Talk:Tunnels & Trolls

	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.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Ares Magazine #3
White Dwarf #2
Different Worlds #11
Jeux & Stratégie #27^[1]
The Playboy Winner's Guide to Board Games^[2]

References

Corgi Books

I have a problem with this statement as written in the History section: "Corgi Books in the United Kingdom produced mass-market paperback-sized versions of the core rulebook as well as many of the solo adventures (occasionally with adult content removed), a format which paved the way for the renowned Fighting Fantasy series of gamebooks."

I believe that the original solo books Buffalo Castle etc. inspired the Fighting Fantasy books and that the Corgi editions were an attempt by that publisher to break into the FF market in the UK by obtaining a licence from FBI to take advantage of the ready source of material. I believe the first FF book came out in 1982 and the Corgi Rulebook 1986.

Can anyone confirm if this is correct, close to the truth, or my brain is fading... Dekhurrrsio (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of the T&T solo books I have on hand by Corgi has a print date of 1986. That is 4 years after the first FF book saw print. Omega2064 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw Press

Third opinion

Anaxial (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by BRPierce

I've reverted several edits by an anonymous editor. I did this on the following grounds:

1. Neither Outlaw Press nor Jim Shipman are particularly major contributors to T&T's development as a game; as such, they do not need to be mentioned in every section of the article.

2. The edits seemed to represent a violation of NPOV, removing mention of the (well-sourced) controversy concerning Outlaw Press and inserting (unsourced) positive commentary on Outlaw Press.

3. The edits contained numerous unsourced assertions, such as the claim that the rules of T&T were taken wholesale from D&D. While this may be true, it borders on an accusation of plagiarism, and as such, needs to be well-sourced.

4. The edits contained factually-inaccurate assertions (for instance, claiming that the 6th edition published by Outlaw Press was official, a claim flatly contradicted by Flying Buffalo on numerous occasions.)

If the editor making these claims can provide sources for them, it would be greatly appreciated. --BRPierce (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the changes have been reinserted without discussion, and in the interests of avoiding WP:3RR, I have filed a request for a third opinion on these changes. --BRPierce (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The changes being implemented by the anonymous editor concern me for a number of reasons covered above. First, sourced statements are being removed. Second, certain of the claims are contradicted by official sources; for example, Rick Loomis of FBInc has repeatedly stated that there was no official sixth edition of Tunnels and Trolls. If FBInc's position on this has changed in the last year or so, that's great, but it needs to be sourced. Finally, I think that the changes being inserted overstate the importance of Outlaw Press and James Shipman; by my count, Outlaw Press receives more mentions in the current version of the article than Flying Buffalo, the company that actually produces the game. I asked that the editor making the changes please discuss them here on the talk page, but have received no response; rather than get into an edit war, I asked for a third opinion. --BRPierce (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: while, as I said, I wish to avoid an edit war, and am attempting to comply with WP:AGF, it is difficult to interpret edits such as [| this one] in a constructive fashion. Altering valid links to make them nonfunctional certainly doesn't improve the article. --BRPierce (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't give a third opinion yet (since there is no second opinion outlined here), I certainly concur that the diff you describe above is Vandalism, and should be treated as such. So I wouldn't worry about that at all. Anaxial (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having just undone the anonymous deletion of the Gristlegrim link I feel I should point out that I may be biased towards this link but still feel that Ken St. Andre's Gristlegrim is a valid addition to the page - he did create Tunnels And Trolls so his Tunnels & Trolls dungeon should be here.Dekhurrrsio (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by mgtremaine

It seems that this edit war has increased into link vandalizing. The IP addressees which are responsible match this article here http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/outlaw-pressjim-shipman-sinks-to-demented-pathetic-new-lows-in-art-theft-scandal/ . It could be that the article will just have to be locked at some point. Mgtremaine (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by dekhurrrsio

Outlaw Press is a difficult subject and what seems to be happening to the article isn't making the article more informative. Certainly Outlaw Press has a place in the history of Tunnels & Trolls, they did have an official licence for a short time and published material by Ken St. Andre. But:

1. It should not be allowed to unbalance the article.

2. There only needs to be a single reference to Outlaw Press.

3. There is no need to reference James L. Shipman after the company name - we don't say 'Flying Buffalo Inc. (Rick Loomis)' or 'Tunnels & Trolls (Ken St. Andre)'.

