety of board game or war game that somehow inherently requires a flat surface to play on. In other words, Tabletop role-playing is not an idiom in use by the general public, who are the target of this article. It will mislead them. --Ryan Paddy 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It should not be sued at the top of the article, because it is not necessary since "RPG" all by itself means "traditional RPG" if no other context is given. Just like "macaroni", without context, means "elbow macaroni" even though other types and shapes of macaroni exist. In this case even the reason supports the argument, the reason being that no other type of RPG did exist when the term was coined. The term "traditional" RPG should be sued for the first time in the section describing video games. It should not be used in the section describing LARPs, because a LARP is a part of the category of "traditional RPGs" rather then being a "category" that does not include traditional RPGs like MMOs are.

Ryan, I feel we are essentially in agreement here. This main role playing game article, as it stands, does not attempt to fully describe every game that may refer to itself (or that is referred to by others) as a role-playing game. The main gist of this article is about your traditional non-computer-based, non-LARP RPG-- however, the article has evolved over time to include information about other types, tabletop or pen and paper simply helps to distinguish between the others described. Perhaps, as Percy suggested, a separate article concisely identifying and linking to the various types of RPGs may satisfy concerns of potentially misleading "qualifiers". Nonetheless, I do feel that the "qualifiers," tabletop and pen and paper are widely accepted community standards of identification for these types, and are proper to use in articles specifically about these types of RPGs. Should this main article be re-written to solely describe this type, there would be no need to "pad" the article with these "qualifiers". A separate article and a re-work of this one may seem a bit daunting, but also an elegant solution. - Ukulele 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd really rather we didn't turn this article into a dab page. There's no need to split not-larp games off into their own article. Percy Snoodle 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Percy, I appreciate your comments. I have sincerely thought about your concerns and believe many of your points have merit. I agree with you that a disambiguation page may only serve to make the subject less disambiguous (sorry, couldn't help myself). Nor do I wish see this article spammed with "qualifiers". I'm not sure how to proceed here and would appreciate your thoughts. Wikipedia has articles for lists of role-playing games by name, genre and manufacturer, but I could not find one specifically about the various types. Would such an article work? A brief statement about other types of RPGs and a link to such an article in the lead-in of this article could replace the Role-playing_game#Varieties here. However, if the goal of this article is to define the term "role-playing game" as specifically non-computer-based, non-LARP, etc., I think we may be swimming against the tide. As you mentioned, the term has indeed already been co-opted by other gaming industries. Other contributors will continue to apply this term to games other than our beloved traditional RPG and we will continue struggle with the issue of how best to distinguish the different types.

As a personal aside, I believe I philosophically share some your personal feelings about these "qualifiers". When I hear or read the term "role-playing game" I do assume it to mean the more traditional type-- non-computer-based, non-LARP etc., and lament the "co-opting", as you put it, of the term by other game industries. Beyond this, I am just trying to contribute accurate writing to Wikipedia. Ukulele 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've recently made some observations that have caused me to change my position on this issue. Firstly, I didn't previously know that tabletop game is a generic catch-all term used for things like boardgames and cardgames which roleplaying games in some way resemble (in that they are generally played indoors, without much physical exertion required, etc). Secondly, while browsing Wikipedias in other languages such as French and German I have found that "table roleplaying" appears to be a term used to differentiate traditional roleplaying from larp. Thus while I still consider tabletop roleplaying to be a somewhat misleading term, it seems that "tabletop" is both a term in common use to describe a category of games that traditional roleplaying could be seen to fall into, and that "table roleplaying" or "tabletop roleplaying" seems to be an idiom in common use not only in English but in other languages as well, thus a very widespread one. So it seems reasonable to use it here to differentiate traditional roleplaying games from larp and from computer roleplaying games, so long as it is made clear that a flat surface is not necessarily required. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Again if the only differentiation is to differentiate it form a LARP, it has no place at all in this article because the article is not about LARPs and LARPs and non-LARPs use the exact same books for their games. In addition, the term is not used this way in English )or at least in America, or, within the 4 or so people I know from there, England).Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

