Talk:Tabletop role-playing game/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Tabletop role-playing game - Per Wikipedia's guidelines about precision and disambiguation. Neelix (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Role-playing game (pen and paper) → Tabletop role-playing game – The title "Tabletop role-playing game" would be preferable for this article per the WP:Name policy. It is more concise, more consistent with other role-playing titles such as Live action role-playing game, Role-playing video game, Massively multiplayer online role-playing game, Online text-based role-playing game (because it takes the form "<Descriptor> role-playing game"), equally accurate, and in more common use than "Pen-and-paper" (for example, Google returns about 3 million hits for "role playing game" tabletop compared to only 0.87 million hits for "role playing game" pnp OR "pen & paper" OR "pen and paper". The title "tabletop role-playing game" can also be used more naturally in gaming-related articles linking to this article, making the usage more consistent across articles. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What about tabletop games that use models rather than pencils? —Tamfang (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion both "pen-and-paper" and "tabletop" are reasonably accurate descriptors, but neither should be taken too literally. Not every tabletop RPG session involves a table, pens or paper, but many do, and those are the terms that are used. Just in case it's not clear, I'm suggesting that we change from "pen-and-paper" to "tabletop". The reason I'm suggesting "tabletop" is that it's the term most commonly used to distinguish traditional role-playing games from other forms like computer RPGs and live action RPGs, and also that it's more concise. Tabletop game also has a long tradition as a term, that tabletop RPGs fit well with. You don't need a table to play a card game, but they are still classed as tabletop games. The same applies to RPGs. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support; I prefer "pen & paper" myself, but it appears that the sources primarily use "tabletop". This is based on a very cursory overview of the references section of the Role-playing game article. There, the only source that uses "PnP" is this one, which is focused on LARPs. It's possible that "Pen & Paper" (or "PnP") is more popular among LARPers to refer to the tabletop version. The other sources, where I could see a preference, tend to use "tabletop" as a distinguisher. Powers ^T 19:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for examining the sources. I'm a larper, and I haven't seen any preference for "pen and paper" among larp articles. You can find plenty of uses of "tabletop" in larp sources, such as the quote from Kilgallon et al. (2001) in the references for Role-playing game. In the references on the LARP article there are five uses of "tabletop" and none of "pen and paper". Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Merely some idle speculation. More likely that particular author just prefers the term, then. Powers ^T 01:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Both are correct, but I would say (as a roleplayer of more than 30 years standing myself) that "tabletop" is far more common. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, with the caveat that it's not the use of tabletop or pen & paper that I am concerned with--whichever more sources use is fine. Rather, I find that the formation Role-playing game (tabletop) or Role-playing game (pen and paper) would be preferable, as the common vernacular for tabletop/PnP RPGs is simply "role playing game"; the addition of an additional element only serves for disambiguation, and thus should be in a parenthetical notation. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's an odd convention to promote. We generally only use parenthetical disambiguation when no natural disambiguator is available. In this case, as with computer role-playing games and live-action role-playing games, there is such a natural disambiguator. WP:PRECISION says: "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead." Powers ^T 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't believe so, no. Some of the primary criterion in WP:NAME are commonality and naturalness. No pen-and-paper/tabletop gamer adds those monikers to their hobby unless it is being discussed in a wider or different context (like on a forum also covering console games). And as discussed in the WP:PRECISION subsection of WP:NAME that you cite, using parenthetical disambiguation has the advantage of clearly conveying the normal use of the term in English, which is exactly what I am getting at here. I don't believe the Cato the Elder/Cato the Younger applies here, as again, unlike those example, Tabletop Roleplaying Game is normally not used in the hobby. - Sangrolu (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Not normally used unless, as you say, "it is being discussed in a wider or different context" -- like in an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 02:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I hope you are not being serious; that would be a bit of circular logic. The standard in WP:NAME is "natural usage". -Sangrolu (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Certainly I am. You said that "Tabletop Roleplaying Game is normally not used in the hobby" -- but in truth, it is, when disambiguation is necessary. As it is here. Powers ^T 19:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both "role-playing game" and "tabletop role-playing game" are common vernacular for tabletop role-playing games. For example, the largest online roleplaying community in the world (RPG.net) calls its tabletop role-playing forum "Tabletop Roleplaying Open". It has 3.5 million posts, suggesting that tabletop role-players are comfortable with the term. "Tabletop role-playing game" is used in some role-playing publications (for example the Serenity RPG) when introducing the type of game it's about. Scholarly sources are usually considered to be the best form of WP:RS. In the academic community, "tabletop role-playing game" is far more common usage than the ambiguous "role-playing game". Here's a handful of examples: Rules of play: game design fundamentals: "tabletop role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons", The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games (see title), The fantasy role-playing game: a new performing art: "The subject of this book, the tabletop role-playing game, was the first kind of role-playing game", Communities of play: emergent cultures in multiplayer games and virtual worlds: "Tabletop role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons", Cross-format analysis of the gaming experience in multi-player role-playing games: "The tabletop format emerges as the consistently most enjoyable experience across a range of formats". Given that "tabletop role-playing game" is commonly used (both in vernacular and academic sources), I think it's preferable to use the natural form "tabletop role-playing game" in preference to the disambiguated form "role-playing game (tabletop)". The natural form of title is preferable if it's in common use, because the bracketed disambiguated title is visually awkward. Per WP:PRECISION, "If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English ... use that instead". "Tabletop role-playing game" is a natural mode of disambiguation, because it is normal to use in English both for players (see the RPG.net usage for example), and in scholarly sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your assessment of RPGnet's use of the term. The only reason, for example, that they have a Tabletop Roleplaying Open is because at the same navigation level of the forums, they also have forums for other RPG formats, e.g., LARPs. You go into the Tabletop Roleplaying Open forum itself, you will find the "Tabletop" moniker in scarce usage. Similarly with other sources, the term is usually only invoked when explicit contrast with other forms is desired or needed. The standing policy of WP:NAME is to strive for natural usage. As I already discussed above, in WP:PRECISION, after the section you cited, it goes on to stress the advantage of using parenthetical disambiguation is that it retains the clarity of the natural usage. As for academic sources, they may well be reliable sources, but that's not what is at question here; academic resources aren't definitive when it comes to natural usage. In fact, I would hold that quite often, they use terms that are not natural usage precisely because they need to hold themselves to a standard of disambiguation that is beyond natural usage. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're conflating "natural usage" with "the most common usage". WP:PRECISION says that if there is a "natural mode of disambiguation in standard English" it should be used. In scholarly writing, the RPG.net forum, the many examples returned by Google search (which are mostly fan sites discussing tabletop role-playing games), and in my experience in spoken English "tabletop role-playing game" is used as a natural mode of disambiguation. It is certainly not unnatural to hear "tabletop RPG", even if tabletop players only use the disambiguated form occasionally it still sounds like standard English to them, not some awkward artificial disambiguator. That's what "natural" means. "Natural" does not mean it's the most commonly-used term. The part of WP:PRECISION you're referring to says, in full (with added numbers): "1) Often there is no alternative to parenthetical disambiguation, and 2) it does have the advantage that the non-parenthesized part of the title may most clearly convey what the subject is called in English. 3) On the other hand, such disambiguations may be longer or less natural than an alternate but unambiguous form, when there is one." Firstly, there is a natural English alternative to parenthetical disambiguation. Secondly, both terms are what this activity is called in English ("tabletop RPG" is not an artificial term invented by scholars or for the purpose of this encyclopedia, it came from players and has a long history of use in English), and the policy does not demand the most common usage. Thirdly, and most importantly, the disambiguated form "Role-playing game (tabletop)" is less natural than "Tabletop role-playing game", a term that appears not infrequently as a "natural mode of disambiguation" on RPG fan sites, forums, in RPG books, in scholarly sources, and in speech among role-players. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it contradictory that you at the same time belittle "invented scholarly terms" and uphold the scholarly sources; which is it? With respect to "the disambiguated form "Role-playing game (tabletop)" is less natural", the term that is being emphasized here as discussed in WP:PRECISION is Role-playing game; that is the natural term that occurs in regular conversation. The parenthetical addition is the WP disambiguator, not the term being emphasized, as is made abundantly clear by the parenthesis. -Sangrolu (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I was acknowledging your point that some scholarly terms are "not natural usage", but pointing out this is not the case here. The scholarly sources have adopted "tabletop role-playing game" which is a common-English term invented and used by gamers, it is not some sort of academic jargon they have invented in this case. WP:PRECISION says "On the other hand, such disambiguations may be longer or less natural than an alternate but unambiguous form, when there is one." Note, that phrase of that policy calls for us to compare the disambiguated form "Role-playing game (tabletop)" to the alternate form "Tabletop role-playing game" and see which sounds most natural - clearly the latter does. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sangrolu, perhaps consider another case. United States women's national soccer team is a bit cumbersome, but each bit is needed for disambiguation. Even though the team is referred to in U.S. soccer circles as the "Women's national team", and it's referred to in World Cup play as the "United States team", we don't use "United States team (women's soccer)" or "Women's national team (United States soccer)". It's because even though the full version is not as often used as the shorter versions, it is still more "natural" than using parenthetical disambiguation. Powers ^T 12:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. To give a counter-example, "Queen (band)" sounds more natural than "The band Queen", even though the former is a parenthetical disambiguated form and the latter is occasionally used in English as a disambiguation. So it's not always the case that the alternate form sounds more natural than the parenthetical form... but it is in the case of "Tabletop role-playing game". Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of players

