Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/Role-playing game

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Role-playing game
Status	Closed
Request date	16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Everyone who is debating on the article's Talk page.
Mediator(s)	ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk!
Comment	Consensus reached. Congrats!

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The article Role-playing game.

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

• User:IanChessman
• User:Percy Snoodle
• User:E. Edgeworth
• User:Trystan
• User:Mátyás
• User:Wyatt Riot
• User:RB1956
• User:The Yar
• User:Ryan Paddy
• User:Alkah3st

and others.

What is the dispute?

A bit of history first, as it is relevant to the content dispute: The article Role-playing games discusses cooperative, interactive storytelling games of the type in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters, carrying out the actions of their characters through characterization and improvisation, with their actions succeeding or failing according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. The sourced history for this type of game begins with the role-playing game created by Gary Gygax and David Arneson in the 1970s (Dungeons and Dragons), which is sourced to be the first commercial role-playing game. Sources indicate that these games descended from tabletop wargames, as Gygax and Arneson added the storytelling/characterization aspect to the game in order to create "the role-playing game." As you will see, the article also goes on to discuss the genre of video game also called role-playing games, as well as briefly touches upon live-action role-playing games, freeform role-playing game, and various electronic media that facilitate role-playing, such as the MUD and the MMORPG, then discusses the history of the game, common characteristics, and publishers of the game.

Some editors believe that this article places an undue focus on the original type of role-playing games (the kind descended from the wargame described above) and not enough focus on Role-playing games (video games) and other media that may popularly be called role-playing games. These editors claim that this article violates WP:PT, because they believe that the term "role-playing game" is commonly used to refer to Role-playing (video games) and other electronic media as much or more so than it is used to refer to role-playing games as developed by the role-playing game industry, and therefore argue that Role-playing games should point to a disambiguation page, and that the content of the article that is there right now ought to be placed in an article like Role-playing games (traditional), Role-playing games (tabletop), or Role-playing games (pen-and-paper), etc OR, a new article that discusses all possible senses of the term at length should be created to replace Role-playing games and the original content moved as described. A brief, preliminary review of academic sources and texts from published role-playing games offered by two of the editors do not offer a decisive consensus as to whether one of the above terms is used more often by relevant authorities than another, as some role-playing games involve "pen and paper" and some involve "tables," while others do not, and terms like "fantasy role-playing game" conflict with other genres within the role-playing game, such as "horror role-playing" or "modern role-playing."

Other editors have argued that while moving the current article to a DAB may be an acceptable compromise, deciding what to name the current article is problematic, because the role-playing game uses various appellations to establish genres within its own industry, and the term "traditional" is ambiguous and unsourced. Some editors have argued that the relevant signposting to disambiguation Role-playing game (disambiguation) already exists in the current article (as well as a brief discussion of how Role-playing games (video games) were influenced by role-playing games and branched off as a genre of video game), and so moving the existing article is unnecessary. Still others have noted that articles such as Goth, as an example, point to the original sense of the term (the Germanic tribe), rather than more modern, competing senses of the term (e.g., Goth subculture).

There have been claims by both groups of editors that one group is imposing systemic bias on the article. (Editors in favor of the move claim that editors opposed impose systemic bias from the role-playing game industry; editors opposed are wary that systemic bias from the computer and video game role-playing game community will extinguish discussion of the original sense of the term if the article is moved or merged.)

What would you like to change about this?

Much of the discussion hinges on whether the article violates WP:PT. If it does not, it is a moot point (policy-wise) whether the article needs to move. If it does violate WP:PT and must be moved, the outstanding issue is what to name the new article for the content that is currently in Role-playing game.

How do you think we can help?

If mediators could examine the Wikipedia policy issues that have been raised in the discussion, that would help narrow the future direction of editing.