4. Any mention of Outlaw Press needs to mention the granting and the pulling of the licence by Flying Buffalo. The ending of the licence was a big event in the first half of 2010, both inside and the T&T community and in the general RPG community, and was sparked off by the first RPG.Net thread cited which pointed out the alleged unauthorised use of copyrighted art...

"The ACTUAL artist is a man named Mauricio Herrera, a famous Chilean fantasy artist who works for the chilean equivalent of MtG known as Mitos y Leyendas. In fact, the art used on the cover of Hot Pursuit is from one of those cards, "Selkis" from the Dominios de Ra expansion set."

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=483885

...and this thread should be cited. Dekhurrrsio (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that postings on internet fora, such as rpg.net, are not generally permitted as sources on Wikipedia and should almost never be cited (see the policy pages WP:RS and WP:SPS). I can't see a reason to make an exception in this case, especially since it could arguably violate WP:BLP as well (if those involved with Outlaw Press are still alive, which I assume they are). This is not to say that the information cannot be included; but it will need better sourcing than an rpg.net thread.

I understand the point about reliable sources, however in this case the thread on RPG.net created the news. It was the reason alleged copyright irregularities were discovered - Flying Buffalo dropped the licence and Ken St. Andre in his members only club, Trollhalla, announced his separation from Outlaw Press and James L. Shipman. Dekhurrrsio (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you shouldn't refer to it, but that it will require further sourcing to confirm its accuracy and importance.Anaxial (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response from the other party in the dispute, which means I can't offer a third opinion. And, if there's consensus between the three of you above, then a "third" opinion (actually a fourth or fifth by this point) wouldn't serve any purpose anyway - it's only intended as a tie-breaker between two disputants. I'll keep an eye on the page for a while longer, though, just in case. Anaxial (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by Hooper: ....

The worst form of vandalism is subtle vandalism. It is always easy to remove a random IP's addition of "poop" or "boobs" from an article on Oak Trees, but here we have a case of an "anonymous" (Hi Jim!) user using yet another website (as he did with ebay, drivethrurpg, etc.) to distort facts. Sadly, the very nature of the online rpg community makes it hard to find a wikipedia-acceptable source to site to put in the Outlaw Press events (unless perhaps on FBI's main page they have a news blurb about it, not sure if that would count?). Anyways, to end ranting, lock the article. This kills the "anonymous" user from continuing to act like this. Hooper (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion by Anaxial: ....

A reminder about reliable sources

WP:RS lists the kinds of sources whihc are considered reliable. These do not include blogs, forums and the like. Where content is critical of living individuals it is especially important to ensure that it is robustly sourced from reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Image for the page

I'm not sure that an image of the lost 6th edition is the right image to post. Perhaps if all the covers where posted that would be alright but I think the 5th Edition or 7.5 edition cover would be better. Also I notice the image was cropped to exclude the Blade logo was there a reason for this? Mgtremaine (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the artist of the '6th Edition' cover currently illustrating the article (see http://www.garenewing.co.uk/work/illust/index_ill.php?show=29) and, while I don't particularly mind it being used (as long as it remains low-res), I should point out that it was never published and so is not the cover to any actual rulebook. It was commissioned by Ken St Andre in 1999 but never went into production. Tybaltstone (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems fishy to me too, very fishy. I think it should be reverted. 72.66.238.214 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cover should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.163.35 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting things up to date

wow, this wiki page is well out of date. T&T has been bought and sold twice since most of this was written 92.20.64.246 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://archive.org/details/jeux-et-strategie-27/page/8/mode/2up

[2] ttps://archive.org/details/playboywinnersgu00free/page/272/mode/2up

[1]

[2]