Talk:Role-playing game/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Proper spelling: "roleplaying"?

I realized in setting up the City of Heroes Roleplaying Game article that there seems to be two variant spellings: "role-playing" versus "roleplaying".

A lot of people and articles, including this section, use the spelling "role-playing". BUT, if you look at gaming company websites like Wizards of the Coast and City of Heroes Roleplaying Game, it appears that a number of gaming companies officially spell the word "roleplaying" with no hyphen.

It might be worth investigating which spelling is the preferred spelling in the gaming industry. If the people who make the games are spelling the word "roleplay", then Wikipedia articles discussing roleplaying should technically probably be spell-corrected to match. (Which gives me sort of an "ick" in my stomach, since that's a lot of articles, but anyway....)

What do you guys think? Can anyone find an actual official game that spells the word "role-playing"? If not, it looks like that is an informal (incorrect) variant of the word. Dugwiki 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, off wikipedia, I don't use the hyphen, or know anyone who does. But yeah, correctign the problem (if we decide it is one) would be one impressive task. One for a bot, methinks. Percy Snoodle 14:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Google on the White Wolf web site there are only 7 uses of "Role-Play" or "Role Play" compared to the 77 uses of "Roleplay"
Steve Jackson Games, Chaosium, Pagan Publishing, Arc Dream, Green Ronin, FanPro and Palladium all seem to use Roleplaying as their most common spelling
—Asatruer 15:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like I found a new hobby then. :) I'll see about correcting spelling from "role-play" to "roleplay" manually, at least until someone with more technical prowess than me can implement a bot for it. Dugwiki 16:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved this page from "role-playing game" to "roleplaying game" as above Dugwiki 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Spell corrected "role-play" and "role-playing" on this article to "roleplay / roleplaying" as above. Note that this has left some of the links pointing to the wrong page. Will start manually adjusting the associated links.... Dugwiki 19:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I really see no need for this. The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates the word, as does Merriam-Webster [1]. The reason many gaming companies put "roleplaying" on their products could very likely be for marketing/aesthetic purposes (fewer characters = larger type). However, English has many compound words that are spelled with & without hyphens, so in my opinion, both versions are correct.--Robbstrd 23:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The dictionaries you mention are talking about role-playing; which I agree should be hyphenated, since it usually is outside the context of RPGs. However, since it's practically never hyphenated in the context of RPGs, it's appropriate for the RPG article to be unhyphenated.

That said, it's a lot of work for no real gain. It may be worth leaving this job until something can do it automatically. Percy Snoodle 11:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point that the word might be spelled differently depending on the industry. Many gaming companies are using "roleplaying", and therefore that would be the proper current spelling for the word in the context of roleplaying games. But it's possible (although I haven't verified one way or another) that in theater or psychology, the word "role-playing" is used to refer to similar types of activities.

Either way, the main reason I'm interested in the spelling is to standardize the spelling of the word for related articles. After all, it seems to me that Wikipedia should be consistent in its spelling of words when there are variants, and should use the spelling most commonly preferred by the industry that uses it. So in the case of roleplaying games, it would be a good idea (though a bit tedious) to homogenize the spelling except in cases where a specific product happens to spell the word differently. Dugwiki 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have to go on record as challenging dugwiki's conclusion that "role-playing" is an "informal (incorrect) variant of the term". It's the spelling Gygax used. It's a compound modifier formed by hyphenating "role playing". Back then, "role playing" was the noun, and "role-playing" was the adjective.

Words evolve. In English, its pretty normal for a compound adjective to begin as a hyphenate and evolve into a non-hyphenated form. That doesn't make the hyphenate "informal" or "incorrect", it makes it "older". Eventually, it makes the hyphenated form "archaic", but 30 years is probably too soon to start throwing that term around.

I question the wisdom of mass changes prompted by a misunderstanding of how the English language works. Google searches are not adequate research for determining what words are "informal". If you want to know about the language of roleplaying, read more roleplaying books. Michael Bauser 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a cite on Gygax's usage of the term, but regardless, as you mention in the English language words evolve, and Roleplaying appears to the the industry standard. No need using google searches, just go to the websites of the major RPG publishing companies and you will find that they are currently using the term Roleplaying and not Role-Playing. This alone should be enough for the article to switch over to the modern, and hyphenless, spelling, leaving Role-Playing as a redirect and historical foothote.
—Asatruer 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You need a cite for Gary Gygax and role-playing? Ok...