Mediator notes

Preliminaries

Hello, my name is ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! and I have volunteered to be your mediator. I am familiar with role playing games (in all their forms), so the nomenclature will not be foreign to me. Bear in mind that this is mediation, not arbitration, so I will not be making any pronouncements as to what is correct and what is not. My style is to ask a lot of questions. To get started, I would ask that all interested parties sign below to indicate their acceptance of mediation and of me as mediator. Thank you, and I look forward to a productive and civil discussion with all. Regards, ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of Mediator

• Sounds cool: thanks! David. :) Harami2000 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Trystan (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Mediator accepted. Mediation begins. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Reached

Full:

• To begin mediation
• Role Playing Game cannot be solely about pen and paper RPGs
• If we are to make an article solely for pnp RPGs, the title should be Role-playing game (pen and paper)
• Role-playing game will be an overview article

Unanimous minus one

• Pen and Paper RPGs should have an article dedicated solely to them
• The content currently at Role-playing game is primarily about pnp RPGs

Consensus Yet to Be Reached

• Role-playing game should be moved to Role-playing game (pen and paper)

NOTICE: INTENT TO CLOSE MEDIATION

It seems most issues have been resolved. If there is no objection, in approximately 48 hours, I will close this mediation. I want to thank all the participants for coming together in a spirit of mutual collaboration. Good job! ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Closed

I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this discussion. As you're no longer disputing, just discussing, I've copied the tail end of the discussion to the article talk page so that all the editors interested in participating in the creation of this new article can have their say. Thanks for being so issue-focused and civil. Good job, everyone! ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; and for being a good GM! ;) Best wishes; and for 2010, David. Harami2000 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: Main Issue

Hello all, thanks for agreeing to mediation. I know that not all of you see this as necessary, so thank you for assuming good faith and agreeing to it anyway. Let's get started. The first thing I would like to do is ascertain what the issue is exactly at this point. I know that discussion continued after this case was filed with MEDCAB, and it seems that consensus was reached in a number of important areas. Please state clearly what issues now have consensus, what the consensus is, and what issues still do not have consensus. Ideally (I recognize things do not happen ideally, and that's okay), someone will be able to provide a statement as to where consensus has been achieved, and where it has not, and everyone else will be able to chime in with {{agree}}, a comment (if needed) and their signature. This lets me know where everyone agrees consensus has been reached, where everyone agrees consensus has still not been reached, and where there is a dispute about whether or not consensus has been reached. Of course, if you {{disagree}}, I need to know that as well (and please include a comment).

Here is the process for this case as I envision it:

1. We will figure out how many "sub-issues" exist, and where consensus is on each one.
2. We will determine in what order to tackle remaining issues (as the outcome of one/some may affect the outcome of another)
3. We will go through them one by one. I will keep track of consensus in the mediator notes, and be active in the discussion in this section as well.

ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus statement

We seem to have consensus that if we're going to have an article solely about pen-and-paper role-playing, it can't be at Role-playing game because it's not the primary topic for that name. The new name we have consensus for is Role-playing game (pen and paper), which seems acceptable to all editors who've commented on it (including Percy Snoodle), even if it's not their first choice (it certainly isn't mine). With the exception of Percy, we have a consensus that pen-and-paper role-playing games should have an article dedicated solely to them, because they are very notable and there are plenty of sources to create such an article. There appears to be consensus that the content currently at Role-playing game is largely about pen-and-paper RPGs (again with the exception of Percy). Putting those three points of agreement together, we get a consensus that the best course of action is for Role-playing game to be moved to Role-playing game (pen and paper). That leaves the question of what to do with Role-playing game. In my most recent proposal I suggested that we should move Role-playing game (disambiguation) to Role-playing game and that was met with approval, again apart from Percy. I believe that this solution is the "lowest common denominator" of consensus regarding what to do with the page. None of us are in love with making it a disambiguation page, but we can all accept it and agree that it's an improvement in terms of meeting policy, except for Percy. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree (of course) but I'd also note the following. A number of editors, including myself, believe that the ideal content for Role-playing game is actually the broad class of activities called role-playing games. However, a consensus has not yet been demonstrated for this (it only got a simple majority in earlier straw polls). In contrast, Percy argues that the article should be about role-playing games excluding single-player computer role-playing games, which he argues do not contain actual role-playing in the sense of the player taking on a charactisation of their character. Personally, I think the article should be about the class of all activities called role-playing games - not just those played by gamers, but also about role-playing games used in education and the social sciences, as the name is in widespread use for that purpose in the literature and the activities are clearly related and discussed together in sources that have a sufficiently wide scope. This is why I suggested a systemic bias is taking place. We Wikipedians (and I include myself) tend to be gamers more often than educators or social scientists, so that meaning of the term and the many sources about that usage are currently being entirely ignored, except for a link to Roleplay simulation on the existing Role-playing game (disambiguation) page. However, I haven't pushed for this because the aforementioned systemic bais seems to result in other editors not knowing what I'm talking about. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a related but separate issue. I'm going to split off a section (below) to talk about this issue as well. At this point, I don't see why both discussions cannot run concurrently. If we get to a point where one depends on the other, then one will need to "yield" to the other, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Checking... Okay, so what I'm understanding Ryan Paddy here as saying is that you have full consensus that an article about pnp RPGs can't be at Role-playing game. You have a U-1 consensus that: 1) pnp RPGs should have an article dedicated solely to them; 2)the content currently at Role-playing game is primarily about pnp RPGs; and 3)Role-playing game should be moved to Role-playing game (pen and paper). Do you all agree with Ryan's assessment of the situation? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we only have full consensus that an article solely about pnp RPG can't be at Role-playing game. Percy states that Role-playing game can be an article covering both role-playing games "of characterisation" and also pnp RPGs (he states that's what the article currently does). We also have full consensus that if we are to make an article solely for pnp RPGs, the title should be Role-playing game (pen and paper). Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have gone quiet - I've been home for the holidays. To clarify my position, I think the article's current topic covers RPGs of characterisation, but I accept that its content is biased towards P&P games. I think we should fix the content, spinning out a P&P article if necessary, rather than moving the current article, because if we put a dab page at role-playing game we'll end up without a parent article for the topic of RPGs. I wouldn't use the words "both" and "also" because P&P games are a type of RPG in the characterisation sense. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree That is my reading of the support expressed for Ryan's most recent proposal.--Trystan (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree point 3) - have not yet considered the possibility of splitting the current article and rapidly rescoping a catch-all for Role-playing game alongside Role-playing game (pen and paper). As a full audit trail is required, if there is a move then it is not possible to "copy back" any content as a full audit trail is required per WP standards. 94.30.77.1 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC) <- me... apologies; lost the cookie. Harami2000 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Removed point three from consensus. UPDATED #Consensus_Reached ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At the time of my last proposal the consensus (-1) was to make it a DAB. Splitting the article would only be appropriate if we attempt to make Role-playing game an article, rather than a DAB, and we feel that the existing article has content that should be in the new Role-playing game article. Harami2000 weakly supported making it a DAB, but would prefer an article. I feel the same way, and it seems that Atama does too. Trystan prefers a DAB. Percy wants an article, but he wants the scope of the article to be restricted to games that contain "actual" role-playing. So really, Trystan is the only editor who prefers a DAB, and the other editors (barring Percy) are merely content to settle for a DAB. Personally I'm open to a split, I think the lead and the Varieties section could be adapted to an Role-playing game article with a broader scope. The later sections that are about pnp RPGs could be split to form the basis of the new Role-playing game (pen and paper) article. But a split would only be appropriate if a consensus is reached to make Role-playing game an article, and the scope of that article is agreed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly in support of making Role-playing game an overview article as you describe. My support for the DAB at present was an attempt to keep the drafting of that article, which is likely to be contentious, from being a barrier to making any progress at all.-Trystan (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Trystan, it sounds like everybody prefers an article but would accept a DAB. I understand your position, as you have stated it above, but am unclear as to whether that is still your position, or you now prefer an article. If you'll accept an article, we can move that into #Consensus_Reached.

I prefer an article, and would support the introduction of one.--Trystan (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Added to #Consensus_Reached. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: Content for Main RPG Article

If we cannot agree that the statements in "Given:" below are true, we need to agree on those before we move on to the specifics.