Does anyone know of a reliable source that describes the typical number of players in a tabletop RPG? Ideally the source would also describe the limiting factor: that the game gets harder for a single GM to facilitate as the number of players grows. I think this is one of those fundamental, but often unmentioned attributes of PnP RPGs. But an uninformed reader may not know more than about 8 or 10 players is relatively uncommon. Whereas with larp or multiplayer digital RPGs, player numbers can be much larger. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to look it up but I remember from college that the maximum size of an effective group is about 7.Donhoraldo (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I wasn't asking for editor's personal opinions, but for reliable sources on the subject such as academic articles. At a pinch, suggestions from primary sources such as RPG rulesbooks could be used as sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This will clearly vary depending on the genre of the game. Some types lend themselves to larger groups than others. Since most early academic efforts restricted themselves to D&D, there's going to be some bias in their reports. FWIW, the average 2nd Edition D&D module was designed for from 4-7 players (tournament modules tended toward the higher number), while products for the James Bond RPG were optimized for from 1-4 players, with the lower number common for higher-level characters. Boot Hill aimed for around 4-5, and Gangbusters had a similar "target number" when it came to published modules. Games like Recon and Twilight 2000 had higher player numbers (maxing at about 7-10), but they were also military-based where the tactical unit (squad or recon team) tended to hover at that number. So in addition to the GM, you have the basic type of game to consider.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad Link in References