In the original Player's Handbook, he wasn't hyphenating it all. The first line of the introduction is "Even if you are familiar with fantasy role playing games in general,". (Mike Carr's foreword uses "role-playing game", though.)

Over in Dragon, he uses hyphens (a better editor over there, perhaps?). For example, from March 1985:

"A frequently asked question -- or assertion, in the case of those who don't bother to ask -- deals with the amount of influence of J.R.R. Tolkien on the creation of the Dungeons & Dragons and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons role-playing games."

The hyphen exists. A quick check of my library suggests it was part of TSR's house style until sometime in 1990s. It's not a mispelling. It's an older form. (How old are you guys, anyway, that none of this familiar to you?) Michael Bauser 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Be nice now, questioning our age could easily be taken in a manner I am going to assume you did not intend.
Thanks for the references. Note that I never questioned the Role-Playing spelling until this topic came up and I did some research.
I also do not claim that "Role-Playing" is a misspelling, just not the current spelling most frequently used by the Roleplaying game industry.
As you said, Role-Playing is an older form of the term, and since there is a newer form, this article, and others, should use it.
—Asatruer 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Too old. :) Gonna hit 40 before I know it (still have the 1st edition D&D books in my closet somewhere). Anyway, just to respond briefly, it's definitely possible that the word has evolved over the last 20 or 30 years. Personally, I would say the preferred default spelling for Wiki should match the current spelling, not the older spelling, if they differ. Otherwise it would be a bit like having articles use the spelling "shoppe" because that's how the word used to be spelled.

One other consideration I mentioned in a seperate discussion that I thought of is that the spelling might differ in England, maybe. I haven't checked to see one way or another, but it's certainly possible that English gaming companies spell the word "role-playing" or "roleplaying" (like they spell "armor" as "armour"). Just something else to look into (maybe check out Games Workshop, etc) Dugwiki 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say you spell "armour" as "armor", isn´t that more correct from a historical point of view? :-) Loudenvier 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dugwiki, why do you continue to misrepresent my viewpoint on the name change? I voted to support the change already! I'm criticizing the way you're doing it. You did lousy research, you didn't wait for consensus, and every time somebody points out a flaw in your research, you argue with things they didn't say. (You continue to say things like "role-playing" is "informal", like that means something. It doesn't.) The closest you've come is to admitting you're wrong about "role-playing" being a "incorrect variant" is the weasely statement that it's "possible that the word has evolved". It's not "possible", it's happened. Your "incorrect variant" argument was badly-researched and totally wrong, and you would get less arguements around here if you admit that. Clinging to an obvious mistake makes you look untrustworthy. Trust is kind of important around here, you know? Michael Bauser 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Inter Net -> Inter-net -> Internet. Electronic Mail -> E-Mail -> Email. Role Playing -> Role-Playing -> Roleplaying. I personally think roleplaying is far along "phase 3" within it's life in the english language. Let's keep things cool. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mike, I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent your viewpoints, and I'm sorry you feel I did "lousy research" and am being argumentative and am untrustworthy. I've also said I'm not ignoring consensus, and openly said for people to post verifiable evidence to the contrary if they disagreed with the spelling change, but hey, your opinion on that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. And I'm trying to be careful to quote links to the sources I use and respond directly to questions. At the moment, I'm just watching the discussions for feedback, but anyway since we apparently agree on the main question of changing the spelling, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now on my writing or research style if that's the issue. Take care. Dugwiki 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the edit of order, but I needed to shift it back into chronological order to make my responces not get confusing.
Well, Games Workshop does not realy make either RPGs, but Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is spelled Roleplay and not Role-Play. A quick superficial check of some UK base Roleplaying game company sites that I can think of shows that Hogshead Publishing seems to use a bit of both, Nightfall Games' poor remnant of a defunct company's web site uses Role-Playing on the main, and only, page. I cannot think of any other UK based RPG companies too check.
oh, and "armor" is the American spelling while "armour" is a chiefly British spelling, so it is not a historical issue.
—Asatruer 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12#Category:Role-playing_games_to_Category:Roleplaying_games Percy Snoodle 09:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

MysticRPG

Hello.

My link (Mysticrpg.net) has been removed through out the day and I have been enjoying adding it back when I find the chance, however, instead of being annoyed as it seems many of these people are *snickers*, I am amused. The following is my plea for this link to be added to the Roleplaying games list.

Actually my point is the link is not merely advertising for my Roleplaying Game, but offering the world an interactive resource that offers origional rules, FAQ section, help in ways to role play... over all a benifit to the RP community.

