The page was previously flagged for Five P review with the rationale: ' and the disposition was: swapped in an exampleless sandbox, lock'''
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Rockford the Roe
Hey, can someone change "and GLBT hatred" to "and LGBT hatred"? "LGBT" is more widely known and "GLBT" is considered archaic.
Hide / Show Replies
The page is locked, only mods can edit it. I think, there's a thread for locked pages, where you can request such changes.
tHIS ARTICLE NEEDS A NOTE TO SAY YOU REALLY, REALLY, HAVE TO SPECIFY IF MORBID CURIOSITY LEADS YOU TO GOOGLE ON THE RULEBOOK OR IMAGES FROM THIS GAME. (left the above untoggled and in caps for emphasis!)
Doing an image google on "FATAL, RPG" isn't nearly specific enough. There is a website of the same name that specialises in collecting images of violent death - for instance, what a human head looks like if it belongs to somebody falling off a motorcycle at speed while not wearing a crash helmet. There are some seriously sick puppies out there! You WILL get a whole page of this sort of thing if you google on "FATAL" the RPG without specifying.
You Have Been Warned. Please add an advisory about this to the page? Thank you.
Putting it here because I've been wondering what it meant through both my readings of the liveblog: The difficulty level (TH), is not an initialism: It's an abbreviation of Threshold.
I had to open the FATAL "another land" PDF to learn this. Ew!
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Page examples cut per CV Thread
Looks like an obvious candidate to go under the new rules.
Hide / Show Replies
Tropers/{{McJeff}}
An editor named muninn deleted about half the article with the summary "removed content which was talking about the review, or the creator of this "game". If I accidentally removed something that you feel should remain, take it to the discussion page."
As I see no reason to remove content discussing the review, I am readding most of it.
Also, while it is true that we are trying to avoid slamming the creators directly, deleting everything that even mentions the creators is akin to performing a surgical incision with a battle axe. Wildly overdone.
I am going to readd most if not all of what was cut. Please specify what is objectionable about particular statements if you are going to remove them.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE. Hide / Show Replies
I readded, I'd guess about 2/3rds of it. Basically, if it was about the review or the review rebuttal it was readded, if it was about Hall personally or unnecessary snark, it went.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
As per the wishes of Fast Eddie and site moderators in this discussion, pages about works should not contain material from reviews of the work. If it came from a reviewer, it can go on the page for that reviewer, but since it isn't part of this work, it does not go on this page.
- And then perhaps using such things as the helpfully provided urination rolls to further degrade them. And then it lovingly describes how this will result in the victim herself being cast out by her family and community alike.
removed due to being an unnecessary expansion when the point has already been made
- Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch
from the review
- Completely Missing The Point
likewise
- Critical Research Failure
also likewise
- Crosses the Line Twice
read the banner at the top of the page
- Small Name, Big Ego
about the creator
- Schmuck Bait
about the person reading this page
Mc Lennnan and Sartin (MLS for typing convenience hereout) don't have their own page. And most reviews are just reviews, but the MLS review is generally a vital part of the "FATAL experience". And for that reason, that particular review should be an exception to that particular rule in this particular circumstance.
This isn't wikipedia, rules don't need to and shouldn't be used as a bludgeon.
Also.
- removed due to being an unnecessary expansion when the point has already been made
just plain disagree, why is the expansion unnecessary and what site rules exist forbidding elaboration?
- Complaining About Shows, Completely Missing the Point, Critical Research Failure
So because the review called them out they can't be included? That makes no sense. Especially in the case of critical research failure. Hall was called out on it in the review, but it's still in the actual game. The first two I won't readd because they don't really add anything, but critical research failure ought to stay.
EDIT - apparently I got the contents of Critical Research Failure mixed up with the stuff in You Fail Biology Forever while typing the above. It can go.
- Crosses the Line Twice
Fine, away it goes.
- Small Name, Big Ego
There probably ought to be some sort of discussion on how to use this trope. The article itself got locked down ages ago and all work on the cleanup version has stalled out. But Byron Hall doesn't and never will have a page about himself (can you imagine the nightmare that one would be to maintain?), and his responses are one of the most glaring examples of the symptom I've ever heard of. This really ought to be allowed to stay, even if it needs a disclaimer added to the end like "This does not need expanding. Please."
- Schmuck Bait
Away it goes.
Aw. That means that the "Burning this game would be an insult to fire" line had to go. That one was a classic "zing!" Oh well. I understand the need and the reason for the removal of review quotes.