Reference #7, supposedly an archived interview with Gary Gygax, has been taken over by a porn site. It should probably be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CJPoll (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 September 2013‎

I found an archived version via WBM and updated the link. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

History of Roleplaying Section - TSR and open gaming

I've added a couple of inline cite notes to this section. There is an assertion there that the decline of TSR was due to competition with online roleplaying games and CCG's; my understanding was that TSRs decline came in large part due to mismanagement (e.g., overstocking products at toy stores and then receiving massive returns of unsold product.) If someone has an industry source citing CCGs or CRPGs as a cause of TSR's decline, I'd be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, that sentence should probably be removed.

Similarly, there is a later statement I asked for a cite for, namely the assertion that open gaming was designed to combat bootlegging. I've never heard such an assertion from an industry figure and think that it would have a hard time performing that function. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

For the first, it was a combination. While TSR's specific financial issues were due to stock returns on overproduced items, the overproduction itself rises out of the management assuming a D&D market that was the same size as ten years before, when the reality was is had shrank during the 1990s. This shrinking was from players moving on to other things, including other tabletop games (Vampire: The Masquerade was huge at the time), CCGs (Magic: The Gathering, ironically enough) or RPG video games, which were undergoing something of a golden age. So I rephrased the sentence to cover that.

As for the second, that's just bunk. A bad case of WP:SYNTH, and incorrect synth at that. Removed outright. The linked article on bootleg role-playing games I even tagged for PROD, as it contains no sources whatsoever. It repeats the same erroneous original conclusion, and actively misrepresented US copyright law; while the mechanics of a rule cannot be copyrighted, as they are purely functional, the wording is automatically protected by copyright, and any unauthorized photocopying or scanning is a copyright violation. The article blatantly did not make that clear, and even seemed to state the opposite. It has been removed. But frankly the article has got to go. oknazevad (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Table Talk

I've removed "table talk role-playing game" from the head until such time as anyone can produce a reference that they are or ever were commonly called that. Sounds like a mondegreen. Clayhalliwell (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proper nouns?

Re this edit: Are dungeon master, referee, storyteller and the like proper nouns, that therefore should be capitalized, or not?

A proper noun "refers to a unique entity". A very good hint of something that is a proper noun is a word where you "cannot normally be modified by an article [especially a] or other determiner (such as any or another)". Here, "a dungeon master", "a referee", and "a storyteller" are all common usage, making it hard to claim they are proper nouns.

There are a few exceptions these rules, but I don't know of any that apply here. Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