We conduct a professional RP community dedicated to improving the writing skill of our players. This is a learning community as well as entertainment. Wikipedia is about teaching and offering knowledge through these resources. MysticRPG does the same.

I am here to formally request that my site be added to the list because it is useful for the benifit of future rpers.--Katastrofy 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL states that editors should not add links to sites they own or maintain. If you can gain consensus for the site's inclusion here on the talk page, feel free to add the link back. Until then, please respect Wikipedia's guidelines and refrain from adding the link to the article. Regards. --Muchness 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Being a new member to the site, I was unaware of this aspect. As soon as I read up on it I have moved my plea to here instead of adding my site over and over again. How long will I know when my site will be added?

Oh and the aspect about users should not post links to sites that they own or maintain? Okay then I can get someone of my game that neither owns nor maintains it and add the link... then I would not be violating any code. :) --Katastrofy 02:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for understanding. I should have mentioned the guideline about sites owned or maintained by editors when I initially contacted you on your talk page. As far as adding your site is concerned, that really depends on if/when other users express an opinion on this issue. Regarding getting someone else to add the link, this kind of activity is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia - see the section on "meatpuppets" at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --Muchness 02:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It really was a joke XP. I am aware, I read that too.

As for the concept about having other users express an opinion... It only means something really to me and the many players of my game.

Can I make a totally seperate page that discusses the history and formation of MysticRPG. Along with that the basis of the rules? Or would this also be against policy? --Katastrofy 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can make a Mysticrpg article but please make sure the site meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (see also Wikipedia:Notability (web) and WP:CVG article guidelines) - if the site is non-notable the article will be deleted. You may want to consider making a Mysticrpg article on a dedicated gaming wiki instead, like strategywiki, gameinfo, or egamia. --Muchness 03:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed in the subtitle "Varieties" there is nothing on IRC and Forum based RPGs. They are actually quite popular. Perhaps this should be researched and added to the definitions of RPG games.--Katastrofy 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There are articles covering these subjects at Online text-based role-playing game and simming. --Muchness 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

History?

Hi guys... why keep a history paragraph when there's a whole section ? Gylfi 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's common practise to keep a summary section with a "main article" link using {{main}}. It's also common practise to include a "lead section" which briefly summarises the article. See WP:MOS for more details. Percy Snoodle 11:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaah splendid, then Gylfi 12:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New Definition Paragraph

(moved from Talk:Roleplaying by Percy Snoodle 12:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Hello everyone, I'm adding a definition which is absolutely essential for the full comprehension of the actual meaning of role-playing (along with yours): The main source We consulted and then summarized in these few lines is Tracy Hickman's books ,novels and experience .. Luckily for us Hickman's essays and complete references can be found here [2] ("Ethics in Fantasy" essays)

We dearly care to point out, for the record, that Hickman's the co-creator of Dragonlance and many D&D handbooks.

(the old definition righteously deleted , even tho was already entirely based upon Hickman's essays and teachings, was written in a wrongly interpreted First-person point-of-view, unaware of the "neutral perspective" the encyclopedia must keep.. The new version has been modified to maintain total neutrality)

Awaiting confirmation :)

Gylfi 11:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you show here what you plan to add/change, so the rest of us can see it before it 'goes live'? --InShaneee 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means :

A real-life interaction between two or more people has been defined as "assumption of a role" in its very act (Gregory Batesonamongst the others, 1973), a person may act a role out in any type of game, be it electronic or paper, but this kind of persons are as mentioned above considered nerds by more casual players who think it's entirely pointless and statistics and rules are found in most strategic wargames such as Warcraft 3 for computer games, and Warhammer for Pen&Paper, making rules and numbers the framework that holds a body together.(James Wallis, Hogshead [3].)

According to aD&D creators Tracy Hickman [4] and Monte Cook' [5] convictions and experience expressed in their books, novels and essays, to actually play a role, this must constantly be confronted with problems and situations strongly based on its morality, which means the characters face the ethical dilemma of being faithful to his beliefs or betraying them, aware of the consequences inside the conscience of the specific role the player chose to play/test at the beginning of the adventure.--- "The notion of fantasy as purely escapist fiction is false. Epic fantasy deals with real questions of good and evil.As fantasy as a genre is then basically a moral medium, so, too, should be the conflict within fantasy role playing games." --- (Excerpts from "Ethics in Fantasy" By Tracy Hickman).To allow this Gary Gygax invented the alignment and Richard Garriott invented the Virtues. Role-playing becomes according to them an active exploration of every living being's psyche. This concept should in one swift strike solve the problem of the "nerdish acting" by focusing generic improvization into a well aimed crystalline element : "ethical choice"