Given: The purpose of any encyclopedia in general, and Wikipedia in particular, is to describe, not prescribe.

Given: The terms "role-playing game" and "RPG" mean various things to many people, and not all meanings complement (or are compatible) with each other.

Okay, based on the above statements, I have a couple of questions to ask, to get started. More questions will follow from the answers, I think.

1. Should every Wikipedia user that is using the term (in whatever way they understand it) be able to quickly and easily find the article they are looking for?

2. If a group of people think that the term "role playing game" should only be used to describe a certain kind of game, can that be noted in the article?

We'll start there. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 11:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both givens and both questions. Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Checking... - re. point 2) - I believe that this is where agreement on the scope and outline content of the "new" base Role-playing game article would be beneficial in advance as the term Role-playing game /was/ historically popularised and built-upon by Role-playing game (pen and paper)s, regardless of any "history" prior to Dungeons & Dragons. I would wish to see battles over "primacy" (vs. MMORPGs, obviously) or "who came first", etc., to the extent that those would result in article rearranging conflict to suit non-neutral POVs pushing personal "interests" (LARP & other precursors such as the Society for Creative Anachronism, educational & similar roleplay simulations, wargaming proto-RPGs (as leisure), military role-playing games of the type undertaken at R.A.N.D. in the 1950s prior to the shift to more computer-based simulationist approaches per Talk:Role-playing_game, etc.) minimized if at all possible. Harami2000 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by point 2 was: could we include language such as "some pen and paper RPGer's think that computer RPG's aren't really RPGs in the traditional sense of the term, due to blah blah blah." My concern is that in order to maintain WP:NPOV, all the points of view should be represented, including the "traditionalist" POV, but none should be favored over the other. Its even okay to say a viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, as long as said statement has a valid reference. That said, I understand your point. I'll be asking about the "new" base soon, after more people answer the above questions, and I ask a few others. I do want to hear from Percy before moving much farther forward, if possible. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your second "given" includes a particularly relevant point - "not all meanings complement (or are compatible) with each other." We have one meaning, which could be roughly given as "games in which players necessarily act in character, but which do not necessarily have any other particular traits"; and the newer "games which have certain traits (e.g. stats) but in which players do not necessarily act in character". I don't accept that the first doesn't warrant an article; and I don't see how we can cover both in the same article. With that in mind, my answers are "yes, so we need hatnotes on the articles", and "yes, but that doesn't stop us needing two articles". Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both givens, and think they are both particularly relevant. In regards to the second given, we are looking at an area in which terminology varies considerably. Authors are fairly consistent in the way the discuss and term tabletop/pen-and-paper and LARPs, but digital role-playing games have a wide variety of treatment.

For example, McKay (2001) cites a distinction between computer role-playing games and adventure games by the use of D&D-style mechanics. Copier (2005) discusses a class of digital RPGs including MMORPGs and MUDs, and considers any offline game to be more properly termed an adventure game. Conversely, Barton (2008) uses the term "computer role-playing game" to refer specifically to single-player games, distinguishing them from MUDs and MMORPGs, which he says have more in common with LARPs than other computer RPGs. Lindley & Eladhari (2005) use "computer-based RPGs" to refer mainly to MMORPGs. Tychsen et al. (2007) describe PnP, LARP, single- and multi-player computer-based RPGs (e.g. Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights), and MMORPGs as being the main formats within the broad genre of RPGs. (Articles ][1]]) All of the above works compare and contrast various types of RPGs (tabletop, LARP, and digital) as different varieties of the same thing.

Elsewhere, Tychsen (2006)(one of the more prolific authors on the subject) states "The variety of role playing games makes it inherently challenging to provide a common definition. However, all forms of role playing games – be they PnP RPGs, CRPGs, MMORPGs or LARPS - share a group of characteristics, which makes them identifiable from other types of games": storytelling with rules, control of fictional characters, fictitious reality, usually a game master (or game engine), and at least one player.