My instinct is to follow the sources on this, which have capitalized these (in a manner akin to the capitalization of official titles) rather consistently since the 1970s. They may not be proper nouns, but they are traditionally capitalized. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That said, I had not noticed that the article itself was already inconsistent in the capitalization of "Game Master", so I have self-reverted the capitalization of the terms "referee" and "storyteller" and placed "dungeon master" and "game master" in lower case pending this talk page discussion. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We should definitely follow WP:MOS, MOS:TMRULES (where applicable), and reliable sources. "Dungeon Master" is pretty much always capitalized in sources, plus it's a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, so we should capitalize it. I would imagine that "Storyteller" is a trademark of Paradox Interactive but I'm not able to find that trademark registration. It is capitalized in Storytelling System materials and (fairly) consistently in sources that reference them, however, so we should probably follow suit there as well. (Unless we're writing about a "person telling a story", where "storyteller" in lowercase should be fine.) It's my understanding that "game master" and "referee" were initially used as generic, system neutral terms to avoid legal issues with TSR and White Wolf, but they're still in use today. Those are probably fine to leave lowercase unless sources say otherwise. I looked but didn't notice any specific MOS guidelines at WP:RPG. Woodroar (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, GDW capitalized "Referee" throughout the company's existence, and Pelgrane and Arc Dream for example still capitalize "Game Moderator", so I don't see any convincing precedent to use lower case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If these are trademarked, then we must not capitalize them. In this article, we aren't using "Game Master" as the single company-specific meaning of Game Master, but a generic meaning of game master that applies any RPG. (We capitalize Ford's Mustang^TM when we speak of Ford's model of car, but we must not capitalize it when referring to the generic horse.) If we capitalized Game Master, but describe it generically, we'd be stepping on the company's trademark and libel for trouble, needlessly. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Somehow, Monroe, you are not discussing the same case that I am. GDW never trademarked Referee, as far as I know, and certainly neither Arc Dream nor Pelgrane ever trademarked Game Moderator, but the terms are capitalized in these sources nonetheless. I don't think capitalization should depend on trademark status (which is a rather more technical issue), but on the usage of the term in the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm following what's been presented here. First, it was stated they should be capitalized because they are proper nouns. It seems we've moved from that. Next, MOS:TMRULES and "it's trademarked" were invoked above, adding therefore we must capitalize them or face legal problems. Are we now agreed they are not trademarked? I just want to keep this thread coherent. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that Dungeon Master and Storyteller are trademarked, and Referee and Game Master / Game Moderator are not. One approach would therefore be to capitalize Dungeon Master and Storyteller but not the other terms, though I don't think any edit to the article ever established that orthography. I still prefer that all terms be capitalized that are capitalized in the sources, which would be all of the above. Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone can show an RS that states that a particular word or term is trademarked; I think we can safely work with the assumption that they are not. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

[1] for Dungeon Master, but you're right: White Wolf used Storytelling System for the rules brand and while they called the role Storyteller, it doesn't seem that they every owned the term.

I would still capitalize in all cases, per the sources. :) Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify that I brought up trademarks above not because of legal concerns against Wikipedia, but because our Manual of Style tells us exactly how to format trademarks across the project. We're supposed to render "KISS" as "Kiss" and "Se7en" as "Seven" (for example) even if reliable sources don't. (WP:MOSTM "applies to all trademarks, all service marks, all business names, and all other names of business entities" so we should follow that even if we can't find records of a trademark. MOSTM doesn't even specify that the trademark has to be registered.) For general terms, I personally have no preference, but I agree with Newimpartial that we should look at usage in reliable sources. Or at how those terms are used across the project, for consistency.

As far as legal issues go, we're talking about terms like "Dungeon Master" rather than claiming them as our own, so we really don't have anything to worry about. Early gaming companies could be pretty lax about crediting TSR for the material they "borrowed". Woodroar (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

WP talking about them is precisely the issue. If company X uses a term, with a particular shade of meaning specific to their product, capitalized to indicate it's their term and not the generic term, and then we come along using their capitalized term generically, we're degrading their intent for no good reason -- no benefit to us or the reader.

Remember what "consistency" means. If all sources use each term consistently with the same meaning, then we can follow what they all do for capitalization.

But if companies use any of these terms with different capitalization, where shades of meaning may be different, then we can't pretend to "fix" their inconsistency. Instead, we have to avoid any implied more specific meaning that either readers or companies may have, and go with generic meanings based on standard English, which does not capitalize them.

So, are the great majority of these sources actually that consistent? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Dungeon Master" and "DM" are nearly always capitalized in reliable sources. "Storyteller" is capitalized most of the time but it's been a while since I've read anything about that system. I feel like "Game Master" and "Referee" are capitalized more often than not, but I'll defer to others' findings there as I don't pay much attention to games that use those terms. Woodroar (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If we're talking about primary sources (which I was, initially), TSR has capitalized "Dungeon Master" rather consistently, just as White Wolf capitalized "Storyteller" (and I said something incorrect, above; their 1990s system was trademark-Storyteller, with the move to trademark-Storytelling occurring around 2000. But I digress...).

As I mentioned before, AFAIK GDW capitalized "Referee" during its entire existence, and I know that Pelgrane, Arc Dream and Atlas are still capitalizing "Game Moderator" (although it isn't a trademark, and all three companies are all peacefully using the same term).