The only important thing is the key message : "Ethics" . For the rest (specially the introduction) you can smooth it how you want *smile Gylfi 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the above is inpenetrable: please "smooth" it yourself so that the average person can understand without strain. (I am unfamiliar with the words "herefore" and "oftenly": please provide substitutes—or definitions as clearly wiktionary shares my puzzlement). Please also try to bear in mind that our target audience is not graduate-level students, we're aiming at the general populace—often not even speaking English as their first language—and hitting that as the lede would simply prompt most people to divert their attention to something more digestable…Pokemon, for example. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the academic speech, i'm substituting those words here ,and then up it goes..(I spelled Herefore badly, the word was Heretofore) Comprehension for everyone is also our goal... the only one,honestly. Gylfi 11:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixing done, waiting for the go. :)

Sorry, but you'll have to go further than that. What is "consequently a class-struggle is generated with respective hate" supposed to mean? You need to break it right down: your target audience is more like school-kid level than grad students; you cannot assume that the reader already knows your jargon and your standard phraseology. You are not writing a thesis to be peer-reviewed by fellow-academics: you are writing an article to be copy-edited by merciless thugs masquerading as editors who will rend your sentences word-from-word. (BTW, I've spell-checked for you, so you just need to replace the long words and complex phrases.) HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 07:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• laughing* I see.Thank you for helping . Is there any other statement othat than that 1 ?Anyway a Class-struggle (Karl Marx invented it, possibly) means that Hardcore Rp'ers and ,let's say, power players are two different types of people: the problem with the current situation is that these people become more and more defined "as a social class" with well defined characteristics... and most of the times BAD characteristics not even related to RP'ing at all. for eg. a RP'er is a nerd who definitely has big ugly glasses who definitely has no girl.. isn't it racism ?

anyway fixed the phrase.. any better ?Gylfi 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well it's been a while now.. does it mean i can post the lines "live" ?Gylfi 12:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Alright,then, if no-one has anything to object, as it seems, I'll post the lines in two (working) days (to give time) with the title "What is the Essence?" I hope you guys will defend the lines against editing butchers *giggle* Gylfi 12:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There's still a problem, unfortunatly. If you take a look at WP:NOR, it basically says that any sort of 'essay' based on your own ideas/research really isn't the type of material we're looking for here. Since mainly we look for information that is 'independantly verifiable' (ie, can be verified by multiple, unafiliated sources), at the very least we usually prefer that such material be published before being written about. If I'm mistaken about the source of your section, however, I apologize in advance. --InShaneee 18:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hello there , Glad you cared enough to post before i would see the paragraph butchered like a lamb hah! .. Yes We've read the Policy and I positively assure you this definition is a resumé of the sources we cite in the course of it, sources that were written at least 5 years before We approached the subject, in books absolutely independent from us and which can be bought in common libraries! However to be honest this definition still sounds sorta "original", PRIDE is a curse for us teachers i'm afraid... I'll strip all the seemingly original statements off it pronto. We wrote these lines down based on this specific statement in the NOR policy : "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." So all We did was "rephrasing" these people's thoughts to resume them. ;) People who, as You know, are the absolute Gurus of Role-playing, so I don't see how they could have written their essays "for us" or "after us" .

I also personally did a bunch of minor edits today before even reading your ( kind ) post, that i'm gonna apply. warmest regards, Awaiting confirmation.Gylfi 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still going to need some work before it can go in. Mainly, it's still written in the style of an essay (with things such as the semi-rhetorical question halfway through), and not quite in the style we're looking for here as an encyclopedia. You might want to take a look at articles we've marked as 'featured', such as Gender role, for example, to see the type of style we're looking for. Also, if the beginning/end can be softened a bit to fit more into the article rather than being completely stand-alone, that would also help. --InShaneee 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand you about what is it that "WE are looking for" *smile* , but We'll work on it... for starters the beginning is a well known and established definition in psychology and anthropology but i'll try to soften it , as I am sure the part of the article savagely (pass me the term) generalizing RP as "assumption of a role" has a good source too (and i'd love to see it,by the way, thanks :D ) as much as I strictly believe it's wrong but this is no place for wrong or true but just for "verified". The last part doesn't "criticize" the rest of the article, as improvization is good but it has to be guided by the torch of ethics otherwise it's "lazy at best", as Hickman goes.. so perhaps i'll substitute the word "purposeless" with "unguided" or something else... words such as "nerdish acting" were written just to follow the rest of the article "at times considered geeky" , which by the way doesn't sound so much like "the style" of the beautiful featured article you linked

