Talk:Diceless role-playing game

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diceless role-playing game article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Role-playing games Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

untitled

The title of this page is "diceless role-playing game", so it should include any RPG that does not use dice, though they may use other randomizers.

As the article explains, the genre is called "diceless" but doesn't include games with dice-substitutes. Percy Snoodle 10:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Small-press Games

There is an open question about whether to include small-press RPGs in the list of notable games. Of the currently listed, Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game and Nobilis have the most prominence. Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game had a big release but was not successful in the market. Everway is questionably diceless because while it has no numeric mechanics, it does suggest that the GM may randomly draw cards to help make decisions. Active Exploits, Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, Lords of Olympus, Theatrix, and Troika Moira are all small-press games. Other small-press RPGs that could possibly be included are: Epiphany, Microscope, Montsegur 1244, Mortal Coil, Persona, Puppetland, Rated G, and Ribbon Drive. For any of them to be notable, there should be a published and referenced source describing them. I can find description of the notability of Amber Diceless in The Fantasy Role-playing Gamer's Bible (ISBN 978-0967442907), but not for any others. John Kim (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this from discussion of the deletion of Lords of Gossamer and Shadow and Lords of Olympus from a thread on the author's website: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=28812 . I think edits from the author or publisher are suspect. John Kim (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should always Assume Good Faith here. Plus, the author of that thread has a bias as he is trying to include his article, as the original thread (before the rant) showed up here [[1]]. I think somebody just thought that it was some small-publisher trying to use WP to self-promote, and thus the quick reversal. JRT (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which, according to the original thread, it was. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the publisher did try to link his game to its sales page when he re-added it. I took out the link but left the name because I knew it was a matter of some controversy and didn't want to spark an edit war. Hopefully this isn't a case of bad faith but merely a misunderstanding of Wikipedia on the publisher's part and the helpful information on this talk page will clarify things. Mr. Scholarly Guy (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Universe is almost certainly notable. There will be reviews out there - and it's reviews rather than sales that establish notability. Nobilis won a Diana Jones award. Clear notability. The rest, I see two approaches. Either everything with a Wikipedia page (in which case Lords of Gossamer and Shadow, Lords of Olympus, and Troika Moira go) or everything we can find, in which case we add the rest. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although if we go with option B we drop the word "Notable". Neonchameleon (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them, but drop the word "notable" since that has a very specific meaning here. The article itself though is notable as dice-less RPG are a "thing" and have support with the RPG community. I can start doing the research, but not today. My research materials are not here with me at work. Web Warlock (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a good reason for this page to exist--a paragraph or two in one of the larger RPG articles might be better. JRT (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it's a stub - and needs to go deeper. Are diceless RPGs a thing? Yes, and they should be notable (reviews of the notable diceless games should establish this, but I don't think there's been a genuinely notable one since Nobilis although Hillfolk's borderline). Is there some merit in there being a page on how they work? Probably. Can we get there without wp:OR? I don't know. If we in theory can't it's going to stay a perpetual stub so shouldn't exist. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diceless RPGs are notable. There are plenty of reviews out there (collecting them now). While individual products might not meet notability requirements for their own pages, they certainly have enough to merit listing them here. Web Warlock (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exported to RPG Museum

On 4 March 2020, the Diceless role-playing game page and its complete edit history has been exported from here and imported at RPG Museum, a growing wiki on Fandom that intends to be a resource for all tabletop RPGs. RPG Museum is using this content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. -- Supermorff (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]