Given the fluidity of the language and the differences in how academics classify RPGs, creating an article structure is a challenge. The above authors tend to avoid making definitive declarations; where they do put forward distinctions, they tend to be nuanced and conditional. They don't, for example, draw a hard line between games of characterization and other games, but instead investigate in what manner and to what degree various forms of RPGs allow the user to do this.

The only suitable approach to complex topics like this that I know of is to create a parent article with a broad scope that can simply organize and present the various viewpoints in reliable sourcces, while avoiding putting forward absolute definitions (e.g. "characterization is the essential quality of RPGs"), easy dichotomies ("video games are not role-playing games"), and pejorative statements ("video games co-opted the term RPG"). Rather, I think we need a discussion of the many varying definitions of RPGs and the many varying classifications that treats each type on equal terms.--Trystan (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: {{main}} tag

I'm not sure who is aware of this, but when a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarized. A good example is the article on Rome. If you look at Rome#History you will see the heading Monarchy, Republic, Empire and under that Main article: Ancient Rome. The section then goes on to give a lengthy summary of the much more lengthy article Ancient Rome. This would be a way to get the most important information into the main article, yet still provide a more comprehensive treatment (in its own article). In addition, one looking for a list of all the major categories of RPG would find it by scanning the table of contents, while one looking for a specific type of RPG would also be able to find it quickly through the table of contents and would see that other types exist. Anyway, I wanted to make sure you all knew this option was available while you discussed various ways of arranging the main page. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good approach to a summary article at role-playing game. I would prefer that the article not only summarises the categories of RPG, but also discusses their shared history and makes comparisons between the categories, as far as can be supported by sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it might help form a meaningful consensus if we actually go ahead and draft the articles we are discussing. To that end, I've created a very rough initial draft for an RPG overview article at Talk:Role-playing_game/Draft. Please feel free to have at it, making any and all edits, additions, deletions, or other changes you see fit.--Trystan (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 On hold until we have consensus to actually move forward with this. I appreciate your proactiveness, but jumping ahead is more likely to hurt consensus than help it, because if we can get everyone to agree this is the best option, then that consensus provides a psychological "stop," meaning that debate from there is just about what to put in the article. If we're in the middle of determining consensus on a proposal, and someone moves ahead (as you've done), then you might have people oppose consensus on doing the summary article at all simply because they don't like what's in the proposed article, and that's not what you want. Could you move the draft elsewhere until such time as we have consensus on this suggestion? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing.-Trystan (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main tag is a good way to point users to child articles, so we should use it on the main article for the original-sense RPGs in order to point users to the LARP and CARP spinouts, and to the new P&P spinout which it seems likely we will make. We should also use it on the video-game-sense RPG article to point users to the subtypes of that sort of game - Computer/Console and Tactics/Action/etc. However, I don't think we should use it to create a sort of glorified disambiguation page, which points the user to the two different senses of the term. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems you all now have a workable solution that everyone is satisfied with: An article titled Role-playing game that includes summary articles of full articles on each type. In addition, the new Role-playing game will address issues of variation in terminology from a NPOV. I think a lot of the content in Trystan's treatment of the subject in his last reply under Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/Role-playing_game#Discussion:_Content_for_Main_RPG_Article would work well in the main article to describe the variation (and disagreement) in terminology. If this solution satisfies everyone, please indicate so. If all parties indicate they are satisfied, I will close the case. If any parties are not satisfied, please state why not so we can address those things. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this approach. It seems appropriate given the sources that Trystan has pointed to indicating that the term "role-playing game" has been used in a variety of ways. It seems preferably to a DAB, in that it gives the reader more information in an article that briefly describes the types of game and the relations between them. My first preference would be an article that describes "role-playing game" as a broad class of game, but this would do. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya again: bad time of year to be keeping up with WP, sorry! Trust y'all have had a good break, if possible. :)

