Talk:Buffyverse role-playing games

Untitled

Okay, not too sure I agree with the move. After all, this does detail both the Buffy and Angel RPGs, and even though they are basically the same thing, I wouldn't put them both under the heading 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG'. That is akin to putting all Buffy-related comics under one heading, whereas WikiProject Buffy does of course differentiate between comics that are 'Buffy', 'Angel' or 'Buffyverse' (as well as other distinctions). I think that as long as this details both the Buffy and Angel RPGs (the 'Buffyverse' RPGs) it should go back to the old title. Jayunderscorezero 15:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, Angel RPG is treated by Eden as a similar but still separate game. Former article name reflected this better. --A/B 'Shipper 女 ^(talk) 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with explanations above. I think the name should be reverted back, unless someone knows enough about the Angel RPG & write it it's own article. Until that's the case, how can it be called Buffy when it's about Buffy & Angel RPGS??? -- Buffyverse 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I worked on and wrote sections of both games. While they are distinct (and the Angel RPG won an Origins award for best RPG) I don't think there is enough to merit two articles. They are more alike than different. Web Warlock 19:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What if someone wants to know about the Angel RPG, are we saying that that person should assume that the information is included on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (role-playing game) article? Maybe so that they are not distinct enough to bother with two separate articles.. So I made it clearer the article is about the two RPGs, Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel, then reverted the to the previous article title, -- Buffyverse 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, guys. Just thought it deserved sorting out. Jayunderscorezero 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I playtested this game and I didn't see why another set of rules would be needed for Angel. I stil don't. The supplementary material specifically for Angel is cool but the "world" is the same. Will in New Haven

Drama Points

The drama point system is the best attempt at that sort of thing that I have ever seen. The best part is that the characters who need them the most get them. I still don't like making game decisions that my character can't make and would have no way of percieving but that's just the immersionist in me. Lots of people love them and they make the geeky sidekick more viable. Everyone cannot be a slayer. Will in New Haven

"Playtester Insight" - how to source what cannot be readily sourced?

This is a question as to how we can keep this information, whilst still meeting the sourcing requirements of Wikipedia, with any help or advice being greatly appreciated. I am the playtester in question who added the content, which has since been removed due to being unsourced, but the problem is that it is material that cannot be readily sourced as it was never distributed outside of the playtesting community.

In terms of confirming my status as a playtester, as I was highlighted as an 'alleged' playtester, my name is included, under playtesters, in the All Flesh Must Be Eaten supplement All Tomorrow's Zombies as Rowan P. C. Tritton, I am a playtester for that product line and I was a playtester for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and ANGEL role playing games as well. I could also provide proof that this Wikipedia user account belongs to me, under that name, if required.

I still have access to the official Eden Studios playtester Yahoo Group for the latter aforementioned role playing games, and I still have the copies of the files for all these books, but they cannot be published anywhere due to a number of legal reasons, thus leaving them very difficult to show as a legitimate source.

Does anyone have any ideas how to address this issue?

To be honest, I'm not sure how much 'playtester insight' really benefits the meat of the article at all, actually, so it may not really be necessary to factor it in. --21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I was also a play-tester and author of some of the Buffy books. We can't include information from the playtest groups or notes since they are being held by our NDA's. Also given that the books were never published they don't meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. To be honest it is best just not to have them here unless the books are published, which is less and less likely all the time. Web Warlock (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Playtester Insight additions to the books section was to show that the product line was much further along than some might have thought and that hard working writers had done some great work which sadly didn't get published or even acknowledged. As Web Warlock said (G'Day WW) we can't release direct information about the products due to the NDA's we all signed, but that doesn't restrict listing the features of the unreleased products as here with Playtester Insight. The last element of the Playtester Insight was giving some 'insight' into why Welcome to Sunnydale was never released and potentially why the other, near complete, products didn't even get to the point of being officially announced, which is sad considering how close to completion most of them were (although they all lacked a print-layout with images and such).