Talk:Torg

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

Redirect Request

The following link refers to the game in this article and should simply redirect here:

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

Done.

Not a video game

Is there some category for this? It's a pen and paper thing, not a videogame.

Highly recommended

Okay, okay, sorry but I have to say it: This game is absolutely awesome. You have to be careful about what to ignore; just take the basic set + world books and create your own campaign with it; the later official books were, sorry to say, mediocre to garbage. But the system, the setting -- they're absolutely cool. -- Nils Jeppe 18:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claim: TORG was originally The Other Roleplaying Game

Since I expect someone to challenge it: That TORG was once the working title meaning "The Other Roleplaying Game" is common wisdom in the industry. This claim appears to be supported by this Usenet that claims to be from Ray Winninger, one of Torg's developers. A message purporting to be from Scott Palter of West End Games claims other titles that were considered included Shadow Wars, Shadow Spawn, Twilight Shadows, and Endless Earth. Alan De Smet | Talk 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links to WEG

The links to WEG's site are both dead. I imagine they've updated where things are by now. I'll take a look, unless someone beats me to it. Nimbex 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Why is the notability of this game in question?

First, it's a major RPG by West End Games, itself once a major rpg games producer;
Second, it's setting is truly unique, even when considering the many and varied fictional universes devised in modern times;
Finally, for actually having a series of novels based upon it, a rarity for any game.

In addition, the game itself, while not currently "active" is still officially in West End's publication plans (according to them) so it is not an abandoned property as many other RPGs listed on Wikipedia are.

I'd say that all of this makes it notable enough to deserve its own wikiarticle (though it does need better sourcing). -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, the notability of the article Torg is questioned because, apart from you opinion, there is no evidence of notability in this article. Note that is not to say that that this topic is non-notable, it is just that the state of the article as this time has warranted a Notability cleanup template so that editors and readers alike are alerted to this issue. Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that this meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources. If you can cite reliable secondary sources in support of your assertion, then I would have to agree with you. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult to find sources for that, the game was published before the Internet was popular, and I am not sure you'll find much secondary gaming literature from the early 90s. I must wonder what this eagerness to get rid of the article is all about. You'd have to start purging about half of Wikipedia, I don't even want to know how many articles there are related to obscure things from Star Wars or Star Trek... and yet, purging this kind of article simply doesn't seem like a good way to spend your time. Sure the article could use some streamlining and editing but it's not like it's an overly huge article, or a collection of many tiny articles.

Anyway, to be more constructive: Torg was indeed quite popular when it was published; if I recall correctly it was one of the best selling RPG products in the early 90s (I can not offer support for this claim; I've looked). It had a pretty original background and highly unique mechanics. Moreover, it did have one innovation that should not be forgotten: WEG tried to make the official TORG campaign participatory, that is, subscribers to the Infiniverse magazine/newsletter could send in feedback forms about the outcome of their game sessions and the campaign would move forward according to what the result of these forms were.

The game mechanics of TORG served as the basis for the Masterbook series, and as such were used for the Indiana Jones role playing game, and the Shatterzone game (and I believe a few other fringe products).

Finally, please note that TORG is a game, and not a book per se, although there were also several novels published in the line. What makes a role-playing game notable? -- Nils Jeppe (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can't take your opinion: please provide evidence of notability. Although this is a game, it is published in a book like format [1], so WP:BK is a suitable (but not perfect) guideline to apply in this case. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the original game Torg, that's a supplemental sourcebook for the game. (A possible clue could have been the title of the Amazon book, "Torg: Aysle - The Sourcebook of Magical Reality"., not just "Torg".) The original distribution for Torg was in a box, with several pamphlets and character sheets inside -- not a book. A general notability tag would be much more appropriate in this case, and a separate role-playing game tag would be appropriate for other RPGs. An RPG is not fiction, it's a game, regardless of distribution method.

-- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may have come in box, but a box is not a game either, it is packaging. I have had this debate about whether a game is book or not on my talk page already, and my view is that a game is a game, not a book. However, if it comes with a book of instructions or in a book format such as Torg (ISBN 9780874313000), this indicates that the game relies upon a book for its rules, rather than a computer program. A general notability tag is fine, but the notability (books) template is probably the nearest specific cleanup template (based on WP:BK) that can be applied. I am not saying this is perfect, but it is a close approximation to the notability guidlelines currently being drawn up for games: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous that popular early 90s RPG Torg could be considered for deletion on notability grounds. That's exactly why I dislike Wikipedia more and more. Perhaps this link could help save it. http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1051 It references a review in Dragon #191 (not available online, unfortunately). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.111.59 (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torg is also notable for one being the early work of one of its contributors: Bill Slavicsek, who is now head of Roleplaying Design and Development over at Wizards and Coast, the industry leader. Slavicsek's work is of interest then, given his massive clout in the gaming world.

I am sorry to see your absurd crusade continue, Gavin. --Swordwraith —Preceding comment was added at 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to save this article too, because I have the opinion that Torg is relevant and notable in a discussion on role-playing games, but there are a couple things wrong with this article that need to be fixed.

First: popularity, uniqueness and innovation are not Wikipedia criteria for notability. However, Bill Slavicsek's contributions, the attached novels and that Torg clearly associated with West End Games (notible for the first Star Wars RPG), there is some weight to notibility arguements. But I agree that without citations, there is no objective evidence that Torg is "notable". It may be important, but that's not the same as notable.
Second: the article is an extremely long description of the product, apparently from the eyes of someone familiar with it. Not one citation to prove this. The only way to verify that the assertions made in the article are accurate would be to buy them and read them yourself. It is also too long, including such things as a two line description of each cosm that was published. The drawbacks section is particularly bad about making assertions (in great detail) that need citation.
Third: As sad as it may be that a TV series can have a page for each episode (and this is allowed mostly by the show's popularity, not official "notability") many role-playing games never make it past a single line reference on the publisher's wiki page. Torg, in fact, does not even have a line; it's just a single word, expecting curious people to link to the complete article. Unfortunately, Role-playing games do not currently have a clear set of guidelines for defining their notability. And this is not the place to argue that this sub-genre of publishing should follow different rules (although I think that this argue does need to be pushed where they are discussing it).

After some time has been given to fix/add the citations required for the article, the article should be re-evaluated and, likely, merged with the West End Games article. However, until that happens, I'm going to see about finding sources and editing the page. I'd like to see it saved. (Another note: Paranoia doesn't have an article at all and I could argue that it's "more" notible that Torg.) Grantor (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC) And I just noticed that this was not on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games listing of Notibility flagged games, so I added it. Grantor (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All editors will welcome any input you can give to this article, especially in finding reliable sources for it. I know (or am 99% sure) that they exist, but having searched online from time to time I haven't been able to turn up much. Of course this doesn't mean anything in particular, other than that they aren't online (which isn't so surprising considering that Torg's popularity crested before the internet explosion). P.S. And check Paranoia (role-playing game) for the article you seek on that game, which can also use much work. (However, the book Hobby Games: The 100 Best, edited by James Lowder, contains an essay on Paranoia to be used as a source for that article.) --Craw-daddy | T | 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just poking my head in Shadis Magazine #8 which includes an article regarding Torg and White Wolf Magazine #35, which does as well are available for sale at DriveThruRPG. I'm not sure how to include this in the article yet, but I'll include it as soon as I've read up on Wikipedia rules. In other news West End Games still has the old Infiniverses available as direct downloads. This should probably be sourced into the article at some point. ABCoLD (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of all the above discussion,

It is worth mentioning here the ultimate fate of Torg (as copied from the West End Games article): "West End Games is currently selling off all of their properties and working to close down operations. TORG was sold to a German game company, Ulisses Spiele."

I think the fact that a major German gaming company (Das Schwarze Auge is huge in Germany, and they released the German version of Pathfinder) was interested in specifically acquiring the rights to Torg helps reinforce the idea that it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. 71.229.72.185 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]