You are here

RPG Wiki

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
RPG Wiki

I have a project for a TTRPG Wiki.
The idea took form on the Gauntlet, but their wiki is ugly and unpractical, and I don't feel comfortable with community management there. Also, between Todd, Paul_T and Silmemune there's a very strong scholar vibe here. Given that traffic didn't take off to inebriating heights here after the migration from StoryGames, I say let's embrace our difference and make it an asset. what do you think ?
Sites like Board Game Geek have an impressive database of mechanics and articles, but what is there for TTRPGs ? Not much.
What I have in mind is following the TTRPG wikipedia article as an Ariadne thread to cover the main concepts, and something like Cloud and Dice as a basic conceptual framework.
The intent is to trim and chisel the biggest chunks, letting fans and users of specific settings and systems doing all the linking they like. Templates for the articles. Under each article, examples from games in chronological order, à la TV Tropes.
I already have models for classifying setting, genres, and techniques, I just finished setting up MediaWiki on my localhost, and will be experimenting in the next weeks.
Now is the time to let me know if you have ideas and advice about the project. Like :
Would Webtech benefit from hosting such a Wiki ?
Does something like that already exist ?
Does it mean too much work to produce ?
Does it mean too much work to maintain ?
Are their known pitfalls in such a project ?

I'm down.

I like the idea. I might fuse it with the "Glossary of Terms" Sandra and I talked about over on S-G. I think the main pitfall is upkeep, because creep is inevitable, and perhaps an occasional semantic battle over definitions - but that's not something we're unaccustomed to, eh?

OK, that's a good basis for

OK, that's a good basis for a policy statement. A
Wiki is a glossary with weird shapes.
I'd like to throw in sensitive reading and a scholarly, ecumenical line. (Tinkering away)


Hi DeReel,

I'm always for nailing down basic concepts to facilitate the communication of difficult ideas among regulars as well as newcomers. There was a poster on Story-Games that was big on the idea that in order to communicate effectively those participating must first set the foundations of the conversation or no effective conversation can take place. (My stooopid memory...I wish I could remember who that was. It was someone who had training in linguistics but I can't remember who. I am truly embarrassed and frustrated! Was it Jeph?)


Would Fictioneers benefit from such a wiki? Only if we want to try and have substantive discussions about role-play theory. For general posters I think it will be a lot of work for without real benefit. Such a wiki would be kinda geared to eggheads which I'm totally OK with. The question becomes does Tod, et. al, want to host those types of conversations here at Fictioneers in addition to all the other topics here.

Does something like that already exist ? - Not outside the very dated Forge Provisional Glossary that I'm aware of. But then, there are a lot of things that I'm not aware of!

Does it mean too much work to produce ? - I think it would take a great deal of work to produce. However, I think such a product is genuinely useful for fruitful conversations.

Are their known pitfalls in such a project ? - I think factionalism could be a problem, but that could be dealt with strong moderation.

On the whole, I think it's an idea that is long overdue.

"I'd like to throw in sensitive reading and a scholarly, ecumenical line. (Tinkering away)"

If I might point you to a post on the Forge from long ago called "On Charitable Reading" it might (or it might not) save you some effort on this particular topic. It is very well written.



Thank you !

I now think that moderation will be the main problem, indeed. My reasons for optimism are :
1° the perimeter of the topic is very small
2° the number of serious trusted contributors will be small too
3° acknowledging how certain terms can be polemical is an important information by itself

btw(On definitions, I'd be more nuanced : a local working definition is often practical, if only to agree on disagreeing on the definition (Cf "if by whiskey"), but sometimes you need a placeholder for an object that will be constituted later, and insisting a definition is necessary is a way of preventing this kind of research. Not everything in knowledge starts with axioms.

I'm With You

Hi DeReel,

I believe we are on the same page with all that has been discussed so far.



Localhost version is ready to fly

It has no content yet, but I'm proud to announce it, given it was a hassle to setup. I now can say hello goodbye please and thank you in MariaDB/Mysql.

Licence : SA-BY-NC
Minimum security : open wiki, open upload of files and images
Maximum extensions : all parsers and options but Nuke
Vector skin (=vanilla)

...blank at the moment