Talk:Play-by-post role-playing game

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Role-playing games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am posting a link here to a resource for Mediawiki-Wiki-based Roleplaying. I searched for examples when trying to set up this wiki, and I was unable to find anything that was really helpful. I think it would be helpful to people setting up a game, especially new wiki users, if they could see a site where a lot of effort has been put into the wiki-side of Play-by-Wiki, and basically be able to copy wiki-code, the wiki's skin, page formatting, and various ideas from it. It is a wiki that matured and grew over two years.

For example, some of the character sheets and the council records are multi-page, and linked together with template based tabs - and done so in an easier to understand way than the example used on wikipedia.

The posting of this link is not an attempt to gain new players, as the game has ended, nor is it an attempt to gain visitors. The wiki was originally hosted by EditThis, but was later acquired by Wikia due to the volume of posting. The game uses the Ars Magica system, which is heavy on administration and record keeping, so has a variety of such pages. In addition, the site features a lot of historical and geographical information.

Anyway, given the above explanation, I hope that this will not be deleted on a whim. It is more important that resources be found and provided for PbW than PbM, due to the added difficulties present, like how-to-use a wiki, or things more unique to PbW, like etiquette/rules regarding posting at multiple points on the same page in the same edit.

http://arsmagica.wikia.com

I don't know if anyone else would be up to it, but I think it would be lovely if Play-by-Post gaming could become more than a mere stub.

Would anyone be interested in writing up a whole article on play-by-post gaming, perhaps even try and collate a history for it, and highlight some examples of the various genres play-by-post gaming has seen? - kimmetje

I think compiling a history of the form might be a more daunting task than any of us could imagine..perhaps a community effort would be best.

It would indeed be a great idea to do this and indeed, perhaps organising a history of pbp-gaming is harder than it looks. But certainly there is a lot more that could be said than what is being said currently! - kimmetje

Potential source of problem. The current play-by-post gaming page seems almost exactly like its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_text_based_role_playing_game counterpart. Might need to be discussed - kimmetje.

Not "exactly like" (the content of the two are not at all similar), but I suggest that the two be merged. jglc | t | c 14:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as history goes, I'd simply like to note that the Dragon's Inn newsgroup is the oldest one I know of. I don't think I saw newsgroups noted on here either, and it certainly predates forums/message boards.

Dragon's Inn has a website with a lot of the older history of itself... dragons-inn.org. It also had a forum for a while where people roleplayed, but everyone.net discontinued their forum service so it disappeared.

I just remembered a friend of mine said she knew of one older text-based RPG site. Don't remember the name though. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.164.248 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted a like for a common PbP site along with an example for one of it PbP rpgs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaos Maxtor (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deffinition of this term seems to be the same as an older entry called

Well, if we're being technical, Alleria, Overseas, and a few others started out by calling the process FFRPG/Free-Form RPG. I think there's a semantic difference in that "Play by Post" could imply simply the media -- Webboards -- much as "Play by Email" denotes Email, where as FFRPG implies the style of play used. I'm not familiar with OTBRPG, but will read up on it presently.

What would you suggest? I know that I personally would like to see articles divided by gaming "platform." For example, play by email (PbEM), play by post (PBP), play by chat (although this could be further divided into MUDs/MUs/IRC/etc). Or perhaps an all encompassing "roleplaying online" article with all of the different methods of playing listed. I personally feel that the

OTBRPG

article is too general and the acronym is a mouthful (and for some reason the "Common/Basic Rules and Etiquette" make my fingers itch to change them). I've never even used the term OTBRPG in all my time as a collaborative writer (the first time I came across it was here on Wikipedia). I know that about five years ago, at least in my "circle of online roleplaying" it was also a common practice to call PBP games "online simulations," or simply "sim games," because we simulated life with the characters we created. With the introduction of The Sims online PC game though, that came to a screeching stop.

