Talk:Fate (role-playing game system)

System Criticism

I don't understand how this system has gotten such high reviews. It has to be one of the most generic, vague, non-intuitive rpg systems I have ever encountered. The aspects system is simply absurd. Hewhorulestheworld (talk)

I believe this has got nothing to do with this Wikipedia article, as it has with your personal tastes. Fskn (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The entry on the link between DFRPG and FATE 3.0 is misleading. A study of those documents reveals only a passing similarity. I cite the FATE 3.0 rulebook and the DFRPG "Your Story" Book in support of this contention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.193 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Um... what? There is no Fate 3.0 core book. The closest is Spirit of the Century - something Evil Hat are clear was also development work for Dresden Files. (And yes, I know this is really old to be replying to) Neonchameleon (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

List of FATE based games

I've reverted the removal of ICONS. It was removed by an IP user at 206.183.28.85, citing "the Icons game is not a FATE game. it obviously inspired by it and may have a family resemblance but it is not a FATE game, it does not use standard FATE rules."

I understand that ICONS (and for that matter, Strands of Fate and Houses of the Blooded) goes further afield from FATE 3.0 than the rest in the list, but the section is entitled "RPGs based on FATE"; I think it's fair to say that all three if those fit that description. At any rate, for consistency's sake, if we are taking a hard row on what is FATE based, I think if you take ICONS out, Strands and Houses would logically also go. - Sangrolu (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As IP I recently did something similar, following the distinction Fred Hicks made between FATE implementations and RGPs inspired by FATE (see Fate and its branches). In the same edit, I added two more RPGs: a German implementation, and a third "inspired-by-fate" game named in the source linked above. Sources were included in my edit. Sangrolu, you reverted that: What's wrong a) with the distinction Fred Hicks makes (on the official FATE website...), and b) with Malmsturm and Chronica Feudalis? --Jonas kork (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was not my intention to remove any new games from the list, my apologies. My objection to the original edit was I disagreed with the assessment, but neither of us really had a leg to stand on, as where the dividing line stands is a matter of original research, so I thought it best to used the simplest, most objective criteria to create such a list: if FATE appears in the OGL copyright statement.
An external reference creating some sort of division would address complaints of OR. Nonetheless, as it comes from the author of the original system, it should be treated somewhat skeptically. I think the best way to handle that sort of thing is to include his statement as a quote at the beginning of the section, so it's perfectly clear that this is his perspective. Does that sound reasonable? - Sangrolu (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks for clarifying this! Instead of a quote, we might simply state that the following list includes implementations of FATE as well as games inspired by it, but is restricted to those games that name FATE in the OGL copyright statement. Both is fine with me. --Jonas kork (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the two games and a short statement and linked Hicks blog post on FATE's "branches". Hope it helps. :) --Jonas kork (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps cropping the list for "not a web directory". Please stop. That list is an important reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.215.200 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please learn how Wikipedia works and what it is for. We do not put external links in the bodies of articles. We do not list mere trivia. We do not turn encyclopedia articles into free advertising. This is an encyclopedia and you need to treat it like one, not like a fan site. DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please learn what constitutes relevant information before cropping mindlessly. No one cares about links or trivia. What people are looking for is an as comprehensive as possible list of games based on the system, including out of print publications and minor product lines. When you're looking for fluff to your crunch then the longer the list the better. And if you doon't know what that means then what are you even doing editing an RPG article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.23.144 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want a comprehensive list you can go to the Fate RPG website. If you want an encyclopedia article you go to Wikipedia. If you're looking for "fluff to your crunch" you are clearly on the wrong website. If you want to expand the list you are free to make your own wikia page about the topic or set up your own wiki somewhere. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has rules. If you want to edit here you have to follow them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with your edit (based on WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:TOOMUCH), I would caution you against the notion you cite in your edit summary, "if it does not have a Wikipedia article it's not worth listing". The standards for mentioning something in an article are entirely different (and less demanding) that having an article about something. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite? Someone (from Germany) keeps spamming the page, and we have to have a clear limit. It's how other pages have handled it.(Though this person wants no limits and is using only to promote the system.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite? WP:NNC. "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." What does apply here is the previously alluded to content policies of WP:NOTCATALOG, etc. Where to draw the line may be a matter of consensus that should be addressed right here, but the GNG article explicitly says that it does not govern list content. So please, if you would like to make an argument or (better yet) suggest a compromise, please do so. But please don't carry on edit warring and accusing someone of spamming, that doesn't really help anybody. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I may have a little time to work on a compromise edit tomorrow. My edit my look a bit like yours, but many of the listed games have received a bit of press despite not having a Wikipedia article yet (like Mindjammer). But I definitely think many of the titles listed are pretty obscure and can be omitted. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If you cite reliable sources, by all means. Just don't like the article being held hostage by a spammer who is increasingly acting like a troll in his edit comments. DreamGuy (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Expand

This article is in dire need of expansion by someone in the know. Sourcing is lacking, vague and opinionated statements such as "FATE gained a large number of adherents both for its high level of support, which is unusual for a free game, and for the numerous innovative gaming mechanics.", etc. need to go.

I don't feel comfortable touching it, however, having next to no experience with it.

62.0.94.96 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've contributed a bit to cleaning up the article. --Wizardoest (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated FATE to Fate, per the publisher

See http://www.faterpg.com/2013/fate-not-fate/. --Wizardoest (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've just moved the page for the same reason Neonchameleon (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)