But given that the article already makes the distinction, and points out that the term is used to make that distinction, and that it's misleading, is it necessary to keep using the term over and over throughout the article? Ukelele's original complaint was that I'd removed it in the body of the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Percy, the general consensus among the others who have participated in this discussion appears to be that tabletop is a widely accepted term to describe a type of RPG. You still take issue with the blatantly obvious fact that one does not technically need a "table" to play these games, thereby making the term misleading. I believe you do recognize that "tabletop" is idiomatic, describing a concept which is not necessarily derived from the common definition of the word(s) used. Would you consider the phrase, "I'm working the graveyard shift tonight" misleading if I weren't actually working in a graveyard? Non-larp-non-computer RPGs typically employ dice, miniatures, maps, battle grids, books, hand-outs, pens, paper and pizza. Certainly gamers could hold these in their laps, play on the floor, or suspend them from strings hanging from the ceiling <grin>. But I feel we can safely infer that the wide wide majority use a table instead, which is most likely the origin of the term. Do you disagree? Do you truly feel misled or confused when a non-larp or non-computer RPG is labeled as a "tabletop" RPG-- even by the publisher?

The fact that the term is used to describe a type of RPG is irrelevant. It would be relevant if the purpose of the article was to describe types of RPGs rather then to educate the public as to what a non-video game RPG is.Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, this article is not exclusively about non-larp, non-computer RPGs, so using "tabletop" to distinguish this type of RPG from the others is appropriate. Also, this article, at the time of this writing, employs the term "tabletop" only six times to make the distinction between other types of RPGs-- hardly being used over and over throughout the article. - Ukulele (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Six times is "over and over," since the word we are talking about is not "is" or "the". To say that the consensus stands against him, is inaccurate when the "consensus" is by a bunch of people that admit they don't know anything about RPGs and had to use Google to make their statements even though the purpose of Google was not to try and find specific articles or references. If this were an article on a branch of psychology, and one person was a psychologist and the 6 who disagreed with him had never had even a minor interest in psychology, the psychologist would likely be trusted to give the correct term unless he was thought to be lying or stupid or overly arrogant. The two people who play RPGs here (also the only two people who have not specifically said they don't) both agree that the use of the word "traditional" or any other such word is redundant outside of subsections about "other types". Again I do not need to use the word "regular Pepsi" to distinguish my Pepsi from Vanilla Pepsi, unless we were discussing Vanilla Pepsi as well (which is not the case with this article UNTIL you get to the sub-sections), even though "Vanilla Pepsi" will net millions on Google and is a commonle used and accepted 'term'.Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the misunderstanding - this article covers LARP too. As it says in the dab notice, and elsewhere in the various category introductions, the article is about games where you play the role, hence "role-playing" games. This includes LARP and CARP varieties as well as the "vanilla" RPGs from which they derive (though I'm aware that LARPs have other influences too) but it excludes computer RPGs, which are related in history and name but not in substance. Because the information applies to all non-CVG RPGs - including LARP, CARP, and traditional games with and without tables - the last five instances of "tabletop" are inappropriate. The first is fine because it states that the term is used, which I've never denied.

Um actually there are many online games where you do roleplay, and most MMOs have an RP server except for some 100% free ones. Some, like Ragnarok, are RP'd by pretty much every single person who plays, and video games (even non-online games) ARE included in substance, especially those where the players actually RP. The HP/Dex/etc. and the gear upgrade and the magic allowances when applicable are all a part of the RPG same as on paper. Of course none of that has anything to do with the terms used or this article, but I felt the need to say something anyway - every subscription-based MMO that I know of has a RP server. And wtf is a 'CARP', by the way?Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, you may reply that we should have a separate article for non-LARP non-CARP non-CVG RPGs, but I really don't think there's a need, and I think we're better off with one article which discusses all forms of non-CVG role-playing games and with two articles to explain the differences in the main variants, than with three articles that repeat the basics, two of which have slightly different details. Certainly we don't need an article on just "tabletop" role-playing games as it would have almost no content!