Perhaps if PBP could be more thoroughly explained? I have just finnished revamping the fanboy-raped article that was

OTBRPG

states the basic criteria for a game to be considered an OTBRPG. As you seem to be qutie well versed in PBP gaming, would you mind looking at my article and telling me if they are the same, or if there is a difference?

Dividing by platform is a bad idea for similar platforms. Asynchronous play is pretty much asynchronous play, outside of the technical details of message transport - play by forum is not so different from play by mailing list is not so different from play by newsgroup (and what are you going to do with sites that support access to the same messages from multiple platform types?) I'd assume play by IRC is sufficiently similar to play by IM to class them together, but I'm less familiar with that sort of gaming. 207.178.110.185 21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need to figure out all of who would be interested in contributing to a revamp of the current article and then take it to e-mail. I don't know about you all, but I'm not all that addicted to Wikipedia and don't come here often. I think this and the related articles need to be revisited and a framework needs to be developed. We need to approach this particular play-by-post article - with greater objectivity and greater depth.

On the other hand, I'm sure it's quite useful for passer-bys to get an example of the style of gaming in action. I thus think it would also be good if we somehow expanded on all the different examples of play-by-post games. It would much more useful to get a good description of the games that are presented in this content item and explain how they do what they do?

Just some thoughts

(Kimmetje 10:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like someone already has merged it with Role-playing blog. I'm assuming that little notice can go then? Not sure how this works. If someone knows, they should probably delete the old role-playing blog entry. Not exactly worth its own article if you ask me.

Otherwise the PbP definition looks pretty decent at this point.

Whilst I am happy to see that there are more links around. I'm also noticing some of these links are coming from sites with very little activity - to none at all - I am of the opinion the links mentioned should feature only the largest play-by-post games in a given genre.

What are your opinions?

--Kimmetje 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added back in 'Empire of Ashes': it's pretty active IMO but more importantly represents a 'straight' Historical RPG without fantasy elements - a genre otherwise unrepresented in the links. I'll take it out though if people object. Ross Nolan 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned it's a fairly unrepresented genre! Glad you know of some. Maybe there needs to be a criteria a play-by-post game needs to meet before being included in this list. All others could go in a list of "Other play-by-post games" whilst the ones meeting the criteria can go under "Major play-by-post games" or something to that effect.

--Kimmetje 19:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Maeve from Tazlure from my laptop (so no login). This may sound strange coming from me, but why was Alleria removed, or am I missing something? As far as I know that is a major RPG game, even if you take a fair amount of ego into account. Sadness that the links are not on alphabetical order in their category. 5/29/06

Hey Maeve, Kimm and others active here. I agree the links section got totally out of hand. Deleting them all was probably the best thing to do and we need a criteria to keep it clean. Unfortunately what constitutes a "major" pbp site is a little subjective and leaves the smaller ones (er... like mine) out of the loop. I know this isn't supposed to be a way to advertize but lets face it, that's what it's being used for, even by the big guys.

My suggestion is to only allow portals, not individual PbP boards in the external links section. The major sites have their own wikipedia articles anyway, and unless the number of those grows too large we can leave those linked under "related" not "external" links. If you know of a good portal (there are so very few good ones) put it up here.

Also, at the very least, make sure there is no subjective promotional talk like "friendly, growing, wonderful RP site!" anywhere. --Frugen 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, how about using this link: (edited out)

Wow. Consider yourself reported for abuse. IP: 213.48.73.94 I removed the link.

Wow? If you say that you're reporting me you could at least mention the reason.

Frugen said: "My suggestion is to only allow portals, not individual PbP boards in the external links section."

And I kindly provided him with a link to a site listing various PbP games. That you can avoid direct advertising and in my opinion it would be more fair.

I hesitate to remove the external links to pbp forums until someone else also agrees that external links should only be a list of links to directories or portals. I will wait a week or two and if there's no objections just take them down. This means removing anything at all in external links (not the 'related links' to other wikipedia articles) that lead to game forums. Things like Pbem2.com, playbywiki.com, rpgee.com, service providers and that kind of stuff.

