Talk:LitRPG

Russian section

Someone deleted the Russian (and Gamelit) sections on 22 Jan 2019, saying it was from the Russian publishing houses and biased. I put them back as even the name LitRPG as opposed to RPGLit demonstrates the Russian origins of the term for the genre. I believe it is neither biased nor promotional to note the Russian contribution to the evolution of this subject. JimHolden (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible content expansion

Would "Guardians of the Flame" (the Warriors) book series be an early example of this genre? If not, what aspects of LitRPG is it missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c6:4900:6609:7587:a9d6:8a3a:6ba4 (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2017‎ (UTC)

In The Sleeping Dragon, the protagonists go from a world where an RPG exists as a game, and are then inserted into that same world, now as reality. However, the mechanics of the game disappear once they are inside of it. IIRC everything is turned into reality, you no longer have knowledge of level, hit points, etc. LitRPG retains those mechanics as part of the story, if I understand the genre definition correctly.Sheriffjt (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

How can we not include Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson on this page? Seems like a primary example of the genre.

I've seen discussions that include it. It certainly deserves recognition for using a 'metaverse' in fiction. But there isn't a virtual game in this book, rather a massive virtual space. In my view, the RPG-side of the definition of LitRPG is important. JimHolden (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've been quite affected by a short story by Bill Williams called "The Master's Game", published in Metagaming's The Space Gamer #14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwnedByTwoCats (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Has everybody forgotten about .hack or what FeepingCreature (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Author list

I think we are going to have a struggle on this page to stop authors self-promoting. Already, I think the list under American LitRPG is not neutral, either in the order of the authors or the selection, which is a bit arbitrary. My feeling is it would be best to leave the names out (as in earlier versions) and if the authors become noteworthy enough to have Wikipedia pages they can be linked here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OisinCork123 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

American LitRPG section is becoming a mess again. Authors complaining on Facebook about not being on the list are being added despite a dearth of evidence of 'dominating' the genre. Entire article below the lead reads like it was written by a single American LitRPG author before other users added their edits. Article is very American-centric for a genre still actually dominated by Russian authors even in the English language markets. Not a single Russian LitRPG author is named. Suggest deleting the entire section until there is enough content in the article to justify citing specific authors.DeathJester (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

We need actual WP:RS (published independent) to cherry-pick which are the major authors. I don't think editors' analysis of vendor sites suffices (similar to WP:GHITS). Instead, maybe we should use the notability of the individuals as the inclusion criterion. Obviously being a best-selling author or an important contributor to a genre can make a person notable, but let's have notability lead the way for creation of that person's own WP article. Then the list here can be a list of bluelinks (see Wikipedia:Write the article first). DMacks (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I just boldly removed listings that only had references linking to promotional material, and added some new reviewer references to strengthen the list items that remain. I agree that it might be better to only list books with existing articles, but this is a manageable step. Subvisser5 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding trademark subheading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning

You may discuss reasons here for alteration of the trademark subheading, so as to prevent user content wars between anonymous IPs. Please provide reason for deletion and provide references to strengthen your case. If you believe the content acts as one or multiple of: personal attacks, erroneous and/or serious accusations; then please provide referenced material detailing the proper events. To promote accountability, please sign posts with four tildes (~), like so - LitRPGbooks (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is up to the person adding material to provide proper reference material that the information is unbiased, accurate, and has sufficient weight based on secondary sources. Most of the material added in this new Trademark section is from forums, blogs, and reddit, which are not reliable sources for Wikipedia as they are WP:RSSELF. The information sourced directly to the government is a primary source and can only be used to source facts without interpretation minus a secondary source. There is also the aspect of weight. Inclusion of a section this large is determined by the weight given to the topic in secondary reliable sources, which this section does not include regarding trademark (meaning little to no weight should be given). Then you have statements that do seem bias, such as calling out the "self-styled 'Father of LitRPG'" (while I personally find it self-aggrandizing, if I recall, a fan gave Aleron this title) and "despite coining and use of the term" (true, but this comes off as bias). "The LitRPG community were unaware of the initiation of these proceedings" - Really? I think the community has known about it for quite some time. While I think the information does represent the debate to a large extent, I can easily see why the entire thing is deleted. It doesn't meet any of Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 17:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