WOW how ridiculous!!!! We already HAVE this article, and it could very easily be an extremely long one if anyone took the time to write it! You have the entire history of some of the main companies, explanations of "version 2.0," explanation of how TCGs and video games and everything else that evolved off of it. You have the stories about the suicides and how they are not the games' fault if you want to include them. You have an explanation of how the games work such as what "HP" and "mana" are, and you have the area which describes the different types of RPGs, which is something that even some geeks and RPGers don't exist (i.e. B.E.S.M. vs. D&D vs. Star Trek vs. some sort of war-type game etc.). You can mention miniatures, and LARPs, and the fact that non-LARPs still like to collect and build weapons for their character. You can mention 40-year-long games and the ability of a dead character to re-roll, the way that most GMs don't follow the book exactly and that the GM has to make everything up himself. You can mention the success and popularity and the fact that so many are available, you can mention that there's entire cultures which could be considered to be built up around the RPGs (American/European cultures, not like 'race'-type cultures), the fact that a group may write their own RPG to play or even try to sell it to White Wolf or some other company, the fact that the books even exist which I'm not sure is even mentioned in the current article. You could mention the D20/d-anything systems and try to explain how it/they work, or you could mention dice vs. paper-scissors-rock vs. (anything else? I play mostly dice). You could have a sentence about how there are varieties of dice and gamers are noted as 'cool' for a day or two if they have 'cool' dice. I think I did already mention the most obvious area of explaining what stats are. Does the article as of now even mention levels??! To say an article about RPGs (not including video games) could not be long enough to merit an article is just... WOW!!

So, what we should do IMO is remove "tabletop" from this article where it is unnecessary, leave it in in the sentence which explains that it is used, albeit wrongly, and focus on improving the RPG articles' content - in particular at this time I think we need more references. 10:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the article and I believe that "tabletop" is only being used where neccessary to distinguish it from larp and computer RPGs. 1) It is in the lead and the "traditional" section as a terminological clarification. 2) It is in the publisher section to clarify that WotC is the largest publisher of specifically tabletop RPGs, not larps (that would be White Wolf) or computer RPGs (that would be some computer software publisher). 3) It is mentioned in relation to the WotC survey to clarify that the 2 million figure is the number of tabletop RPG players, not larps (only half of the surveyed tabletop players reported also having played in a larp) or computer RPGs. 4) It is mentioned in relation to sales figures, again to clarify that those sales figures are for tabletop RPGs not larp or computer RPGs. 5) It is mentioned in relation to business models, for which larp and computer RPGs have somewhat different models. The suggestion to 'remove "tabletop" from this article where it is unnecessary' has already been fulfilled. Every use of "tabletop" in the article is necessary to clarify that the statements only refer to tabletop RPGs and not other sorts of roleplaying. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Um how exactly can you have "sales figures that refer to non-LARPs but not to LARPs," since they would be selling the same thing to both groups???? Anyway you probably checked the article after it was fixed.Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, (1) is fine; (2) is not, since the article is about LARP as well; though (3) and (4) I'm not sure about, there may be a better way to express those points; and (5) seems to be as true for LARP material as for non-LARP. I'll alter (2) and (5) to make the LARP situation more clear, hopefully pleasing both parties in this debate, and think more about (3) and (4). Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the current version of the article, LARPs are mentioned, and they need to be mentioned in such an article as they ARE RPGs - and don't differ so much either, some RPG groups will do half-LARPs or have users LARP optionally, etc. Tables are not strictly needed but are still used in most non-LARPs; if it's not a dice-structured game then players may be drawing diagrams and grids, etc. - or just storing their drinks there, I can't imagine how a game would play out with NO dice, NO diagrams, NO character sheets, etc., and just nothing at all - that would likely be more like a "play pretend" game then an actual RPG. But aside, I have mentioned a similar problem about classification as a side note to my other problem with the article, before ever reading this, and I proposed the term "traditional RPG" - something that does not pose verbal inaccuracies but is still used outside of this article (as opposed to "non-computer RPGs", which probably isn't commonly used anywhere). Is that a good term to satisfy everyone?Rayvn (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

When I made this comment I had not read anywhere near this entiore section, and did not realize we were talking about "[qualifier] RPG" as opposed to "RPG," but rather believed we were referring to "taletop RPG" as opposed to "[some other qualifier] RPG"Rayvn (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Text RPG

