Talk:Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game

Wrong ISBNs

I don't know if this qualifies as original research or not, but my copy of this book doesn't have the same ISBN number that is listed on this page. Mine has 0-87431-435-6 (and not 0-87431-268-X). And all three of the ISBNs listed for all the core rulebooks don't even give matches on Google. So something's wrong here. Eric42 (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That ISBN you're quoting is the ISBN for the 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded, the one with the Millennium Falcon on the cover. The first edition has the classic Star Wars poster cover with the main characters and the ISBN on the page matches with my copy and the ISBN for Google searches. The second edition ISBN also matches my copy and Google searches. I don't have the 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded but google searches do suggest that the 268-X is indeed the correct ISBN for the first printing of that. The one on yours appears to be a second printing's ISBN rather than the initial ISBN for the edition (you can tell because 435 is quite late in West End Games' ISBN list. Canterbury Tail talk 18:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, cool. I guess the way I was checking on Google wasn't the right way cause it's coming up now. :) Eric42 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

System overview

Couldn't somebody please summarize the rules as it's been done to many other RPG WP articles? Fskn (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I'd like to get some consensus on what links to include in this article.

On 10 January, the three existing links were removed. They were to swrpgnetwork.com, starwars-rpg.net, and starwarsclub.org. rancorpit.com was added on 26 January, along with the infobox. User:Byzas later re-added starwarsclub.org. I made a mistake in removing it, since I didn't realize it was there before, and it seemed pretty non-notable. Nonetheless, I'm thinking we should add swrpgnetwork.com and starwars-rpg.net back in. Thoughts? Powers 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I put starwarsclub.org back there because they have been supporters of the D6 game since 1993 and they ONLY do D6. If the other sites you mentioned support D6 as well, they should be re-added. If they are primarily D20 sites, they should be put on the D20 game's article.--Byzas 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the people who removed SWC.org. I don't think it's the business of Wikipedia RPG articles to link to sites which play games - that strikes me as advertising rather than content - but rather to sites which are about the RPG and which go into more detail about what's in the article. However, if it has a section of the site dedicated to explaining the rules of the game, as opposed to the site-specific bits (top four links on the left of the front page), or the generically star wars stuff (next four links on the left), that would make sense as an external link for this article.

I can't tell which version of the star wars RPG starwars-rpg.net is about - D6 or d20 - and there doesn't seem to be any game content on there. Or any content at all for that matter.

Looking at swrpgnetwork.com, it seems to have resources for both the D6 and d20 games and resources for converting between the two. That's the sort of thing I think is worth linking to.

Summary:

• SWC.org Remove but possibly link to the D6 RPG content if there is any
• SW-RPG.net Don't add
• SWRPGN.com Add

Percy Snoodle 15:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No objections after a month, going ahead as planned... Percy Snoodle 17:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't this page be moved to Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game (WEG)? -- Genesis 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The name wasn't very consistent. As you can see on the article page, the 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded was titled "The Star Wars Roleplaying Game". I think that's why this article title is genericized (it's not in normal title case). Powers 15:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to d20

I removed the sentence "Many players consider the West End version of the game to be superior in playability and emulation of the movies to the Wizards of the Coast version." as I find it to be NPOV and unneccessary. An example to make this clear - should we add sentences such as these to car manufacturer pages: "Many VW-owners consider the Volkswagen brand of cars to be superior in performance, handling and economy to other brands of cars." "Many Toyota owners consider the Toyota brand of cars to be superior in performance, handling and economy to other brands of cars." ...etc Of course not.213.112.249.111 16:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but that's not the most accurate analogy. A closer analogy would be saying "Many drivers consider the Chevrolet Cavalier to be superior in performance, handling, and economy to its replacement, the Chevrolet Cobalt." However, I can't argue with the sentence's removal, since it was indeed unsourced POV (not NPOV, as you say; NPOV is no reason to remove something). Powers ^T 23:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724144041/http://drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu/~jae/sw/sw-rpg.html to http://drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu/~jae/sw/sw-rpg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)