--------------

I agree with much of what you said, however, there is a dearth of referenced material as it is still a largely unexplored and emergent genre. The majority of things from reddit were to display community response, and I was otherwise unaware of how else to state that. If there were other sources, I would of course include them, but without resorting to forums and blogs for information, even the attempt at creating a LitRPG wiki entry would be futile, since people cannot agree on the definition and thus even the second reference would be considered invalid.

My main issue is with how alteration of content is occurring, is that the entry has been rewritten several times by various users, following which they have been entirely deleted with no thought to valid content. Each of which include salvageable material. WP:DR states that best practice is to alter and reword material rather than resorting to simple deletion, provided that information is relevant, which I would opine it is. I am open to modification of the material, I would even welcome it. I understand enough to know that I am inherently biased and would be delighted to see what I wrote transcend that failing.

To comment on community knowledge of the events, the point I was making was that there was no transparency behind Aleron's actions. His actions were called out by the community rather than being outlined by Aleron in advance, which was one of the reasons for the resistance to it. The entire thing was altogether far too furtive and his sanctimonious skirting around the issues did not help either.

As for reference to Aleron's title, yes it likely is (read as almost certainly) biased, however, my reasoning behind it is that his account "RichterInTheLand" made the attribution so that it was self referential (Reference 6 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LitRPG&oldid=779776187).

As for the size of the section, I would respectfully disagree in terms of its length. The major issue in my mind is the comparative lack of material in other parts, which is not helped by the lack of valid referenced material. But that is simply my opinion.

I would rather people just assume good faith rather than going for the "this is a personal attack" route and instead keep everything here friendly, while throwing in their own edits so that the wiki entry grows to a point where it is respectable and impartial. I just find the deletion of material, any material (I think the American LitRPG section could have been salvaged, as long as a russian and asian section were likewise added), is sad and, in my opinion a last case resort, not a first case one. - LitRPGbooks (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Morphh's comments above. The problem with the text, as it appears now, is lack of independent, secondary, and reliable sources. Patent filings are primary sources. Reddit threads and Facebook posts fail the reliability test. Frankly, for anything about the patent filing to be mentioned, there needs to be coverage in news-grade sources: newspaper articles, online tech journals, etc. Further, it should probably be cut down significantly: I don't see where it warrants the column-inches that it's currently getting. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. The issue is that there is a lack of independent, secondary, and reliable sources, full stop. It's a niche genre and the wiki entry was initially created by an author in an attempt to self promote his books. I won't contest that the entry (which I will shorten forthwith) needs RS, but the entire genre needs RS relating to it. I've scoured everything and everywhere and not for lack of trying this is all there is, bar the occasional sponsored vanity news content for SEO backlinking. (NB- 20:11 1/1/18 - section has been shortened significantly and primary source material stated - LitRPGbooks (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

LitRPGbooks I think C.Fred is correct about problem with the text. I am not going to remove content but you should really try finding reliable sources, since you definitely understand what are reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

user:Altenmann has re-introduced this issue. I am uncertain this is wise, as it might lead to a content war. Nor is it necessarily appropriate to the entry. While factually correct, it might be considered out of order in the light of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point and while the newsworthiness of this information might change if a trademark were awarded, I don't think it currently relevant to an encyclopedia entry on LitRPG. Thoughts? JimHolden (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is unencyclopediac detail. DMacks (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please justify your opinion. - Altenmann >talk 23:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that I had no idea about this previous mess two years ago and I have no vested interest. It was "drive-by" edit. First of all, I completely agree that the issue does not deserve a whole subsection. On the other hand, I disagree that this is a piece of trivia: the very term which is article title is tradamark-squatted. May be this fact is of no interest for experts in, say, islamic law, but it is of immediate interest for this new kind of literature, which did not have a separate name before. Imagine someone trademarked the terms "space opera" or "planetary romance". Weird, isnt it? Therefore when I started googling the term in English (working on a different article), I took a note that a large number of hits was about this trademark fuss; therefore I did some digging and added the fact into wikipedia. Clearly, if a term is trademarked, this is not a joke, this has an immediate legal impact and hence the fact must be known in this business area and hence encyclopedic. - Altenmann >talk 23:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

