Talk:Zweihänder (role-playing game)

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 04-06-2019.

RPG Wiki Cleaner (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. ([1])
AMPublishingGal (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
MforMoniker (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (check the edit summary)

Publishing info

The new publishing info seems legit: http://publishing.andrewsmcmeel.com/books/detail?sku=9781524851668

CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the publication date: 6/11/2019. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, hold off on info about this until then. CapnZapp (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Styling

Just because the game wants to be stylized ZWEIHÄNDER does not mean Wikipedia indulges. See MOS:ALLCAPS. CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They even use Zweihander in their own sites to refer to themselves all over the place. Not even Zweihänder. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reason to believe Zweihander is COMMONUSAGE over Zweihänder, feel free to change it. Not sure we have the number and quality of sources to make it worth the bother, though. CapnZapp (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it's clearly Zweihänder on the book, so that's fine. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best Seller

For the final time: selling a number of copies IS NOT AN AWARD. Listing things like "Gold Best Seller on DriveThruRPG" as an award is an affront to encyclopedic standards! No wonder these edits are made by accounts suspected of COI! CapnZapp (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, keep removing that one. The DriveThru metals are just sales thresholds. Passing one means they've sold more than X copies (where the public doesn't know what X is) and has no say on the quality. There's some real dross in those categories on DriveThru. Canterbury Tail talk 11:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Warhammer is sus

Let's be honest, this game is and has always intended to be a take on the earlier editions Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game, shorn of trademarks for obvious reasons, but intended as a spiritual successor to those first two editions as an alternative to the radically different third edition that Fantasy Flight had published. It's clearly discussed in reviews of the game that it's definitively inspired by WFRP, yet that this isn't mentioned at all in the article seems almost like a bit of whitewashing of that fact by the COI editor mentioned above. I think it needs to be integrated, albeit with the aforementioned reviews as a source. oknazevad (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at or what exactly you want. Could you be more specific than seems almost like a bit of whitewashing of that fact by the COI editor mentioned above? (What exact edits are you opposing?) Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that removing any mention of WFRP from this article is a mistake and that despite the rest of the edits being suspect in their promotional purpose, the COI editor's description of Zweihander as a WFRP retro-clone inspired by the OSR movement is an accurate description of the creators' own stated goals and should be restored. Omitting such a description would be like leaving out the D&D name from the article about Pathfinder. It is pretty definitional. oknazevad (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you what specific edit or edits you refer to. Besides, I think you know that primary sources are to be avoided, Okn. Using COI edits as primary sources strikes me as an especially bad idea. Let us instead discuss good sources. Do you have any specific references you suggest we use to back up those claims of yours? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For good sources, there's Shannon Applecline specifically calling it an OSR retro-clone of WFRP here. My point is that throwing out the baby (the relevant fact) with the bath water (the attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion) is not necessarily a good idea. (As an aside, I hope that humorously using "sus" in the section header here wasn't taken as accusatory. That was not my intention. Just trying to add a little levity.) I do think it's very important to note what this game is intended to be, even if it does sound buzzword-filled. I was genuinely surprised to not see any mention of WFRP in the article at all. oknazevad (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you see me taking you seriously to assuage any fears of hostility. Now, I'm no expert, but many would object strenuously to categorize Zweihander as OSR, so at the very least it would be nice to see a second source making the WFRP connection without involving OSR. As for your source, thank you, but it does fall foul of being a blog. Do you have Appelclines' history of RPGs? Maybe it makes a better source? CapnZapp (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Shannon hasn’t started work on the 10s volume which is what Grim and Perilous Studios would be in. Canterbury Tail talk 20:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that it counts as OSR as it is about a game from much later in the timeline from the traditional OSR inspirations and is still being published not much different to what it was as WFRP. Remember 2nd edition, which is almost identical to first, was being published from mid to late 2000s so I’m not sure it’s possible for something based off WFRP to be OSR. So not sure how it can be an OSR of something that is still current. But that’s my view. It would need more sources. Canterbury Tail talk 21:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could treat the OSR discussion as a sidetrack if your main concern is the WFRP connection, Okn? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]