Talk:Eclipse Phase

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not the first CC game[edit]

Just FYI, since I keep seeing people make this assumption, EP isn't the first CC-licensed RPG. It's predated by at least The Shadow of Yesterday, the author of which releases all his stuff under a CC license. It might still be the first mainstream game, though I'll leave that to someone else to source. (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar to[edit]

I'm reading "Altered Carbon" by Richard Morgan at the moment. The novel seems to encompass many motifs seen in "Eclipse Phase" the RPG. Including the concept of re-sleeving - which I hadn't previously encountered.

Which way did the ideas flow? (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Well, considering the game's designers credit the Takeshi Kovacs trilogy as one of their inspirations - something that can be found in the core book - I think it's pretty likely that EP took it from Morgan, rather than the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


took 'source uncited' template off of the mechanics section, as the source is the book being described. sarcastic comment about the obviousness of this barely restrained. -- 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Which page(s)? Whether or not you think this is obvious is irrelevant - even articles on books need citations. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Pages 112-114(dice mechanics) and 191-192(combat resolution). My argument is not that sources are irrelevant, but that there is no other source to speak of except the book under discussion, yet the game's core mechanic is an important piece of information that should be quickly conveyed to interested parties. The citation needed template attached to it suggests possible mistruths in the following section, which do not exist.-- (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll add the citations. FYI, the {{Unreferenced section}} template makes no such implication - you're thinking of {{Disputed-section}}. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


So apparently Loren L. Coleman embezzled three million dollars from Catalyst Games Lab and they've lost production rights for the Old Media version of EP. Should we update the page, or wait for more info? (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, we can add more as it develops. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I have ties to EP, so I won't post this myself, but Posthuman Studios has indeed gone independent from Catalyst. They are now partnered with Sandstorm Productions. Also, sine notability was an issue with this entry in the past, someone may want to add that this game just won the Origins Award for Best RPG. Infomorph.01 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I've inserted the info, but for future reference you're fine to do so yourself as long as you use neutral wording and remain open about the possible COI. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

- Mechanics -[edit]

Players do not "roll one 100-sided die (by rolling two ten-sided dice with one of the dice representing a 10 value)", but they do "roll two ten-sided dice to generate a total in the 1-100 range (with one of the dice representing 10s value, and the other representing 1s value)"
No 100 sided dice are required. (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What difference does your preferred version have that is not purely semantic? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from one being wrong, and the other not ??
A 100 sided die is not the same as 2 ten sided dice. (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? Rolling 2d10 with one d10 being the 10s value as equivalent to rolling 1d100 is not unusual in RPG design, simply because of the difficulty of manufacturing accurately random d100. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Whatever, it's not accurate. Something like "The player rolls the percentile dice..." would be better. I'm editing the article. Fskn (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"despite large swathes of the mechanics and worldbuilding being shamelessly ripped off from Transhuman Space"[edit]

I just read the source linked for the above, and it says precisely the opposite of the summary in the opening paragraph.

Namely: Transhuman Space is a high-tech but recognizable future; Eclipse Phase is post-human. The author never once refers to Transhuman Space's mechanics or describes Eclipse Phase's setting as derivative from it.

The only reference to mechanics within the review was a mention of Eclipse Phase's reputation economy.

It appears to be an editor injecting his opinion and attributing it to an independent source. 2601:484:C200:90A0:1C7B:9435:E89E:B365 (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)