Still... Can we have a seperate article for the review? That thing was comedy gold.
It doesn't look like the forums came to any definitive agreement about what to do about works that are only known because of popularized reviews. While they seem to nix the idea, so far as I can tell everything on Mystery Science Index 3000 still uses subsections. In my opinion this is rational, as most of these movies are only well-known because of MST 3 K.
Pending a more definitive resolution I think it's acceptable for this page to have a subsection saying-
The Fan Fic Net presentation has examples of:
The tropes of this presentation are worth cataloging. We shouldn't delete them wholesale just because we're not sure where they should go yet.
Edited by SomeGuy See you in the discussion pages.
Well then I propose we make a sub-section at the bottom of the page for the tropes relating to the review and rebuttal.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
I expect this to be worked out here before any more reverts happen. Edit wars are against the rules, and that is NOT a guideline. Any more of it will result in edit suspensions.
Complaining About Shows You Dont Like is not a trope and Completely Missing The Point is not the trope you think it is (which is why it was renamed to Comically Missing the Point).
I'd say make a page for the review and/or reviewers if they do indeed contain tropes. Wick it here. Problem solved.
Edited by ccoa Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
^^ Stuff relating to a work's reviews (or reception in general) does not belong on the main page. Period. Maybe it has some place on the YMMV page. That's where stuff about people's reactions to a work belongs. Or do what ccoa said - make a page for the reviewers, and talk about it there.
Edited by MyTimingIsOff
The YMMV page for some of this stuff could work, too.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
A page for the review could work. And link it in the trivia tab or something.
Although it will only work if the review actually contains tropes - subjective tropes and reactions would still go on its YMMV tab. However, reactions to this work inside the review could conceivably be considered in-universe, which would go on the main page.
Edited by ccoa Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Oh dear, negativity. The new terrorist.
Okay I won't get as huffy as when the Sonichu article was deleted, someone saved it. But still Fatal was a game where the creators were seriously misogynist. I mean when the guys who wrote that are THAT sexist then it's like they're begging for people to mock them.
Whatever, just whatever.
Hide / Show Replies
Jesus...why would anyone do that? Is it a twelve-year-old trying to become an admin? I mean, when it comes to trolls, whiping articles and replacing them with random meme phrases or shock images makes twisted sense, but that...I mean, what gives?
Formerly Nolan Burke. Natch.
Removed this from Complaining About Shows You Dont Like:
- That's not only stupid, but inaccurate. White Wolf games were interconnected, so theoretically you could play Vampire as a Sons of Aether mage and the worlds were designed so as to overlap. Hunter explicitly took place in a setting where the main characters dealt with Vampries, Garu, Mages, et al and everything else. While it was not what the games were exactly designed for, the roughly similar systems and shared universe meant that realistically yes a Virtual Adept mage could show up and tangle with Vampires. And vice versa. And this is not even taking into account the fact that every White Wolf game had oodles and oodles of options for player characters (there were like, what, a dozen or so "types" of Vampire in that game?) so even if you only play as a Vampire, two Vampires could and would be wildly different. So yes while Vampire is based on "one race", never mind that the game offers options, the White Wolf cosmos as a whole (or "World of Darkness") allowed overlap between everything from Werewolf tribes to Vampire clans and Mage traditions. Hat, as per Honest Rolls Character, almost everything about your character, aside from gender, is decided by rolling dice. How many options do you have for role-playing if there's no room for player choice?
...because yeah, Byron's an idiot, but this is a Wall of Text that doesn't really have anything to do with FATAL.
Edited by Crowbar
I find this confusing:
- "Game Favored Gender: Technically, no. Female and male characters get small but equivalent bonuses/penalties (Men get more strength but less wisdom, women get more wisdom less strength), and if one ignored all the systematic degradation aimed at women, there's no inherent disadvantage in playing one. "
Ignoring the question of how useful Wisdom is vs. Strength (in pre-4th ed. D&D, Strength was more useful for most classes), if the game does in fact have systematic degradation of women as part of its rules (and I've done enough research into FATAL to know this is the case), then clearly ignoring this is not playing FATAL. It's playing a game based on FATAL, but without some of the rules.
So I don't see how the game as written has "no inherent disadvantage in playing [a female character]".
Hide / Show Replies
I'd check it out, but the version I have (the one linked to in the description) appears to be a modified version, where female is at a disadvantage due to the fact that the females strength penalty far outweighs any bonuses she gets (taking str out of the equation, it looks like they would be moderately well balanced)
Now Bloggier than ever before!
