Talk:Basic Role-Playing

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cleanup[edit]

I have removed the following paragraph:

Many of the BRP-based games are no longer in print in November of 2001. Currently available systems include Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer from Chaosium, and the distantly related Pendragon, now published by Green Knight Publishing.

I don't think it adds anything, and seems out of place in an encyclopedia. In addition, the artcile has already mentioned that Pendragon is sufficiently different to be considered a different system, which I agree with. I will add the Green Knight reference to that part of the article. PhilHibbs 15:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed the word "only" from Pendragon ... "has sufficiently different mechanics that it can be seen only as a separate system" as that's not NPOV IMHO.213.112.249.111 08:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this:

Additionally, some note that the 3rd Edition of Dungeons & Dragons, released in the fall of 2000, resembles nothing so much as a reworking - or perhaps melding - of Dungeons & Dragons with the rules of RuneQuest (the first BRP-based game), which was first published in 1978. Dividing percentages by 5 and rounding to the nearest whole number results in values ranging from 1 to 20.

I disagree with this, and it's not that well written either. D&D is less of a derivative of RuneQuest than the other way round, and I say that as a RQ fan. Just because D&D skills use a linear scale, that doesn't mean that it is a derivative of the percentile system. You could lay the same claim about MERP/Rolemaster, Cyberpunk, or a dozen other systems. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:45, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Role-playing games[edit]

There has just ben started a new Wikiproject regarding Role playing Games. If you would like to join, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games and add your self. Angelbo 13:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Roleplaying: The Chaosium System ?[edit]

In the article, it mentions a book published in 2004 called the Basic Role-Playing Players Book and Magic Book. I didn't see that book listed on Amazon, but I did see Basic Roleplaying: The Chaosium System published in 2003. Is that the book you mean? If that's the book the article means, someone probably should correct the spelling and year in the article.

(FYI, Chaosium apparently used to use the spelling "role-playing" in its products, as depicted in the article on the first edition cover. But its more recent products like the book above and Stormbringer 5th edition use the spelling "roleplaying". There's a discussion about the change in the spelling of the word in some of the Wiki articles and the Wiki RPG portal, in case you're curious.) Dugwiki 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Links[edit]

Finding reviews to establish notability.

[1]
[2] - Award for the character generator. Turlo Lomon 12:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[3] - DriveThru RPG review, don't know if it helps. Web Warlock 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Origins award for Best Roleplaying Rules of 1981. Web Warlock 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last one is perfect. I need to get some sleep though. Hopefully someone can add it. Turlo Lomon 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewritting the the article now. Web Warlock 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary[edit]

Any articles from a historic perspective in gaming magazines (e.g. The Dragon, The Escapist) would be useful here as well. There's no denying that BRP is fantastically influential historically, all we need to do is prove it. Get your magazine collection out, they don't have to be online to be referenceable. I wouldn't use White Dwarf as a source, though, as Games Workshop published RQ in the UK since way back so they aren't independent. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can still use White Dwarf, but not as a primary reference. I wish I could find my Dragon magazine CDs buried some where in the back room. It has a searchable index. Turlo Lomon 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the notability tag was removed for potentially questionably reasons, I think enough has been done since then to establish notability. Shannon Appelcline's article on RPGNet is excellent material for this. — PhilHibbs | talk 21:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and agreed. Turlo Lomon 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Basic Role-Playing is disputed[edit]

This set of rules (or "system" as it is described in the article) is a set of rules derived from Basic Role-Playing (ISBN 1-56882-168-9). There are no reliable secondary sources in the article that would provide evidence of notability under WP:BK or any other notability guideline, as RPG.net cannot be classed as a relaible source. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you would be wrong, but that is fine. I'll come up with another 6-12 items that demonstrate notabilty and shame you again. Web Warlock (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the notability tag. Notability is asserted in the article. A refimprove tag might be appropriate here, but a notability tag isn't warranted. Rray (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that based on your opinion, or based on evidence? Please resotore the notability template until secondary sources have added, not before.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to give instructions to other editors. I will not restore a template that shouldn't have been added in the first place. Just to clarify, the notability template should be used when a topic has unclear notability. Other templates address lack of sourcing. (Refimprove and unreferenced are two templates that might apply to an article with reference issues.) Rray (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You admit there is a lack of secondary sources, yet at the same time remove the cleanup template designed to address this issue. From where I stand, that looks like Doublethink.It is not sufficient to remove the cleanup template based on your opinion, you have to provide evidence of notabaility with reliable seconary sources before.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with doublethink. The notability tag is for articles which don't assert the subject's notability. The unreferenced tag (or the refimprove tag)) are for articles with the issues you describe. I didn't remove the tag because of my opinion; I removed it because it was the wrong tag to use in this case. Rray (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where are reliable secondary sources cited that assert the notability this game playing system? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides the 8 references that are included in the article now? Rray (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. And I have not even cracked open the Dragons yet. Web Warlock (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This game has plenty notability, being used by lots of well-known rpgs both old and new. Please distinguish between personal lack of knowledge and a true lack of notability. Or in other words, don't dispute notability just because you happen to be uneducated in the area of discussion yourself. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

resistance table rewording[edit]

I removed the following two sentences because they were unsourced and used weasel words like "many think".

The Resistance Table, in which two attributes are compared and a chance of success read from a table, is the ugly duckling of the BRP system. It is potentially an entire system mechanic on its own and yet many say it sits oddly with the existing skill system.

Please do not add back this text without rewording (and/or sourcing the claims "ugly duckling", "potentially", "yet many say it sits oddly"). Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit. Good work. Rray (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to D&D shite?[edit]

This is a reply to the edit summary of the 04:52, 18 July 2017‎ edit by Oknazevad (talk | contribs)

(→‎Rules system: extensive rewrite. This essay-like description is a) way too obsessed with comparing the D&D, b) in he wrong tense, and c) addressed in he second person. In short, it's shite.)

You do know that D&D was the first rpg, right? And that every early game like BRP was a reaction to that game? Please don't make it out to be a bad thing to do what everybody back then considered obvious - to define the new game, not as a stand-alone product, but in relation to D&D. In some ways, defining BRP by how it differs from D&D was more relevant than just telling us how it works. CapnZapp (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison was overdone, though, and written as though the reader is already familiar with how D&D plays, which is problematic at best. But the reaction, which was indeed a bit intemperate, was more about the unencyclopedic, essay-like tone, which only made the assumption with D&D mechanics worse. That was the issue. Not so much that it compared the system to D&D, but that it assumed the reader had knowledge, which we can't assume. And it's always better to describe what something does, not what it doesn't do. oknazevad (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]