What about putting something about text based RPG (the ones that are played in forms and have no graphics) They have a different way of playing as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the old fashioned, book-style RPG, where you decide what you do and go to the given page to see what happened? Pundit|utter 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe what they mean is Online Forum Posting / Chat based RPGs, which are common with certain fan-groups. They may or may not use a traditional rule system, and may or may not have a GM/DM equiv. in how they operate. I'm not sure what specifically to do with them. Joeteller (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)joeteller

There's a link to the article about Online text-based role-playing games and a short summary in the Electronic media section. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW what an amazing long term to describe RPGs done in a chat room. Even more amazing is that this type of role-playing doesn't even actually have a term to describe it - some one person on Wikipedia made that up. That article needs to be deleted and should be included here instead if it's even mentioned at all. RPGs in chat rooms are emulations of traditional RPGs rather then being anything like video games. Either way I think this person may have been referring to text adventures - those old games that could be played on Apple computers, where the game says "You enter a room. There is a sink on your left, and a chest on your right. The room is dark." and then you type, "Open chest." Hugo's House of Horrors (also known as Maniac Mansion) was like these games but added graphics to demonstrate the actions. He said "forms" not "forums", and "forms" does make sense as a word used to describe your DOS entries for the games. They do have online versions of these now. They are called text adventures, and just about any text adventure could be considered and RPG because you really have to roleplay in order to play the game at all. But they are not, of course, related to D&D-like RPGs. They also already have an article on Wikipedia, and I can't see any reason that they should be mentioned here.Rayvn (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Gary Gygax

Gary Gygax died March 4, 2008. All my condolences to his family. Galagorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.214.70.252 (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there another page somewhere where we are supposed to leave messages for chat? (If there isn't I'd asume they still aren't allowed on the ARTICLE- (not subject-) discussion page. If I'm write about this and if tehre's nowhere you can redirect him, please delete this section. (If no response I'll deelte it in a few days.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs) 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Communities

I have been having a discussion with Wyatt Riot regarding the inclusion of a community I entered a few days ago. He has, correctly, informed me about the external links policy (specifically, linking to discussion forums). With that in mind, I would like other editors thoughts on removing the current listing of communities as they all have discussion forums at their heart. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Dpmcalister (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think there's precedent on other articles to possibly keep the most popular forum or two, but I really wouldn't have a problem if they were all removed. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps a seperate section linking to a new article on previous versions. the new article could compare and contrast various issues (war gamming vs. role-playing, magic system styles, race vs. class, etc.) and how they have changed over the years. Just a thought. - IanCheesman (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'd be happy to see them all go. If any of them have content beyond just the community stuff, it can be added as a reference in support of facts earlier in the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I just got rid of it. Then, if there's a debate, it can be a debate about what to put back, instead. For myself, I think any "community" section is impossible to keep clean, because who can decide esily what communities are notable or not? I also cleared out most of the other external links. Cretog8 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that looks a lot neater now - and the inclusion of the note about including links to communities should help stop them reappearing in the future. Dpmcalister (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Role-playing games

Is there a timeline for roleplaying games somewhere? I am looking for this dataset 80.108.103.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

You could try http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/ - that has a year-by-year list. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. It would be like listing every camera manufacturer on an article about cameras, and the date each company was founded. It would be weird to include and in addition would create a lot of static/noise.Rayvn (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I have added a new picture to the LARP section of the page. Please note that this is my first edit in Wikipedia, so please let me know if there is a problem. This was a picture on the commons page, so it should be fine. I will also try and source a few pictures of my own, hopefully at least one that shows role-players at play, or one of a convention.