What I conclude from this, is that virtually all game companies have capitalized the terms they use to name and talk about the GM role, whether those terms were proprietary or not. The only exception I can think of is "game master/gamemaster", which is pretty much the default generic term.

So I would prefer that all of the terms mentioned in the article, except game master/gamemaster, be capitalized in accord with usage in the sources. I also think there is something about the role itself that merits a title. :). But I recognize that there are other perspectives, and would like to see consensus ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If our MOS and sources both point toward capitalized terms, then someone should go ahead and make the change. Local consensus here is great, but WP:MOS and WP:V have consensus across the project. Woodroar (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, it's  Done. Woodroar (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Return of Table-talk

I amazed at the comment at 2016, and then I found that many references (in Research articles and news articles) that supports the using of Table-talk Role Playing Game(Search "テーブルトークRPG" in Google Scholar, or TRPG in Korean). How you think to include the name back and includes the reference? - Ellif (Talk) 08:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you suggest any sources? We can include "significant names in other languages" (per MOS:ALTNAME) but they should be relevant foreign-language names and not simply translations from other languages. I googled "table-talk role playing game" and found very little usage in English-language sources, which leads me to believe that this isn't a common term except through translation. Woodroar (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost of Korean and Japanese Reliable sources TRPG as the Table-talk, like [2] [3], [4] [5](DOI:10.7230/KOSCAS.2017.48.173) (Korean) and [6] [7] [8], [9] [10] (Japanese), etc,. - Ellif (Talk) 16:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

These all seem to be non English sources translated back to English. That doesn't make "table-talk" a common usage in English. (Hohum ^@) 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed

The "citations needed" tag should be reconsidered, if not completely removed. Instead of blanket-applying the tag, users should consider finding the references they want to see themselves. Zerochuckdude (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Our core content policies require that all material be verifiable and that our articles accurately represent what reliable sources say rather than what we ourselves think. The problem is that entire sections of this article have been written by editors based on their own opinions of what tabletop RPGs are about, without regard for focus or weight, rather than letting the sources guide the article. Adding citations won't fix all of those things, but they'll definitely help. Woodroar (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2017 UTC)

I understand the core content policies, but I am not at all convinced that the paragraphs that of currently have cn-tags actually need citations. The policy is that the sources have to exist, not that they have to be provided for generally-accepted facts. In the "game systems" section, for example, the only paragraph I see that might actually need a source is the one on game masters setting objectives for each session; the others don't seem to me to involve any editorial perspectives to speak of.

And so, the point against the cn-tags is that they seem to be applied to paragraphs of text qua text, when by policy they should be applied to specific claims that actually require sourcing. Having one at the end of each paragraph would not help me in any any way to identify what claims some editor feels are sufficiently non-obvious to require a specific source, which would allow them to be sourced, or alternatively discussed here on talk.

There is a lot of rather out-of-date or dubious description in the current article, but adding or removing cn-tags on each paragraph doesn't help anyone improve it IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No, all content requires sourcing. The specific placement of the sources could be discussed, but first they need to be found. This isn't really a debatable point. Reasonable-sounding WP:OR is still OR, and should be removed if it cannot be sourced.

Having both both CN tags for each paragraph and for each subsection seems like overkill, though. The subsection tags should stay until the problem, which is a big one, is resolved. The inline citations are redundant. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, Greyfell, it is simply not policy that "all content requires sourcing". The WP:CCPOL is much more limited; Verifiability means that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." You simply can't place cn tags on paragraph after paragraph demanding sources - if you are challenging the material, please specify what claims you are challenging so that specific sources can be found. There are many, many sources available for the material discussed here, and it would be worse than useless to randomly insert citations for uncontroversial statements or on a paragraph by paragraphing basis. That is not what WP:V demands and is terrible, terrible style. Newimpartial (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight, here, and nobody is suggesting "randomly" inserting citations. If you're not willing to fairly represent my points, this will not be a productive discussion. These paragraphs contain broad claims presented as basic facts, which introduces subjectivity and room for both factual errors, and errors of omission. There are also serious due weight problems with this approach, since the significance of these details should be established by sources, not editor opinion. This article needs to be written in a way that unfamiliar readers can gain a neutral understanding of the topic in proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. This fundamentally requires such sources. Most of these unsupported points are reasonable, and most of them could, likely, be sourced, but "likely sourced" is not the same as sourced. These paragraphs are original research unless proven otherwise, and none of these are WP:BLUESKY basic, nor is their encyclopedic significance as obvious as it might seem to the people who wrote them.

Every section which is tagged includes many of these statements, so asking me to highlight any one would be misrepresenting the problem. Almost any of these could, reasonably, be challenged. I'll pick the first one I looked at just now, but again, this is one examples among many. Fixing these issues would be a drop in the bucket, and expecting each and every one of these to be tagged would be even more disruptive and distracting than tagging the entire section. (Again, I think that the CN tags after each paragraph are unnecessary.)

