Talk:Man, Myth & Magic (role-playing game)

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2018. The result of the discussion was keep and withdrawn by norminator.

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.

Norse Trilogy[edit]

Can anyone verify it was not published? I have been seeking this set for many years and would like to confirm that it does not exist.

I cannot verify for a fact that it does not exist, but having searched my gaming sites and Online rpg book sellers, some that have all the other books in the series, but not the norse trilogy, I am pretty sure that it indeed was never published. 70.179.142.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Moron edits: Product list[edit]

I have to agree with the post below. Removing the product list from Man, Myth and Magic is asinine. Man, Myth and Magic is a product. If you use the excuse that "Wikipedia is not a product directory" then you have to remove the whole post. Man, there are some morons editing this stuff.

Neutrality Issue[edit]

This page appears to contaqin a one sided arguement for this game.

I deduced from the previous statements a basic description of the game. Removed all POV statements. This is not a place for game reviews. I think it would be OK to add more factual stuff about interaction, the storylines, or how this game might have influenced later RPGs, how it evolved, etc. I'm guessing the NPOV template could be removed if there's no objection. Ebonyskye 10:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it with Wikipedia[edit]

From the header:

"This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia."

So, being a writer and experienced gamer of many long years, I decide to help out and clear the stub, by writing a nice piece to explain both the nature of the game, and the ups and downs its experienced over the years (and why). Also, like any good game page on Wikipedia, I add a full "published products" list, for reference.

Much later, I actually needed to make use of that list (a handy quick-reference, so I didn't have to go digging through my old game books again to check a title). And what do I find? First, some guy that doesn't even know what the word "deduced" means has deleted everything I wrote, replacing it with a useless two-line summary, because he's decided that it was unbalanced, and compounds the insult by calling it a review. Then some other genius comes along and deletes the list of published books for the game (y'know, the reason for the page) and says, "Wikipedia is not a product directory" as his excuse.

That's it, I'm gone. No more. I'm used to the goofballs that play tricks and slip-in silly stuff here and there that needs cleaning, but when people start chopping things to pieces, and removing literate, well-researched, and completely on-topic material because they can't get their heads around it, that's the final straw. Wikipedia needs intelligent, educated people to run things, and should ban anyone else from being involved beyond some initial submission stage.

Now, to illustrate why these were poor edits. I'll begin with the removal of the product list. Adding such lists is the most common feature of any RPG related page. It shows the user what the article is actually talking about, and keeps a record of what was actually produced for the game. It's incredibly handy, useful information if researched properly (I've seen a few that were woefully incomplete and/or had incorrect listings). To remove that isn't just ludicrous, it's completely contrary to the stated purpose of the page.

As for my article, it wasn't biased, nor was it a "review." (God, doesn't anyone own a dictionary anymore?) If you'll look at the archived page, you'll see for yourself. I've been a game enthusiast for many years. I was "there," so to speak, when this game was released. I got to experience the game, I got to experience the people who commented on the game, I got to experience the ups and downs over the years regarding public opinion concerning the game. And so I wrote exactly that, what my observations and experience have been, along with notable comparrisons to other games that had bearing on the subject and time period. I have no "pro" or "con" agenda, and merely gave people an honest introduction to the, somewhat controversial, game system. Even more, note that I went so far as to encourage people not to assume anything based on what they've heard or read, and cited the good and the bad aspects they may encounter, so they'd be able to make up their own minds. And you want to view that as being some fanboy scribbling? Go to hell.

The real irony here is that I just finished doing several hours of editing on another page, removing a stub and filling-in all the correct, actually useful information people would be looking for. And then I see this. Heh, yeah, no thanks. You can do your own legwork from now on, I quit. 70.247.210.41 (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review summaries needed[edit]

Different Worlds #25 (Oct./Nov., 1982)