Yep; thank you & agreed with the general approach /and/ that the article requires to be inclusive of definitions of Role-playing Games and noting similar concepts in context but, again, it would be most useful if a history of the /term/ is included as otherwise there is no control over the splurge of those many concepts that may have now been nebulously incorporated under the "Role-playing Game" banner in the widest possible sense by some authors but were not, at an earlier date, considered to be "Role-playing Games" by the then current mainstream definition/understanding (and still aren't according to the likes of dictionary.com, say ;)

For example, in Trystan's draft (many thanks for taking the initiative!), Roleplay simulation (1952, onwards; ROLE PLAYING THE PROBLEM STORY, AN APPROACH TO HUMAN RELATIONS IN THE CLASSROOM ?) has jumped in as the first entry despite being, in a historical context of the definition, proto-RPGs at best with very few exceptions since those were either unmoderated, had limited options, were "simulations", etc. See also the definition of "Gamed Simulation" in http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vhldkBIjA0sC and the various named "games" following - several of which appear similar to Diplomacy IMO; and that is definitely a "proto-RPG" rather than a RPG.

The fact that "options" in computer RPGs are more limited than in most LARPs and far more limited than in most tabletop RPGs has /perhaps/ encouraged a redefinition of the term "Role-playing game" over the past 30 or so years (compare with Rilstone's 1994 utilitarian definition on http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/rpgoverview.html and many other useful, valid points therein). That would be, in itself, notable as otherwise there will inevitably be that previously mentioned scramble for "seniority" and no perceived requirement to separate out "proto-RPGs" as /really/ also needs to be carried out in History of role-playing games, since that currently has a huge splurge of generic "role-playing" without much cohesive article framework.

Question, aside; date & context for the earliest usages of the phrase "Role-playing game" as opposed to "gamed simulation", "gamed instructional simulation", etc.? The first of these is, after all, what this article is about and to the best of my knowledge there was no strong claim "at the time" that those phrases were synonymous.

Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably if there's agreement to make role-playing game an article with summaries of game type articles, then the content of that article can be figured out per normal article editing practice once the article is in place, order of sections can be changed, etc, to give a NPOV articulation of the sources. Trystan's example is only a draft to give the rough idea. On the subject of education/simulation RPGs, it appears that their modern forms may have been influenced by pnp and larp, both in terms of play techniques and in the name used for them. To give the broadest overview they should be included, but with consideration to their many varieties (some of which do not resemble roleplay of any kind) and not with undue weight. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"On the subject of education/simulation RPGs, it appears that their modern forms may have been influenced by pnp and larp, both in terms of play techniques and in the name used for them" is definitely more succinctly put, thanks. Influenced by, but also (presumably in most/all cases) having dropped concepts of long-term autonomous character development. Harami2000 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about things that lead up to the first games published as RPGs might better be discussed at Talk:History of role-playing games. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep; I'll happily help on partitioning that out and reworking to make clearer where the lines are on influences, possible influences, proto-RPGs, etc., since that "history" is - as noted above - terrible nebulous at present. Indeed, checking back 3-4 years, various aspects of previous article versions were actually better/more focused before things splurged into "catch all" mode. Harami2000 (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I had provisionally included roleplay simulation, but none of the sources I have encountered so far have discussed them in the context of role-playing games. Whether that section should ultimately be included, and what it would look like, would depend on finding applicable sources.--Trystan (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

At worst that would be a good entry for "See Also" with an added note as to their relationship to the topic. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, for all those who scroll right to here to keep up on the discussion, I have posted a new notice above (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-14/Role-playing_game#NOTICE:_INTENT_TO_CLOSE_MEDIATION). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's good to hear that you feel we've reached a consensus, and I hope that's the case. Could you clarify a few points about the consensus that has been reached?

1. Is the existing page to be moved, or is the summary article to be created by repairing the existing article?
2. Are CRPGs within the scope of the proposed page? If so, where will the page be which discusses role-playing games in the sense that does not arise from video games, i.e. the tradition of games in which players play in character, including P&P, LARP, PBP etc...? Will this be spun out from the summary page, with PBP, LARP, etc.. spun out still further; or will readers be required to synthesise it from the various spinouts?