So let's look at a semi-random example of what I'm talking about: Campaign settings exist for almost all genres of fiction; however, because the world's most popular role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons, is part of the fantasy genre, fantasy is also the most played role-playing genre. RPGs of the fantasy genre are sometimes collectively called "Fantasy role-playing games" ("FRP"). If you, as a reader, are attempting to research this topic, you would need a lot more information before accepting this as factual or informative. What is meant by "almost all"? What is a neutral, reliable resource I can use to find which genres are represented and which are not? Linking DnD --> Fantasy --> "Most played" sure seems like original research, doesn't? Like I said, reasonable OR is still OR. Isn't the line about "sometimes collectively called" filler, or at least a tautology? This boils down to saying that "fantasy role-playing games are sometimes called fantasy role-playing games". Was the purpose of the line to introduce the "FRP" acronym? Great! That's a useful piece of information, but one which still needs a reliable source so that readers can verify that it's accurate, and if necessary, find out who "sometimes" uses that acronym. I've been playing for decades, and I don't, offhand, recall having seen that acronym before. FRPG, sure, but FRP? Maybe? This is why a source would be valuable.

I really don't like nit-picking each and every sentence of the article like this. I do not like implying that I think this is a terrible article. I think it's a good article with a serious problem. The first step in fixing that problem is adding sources. If a statement isn't supported by a reliable source, it either isn't accurate, or it isn't encyclopedically significant to this complicated topic. This is why sources are necessary for almost all statements on Wikipedia. This is also, incidentally, why finding sources before writing content, is so, so much better for the quality and stability of an article than trying it the other way around.

Does that explain my concerns? Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for explaining your concerns. For my part, I should clarify that I am not commenting here about the tags for the article as a whole, or for the broad sections. I agree that the article, and each section, needs citations for specific claims. I am objecting to the tag-bombing of the paragraphs, and also to the distortion of policy reflected in "all content requires sourcing" and to the similar perspective reflected in Woodroar's previous comment that "entire sections of this article have been written by editors based on their own opinions". The latter claim may or may not be true, but it is certainly not true of all of the paragraphs that are currently cn-tagged, in the article, nor is it true of the paragraph you, Grayfell, chose as a "semi-random example". There are problems with that paragraph, as I will discuss below, but none of those problems have to do with "editors writing based on their own opinions", i.e., WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV concerns.

To return to the policy question, all content must be verifiable, but not all content should be supported in citations, q.v. WP:CITEKILL. And I was not saying that you were asking people to "randomly insert citations". I was saying that tag-bombing each paragraph - without directing cn-tags at actual controversial or empirical claims requiring support - encourages random citations rather than relevant sourcing of the article. I wasn't characterizing your position at all, Grayfell, in that hypothetical example. I am not trying to pick a fight, either. I simply object to your misapprehension that "all content (sic.) requires sourcing."

I think your semi-random example illustrates these points admirably. You are completely correct that the claims for D&D as the most-played game and fantasy as the most-played genre, while true, require sourcing, and you are also right that it would be more verifiable to introduce and cite the FRPG acronym rather than FRP. However, the tag for the paragraph (or for the section) doesn't communicate any of this, and other statements made, such as that Dungeons and Dragons is a fantasy game or that RPGs exist in relation to nearly all genres of fiction, simply do not need to be cited, in my view. Neither statement is original research, and either can be found in literally hundreds of different sources. If you quibble about the wording "almost all", then another phrase could be used (such as "an extremely wide range"), but that it an editorial issue and has nothing to do with WP:V or WP:OR, which the underlying claim here certainly is not. You cite the " DnD --> Fantasy --> "Most played" " syllogism as an example of OR, but since multiple, redundant sources exist on this I don't think OR is really the right term, here. Insert a reliable source that shows that D&D is the most popular game, accounting for enough of the playing market to drive Fantasy into the dominant genre position, and your problem with the syllogism goes away.

It is certainly best practice to assemble sources before writing an article, but that doesn't mean that WP:DYNAMITE or WP:TAGBOMB is the correct approach for content that is generally correct but unsourced. It is much more helpful to identify controversial, overreaching or vulnerable empirical claims, cn-tag those, or even better - actually help find the citations for them. The current discussion here began after Woodroar reverted the removal of the paragraph cn-tags - not the article tag, not the section tags, but the paragraph tags - and I am participating in the discussion from that perspective. Newimpartial (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Inserted here as a reply, after edit conflict.