What are the legalities of taking a picture of a number of published books, or of the covers of a few published games? Hendrikdr (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)\

If you take the picture yourself, then you own the copyright for the picture, regardless of whether or not you won the copyright for the book. After all a lot of things we could take a picture of (the dice for example, or a car or a can of pop) have copyrights on the picture's subject. Since that question is a question in general about Wikipedia permissions, and the answer can be used to make decisions outside of this article, the question should have been posted on the help desk, and adding a picture to an article is not something you need to write about on the talk page, unless it is a discussion of which or two pictures might be better to use for the article.Rayvn (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade of article

At the moment the entire article is a heavy read. In many cases it seems overly verbose, and (in my opinion) dry. I would suggest a section by section rewrite to try and upgrade the quality of the article. (Please note that I am NOT criticising anybody's contributions, this is an excellent article, but I believe that with the numerous rewrites the article reads somewhat like a technical document in places). Specifically the first two paragraphs need to be polished a bit. I have a proposed change, but I will refrain from updating the actual page for three reasons.

1. This might spark an edit war (the opening paragraphs seem to spark these)
2. I am still not 100% happy with my own changes
3. I am still new at this

Please read, and comment.

" A RP is a type of game where the players assume the roles of fictional characters, in a fictional setting. The players determine what actions their respective characters take in the fictional world, and the results are determined by a one of the players, the game master (GM).

Most games are played like radio drama, with the game being shaped by what the players say. The game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character. The GM describes the game world, and its inhabitants; while the other players describe the actions of their characters in the world. Each game is governed by a set of rules and guidelines (the game system) and based on the system the GM will determine the results of the other player’s actions and describe the outcomes. A randomising element like the result of a dice roll, may also influence the result of actions taken by the players or the GM.

One variety of the role-playing game is the live action role-playing game (LARP), where the players act out their character’s physical actions. A LARP is usually arbitrated by a GM. " Hendrikdr (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Well... I re-wrote the entire article (or most of it), in the process I learned that some sections were not badly written as I thought they were because the top part is still badly written, but the article still desperately need reorganization. And to not have the section on unimportant "business models" and crap be longer then then any of the sections about the actual games themselves. This took me two days straight and the only thing I had left to do was the definition list and to look up the appropriate wikilinks or a site for external references. The FireFox crashed, Windows erased the clipboard to which I had copied the article, and the restore text add-on I have decided to restore the edit summary instead of the actual text area (it's supposed to do both).Rayvn (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, nice to know that some fucker removed my tag before I went back to remove it on it's own. Even if you believe that the article does not need rewriting, that is NOT an appropiate reason to remove somebody else's edit tag!!

Found a notepad option to restore most of what I had written... this time please leave the tag up until I remove it.... my computer is slow, and I promise I will not forget to remove the tag if I am unable to complete the editing before losing access to a computer. If you are in doubt as to whether I am still working, please send a message to SlimShadyBSB on YIM. If I have been called away by the people who live here it may be an hour or two before I can respond, but I WILL respond and that will tell you whether I am still editing or not.

As you can probably tell, this is my first major edit, and as such the style of writing is not always entirely encyclopediac. However, I believe that my rewrite does a much better job of describing what an RPG is, it de-emphasizes the "business" stuff we all believe should be removed according to this page, and it reorganizes the article into section that actually have to do with explaining what an RPG is. It also takes away the writing style that is TOO professional; that is, unreadable or uninteresting especially to those who are actually trying to find out what an RPG is. And since there will be more edits after mine, I so not see the language style in the article as an overly-excessive problem.

Not all of the article I wrote has been saved, so here is the part that is there so far:

1. (Overview, generic, untitled, etc.) 2. How to play (~"the GM narrates the story and players..."~ etc.)

2.1 (how to play larps)

3. Stats 4. Supplies (dice, costume, minitures, graph paper) 5. Types of Games (D&D vs. Sci-Fi vs. B.E.S.M. vs. war games etc.) 6. Influences (video games, chat & message boards, MMOs) 7. History 8. Definitions 9. Refrences & Footnotes 10. See also

The above text is formatted correctly in the edit box so I'm not sure how to make it format on display.