Apologies again for my limited participation - as has been said above, it's a bad time of year. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of 1, I think splitting the article as suggested by Harami2000 would be the best approach. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A split-off sounds good; what goes where? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead could be duplicated and then modified in both articles. The Varieties section could stay in Role-playing game and then be edited into the new summaries, and all the other sections could be split into Role-playing game (pen and paper). Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding #1, I think you guys can figure that out without need for a mediator. However, if this turns out not to be the case, let me know and I'll come help. Regarding #2, if you take into account that we all agreed that 1) Every Wikipedia user that is using the term (in whatever way they understand it) be able to quickly and easily find the article they are looking for; and 2) Given: The terms "role-playing game" and "RPG" mean various things to many people, and not all meanings complement (or are compatible) with each other; then it seems to follow that CRPGs should be covered in the summary article. Given that we maintain a neutral POV, the fact that a lot of people (often age 24 and below) think that "RPG" solely describes a genre of computer game necessitates covering CRPGs in the article. If the traditionalists think that CRPGs are not really RPGs, that can be noted in the article as well. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And the follow-up question? (where will the page be which etc...)? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that there is much need for dispute resolution regarding that issue, so I think you can work that out amongst yourselves. However, if I'm mistaken, I'm happy to come back and help you informally on the talk page without opening a MEDCAB case. Or if you all prefer, we can work it out through mediation here. Your call. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the overview approach suggested here, the position that some activities called "role-playing game" (especially single-player computer RPGs) do not contain actual role-playing would be one of several points of view expressed in the Role-playing game overview article. Trystan has noted that some sources lump all the activities together as role-playing games and others are more particular about what qualifies, so this seems like a case where we have to put across the various perspectives neutrally in the article, per WP:NPOV. This may be as simple as noting in the summary of single-player CRPGs that some sources state such games don't contain actual role-playing. So there won't be any synthesis required by the reader, all the information will be on the summary page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been clear. I'm not asking where we'll make a statement about whether or not CRPGs contain role-playing; in one (rather circular) definition of the term, the do. To maintain a NPOV we have to cover both definitions, and the consensus is moving towards covering them in a single artcile. My question is about where we'll cover the original sort of RPG - the one involving in-character play. Ideally the reader should be able to tell from the link in any given article which sense is being used, which requires that the two meanings of the term each have, at the very least, their own section; and preferably their own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An overview article can certainly delve into what Barton calls the "role-play" vs. "roll-play" distinction. The difficulty I see in using it to structure the article is that it isn't universally adopted or applied, and therefore doesn't neatly divide role-playing games into two clear camps. Indeed, it's a distinction often used to distinguish behaviour within a single game.

Formats are comparatively easy to sort out: PnP, LARP, MUD, single- and multi-player CRPG, MMORPG. How those formats are classified varies. I would favour an article that presented links to the various formats and discussed varying approaches to classifying RPGs without trying to impose one single taxonomy as universal. That discussion would certainly include, for example, Marinka Copier's view that single-player RPGs aren't true RPGs, or Anders Tychsen's discussion of the "reduced use of imagination and reduced flexibility in storytelling" in CRPGs.--Trystan (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think all the editors interested in contributing to the new RPG article should have access to this discussion, so I'm going to copy this discussion to the Role-playing game talk page, under the heading NEW ARTICLE. Unless you feel there is still a dispute to be resolved, please take continue this discussion there. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Existing multistub

This is just an observation, but the existing roleplaying article is close to what people are describing as the new form of the RPG article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Roleplaying =/= Role-playing game. Which was one of the points I was making about being wary about using extremely loose "catch all" definitions and redefinitions of "Role-playing game" and then retrofitting those to include historical concepts which were not "role-playing games" in the sense of that phrase as it was brought to world-wide attention.

(Also in that roleplaying article and elsewhere, that role-playing games have a requirement to "collaboratively create stories" is a modern and extremely limited Narrativist interpretation which excludes "solo adventures" from being "role-playing games"). Harami2000 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)