'M not Crazy, just Raven
removed this:
- When you're creating a character, gender is the only thing you get to choose on your own. Everything else - race, stats, appearance, social standing, spell progression, even alignment and class - is done through die-rolling.
- The situation with race, by the way, is especially bad because all races have a built-in, immutable sympathy/antipathy level towards each other race. Absolute antipathy between two given races is not exactly uncommon. Since race is randomly determined, it's not really that hard to have four characters who all have absolute antipathy towards each of the other three races.
- Made worse by the fact that he stated it was "more realistic" to roll randomly because people in real life aren't allowed to choose their race. Going by the fantasy definition of race (as in elves, ogres and so forth), here is the real life random race table:
D100 roll: 01-100. Race: Human.
- Made worse by the fact that he stated it was "more realistic" to roll randomly because people in real life aren't allowed to choose their race. Going by the fantasy definition of race (as in elves, ogres and so forth), here is the real life random race table:
- This can easily lead to someone rolling and not bothering to continue designing your character. Why? Because one of the starting races eats children. Why yes, there are pictures, thank you for asking.
- The situation with race, by the way, is especially bad because all races have a built-in, immutable sympathy/antipathy level towards each other race. Absolute antipathy between two given races is not exactly uncommon. Since race is randomly determined, it's not really that hard to have four characters who all have absolute antipathy towards each of the other three races.
...from Random Number God. I've been reading the rulebook ('cause I'm a masochist, apparently), and on page 9 it says "Most importantly, consult with the Aedile to see if Race is determined randomly or may be chosen by the player. Random determination is more realistic, since no one gets to choose their race in reality. However, the random determination of race is problematic if a group of players are involved because the races may not get along with each other. Therefore, the Aedile must choose whether Race is determined randomly or chosen by the player."
The game clearly emphasizes random generation as a preferred means, but also gives other options. I think some QuoteMine-ing happened at some point, since you see the "nobody irl chooses their race" all over the place without ever hearing the context.
Now Bloggier than ever before!
Tropers/{{McJeff}}
In the interest of hopefully keeping this article from being put on lockdown, I went through and deleted a whole bunch of stuff. Since it's all there in the history I didn't worry too, too much about not deleting anything that could be salvageable.
Anyway, I know this is going to need some discussion, so here's the start of one.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE. Hide / Show Replies
Oh, God.
Well, I certainly won't pretend to be happy about this, but I won't be unrealistic either - you're right, it must be done.
Anyway, I think you've done a pretty good job - and I've zapped one or two other nattery bits myself. Not happily, but it must be done.
Regardless, I think that, whatever we do to this page (which gave me so many laughs the first time I read it, and I WEEP at the thought of having to blunt that edge it had) we must be absolutely sure that it communicates three things: that this game has a massive Hatedom, that its system is completely broken, and that its content is shocking in the worst sort of ways. And if we can sneak through one or two hints about the nature of its creators, that would be nice too.
And really, I think we should try to get away with one or two snarky comments. Whatever sanctions our dear admins impose, they can't beat down this great Wiki's informal prose style. There's nothing currently on the page that can honestly be called untrue, and reading a completely emotionless article about a YAY RAEPING sort Role-Playing Game on THIS wiki would be...jarring, to say the least.
You know, I honestly can't comprehend what our friend Fast Eddie is going for other than some carbon copy of Wikipedia. But, well, whatever. I'm no anarchist. We'll roll with it.
Formerly Nolan Burke. Natch.
Hey, I'm not in favor of none. It's like - IMO, everyone who's actually liked FATAL needs to be powerbombed, Byron Hall preferably into a bamboo spike pit trap, and Burnout, who somehow comes across as a bigger creep than Hall, into a vat of jack jumpers.
But if we can demonstrate that we can rationalize when to bash the creators and when not to, that's the article's best hope of not getting locked or baleeted.
Anyhow, I figured cutting out all the snark was a good start, and the funniest bits could be reinserted. Just gotta cut down on things like there were ten variations of the "killing everything in the world would be for the best". joke.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
The article has the game's ability to urinate for 16 feet if you have the maximum urination score described as unrealistic. The official world record is 19.8 feet, but there are recorded examples of urinating 30 feet. 16 feet is far from unrealistic for someone with the maximum score in Urination.
There are many weird flaws in FATAL, but this is not an example of one.