Oh yeah, and whoever went and edited up the definition by taking out the repeated definition of message board roleplaying, thanks. I meant to do that eventually. The definition looks much better now, if shorter. --Frugen 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have this suggestion. Maybe you could delete it, but include a link to one or more sites that list various PbP message boards. This way you would theoretically avoid using this page for advertisements, yet still give the readers some easy place to go if they are interested in this system. The message boards on these pages are often ranked by users rating etc. and so the major websites usually happen to be at top as well. I would post a link, but for some odd reason the link here was deleted with someone saying that I'm being reported. So, just tell me if this interests you and I can post the link again (because I seriously see nothing wrong with it). Ahemait 11:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant by directories and portals. Pbem2, playbywiki, rpgee are all either site lists or services. --Frugen 23:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly cleaned up the article! Much better indeed! Well done, ladies and gentlemen. --Kimmetje 21:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that external links from the PbP gaming section should try and direct users to major PbP sites. I define "major" as: 1.) Possessing a comprehensive listing of PbP sites on the Internet; and/or 2.) Possessing an active community of users with more than just a few active games, the ability for new DMs to jump in and start a new game, and the ability for new players to create a character and jump right in and start playing.

Whomever is modifying the external links seems to be operating in an extremely arbitrary manner. --E2thej 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above poster. I don't see what the difference is between dndonlinegames.com and the other play by post sites that are listed in the external links section. Lets try to be fair here people. Don't delete valid external links! -- Arthur [[1]] Tue Jul 11 12:34:37 EDT 2006

It's interesting that some anonymous person keeps removing links, but otherwise refuses to discuss what constitutes a valid external link. This *is* a community resource is it not? --E2thej 03:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines for external links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_link) and found no official reason why external links cannot be added that demonstrate (and allow users to participate) in PbP gaming. What better way to learn about PbP than to see it in action? Given that there are no rules to the contrary, I'd suggest that whomever is deleting external links please start discussing this before any further deletions. This is a community resource, and it doesn't bode well to have one person, or a small group, dictating to the rest of us what does or does not constitute a valid external link. --E2thej 17:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion. If you read up you will see it. I'm too lazy to quote it for you. There are too many individual forums to selfishly list them in the article. If people want to find games they can find them via the links provided.

Again. Simply because there *was* a discussion, doesn't mean the conversation is over. That has to be the worst attitude I can imagine for an alleged "community" resource like Wikipedia. --E2thej 17:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was blunt, but I have to agree that we can't let the list contain individual websites or it will just become what it was before all the editing. It gets bloated with ads in no time. ANyway, I added RPG Gateway to the list. It's a big directory, I'm not sure why it wasn't there before. --Frugen 08:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people (eg. myth weavers forums) do not stop abusing the links section here with ads for their own games, I'm gonna have to ask someone to lock it or ban some editors for abuse. I know you read the discussion, and the section is clearly labeled, so it is obviously abuse. --Frugen 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the leading play-by-post games' articles are being deleted or nominated to be deleted, meaning that very soon from now there will be no examples of prominent play-by-post games. In light of this, I would like to recommend that we as editors of this particular article consider some way of saving the content of these pages as they offer invaluable insight into the play-by-post gaming community. --212.190.72.17 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... Or a way for people to use wikipedia to advertise. We should follow the vote process and review each PbP article on a case by case basis. There are very few active editors who pay any attention to this discussion here, but there are many game owners who just use it to promote and post links. It is subject to too much abuse. I think the articles in question should stay, but the way to save them is the usual process.--Frugen 07:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD for New Worlds Project resulted in a 'keep' decision. I want to restore the link to the New Worlds Projecr article back but am conscious of our efforts to improve the quality of this article. I'm open to suggestions on how to add the article back in a way that maintains the flow of the current changes made to the play-by-post game article. --Kimmetje 09:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Dragonmuse link ought to be taken down. There is no immediately obvious further information on pbp RPG's on that page. If it's buried, please link the buried portion instead of the front page.

