Talk:Money
From 1d4chan
An honest question here: do we really need to describe what money is? If someone needs to use this article in the first place, they really shouldn't be playing traditional games.--Newerfag (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
If we had to describe every mechanic present in games are, I don't see why we can't describe money's relation to games. That said, we should probably cut out the excessive history-related trivia. Tactical Mehren (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- The same can be said for most of the articles in [1]. Any given one of them is roughly 9 parts trivia or rambling to one part actually tying it into /tg/. I like it when things are informative too, but in this case the general gist is and always will be all that's needed. Not knowing the game mechanics is likely to make you lose a game, but not knowing one minor bit of trivia isnt going to have an impact unless your GM starts giving pop quizzes. --Newerfag (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- But its the extra, fluffy details like this that help flesh out the worlds and settings that GMs try to sell to their players. Sure, its not critical to the core gameplay itself, but it the small things like these that allow GMs turn their games into immersive experiences rather than just a chore where a group of people just roll dice, take stats, and move pieces across a chunk of cardboard. That said, I'm not going to disagree that most history-related articles tends to lean too much towards the history side of things, rather than why they're relevant here. Tactical Mehren (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- My point precisely. I'm currently in a place with shitty Wi-Fi so I can't do it myself, but if you can rewrite the history articles to focus more on the game connections than the history that would be good (since to be fair most players I've met are firm subscribers to the "Henry Ford" school of history). I'm thinking a basic 2-3 paragraph summary with a Wikipedia link at the end would be perfectly sufficient for them- it would be enough to give the general gist of what it was without making it more important than the actual reasons it is on the wiki. --Newerfag (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- But its the extra, fluffy details like this that help flesh out the worlds and settings that GMs try to sell to their players. Sure, its not critical to the core gameplay itself, but it the small things like these that allow GMs turn their games into immersive experiences rather than just a chore where a group of people just roll dice, take stats, and move pieces across a chunk of cardboard. That said, I'm not going to disagree that most history-related articles tends to lean too much towards the history side of things, rather than why they're relevant here. Tactical Mehren (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