Replying to Newimpartial and adding to what Grayfell has said: I find the "Game systems" section to be especially poor. I've played RPGs for decades and all my friends and family know it, so they send me any article even tangentially related to gaming, sometimes multiple times. (It gets really tedious during RPG revivals like the one we're in.) When these articles discuss different game systems, they tend to focus on (1) what kind of dice are used, (2) are there orcs or spaceships, (3) are there occult elements, and (4) how the mechanics are similar to or different from Dungeons & Dragons. They'll name the more popular systems, like Vampire, or maybe Magic: The Gathering but only to talk about how it's really not a role-playing game or that Wizards of the Coast saved TSR and D&D from bankruptcy and obscurity. They'll say that, like D&D, these other systems usually let you fight with swords and cast fireballs and maybe sneak around. But they rarely mention systems that nobody (relatively speaking) has heard of, or abilities/skills that don't directly pertain to combat, or character creation. Sure, some specialist sources do talk about those things, but not in great numbers. It's certainly not representative of what reliable sources have to say. Right now, the section is mostly individual editors' favorite systems and what's cool about them shoehorned in where it kind of fits. We should really rewrite it from scratch and follow the sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Woodroar, I would submit to you that your comment here is highly POV and the generalizations you are making seem dated to 15 or 20 years ago, and most certainly do not reflect what the reliable sources of the last 10 years or so have to say. No reliable source on table-top gaming published by a reputable authority in the last 10 years would concentrate on "abilities/skills that directly pertain to combat or character generation" in the way you describe. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly possible that I'm not seeing a representative sample of the sources out there, but we need sources to know one way or the other. Woodroar (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with that; I just don't believe that restoring the tag-bombing of the paragraphs was the way to coax them into the light. Newimpartial (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I end up saying this every time I comment on RPG article, but I do not think a reader who isn't already deep into geek culture is going to be able to make heads or tails of this. I don't really know, though... and maybe neither do either of you. That's why we need sources. If we're going to be citing DnD as the most common example (for example) than pointing out exceptions and obscure other systems to these norms is more confusing than informative. We haven't explained the norms, but we're rushing to explain alternatives. Citing examples is often a mistake, because they are only informative if the reader already has some familiarity with the example. If a reader already knows how The Amber system works, or what FATE dice look like, they're already beyond anything this section is explaining. If they don't, this barely makes any sense at all. If Primetime Adventures is significant to the topic, it should be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources, but that isn't even true on its own article. Expecting readers to learn something from this examples seems unrealistic, to put it mildly. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing this article, I actually think the lede does a reasonably good job of addressing topic in a DUE way based on sources. Since this discussion has mostly taken on the "systems" section, let's stick to that one for now. I would observe the following about that section:

(1) there is no advantage to simplifying the section to concentrate on D&D, since this article is supposed to focus on table-top roleplaying as such, not one particular game; if anything, it arguably should stress the differences between D&D and the rest of the hobby/art form to illustrate the full range of the latter, from an encyclopaedic perspective.

(2) examples used should be self-sufficient, in that they should make sense of the point in question without assuming any prior knowledge of the context of the example on the part of the reader.

(3) there is a crazy over-emphasis on d20, which was a game license that was important in the industry 10-17 years ago but whose last remaining important representative is Pathfinder.

(4) the systems section doesn't allow for GM-less game systems, but instead offers a paragraph on "distributed authority" that would be confusing even to people familiar with the game systems used as examples.

(5) the "typical game session" paragraph strikes me as POV and OR; at the very least its major claim "the GM will introduce a goal for the players to achieve through the actions of their characters" needs to be sourced and contextualized, since there is a huge difference between e.g. sandbox games and story-based games in this regard, and this structure might be worked into the game system in some cases but not in others.

(6) the "success and failure" paragraph is another defective one, since it doesn't give any sense of the ways event resolution might actually work within a game system or a game session, but instead lists off a few of the mechanics used in different games largely in the absence of needed context.

So that my perspective is clear - I think the article needs work, especially the systems section, and it also needs sources. I am just not sure that it needs sources quite as badly as it needs conceptual and editorial rigor. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with every point listed, but I believe this editorial rigor should be evaluated by using reliable sources. The restraint we need to show as editors is confining ourselves to what is supported, not merely what is accurate. These are not unrelated problems. The lack of sources is one reason the article lacks rigor. If we start with sources and go from there, the rest will become much easier. Not necessarily easy, of course, but much easier.

I agree that the d20 coverage is undue, but it's also incomplete. Wikipedia takes a long view, so historically important games should be covered for that reason. Pathfinder was, off-and-on, the best-selling game in the industry for a substantial chunk of time, but Pathfinder is not mentioned in this article. Polaris, on the other hand, gets mentioned twice with no sources at all. The article needs to look at this as an industry with over forty years of business history, not just an activity people enjoy. History of role-playing games has the same mishmash of OR and questionable sources, so trying to fix this can start to feel like pulling a loose thread on a sweater. I guess that's a good reason to focus on one section at a time. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

For GMless games, Fiasco would probably be stronger and more easily referenced than Polaris, anyway, regardless of my own preferences - it may be less popular now than it was, but Fiasco was pretty clearly the breakout indie-style game and was widely discussed for the better part of a decade.