For the rest , the policy allows re-organization of the sources just as We did ... I'm not sure What you want me to do,then :) Is there a chat room where We can converse in real-time? Thanks again for your help !Gylfi 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I'd be more than happy to talk to you over IRC/AIM/Yahoo messanger, if that would help. --InShaneee 23:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• No msn , i take it... mmm name an Irc channel and a GMT time , I'll be there..Gylfi 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Anyway I modified again to fit the encyclopedia style more and softened the beginning/end.. Gylfi 20:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually do have MSN, my SN is my username here @passport.com. Feel free to message me there. --InShaneee 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Beautiful I'll see you there ... What happened today ? i've seen a lot of mess around the article Gylfi 19:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE - this discussion refers to a paragraph that was moved to role-playing game. Percy Snoodle 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A good move, but couldn't you have mentioned it while this was still being discussed? --InShaneee 20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - sorry about that. My bad. Percy Snoodle 10:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is maybe still too much focused on RPG, tho... people may still come read this one instead of the big one.. Maybe this should be called "Applied Roleplaying's"

And yeah I would have really loved a warning first and the chance to discuss things ;) (and after knowing your intentions obviously agree) At first I thought the other article was the "DUMP" of all JUNK definitions, which because they can't be deleted they get stuffed together like in an old basement , so I was very sad... took me a while to understand that THAT is the real definition. Gylfi 09:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than moving the role-playing article, I think it would be better to focus it on role-playing. Sorry again about the unnanounced move. Percy Snoodle 10:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand anymore which article you're referring to i'm afraid heh! I just thought that since THIS article is sort of a ridge among the applications of roleplaying in several fields (which idea I find brilliant), maybe It shouldn't include also "computer and Online rpg" as they're already too much related to gaming and to the now-old use of this article.. just a suggestion, tho :) Anyway do You think We can include this phrase at least ? --Roleplaying games deal with conflicts between good and evil so that morality becomes the protagonist that leads the adventures : during a game players face ethical dilemmas that modify their characters.-- What you think ? It might be Brief and sober just as this article needs ;) Gylfi 14:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the RPG variants, and I've added your phrase - but hey, Be Bold!. You don't need anybody's permission to add stuff. Percy Snoodle 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahah! Thank You, my friend. :) You're doing a great job. Gylfi 11:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Percy ,but the modifications you made to the RPG content lines completely change the meaning I meant to give and all the cited D&D creators' teachings and doctrines of their essays ! First it's not really "players" who see their personalities modified but it's actually the roles they chose, so to actually play a role, THE ROLE has to face ethical questions, not the players directly with their lives..it was obvious but it's best to clarify ... secondly Hickman is against improvization, cause as the word implies, is free ,pointless and unguided by "morality" ,the element that doesn't require anything except questioning your ethics , without any "nerdish acting" , with this concept no one will EVER be able to call a roleplayer Geek or Nerd because a morality question is swift and crystalline. and lastly the virtues and the alignment isn't a quotation, it's needed for the understanding . I have to modify again. ;) Gylfi 11:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First off - sorry - I'd omitted the word "characters". Better? Secondly, I don't think "improvisation" means to everyone what you're using it to mean. The article currently reads "To them, roleplaying is improvisation around the theme of ethical choice", which makes it pretty clear that it's constrained. Apologies for misunderstanding you, though, but the text was pretty unclear. I'll try to come up with a better word for it than improvisation, but I'm not sure there is one.

As regards putting in something along the lines of "roleplaying isn't nerdish acting", that contains an implicit accusation that it is, and needs to defend itself. I would remove such a comment on grounds of NPOV, unless you could reference the specific accusation that you're countering. Percy Snoodle 12:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey :) Yeah i think You're right, after all.. the phrase might work better your way. I changed it but I'll do it again if you don't like the new one.. But please leave the reference to Richard Garriott and Gary Gygax! :) Gylfi 12:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that belongs in "concept". I think it belongs on Alignment (role-playing games), and I'll put it in there. Percy Snoodle 12:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Aw c'mon , mate, you butchered 3/4 of the definition , that's mad :D Gylfi 12:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mena by "definition" here. I've been pruning your copy to make it as comprehensible and relevant as I can. Percy Snoodle 12:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