if a trademark were awarded - Yes it was awarded last year, that's what I wrote, and that's why I wrote it. Of cource, if it were just an application, I would agree this would be a piece of nn trivia, despite all shitthrowing in blogs. - Altenmann >talk 00:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

All of those concerns would be of interest here on Wikipedia if they were covered in a WP:RS, but not just because editors find them interesting or themselves envision an impact (WP:OR). The one-off mention in the Slate ref is only supported by a twitter-search link, which I checked and it does not support the claim. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

wikipedia does not refer to twitter, and slate is reliable source for the claim, regardless whether it is on or off mentioned. Obviously the author of slate article researched the issue of literature trademark-squatting, and I consider this source of reasonable expertise. Further, the article says nothing of impact, this was the argument in talk page proving the relevance of the info. On the other hand, I do not see arguments about non-relevance, nor I see the refutation of my relevance argument. Finally, unlike notability, the issue of relevance has no policies, it is the matter of editorial judgement, so please do not WP:OR me here. - Altenmann >talk 00:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm undecided but inclined to remove this section. Do we have any more opinions? Altenmann has made a valid point in my opinion, that if the term space-opera had been trademarked, information to that effect would merit appearance in that entry. By analogy, the same should hold. Here, though, for LitRPG has the trademark actually been awarded? It seems to me from the references, LitRPG has only been accepted as: APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTER, which is a very different matter. Also (and related to the fact that as far as I can see, the term has not actually been trademarked) I don't think the current situation with LitRPG is currently at all comparable to the "cocky" debate and that extra line of yours Altenmann is not helpful: in my view it makes the page more polemical (see the debate above) and more focused on the rights and wrongs of Kong's actions. If a trademark is actually awarded, we will probably see several newsworthy sources comment on this and at that point, I would think the section appropriate. For now, there is no reliable secondary summary of this issue and I do think WP:OR is a consideration. Am I right, Altenmann that a trademark has not been awarded (rather, only a registration on the supplemental register)? And if so, does that change your opinion about this being relevant to the page? JimHolden (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

re:trademark: all legal terms are wikilinked, do your own reading, i am not going to retell you what all this shit means. I can only say that whatever was done is legally binding and not a joke. You probably have to familiarize yourself what WP:OR is and then tell me what exactly constitutes OR here. The intention of my text it to put the fact straight - the very goal of wikipedia, to clear all confusion in the internets: (a) it is service mark not trademark (b) it is registered (yes; date of registration is in the doc cited), but on the supplemental register. (And btw "trademark registration" is the legal term meaning that legal rights are conferred upon the owner, i.e. it is "awarded", so your "rather only a registration" shows you are unqualified to judge the significance of the fact; read the freaking wikipedia, not just write it). I dont give a shit for kong's actions, just like the inventors of the term don't give a shit. "LitRPG Books" demonstrates the same level of legal ignorance, and wikipedia demonstrates informational superiority yet again, and I am freaking proud of this fact. I also dont give a shit for your inclinations: so far I dont see any arguments, just WP:OWN-type behavior I dont give a shit as well. I have yet to see real arguments to address. - Altenmann >talk 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think your contributions here have been really important: this entry needed someone with Russian language skills and an interest in clarifying the history of LitRPG from the Russian side. I've removed the 'quality' tag as a result of your edits (and the 'OR' one). As for the trademark paragraph, I see that you have removed it. Perhaps with a change in the legal situation and / or a reliable and noteworthy news report on this issue the time will come to reintroduce it. JimHolden (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