Pathfinder should certainly be mentioned in the article, and would be better to reference in the systems section than d20 as a more lasting phenomenon, though I'm unclear of any ways Pathfinder differs from the D&Ds that would be relevant to "systems". As far as authoritative sources go, the Evil Hat, four volume edition of Designers & Dragons is clearly the best from the perspective of both temporal sweep and the breadth of the hobby; I pity anyone trying to write cogently on RPGs without having access to it, or at least the previous, less ambitious Mongoose edition. Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 Lacking sources (or any kind of work or analysis really, POV, Outdated, "Significant minorities" ignored, etc.) This being a pop culture topic, academic sources are scarce and always late, market figures have a bias toward dominant actors. Honored peers make good sources : designers, organizers, publishers, podcasters.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Poioumena (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC) 

I have added a few citations, one into the lead of the article and the others in the Game systems section Mvill6 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Here are some recent works about tabletop RPGs. They might be worth looking through for material to flesh out the article:

• Drew Davidson, ‎Greg Costikyan (2011) Tabletop: Analog Game Design
• Sarah Lynne Bowman (2010) The Functions of Role-Playing Games: How Participants Create Community, Solve Problems and Explore Identity

Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

These references are a bit old as of 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poioumena (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

An excellent reference for the TTRPG business as a whole is Shannon Appelcline's 4-volume series Designers & Dragons (2014). Colin Fredericks (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Game System

Overall, the Game system section is full of dubious concepts. Fantalk does not a robust theory make. Let's aim for higher standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poioumena (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC) 

@Poioumena: I've recently overhauled the Game System section (among others). Let me know if you still dispute the factual accuracy and what you think it might need. Colin Fredericks (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's much more accurate. It doesn't write a whole lot of games out of the TTRPG map "by definition", which was offensive to these minorities. I explain: instead of a commercial label, "Game system" is now treated as a theoretical concept thanks to your edit. There's a lesser problem still, with the use of "mechanics". If you describe a "mechanic" as a rule, you leave apart a lot of rules that are not mechanics, and then, the game system becomes something very trivial (system=all mechanics) Unfortunately for the ease of communicating about them, TTRPGs are not that simple : there are rules that are not mechanics. PROOF 1 A system where (nearly) all the rules are not mechanics is usually called "freeform". TENTATIVE DISTINCTION I'd say mechanics are the most "obvious" rules. Their nature is often logical (if=>then) and numerical (counters, stats, dice rolls, etc.) and always explicit. Social and linguistic rules ("what X says is more disputable than what Y says", "if you roll a 12 on this table, the party encounters an ice dragon, but then this outcome is changed to (...)", etc.) are part of the system. Forgians and others would outright call them "rules", nobody would call them "mechanics". PROOF 2 They are rules in that not following them is wrong. I don't think the article needs to define mechanics precisely, though. If they need to be named, I think a little laxer phrasing ("written rules are usually refered to as a mechanic") would work fine. But that's a minor quibble, and I think freeformers can live without this correction. Thank you again for your edit. comment added by Poioumena (talk • contribs) 17.38 13/09/21 (Paris time)

Sept 2021 Editing Spree

I came across this page in Sept 2021 and noticed that it was out of date, disorganized, and full of repetition. I've been doing my best to fix things up and merge redundant text without destroying anyone's contributions. I'm not trying to "own the page", there's just a lot of work that needs to be done, so my edits will probably touch every part of the page. Also, please take my edit comments as literally as you can. When I say that I removed a fact because I couldn't source it, it is literally only because I couldn't find a source, not because I don't believe it. If you know a good source for, e.g., the popularity of RPGs in Scandinavia, please feel free to put the fact back in. Colin Fredericks (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I find the french page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeu_de_r%C3%B4le#Jeu_de_r%C3%B4le_dit_%C2%AB_sur_table_%C2%BB a model on the subject. Of course, gateway games and magazines are french-centered, but at least the analysis goes beyond "classic RPGs and... those other things". I can help translate quotes and extracts. Poioumena (talk) 12:2, 16 November 2021 (UTC+1)

Poioumena, WP:BOLD!—¿philoserf? (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mvill6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Critical Role and TTRPGs in entertainment

I think their should be section on how TTRPGs have seen a boom since streamed live-action games like Critical role have become popular. Something like, 'TTRPGs as entertainment'. I wish I had enough time to write it myself and do it justice! Twomatters (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)