Forum:CT:Articles on RPG character templates

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Articles on RPG character templates

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was articles based on RPG character templates are not to be created, and deleted if found. Graestan(Talk) 04:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Those of you who have played tabletop RPGs such as West End Games' d6 or Wizards of the Coast's d20 are no doubt aware that character templates, such as "Smuggler," "Jedi Healer," or "Mon Calamari Professor" are game mechanics and are not intended to represent specific characters. This TC thread came about after the creation of an article based on the WEG "Iotran Bounty Hunter" template but written as though it represented a single specific (but unnamed) individual.

This resulted in the proposal that we permit articles on character templates. Consult the TC link above for some arguments for and against this.

Allow IU articles on character templates

Allow OOU articles on character templates

  1. Oh, well... At least I tried. But if the dudes don't want it, what are you gonna do? Carlitos Moff 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Till someone establishes a Star Wars RPG Wiki. KEJ 11:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • http://swroleplay.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, according to that wiki's main page, "However information about Role Playing games will still be placed on SWGames" ...so it seems SWGames is the more appropriate place. Gonk (Gonk!) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm an admin on SWGames but I know nothing on the RPG's and there is no defined line as to what rpg stuff is on each wikia, I'd leave a message on Supergeeky1's talk on SWGames (He's the guy in chanrge but he MAY be away at the moment) or Fell Skyhawk's talk on SWGames (he's around and active on both wikia's he's also in charge of the Star Wars RolePleay wikia). Any way I'm for the move to either wikia, but it needs to be found out by someone on what wikia (I can't do that, sorry but that's why I've left the links) Hunterj|Hunterj's talk 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm not "in charge", persay, but that's not the point. I'm admin on both wikis. From what I understand at this point, the RPG Wiki is for playing games, not giving information about said games. For now, SWGames is the more appropriate place, until I find out the RPG's stance in this. supergeeky1 BobaFett The Cantina 22:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I think I'll keep my vote here till that matter's settled. KEJ 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Should we allow OR because there's no SWOR wiki? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Does it matter? It's not like my one vote will give the "allow" side a landslide victory... and, yes, since the SWOR argument has kind of fallen to the ground, I'll keep my vote. KEJ 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Well SWRoleplay is for games themselves while role play info is still going to be placed on swgames, unless the other users on swroleplay want to change that(SG1, Jedimca, Hunterj only other active people), though scince swgames is for info on any swgames its makes sence to put the info on there and it was decided to have the swrpg sub-wiki stay just for rpg articles about rpg's however its still getting reformated for its new role as we move the games to swroleplay. Give me a sec and ill format a area for it. Fell Skyhawk Boss Debriefing Room00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't allow character template articles at all

  1. This would basically be an exception to our rule against game mechanics and would set a dangerous precedent. It wouldn't be long before we started getting articles on Dark Side Points and (as I mentioned in the other thread) damage codes for blaster pistols. Wookieepedia omits lots of "valuable information" if it doesn't exist IU and this is a good example of that. Gonk (Gonk!) 12:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. This should be kept off the Wook.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 13:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 14:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Gonk makes a gonking gonkload of sense with his gonking argument. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. There is, I believe, a Star Wars RPG wiki. That is where these belong. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per AdmirableAckbar. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Gonk and Acky. Graestan(Talk) 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Teh_Gonkmaster. Unit 8311 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 05:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Gonk and Acky sum it up perfectly. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. IU articles don't need to be full of RPG stats, so they don't need to be here. But there's another SW splinter wiki?? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Do note that this vote is not about RPG stats at all, but rather text information presented in character templates. jSarek 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Templates aren't game mechanics in the same way we normally mean the term. While a template does have nuts-and-bolts mechanical information that no one is suggesting we include, they also possess a collection of mechanics-free information about a typical example of a character. Just because that information doesn't apply to a *specific* individual doesn't make it game mechanics, just vague about who it actually applies to. And this information is canonical; the first appearance of the Dark Underlord, for instance, was in the quote of the Bimm Bard template from Heroes & Rogues. Thus, I don't think it's a bad call to find some way to add this information to the Wook; I'm just not sure we can do it in an in-universe manner that respects the fact that the info is a generified example rather than a specific individual. jSarek 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Any such addition of vague info would be so fraught with weasel words as to be functionally useless—"Some pilots were brash." However, the Dark Underlord bit is a good example of something quite specific and useful that could (and really should) appear in a footnote or BTS in the Dark Underlord article, and probably the Heroes & Rogues article (or maybe Bard?). Gonk (Gonk!) 13:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)