I am missing a section or two, ones that did not get restored to notepad, but they will become clear to me again as I read the work that is still there.Rayvn (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's great that you're willing to put this work in, but the article as it stood contained mistakes that needed fixing. You'd asked that the article be left alone for 24 hours; it was. But after the 24 hours had passed, no edits were forthcoming, so I fixed the mistakes. I suggest that you either make your rewrites in smaller stages, or complete them in an external editor, rather than trying to lock other editors out of the article while they wait for you. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the {{inuse}} tag is for edits up to 180 minutes and the header itself says to remove it if the page hasn't been updated in that time. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be impossible to re-write an entire article in 2 hours, unless you have memorized the links to every refrence and in-wiki link you will use and will not be interrupted at all. I thought it would likely be bothersome if I tried to post thew article while it was still unfinished and had thing like "alignment[wikilink]" that would be visible on the page, and that it would be more courteous to readers to leave the old article intact until those things were looked up.

Anyway I have finished; as it says in the edit summary, I noticed after I had already written half the article, that some sections had actually been pretty improved upon since the last time I had seen it, but because the description at the top was still pretty bad, I thought the entire article was also. However, since the article was in need of reorginazation and reduction of focus on "business model" and other things unrelated to RPGs, and the way those sections were written did not fit the new organization, i decided to leave most of them out and incorporate the ones that did fit.

As I have mentioned, I am not necessarily skilled at writing in "encyclopedic form," at least not on subjects that would normally be in an encyclopedia (on location, for example, I could write encyclopediacally), however the old article used terms so technical that it was boring and impossible to understand if the reader did not already know what an RPG is, and I am certain other editors will improve anything that was written too casually.

I still have a copy saved of the entire article in it's previous form, so that if there is a problem with my re-write, but only in part of the re-write, or in a way that could be better fixed by pasting back parts of the old article, that can be done upon request.

Also, the 24 hours had expired, but only barely, when the template was removed, and I thought it was rude, because I was trying very hard to not get taken away from the comptuer for several hours at a time while attempting to edit a Wikipedia article. There is an example template that says 5 minutes, and I would expect that the 5 minute template be removed about 2 hours after it was put up, because no editor can likely easily guess the exact amount of time it will take him, especially with a slow computer, an abusive household, frequent interruptions, and or hard-to-find references.Rayvn (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the rewrite (diff) compared to the previous version (diff), I have to be honest and say I don't really see an improvement in terms of content, organization or overall readability. There's a fair amount of work needed on the new version (e.g., adjusting header levels, removing excess bold and external links from the body of the article, addressing redundancy with existing articles like Role-playing game terms, general copy-editing for encyclopedic tone). In general, I think it's a bad idea to drastically rewrite an article like this one – high profile, stable, solid B-class quality, extensive edit history – without prior talk page discussion to establish consensus for the new version. Accordingly, I suggest rolling back to the pre-rewrite version per WP:BRD and going through the new version on the talk page to add any agreed-upon improvements. --Muchness (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please advise, O Lord, how exactly one would "discuss" the new version of an article BEFORE actually posting it, without actually posting the entire article on a talk page? The fact that a re-write of the entire article was needed WAS discussed, and was agreed upon by 6 different people, as opposed to this "suggestion" which was agreed upon by only two people who did not even wait 24 hours for responses before taking action. Header levels did not need adjusting, as they were used within Wikipedia's general template which states that any header which is below a main header will also have lines, even if it doesn't look god, Wikipedia admins decided on that, not me. There were no excess external links, because the ONLY place I added external links was to define a word. Yes the article needed references, but an article which is slightly unencyclopediac in tone or lacks references when all or most information is known to be correct through common knowledge to anyone who knows about the article's subject, is far better then an article that is completely incomprehensible. You are well aware that I have kept a copy of the previous version in entirety. I see no outrage at editing, and I see no consensus ("consensus" requires either more then two pewople or an adequate amount of time to see that nobody else will comment on the subject besides those two people who agree - a few hours is not that time, especially on a website that does not e-mail it's users). SINCE I HAVE the old version, I can add in or "revert" any parts that need it, and your comment at the end is obviously an attempt to make yourself look good, because no one knows what I wrote in the re-write, and in fact will be completely unaware that it had happened save this talk page, to supposedly "suggest" what "parts" of it should be "added" - (which, by the what, isn't much possible since when I wrote the article it was actually ORGANIZED PROPERLY, which is why I was not able to keep the sections that weren't horribly-written intact after I realized they existed. Now could you please point out where, exactly, in this article, it explains what an RPG game is? Because, I do not find it... I see a section on stats, which is titled with a term no RPGer ever uses, which is all over the place but doesn't say a lot save one sentence, I see a section on character creation, which is alright but not great, I see an entire section on campaign settings, which is unnecessary because campaign setting can be easily explained in one sentence and would be far more appropriate AS one sentence in the area that gives an overview of what an RPG game is... which doesn't exist in this article. And then I see the largest section in the article, which is an irrelevant one. But not anywhere, in the entire article, do I ever see an explanation of what RPGs are, or anything written in a way that someone who is casually reading the article and has never before heard of an RPG would go away with more knowledge then they gave in with. Overly casual is far better then overly technical, because overly technical mens incomprehensible, whereas overly casual simply mean, "a printed encyclopedia would have worded it differently". In any case, if by some small chance the comment was actually serious, my version is located at [5] for comparison.Rayvn (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The how-to section is in violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO; a load of off-topic video game and card game stuff has been merged in; it's littered with self-reference; parts are written in an inappropriate second-person tone and the whole thing has other language issues. There's too much wrong to fix. The old version, while far from perfect, would be much easier to tighten into a good-quality article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me like you had read the entire talk page; if you had, you would see all the discussion about including all the different "types" of RPGs such as chatrooms and MMOs. We have numerous people saying, "this type should be included" and "that type should be included," even though none of them save LARPs are actually RPGs, and the only way to do that appropriately is with an Influences section. Self-reference is generally a good thing where a terms section is included, by the way =\. That is the one part that IS encyclopedic ally written =\. As for the ";language issues"... try reading this article, all the way through. It has "language issues" in that one who speaks the "English language" can nor understand it.

