![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gemini: Dark Fantasy Roleplaying is missing. It was published by Cell Entertainment (swe) in 1998 or 1999.
Many of the game titles have no separate article under the names listed here. Most of them do, however, exist as subsections of larger articles. I propose to fix the links. I'm mot asking permission, I'm just making a note of it here in case it warrants discussion. -- Vampyrecat ( talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the table is a lot more useful with years but now the table of contents is too long. Is there a way to reformat the table of contents to spread sideways rather than being one column? If not, I or someone else should remove the heading format from the years. I hope that makes sense. -- Vampyrecat ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
An IP removed this from the list with the comment (Removed Worlds of Wonder which was only an expansion of the already existing Basic Role-Playing). I'm afraid I disagree. WoW did use the same system as BRP, but expanded it dramatically, fivefold at least, adding 3 different connected settings. Other no less full fledged games that were based on BRP include Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, and Ringworld. So I'm reverting the edit and restoring the entry. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically, Farscape and the 1st edition of Spycraft were not complete RPGs by themselves, since they relied on the D&D 3rd edition Player's Handbook (they did explicitly say so). However, their rules were 99+% complete by themselves, including character generation, explanation of the basic rules mechanics, and combat. Both refer only a handful of times to the Player's Handbook, and only in cases where it seems easy to do without it (for example, generating ability stats known to be in the 3-18 range).
I think it's fine to keep them in this list, because most players will probably consider them standalone RPGs, but I'm interested in what other people think. -Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.251.65 ( talk) 20:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why a red link is preferrable to a link to a disambiguation page? It seems to me that linking to a little information is better than to none. -Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.204.41 ( talk) 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a field called "edit summary" directly below the editor window, and just below that, there is a "show preview" button to review your changes before they go into effect.
A review will prevent most flawed edits by allowing you to look at the result before they go into effect, and also helps you to do multiple smaller edits at once (if you feel they're important enough at all) instead of spamming the update page with micro-edits. This also makes it clearer to others what you did.
Explaining your edits, once again, makes it clearer for others to see what you did, but also what you INTENDED to do (which isn't always the same), and why. You should also use the opportunity to read up on others' explanations for their edits.
If you find that someone rolls back or modifies an update you consider valid, not having provided an explanation in the edit's summary might play a part in it.
-Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.29.169 ( talk) 19:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Following the rules for lists, if it was a black link, a redlink, unsourced, or anything other than a link to an active RPG article, out it went. There's too damn much scope for people to promote their self-published debris otherwise. Ravenswing 07:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I find this list incredibly valuable, but I think its additive encyclopedic value is hampered by what appears to be a well-intentioned reluctance to include multiple editions of the same game.
Finding Shadowrun's original release date, or the release date of any of its later editions, is something for which I can and probably would go to the main Shadowrun article. What this list is good for is answering questions of relative timing: what games were released in the same year as Shadowrun, or did Shadowrun precede or follow X game, for example.
In this regard, I think it is important to include the various editions of major titles, not because their release dates can't be found more easily elsewhere, but because knowing when a game was first released tells a reader nothing about the relative timing of later editions, and that information exists nowhere else on Wikipedia, to my knowledge. These major releases also serve as widely recognizable milestones, and would provide context to the greater list.
~DMZ2112: 108.16.31.239 ( talk) 05:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gemini: Dark Fantasy Roleplaying is missing. It was published by Cell Entertainment (swe) in 1998 or 1999.
Many of the game titles have no separate article under the names listed here. Most of them do, however, exist as subsections of larger articles. I propose to fix the links. I'm mot asking permission, I'm just making a note of it here in case it warrants discussion. -- Vampyrecat ( talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the table is a lot more useful with years but now the table of contents is too long. Is there a way to reformat the table of contents to spread sideways rather than being one column? If not, I or someone else should remove the heading format from the years. I hope that makes sense. -- Vampyrecat ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
An IP removed this from the list with the comment (Removed Worlds of Wonder which was only an expansion of the already existing Basic Role-Playing). I'm afraid I disagree. WoW did use the same system as BRP, but expanded it dramatically, fivefold at least, adding 3 different connected settings. Other no less full fledged games that were based on BRP include Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, and Ringworld. So I'm reverting the edit and restoring the entry. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically, Farscape and the 1st edition of Spycraft were not complete RPGs by themselves, since they relied on the D&D 3rd edition Player's Handbook (they did explicitly say so). However, their rules were 99+% complete by themselves, including character generation, explanation of the basic rules mechanics, and combat. Both refer only a handful of times to the Player's Handbook, and only in cases where it seems easy to do without it (for example, generating ability stats known to be in the 3-18 range).
I think it's fine to keep them in this list, because most players will probably consider them standalone RPGs, but I'm interested in what other people think. -Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.251.65 ( talk) 20:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why a red link is preferrable to a link to a disambiguation page? It seems to me that linking to a little information is better than to none. -Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.204.41 ( talk) 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a field called "edit summary" directly below the editor window, and just below that, there is a "show preview" button to review your changes before they go into effect.
A review will prevent most flawed edits by allowing you to look at the result before they go into effect, and also helps you to do multiple smaller edits at once (if you feel they're important enough at all) instead of spamming the update page with micro-edits. This also makes it clearer to others what you did.
Explaining your edits, once again, makes it clearer for others to see what you did, but also what you INTENDED to do (which isn't always the same), and why. You should also use the opportunity to read up on others' explanations for their edits.
If you find that someone rolls back or modifies an update you consider valid, not having provided an explanation in the edit's summary might play a part in it.
-Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.29.169 ( talk) 19:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Following the rules for lists, if it was a black link, a redlink, unsourced, or anything other than a link to an active RPG article, out it went. There's too damn much scope for people to promote their self-published debris otherwise. Ravenswing 07:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I find this list incredibly valuable, but I think its additive encyclopedic value is hampered by what appears to be a well-intentioned reluctance to include multiple editions of the same game.
Finding Shadowrun's original release date, or the release date of any of its later editions, is something for which I can and probably would go to the main Shadowrun article. What this list is good for is answering questions of relative timing: what games were released in the same year as Shadowrun, or did Shadowrun precede or follow X game, for example.
In this regard, I think it is important to include the various editions of major titles, not because their release dates can't be found more easily elsewhere, but because knowing when a game was first released tells a reader nothing about the relative timing of later editions, and that information exists nowhere else on Wikipedia, to my knowledge. These major releases also serve as widely recognizable milestones, and would provide context to the greater list.
~DMZ2112: 108.16.31.239 ( talk) 05:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)