Hello, all. I'm quite impressed with the Wiki project, and use it frequently as a reference, but this is the first time I thought about contributing significantly. Please help me out if I screw it up.

I really just want to add my input to this quite confused subject which has some misinformation. Up front, I want to mention, I am the secretary for a not-for-profit corporation running one of these websites that you seem to be arguing about whether it's advertising or not. I would like to point this out so that I'm not accused of wanting nothing but advertising, because I'm a volunteer in the first place for a website that doesn't make any money.

Frugen said in June 2006 (I know it's a while ago but I really just found this article), "If you know of a good portal (there are so very few good ones) put it up here." Well, the portal I'd like to put up here is Playbyweb.com, which has hundreds of RPing games and is totally free, as I've said.

E2thej said, also in July 2006, "I'd like to suggest that external links from the PbP gaming section should try and direct users to major PbP sites. I define "major" as: ... Possessing an active community of users with more than just a few active games, the ability for new DMs to jump in and start a new game, and the ability for new players to create a character and jump right in and start playing." This is definately Play By Web, and it seems it is appropriate for me to post this link here... right? If not, let me know. Email me if you can, please, it would be the best way for me.

With all of that said, what else does this article need? As far as reliable sources, I don't think there really would be any available unless you included web sources, or persons in a position to be considered 'authoritive' on the subject. If it's appropriate, the resources of Playbyweb, Inc. can be made available for this if you'd like. 2l8m8 22:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking way better after the major edits were done. It is actually presentable now. I'm not sure anything needs to be added, however it might use more elaboration on the terminology used in pbp games. Things like autoing and godmodding. I looked up godmodding and found the article is under review and is related to pbp gaming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godmodding

I don't know what is expected in terms of "reliable sources" and citations in this article. Pbp gaming is an online activity and i've never seen any books on it. Expecting that seems hopeless for this article.

With regards to play by web, it is not about how large the community is or whether it is for profit or not. There are other very large not for profit pbp sites that had external links removed from this article (Alleria) because the article was being spammed by forum owners who wanted their games listed. Just how big and how many users a site should have before getting listed is hard to argue, and it's hard to measure just how many 'active' users a forum has anyway. I suggested, therefore, that only portals and resources for pbp games be listed, not websites that actually host individual games. Play by web is a hosting service even though there are numerous games inside. I would argue that it doesn't have external links or resources for PbPing in general. It's an iffy point. I'm not entirely against it being listed either, but I don't want something to open the same can of worms as before. --Frugen 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it, and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_text-based_role-playing_game, I think some sources for reference do exist with a little searching from someone with some time. Check the links cited there, and see if they can apply to this article as well. Wikipedia does consider such links to be 'authoritative' enough for such a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frug (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the conversation and I don't understand the glorification of directories/portals over popular pbp examples themselves. Are directories/portals not just a relocation of hand-edit link inclusions that we frown upon so much here? Now we have external link inclusions that are far less relevant and exemplary than the inclusion of independent pbp communities that make good examples of the pbp process we're trying to put forth in this article. Let's even analyze the links so far.