absolutely, go ahead , so other people may give their opinions :) for the matter Well I just like when there's more lines... 2 months-long researches ending up in .... 4 lines... humiliating :) See if You can add other statements to fatten it. the more the merrier . don't forget that the more phrases there are the better people will understand what We're talking about.. a short phrase generally doesn't make a strong meaning..Imagine if books were written all like this.. We would save millions of trees ! as the americans would say : swoosh! (over your head) Gylfi 12:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, information content is not the same as information transfer. "the more phrases there are the better people will understand what We're talking about" is plainly false; four lines of intelligable text are better than a hundred lines of gibberish, or even six lines of somewhat vague text. Apologies if you feel humiliated; but if having other people edit your text bothers you, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Percy Snoodle 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I agree. And no I love discussing and planning things .But I don't understand, You clearly said that quotes were ok in this article... and the connection with fantasy is just to proove the point of the use of ethics .. Bah We can work this out :) Think We can add this ? (just modified it) -A real-life interaction between two or more people has been defined as "assumption of a role" in its very act (Gregory Bateson[1]amongst the others, 1972) ; a person may improvize when acting a role out in any type of game, be it electronic or paper, but He/She will soon fumble with role-model clichés and feel lost ; Statistics and rules are also found in most strategic wargames such as Warcraft 3 for computer games, and Warhammer for Pen&Paper, making rules and numbers the framework that holds a body together.(James Wallis, Hogshead [2].)- Gylfi 13:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I see wrong with that:

• "A real-life interaction between two or more people has been defined as "assumption of a role" in its very act"
  • What does "in its very act" mean? This sentence seems to be saying "everyone's playing a role, if you look at it a certain way"; which is true, but irrelevant.
• "a person may improvize when acting a role out in any type of game, be it electronic or paper"
  • This is false in the sense used in the article; there is no improvisation in the sense of improvisational theatre in any game except for RPGs and childrens' games.
• "but He/She will soon fumble with role-model clichés and feel lost"
  • This is somewhat insulting, and unverifiable
• "Statistics and rules are also found in most strategic wargames such as Warcraft 3 for computer games, and Warhammer for Pen&Paper, making rules and numbers the framework that holds a body together.(James Wallis, Hogshead [2].)"
  • The presence or otherwise of statistics in wargames isn't on-topic for this article (except to say that's where RPGs get them from, in the History section). The "body" metaphor isn't meaningful: whose body? The player's? The character's?

What I think you're trying to say, but please correct me if I'm wrong, is something like this:

"Role-playing games are distinguished from improvisational theatre by their use of statistics, which allow for quantitative game rules.(James Wallis, Hogshead [2].)"

But that would be false; consider freeform role-playing games which do not use statistics. Percy Snoodle 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• it means that just in the act of talking or not talking to a person , as he SEES us we assume a role . "the role of the sexual predator, the role of the victim of society, the role of the man who's waiting for a bus" or simply a role of inferior than you , because as You know, in most relations one is leader the other is servant. And this is not me but Gregory Bateson and all other relation psychologists.
• A person relies on his experience when trying to "play his role" ... this means he'll use clichés when improvizing. And soon without the guide of insightful questions that protrude like a drill inside his conscience He'll be lost in old role-model stereotypes. It's implicit in Hickman's essay, mostly , but if You want i'll find more proofs.
• the metaphore refers to the fact that rules and statistics are merely the framework of the whole game.

My former point (but there's no point, I just report Hickman and Cook's doctrines) is that all these elements are necessary but not important for real roleplaying, by pointing out that all those elements i listed (mere assumption of a role and statistics) can be found the first in every-day life and the other in older wargames, making them not the real CORE of RPG. A "skeleton" sustains the brain.. Ethics and morality is the soul, the guide to perfection.

The "problem" in Hickman's essay is that People accuse RPG's of being the antichrist, games for devious people.. To this I'll add the consequential problem that many people see roleplayers as geeks and retards... the destruction of these misonceptions should be the goal of informing here, and OUR main reason. To do this We shouldn't add 4 lines.. We should add 4.000 linesGylfi 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK...

• the first point belongs in a a psychology article, not here. I'm not saying it's false, but it's not relevant.
• the second point: So what? If people enjoy roleplaying clichés, good for them. See "BadWrongFun" on roll-playing.
• third point: compare the following:

1. Statistics and rules are also found in ..., making rules and numbers the framework that holds a body together
2. Statistics and rules form a framework for role-playing games.