In any case if you think that anything I wrote at all might be worthwhile, it is located at [6] for comparison. It would be nice if you would actually allow me to make the edits myself, for credit, should you decide that any of it is worthy, but due to the vast disrespect of editors in this article so far, I doubt that will happen.Rayvn (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To address some of your specific concerns:

• how exactly one would "discuss" the new version of an article BEFORE actually posting it – One way to do it is by posting a draft of the proposed new version in a sandbox and linking it from this page for discussion.
• no excess external links, because the ONLY place I added external links was to define a word – see WP:EL: external links should not normally be used in the body of an article. If they're citations, they should be cited as inline references; otherwise they should be located in the external links section.
• Header levels did not need adjusting – the header levels in your version were first level, when Manual of Style convention is that primary headings should be second level.

Beyond that I just want to remind you about Wikipedia's policies on civility and assuming good faith. My only concern here is working with you and other editors to improve this article, and my honest opinion, as stated upthread, is that the rewrite was not an improvement on the existing version. --Muchness (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Muchness and Percy. Rayvn, you made a heroic effort in rewriting the entire article from scratch, unfortunately most of it simply does not work for an encyclopedia article. I am not able to be online as much as I want to be, but I will carefully read through your suggestions and changes and support those sections that are improvements on what is in place at the moment. That being said, while Rayvn might have been a bit too enthusiastic regarding changing the article, he did have some valid points. There are specific sections that are written overly technical (I will address these on a case by case basis). One point that was raised by Rayvn specifically is the fact that the current article does not discuss what an RPG is. Currently there is a short introduction to the article; then the following sections <1. Purpose> <2.History> <3.Varieties> To my mind there is a section missing between heading 2 and 3. We give the background to RPGs and then go to the varieties of RPGs. Should we not instead have 2.History 3.Role-playing games today 4.Varieties My proposed section 3 (with a likely change in title) would give the reader a good idea of what is currently happening with RPGs what they are, how they are played, who plays them etc. (Any suggestions to references in this regard would be appreciated) Also consider moving the <1.Purpose> section to lower down in the article. First explain to the reader the "what" before we describe the "why". Hendrikdr (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a first attempt at a section describing the gameplay of a typical RPG, and I've moved the 'varieties' section up so it's clear that that's far from being the only sort of game. Sorry this took so long, I've been busy.