• RPG-Directory is a message board with a directory as only one of its message board categories. To include your forum in the directory, you must make 15 posts in their community and provide a reciprocating link to their forumhome. The majority of their directory links go to inactive, free-hosted pbp communities. I'm not suggesting that RPG-Directory should be removed from the list, but I'd rather judge an external link's relevance based on a community in its entirety, not on the precedent set in this discussion that glorifies human-edited directories.
• RoleplayGateway Directory requires you to register an account to manually submit your own link to their directory. I find it more relevant to link to Roleplay Gateway itself for anyone reading this article, as it's one of the most active pbp communities I can find on Google. I don't understand how a directory of low-activity communities is more acceptable than linking to one of the bigger players in the pbp roleplay field.
• pbem2 is inactive, as displayed by its front-page statistics. I'm removing it.
• Ongoing Worlds seems to be a newer development, or perhaps just retooled, but I think it's a clean, navigable example of pbp roleplaying even if it has low activity. At least in the scope of the current external links arrangement.
• FAQ on pbem games is a well-written and relevant explanation of pbem gaming.
• pbemplayers looks like a good example of the pbem niche.

I'll add Roleplaying Guild for its similar merits to Roleplay Gateway, but I'd still like to encourage an external link precedent of relevant examples to the article rather than the directory/portal suggestion thrown around in 2006 (conversation above). Fozbert (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here are the links:
    • http://rpg-directory.com
    • http://www.roleplaygateway.com/directory/
    • http://www.ongoingworlds.com
    • http://www.pbemplayers.com
    • http://roleplayerguild.com/
  • I hope that helps. B4RolePlaying (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think some explanation should be described in the article about how so many play-by-post role-playing games require applications. What is the point of applications? Can't members just role-play freely? Can't members just role-play as a guest? Can't members all just share the role of one character and play him or her? That would be my style of role-playing. Too much characters can make a role-play into a confusing soap opera. 76.192.142.216 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few games do not require applications at all. Generally these are referred to as "free-form" play-by-post games. There are general rules and guidelines, but pretty much everything is left up to the player to decide. The games that do have applications generally have them for a few reasons. (1) If the game is set in a completely original setting, then usually it is mandatory for players to go through an acceptance process in order to ensure that their character fits into the theme of the game. (2) To keep things organized. By having a character roster and keeping applications, the game itself can be much more organized (activity can be easily measured as well). (3) Some sites only allow "quality" writers into their game, and applications are a way to decide who gets to play and who doesn't. (4) Elitism, haha. There are other reasons, but I find that these are the most common. I do quite like the idea of sharing characters though. We share a few characters amongst players at a site I'm at. Kakos (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear some of the first PBP happened on ExecPC...Scribblecloud (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page strikes me as needing a lot of work, even some of the questions on this page seem to illustrate a level of confusion with the term. Take the question above regarding why do they require applications, I'm involved with a number of PbP sites but they differ from the type referred to above because they host hundreds or thousands of games where each uses a set of rules for a tabletop RPG, each having a GM(or equivalent).

Basically PbP, in my opionion splits into two types, those which host one large games and those which provide an environment for tabletop games over the internet. The latter being my specific area of interest. Pbem and Play by Chat don' belong on this page at all.

As for the external links for those types of sites only one is a significant site, some are promotion of relevant sites whilst the "link listing" type are nothing but link spam. IMO, the sites which are currently significant players in this area are:

DND Online Games Myth-Weavers Plothook (the only one currently listed) RPOL The Tangled Web Plothook (the only one currently listed)

Stats are difficult to compare because each uses a different measure of active games/members. It's clear that Myth-Weavers and RPOL are the two most active and have the most highly developed codebase, myth-weavers being rated significantly busier by Alexa. I can't begin to figure out what DNDOnline uses as a measure of active members plothook seems to hide it's stats - someone who's been present in the last year it looks like (compare to MW at 14 days, RPOL at 7 days), plothook seems to hide it's stats. TangledWeb is the baby bro here but needs inclusion as it fills a role not covered by the others as it serves as a meeting place for games using VTTs.

It's some time since I last edited on Wikipedia and can't remember my old login but think I might become active again and try and take this whole article to task.