The second form conveys information. The first does not.

I'd like to agree with your fourth statement, up to a point: Statistics and rules aren't what make an RPG an RPG. However, your position that the assumption of roles isn't the core of RPGs, but rather moral exploration is, is untenable; the article defines RPGs as games of role assumption.

As regards answering criticisms, you need to make sure you're not implicitly making those accusations. It's rude to roleplayers to accuse them, and rude to their critics to make straw men. However, I've been thinking about moving the Controversies section of history of role-playing games back into this article, at which Hickman and Cook's POV on morality would fit quite well into the "repsonses" subsection. Would you be content with putting the roleplaying-as-morality content into such a subsection? Percy Snoodle 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure but ethical choices in role-playing are also the concept itself, there's no doubt about it. So if you move part of these concepts into the controversy You should definitely also leave all the lines in concept and expanding them in the other section. also because taken as "controversy" , They wouldn't be taken any seriously by people who try to understand what RPG is all about, not to mention I'd feel my lines to be put in the trash-can of controversy... Hickman DOES solve the controversy with what I quoted of him, putting it in the controversy would be insulting. Gylfi 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid "there's no doubt about it" is decidedly false. I, for one, don't agree. Saying "Hickmann and Cook think RPGs are all about ethics and nothing to do with playing roles" is true; saying "RPGs are all about ethics and nothing to do with playing roles" is heavily POV and (IMO) false. Percy Snoodle 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well first of all there's no ethics and morality without a role that can be explored by it... morality itself doesn't exist.. morality makes sense only as it represents the drill that digs on a role and makes Role-playing worth your while, that is what Hickman and Cook say. And o'course I am only reporting their opinions (that I agree with them is another matter that won't have place here) ... so it's just what They think. not to mention it's not just what They alone think , practically every role-playing creator agrees with them. ;) (take Richard Garriott, inventor o mmorpgs).. for the rest I worry not... I'll find a way to "fill" more and more those 3 poor lonely lines *grins wickedly* . It seems you mostly misunderstood these lines.. saying assumption of a role isn't relevant doesn't mean that assuming a role isn't important... I meant that if you "just" assume a role you'll be lost ... if You TEST it with direct ethical questions it will permit a deep assumption of it.. in its very heart. Gylfi 15:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don' misunderstand, I disagree. If someone chooses to roleplay a bog-standard fantasy cliché with no ethical dilemmas, they may be roleplaying in a manner I'd find boring, but they are still roleplaying, and if they enjoy it, they're doing it right. I'm not going to insult them by telling them otherwise. Morality-led roleplaying may be "deeper", but to call it "better" is sheer snobbery. Percy Snoodle 15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OH then I admire your way to think... So according to you there's combat technical oriented role-playing and there's a more insightful role-playing where there's still combat and everything, but when you fight, It is a choice you made aware of the role's sense of morale (alignment and virtues). As for "wrong/bad" opinions is just what Hickman says and doesn't have place in "concept" section, maybe We'll add something about it in controversy section, as much as I don't think it's a section a person would go read if He wanna know what's RP or what a Programming company that's planning a videogame will look for. Here's Hickman's quote about the matter, by the way : --"The characters actions in a role playing game must have lawful consequences just as surely as we expect a mace to do damage. Anything else would be a lie. Good fantasy demands ethics and good fantasy role playing demands ethical play and design.--" couldn't be any clearer than that :D Gylfi 16:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That quote, I like. On-topic and clear.

As for what sorts of roleplaying there are, I like the sort where you don't tend to have combat at all. But that's just me :-) Percy Snoodle 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes two of us :) You like that statement ? Can i put it on ? Maybe what it says has already been told in the lines, thoughGylfi 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Quotes from people should be used to emphasise, otherwise they're out of context. Percy Snoodle 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Splendid Gylfi 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Events section

The Events section is currently a list of cons, which will probably get quite crufty if we let it. I think it would be better if someone could write a "community" section explaining cons and their place in the roleplaying community, as well as some of the more notable RPG websites, and then we can move the list to List of role-playing conventions or something like that. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the con community to do this - is there anyone out there who could? Percy Snoodle 08:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I will try to work on it when I get time, but if anyone else could do it that would be much better. Also, I just noticed that PrinceCon says it is "approaching" 32 years. It should reference the first year of the con, not how many years old it is, for obvious reasons. Vampyrecat 06:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I added a link to Myth Weavers, however it was deleted. I do not understand why that is the case, especially when there is already a link to RPOL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Small Monkey (talk • contribs) 10:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