97.122.170.20 Can we please talk civilly?

97.122.170.20 look, I understand your concerns. But can you please provide reasons why you think we are acting maliciously as opposed to trying to document an important part of the genre's history? It's a new year, so can we just put past drama behind us and talk about this amicably? - LitRPGbooks (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

GameLit

I originally put in the GameLit section having read the Guardian article and various forum discussions about what is LitRPG. I think it's relevant to note the debate about the importance or otherwise of character progression in LitRGP. And it is clear from the comment, 'make your own page' that the person consistently removing this paragraph has a sense of ownership of the term LitRPG that is inappropriate to an informed feature on the topic. JimHolden (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Why MMORPG rather than RPGs?

The MMO subcategory of RPGs is relatively small and new. Most of these novels are reflective of other types of RPG games such as the traditional "D&D", card games, offline and non-multiplayer games RPGs, or of RPG's in general, without anything specific to the MMO genre. So why does the definition specify that it's MMO RPG's + Science Fiction?

Wouldn't it be a lot more accurate to just say just RPG + science fiction (or just RPG + fiction... science is just 1 possible theme of these stories/games).

Good point. I agree with the change, although probably more than half are MMOs, the definition should be inclusive of those that aren't. JimHolden (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

190.53.90.140 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Genre Origins

Surely Larry Niven's Dream Park (1981) should be listed as the genre originator? It's just as relevant as Otherland, but did exactly the same thing 15 years earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.189.93 (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a precursor. I'll add it to that list. It's not obviously 'the' genre originator. If there was such a thing as LARPLit (maybe there should be), then sure. JimHolden (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What about Quag Keep? It's 3 years older than dream park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9230:C198:153D:F461:9F2C:50DC (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Good call! Very relevant. It definitely deserves precursor status, but I wouldn't go further than that. Modern LitRPG has at least some stats and game mechanics (see definition), which are missing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimHolden (talk • contribs) 09:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They just need game-like elements and an in-universe level-like system. They don't have to explicit game systems. See for instance the Divine Dungeon series. There are no hints at the world being a game, but it just has in-universe level-equivalent terms, and in-universe excuses for game like elements such dungeons, plus monster and loot spawn. I would classify anything with RPG game-like elements as litRPG and anything taking place in an RPG game as litRPG. If it takes place in an action or arcade game, it gets complicated, like would Wreck-it Ralf be a litRPG in book form? I doubt it. At levels to the story, sure. Carewolf (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

SAO as the start of mainstream MMORPG examples in Japan?

I feel that this needs cited, and isn't entirely accurate to begin with, as SAO initially began as a light novel years before its anime release, and even then, there were far more popular examples in both .hack and log horizon, which both predate SAO's anime release. The former is also a multimedia franchise, and would probably serve as a better example anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddwaffles (talk • contribs) 03:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Genre definition and origins

The term is a neologism and its authors insist on the explicit presense of game elements, such as stats, level progression, etc. However I am pretty sure that over time the definition will be de facto expanded, which is being observed even now. For example, much of the flood of Russian fanfics on EVE Online is tagged litrpg, but they just live within the eve world, with all its alien races, pirates, neuroimplants and all, and no explicit game stats. (However some vestiges of rpg may be noticed: the authors are obsessed with listing which implants the hero implanted, which guns each of his new and better spaceship has, how many tonnes of rare ores he churned from asteroids, which goodies he scavenged from the warship graveyard... At first I thought this is but a smartass page-filling trick authors pinch from each other, but now I know better.).

As for the origins, I see a bit of original research in the article and a bit of ignorance of the cited sources, but I hope that dust settles in some 20 years, so I'm not going to fight for wikipurity here, just fixing some real blunders. By the way, the ru:wiki article is even in a sorrier state. - Altenmann >talk 00:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it started expanded. Many corner stone novels in the genre do not have explicit game stats, just in universe power equivalence levels. Such as the Divine Dungeon series or Sufficiently Advanced Magic. We may reclassify those books with the new term GameLit, but they started of as defining LitRPG. Carewolf (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)