So is anyone else interested in knocking this page into shape - and do you agree with removing Pbem/Play by Chat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.21.110 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Play-by-post", the type of roleplaying that this article addresses, doesn't necessarily exclude Play by Chat or Play by Email. In fact, play-by-post itself is a bit of a transitional misnomer because it traditionally referred to play-by-mail! Additionally, this article's parent article explains that play-by-post does include play by chat and play by email. I'm no authority on the particular semantics of "PbP", nor do I find it very beneficial to get technical, but I wanted to point this out. Fozbert (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fozbert is right in that this article includes those terms on purpose (I believe a merge was done in the past, actually). While I agree that there is a good case to be made that play-by-chat is different enough to justify a separate page, and that considering the 3 main terms (play by chat, play by post, play by email) under the umbrella term of pbp is also contentious, I do not think this article is ready to be split or that that should be a priority until it goes through another cleanup and has some sources cited.

Adding a brief mention that some websites host multiple games while others only host one game and/or one setting would be fine, but the distinction is not that large or relevant to the activity itself. The fact that some websites offer services for many games under the same domain does not, in my opinion, define a different kind of pbp. It is a service from a provider, not a new type of game.

Right now I take more issue with this new entry about "Free Form Post for Post" or "p4p" which I have never heard of or heard anyone talk about. Google isn't showing my any references to this and I do not believe this is a term that has been widely adopted. Actually I have no idea where it's coming from. This article shouldn't be used to push for new names that aren't adopted. Likewise the term "free form" is not defined or explained in this usage (in fact the only places I can find it are exact copies of the section from this article, which I believe the same person is spreading around). It should be defined properly, because I believe this to be a misuse of it. "Free form RP" implies a loose structure and a lack of specific action rules (usually combat rules) and is unrelated to the method of posting. "Free form posting" implies a loose structure for posting sequences, however this is also primarily an issue of rules that comes up in disputes (and, again, combat). There is a discussion to be had regarding this terminology, which justifies it having its own section.

Unless there are some objections or arguments to be made, I'm going to back and revise this "p4p" section to remove that term, as well as attempt to define "free form" and come up with at least one citation somewhere! Frugen (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think another serious revision of this page is warranted. The page has a fair amount of content now that it lacked a few years ago, but the tone and objectivity of the article needs to be looked at. I'm going to implement what's been discussed here, make some changes, and request a review. --Frugen (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the section on message board role-playing is unclear in that it makes it sound as though all message board role-playing requires a DM and that combat is a consistent element, when in my extensive history of PBP role-playing I've never encountered either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.111.179 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem unclear to me as well. I'm working to clarify this, and to remove some redundancy. Right now the article mentions that a game can be "diceless" twice - once under the "format" header and once under the "Message-board role-playing" header. Since email, chat, and message boards can all be either diceless or rely on dice(or other randomising tools) I'm going to move the concept of diceless vs chance based RP under the format header. Or we can create a new header for "rules". --Frugen (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:We Are Aliens.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:We Are Aliens.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 15:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

I have gone through and made changes discussed throughout this talk page, and focused largely on changing the tone of the article with an emphasis on the message-board section. Feedback would be appreciated. This is a first draft and I know it's not perfect. I'll go over it again after the following...

I'd like to get a second opinion on how this article can be better structured. I'd like to separate the "rules" from the "mediums" more clearly. Currently a bunch of rules about combat are contained under the "message-board" header, but these rules can be applied to anything from email to chat. I'm proposing changing the header of "varieites" to "mediums" and adding a new sub-header at the top for "rules" under "format". In other words, freeform vs diceless, moderated vs unmoderated, etc, would all be under "format/rules". Opinions? --Frugen (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the

Hi, I made a request for review on WP:RPG. I can confirm that they do refer to the same practice and that in the years I've been involved with such communities, the only difference is the name. "Simming" tends to be what the sci-fi community calls it, but not always. Both are just cooperative fiction/roleplaying on forums/email/chat. Directories like dmoz don't make this distinction. --Frugen (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text and/or other creative content from Simming was copied or moved into Play-by-post_role-playing_game with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

--Frugen (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply