Wikipedia Question

[Daniel]

So I was sharing with a friend how much I liked Castles and Crusades. He was interested. He went to Wikipedia to see what it had about the game. He called me back and pointed out that on the Wikipedia list of OSR games C&C was not listed. I went and looked and sure enough, it lists several of the others but not C&C.

I would add it myself, but I am unsure how to edit the page. If there is anyone else who does know how, it would be good to add C&C to the listing.

[Arduin]

That would be nice. this example right here is a major reason why I don't use Wiki as an authoritative source of info on anything...

[Daniel]

That would be nice. this example right here is a major reason why I don't use Wiki as an authoritative source of info on anything...

True, but as a marketing tool?

[Arduin]

That would be nice. this example right here is a major reason why I don't use Wiki as an authoritative source of info on anything...

True, but as a marketing tool?

Yes, Wiki IS a mktg tool above all else.

[Tadhg]

I am a wiki editor and could add or change it, but

C&C is not a retro-clone game.

Those games listed are simply clones of earlier D&D games.

[Tadhg]

Also,

C&C and TLG have wiki entries.

[Buttmonkey]

I am a wiki editor and could add or change it, but

C&C is not a retro-clone game.

Those games listed are simply clones of earlier D&D games.

Yep. And if you check the Wikipedia entry for OSR games, you will see C&C listed.

[Tadhg]

I am a wiki editor and could add or change it, but

C&C is not a retro-clone game.

Those games listed are simply clones of earlier D&D games.

Yep. And if you check the Wikipedia entry for OSR games, you will see C&C listed.

Mentioned, not listed!

[Tadhg]

Interesting. I'm wondering why it's even mentioned.

Those clones are entirely unoriginal whereas C&C is original even if there are elements of a d20 game.

Seems odd to me.

I would agree that C&C started the whole OSR thingy, but it's not a clone.

[Daniel]

I am a wiki editor and could add or change it, but

C&C is not a retro-clone game.

Those games listed are simply clones of earlier D&D games.

And yet, it was a list of Retro-clones that helped me find C&C. I think many folks list OSR and Retro-clones together.

Interesting. I'm wondering why it's even mentioned.

Those clones are entirely unoriginal whereas C&C is original even if there are elements of a d20 game.

Seems odd to me.

I would agree that C&C started the whole OSR thingy, but it's not a clone.

Not trying to argue with your logic, but it seems odd to be listed as someone who help start the OSR and then fail to take advantage of the listing so folks could find you. As it is now, it seems C&C is no longer available and if I were looking to find an OSR rule set I would only look at those on the listing.

Wouldn't it be smarter to add it to the list and then say something in the description about how it is a blend of both new rules and the d20 mechanic?

I just thought it was a lost opportunity that could be quickly fixed.

[Tadhg]

wiki does have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_Revival

Not quite yet developed.

Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, Daniel.

Mebbe, the problem is that wiki entry focuses on clones and those few references to OSR.

And my thought is only that retro-clones are not exactly games ~ only some random internet persons sterile list of rules. And mebbe that's helpful to some people. Not me, I see no need for a listing of rules when I have the original games.

To me C&C is a fully realized original game, just like OD&D, BD&D and AD&D. Those games have the heart & soul of a Dungeons & Dragons games, as does C&C.

So I'd rather see C&C listed next to real D&D games in some sort of wiki entry. Perhaps there is one, don't know.

I've been so busy the past few years that I gotten away from editing or paying attention to whats going on around wiki.

[Tadhg]

Also, the first mention of Castles & Crusades in that wiki allows one to click it and continue to the C&C wiki - which answers some of your concerns.

[Daniel]

All great points. I will leave the Wikipedia to others more versed than I.

Regardless, I will continue to do my missionary work and find converts for the C&C team.

[Tadhg]

Very good!!

Another thing is there are lots of ways for people to find C&C over the internets and they have been quite successful.

ENworld
RPGNet
Dragonsfoot

are all large RPG forums that have C&C subforums and followers.

The Trolls have been and continue to go to CONs.

I found C&C over 10 years ago when I returned to gaming. Just poking around online.

The Trolls built it . . converts will come!

[ssfsx17]

Being excessively concerned about the opinions of the Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, etc. crowds is not productive.

Rather, you will probably have more luck poaching players from the 5th edition crowd.

[Kayolan]

And my thought is only that retro-clones are not exactly games ~ only some random internet persons sterile list of rules. And mebbe that's helpful to some people. Not me, I see no need for a listing of rules when I have the original games.

The intent of the retro clones wasn't to provide a set of rules to play by, but to serve as a platform for the publishing of materials that could be as closely compatible to the games they emulated as possible. This isn't to say that the early retro clones weren't slightly different, they had to be. The later proliferation of clones have been merely someone's take on D&D; vanity endeavors for the most part, take them for what their worth. I've read several of them already and they don't offer me any reason to switch from the originals, of which I am quite fond of. Some of them have ideas that I may steal and use for my own games.

To me C&C is a fully realized original game, just like OD&D, BD&D and AD&D. Those games have the heart & soul of a Dungeons & Dragons games, as does C&C.

I wouldn't say fully, as there are quite a lot of cut and paste jobs done. I agree with you that it is its own game and not a clone, which is what I think you are trying to convey, but it's not completely original by any means. The game stands on the backs of giants to be sure. How else is it so easy to convert those old materials?

[Tadhg]

Labyrinth Lord

For me, Dan Proctor used to be a random internet person until I met him and gamed with him in Gary's dining room!

Great guy, and I'm a big fan of Mutant Future!

[Tadhg]

I wouldn't say fully, as there are quite a lot of cut and paste jobs done. I agree with you that it is it's own game and not a clone, which is what I think you are trying to convey, but it's not completely original by any means. The game stands of the backs of giants to be sure. How else is it so easy to convert those old materials?

Right, and it does use material from the SRD - but that's not what I'm thinking of with regard to originality.

Perhaps, I should be more specific - The SIEGE ENGINE and the way Castles & Crusades makes use of it in their game seems completely original.

Agree, the game stands on the backs of giants and it many ways does a better job, IMO to running a great D&D game!

[Daniel]

Rather, you will probably have more luck poaching players from the 5th edition crowd.

So far, the group that has shown the most interest in what I have found is the long term Pathfinder people. I think Pathfinder has gone through their golden age so to say and the rule bloat is causing some of their fans to begin to look for something new. Of course they were also looking at 5th edition as well as a few other rule sets so I am not "pulling" them away from Pathfinder so much as offering them an option.

Agree, the game stands on the backs of giants and it many ways does a better job, IMO to running a great D&D game!

I will say of the rule sets I have explored this one does stand toward the front of the line. I do believe C&C does a great job of walking the line between too many rules and too few.

[dachda]

Rhuvein, if you are an editor for wiki, maybe you could brush up the Castles & Crusades entry. Under settings there is no mention of the Haunted Highlands, and no mention of the Codex Celtarum and Nordica. No mention of the latest printings of the core books, or links to Amazing Adventures (does AA even have a link?). The latest printings mentioned are 2013. And the one picture is of the white box, when it should be a pic of the 6th printing Player's Handbook in all its glorious color. The wiki currently doesn't give much impression of the living expanding dynamic system that C&C is. The history of the game is also a bit dated. Lot of work I know but I bet you could solicit some help from folks round here to help with verbiage.

[Tadhg]

As mentioned above, I have been quite the busy lad for the last several years.

2 jobs
2 dogs
1 wife
1 daughter
1 daughter's dog
1 cat
and loads of hobbies
I'm in the middle of writing a cookbook and a C&C module
I do all the housework
and now it's the lawn/yardwork season!



All that said, I'm back down to 1 job and my daughter moved out so I do have a bit more time.

But thanks for pointing that the entry needs an update. I'll try to see what I can do.

Rhu.

[dachda]

As mentioned above, I have been quite the busy lad for the last several years.

2 jobs
2 dogs
1 wife
1 daughter
1 daughter's dog
1 cat
and loads of hobbies
I'm in the middle of writing a cookbook and a C&C module
I do all the housework
and now it's the lawn/yardwork season!



All that said, I'm back down to 1 job and my daughter moved out so I do have a bit more time.

But thanks for pointing that the entry needs an update. I'll try to see what I can do.

Rhu.

Not to add to the work load, but check out the Troll Lord wiki too. even though someone updated it this month, there is no mention of Amazing Adventures, and Victorious. And their list of publications end in 2011.

[Traveller]

Rhuvein, if you are an editor for wiki, maybe you could brush up the Castles & Crusades entry. Under settings there is no mention of the Haunted Highlands, and no mention of the Codex Celtarum and Nordica. No mention of the latest printings of the core books, or links to Amazing Adventures (does AA even have a link?). The latest printings mentioned are 2013. And the one picture is of the white box, when it should be a pic of the 6th printing Player's Handbook in all its glorious color. The wiki currently doesn't give much impression of the living expanding dynamic system that C&C is. The history of the game is also a bit dated. Lot of work I know but I bet you could solicit some help from folks round here to help with verbiage.

In 2013 I essentially rewrote the article as the original was little more than a stub. But while I did the rewrites others have come along and made corrections and additions. While I could do the edits, that would take away from more pressing issues. In other words, I don't have the time to follow up.

However, ANYONE can edit Wikipedia, without needing to sign up for an account. If you have things to add, add them.