I removed the site because it's a fairly low traffic play-by-post gaming site, rather than a general role-playing game resource site. The link to RPOL should probably go too. --Muchness 11:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as RPOL has its own article, with an exlink there. Percy Snoodle 12:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RPG Theory

I found an RPG Theory stub and expanded it, and Percy Snoodle has helped edit it some. He says that I should ask for permission here to put the RPG tag back on the site. I did add a little in the history paragraph of this page about theory including a link to it. I don't want to cruft up the main RPG page too much, but it seemed worth a little to me. What do you folk think? Bmorton3 13:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The RPG tag in question is {{RPG}}; and by WP:RPG guidelines, it should only appear on the articles that appear on it. So, the question is, should role-playing game theory be linked to from {{RPG}}? Percy Snoodle 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Newer/Older RPGs

What is the cut off date that makes an RPG newer or older depending on which side of that date it was published? Beyond that, do we know for a fact that the newer roleplaying term was not used before that date?
—Asatruer 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Which instance of newer/older do you mean? Usually in the article it seems to be used to contrast RPGs with other RPGs, rather than to divide them into categories. Most often, it's contrasting D&D with other RPGs; since D&D was the first, all the others are newer. If it's unclear we should reword it, though Percy Snoodle 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I see the edit you mean now. The edit was referring to the way that in the start, they were all called "role-playing games" but nowadays they're almost all "roleplaying games"; the cut-off point is just the point at which they stopped using the older term. Percy Snoodle 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It could be a nice bit of information to have for the article, etymology of the term role-playing possibly being a valuable addition, but I think that task would be a hard one to research. The shift probably started in the mid to late 80s from a very shallow search that I have done.
—Asatruer 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

role-playing as a term is at least as old as 1951, see my footnote in rpg theory, and I think I saw it in a 1949 article, but I can't the reference. "Role playing" as seperate words without a hyphen was still used sometimes as late as 1981. In fact I can document heavy usage for both the hypen and the space in 1979. My guess is that shift happened right around 1979. I can't find a single use of "roleplaying" as a single word prior to 1991, but I don't have that much here in my office. Bmorton3 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

White Wolf uses "roleplay" in 1991, WotC's 1992 Primal Order used it, as did Atlas Games Over the Edge (which used both hypen and oneword). I haven't yet found a published use before 1991, but keep looking. Most of my 80's games are gone, check Ars Magica 1988 and see which it uses, if you've got it. TSR kept using "role-playing" fairly consistently at least to 1998 The Illithid I'd guess they used it til they were bought out. The only games after the 90s I can find that use the hyphen other than TSR are Kult in the 1993 English translation, and BESM in 2000. 3rd Ed D&D, in 2000, works hard to avoid both phrases and sticks to saying "the game" and "playing the game" most of the places I can find, but does use "roleplaying." I'm guessing this transition happened between 1991 and 2000, and had as much to do with different corporate practices as anything else. Bmorton3 14:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only edition of Ars Magica that I currently have access to is the 4th, and that was released by Atlas in `96. The first time the term is used that that edition it is "roleplay-ing" but that is only because they split it for layout reasons. GURPS currently uses RolePlaying game, it would be a good reference point to check the `86 release to see which they used back then.
—Asatruer 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The '89 edition of Ars Magica studiously avoids using the term - the only mention is in the name of an origins award it won - that uses the hyphen. Percy Snoodle 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)#

Citations

Citations are needed for many of the assertions made. I will try to go through the article and note where cites are missing. --Vampyrecat 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Stormbringer not listed ?

Why is the RPG Stormbringer not listed ? In that game, you use demonic items and weapons. Stormbringer is about a sword that is possessed by a demonic entity that has the capability to devour souls. Martial Law 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See Stormbringer (role-playing game) Percy Snoodle 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just seen it. Where can it be listed ? As a horror oriented RPG ? A bug is keeping me logged out of Wikipedia.Martial Law

What do you mean by "listed"? Percy Snoodle 11:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it a horror RPG or a Sci-Fi RPG ? Martial Law 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's in Category:Fantasy role-playing games. I still don't know what you mean by "listed". Percy Snoodle 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The short answer to the initial question, by the way, is: “Because this is neither List of role-playing games by name nor List of role-playing games by genre.”--TowerDragon 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It is, but it's listed as Elric! - I guess it didn't get updated when the article name changed. Percy Snoodle 06:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)