Talk:Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game

message: I removed the call for citation; I can't link to one, but I do have my 2001 contract for Mysteries of Magic where Kevin tells me not to use it.  Point 2 is "Please don't use the term Palladia.  We prefer the 'Palladium World.'"---Mr. Nexx 20:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Palladium v. Palladia

message: I just went in and removed several bits where someone had put in some home-brewed creations... a race called the Aethondruil, and entered them as if they were part of the world.  ---Mr. Nexx 04:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd set of edits

message: The list of sources is synonymous with the supplements for the game, as familiarity with the role-playing genre will tell you.  It is sufficient for wikipedia's needs, unless you see some need to challenge the information therein---Mr. Nexx (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One might assume the obvious answer is that  did object to these articles having zero references when he tagged them as being .  Since no references were added, I reverted the deletion of the maintenance tags.  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The SG "says that attribution is required for 'direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.'"  Sources are specifically required when "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", "When quoting someone", "When adding material to the biography of a living person", "When checking content added by others", "When uploading an image".  None of these has been established as being the case;  didn't provide any indication of what felt was material that was a direct quote, was being challenged, or was likely to be challenged.  In the case of Rifts there are links to outside reviews because, as a more controversial game, it has more need of references beyond the supplements of the game.  Unless someone can point to what needs third-party sourcing in the article, the maintenance tag is removed.  ---Mr. Nexx (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability, "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  The  tag informs interested parties that the article in question currently has zero references and could be improved with their inclusion.  In their current state, all the parts lacking citations (which would be everything) could be trimmed away.  Rather than see the articles trimmed down to mere stubs or even just deleted, I would much rather have them tagged as being in need of referencing.  --Kralizec! (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the  tag is better than unreferenced in cases like this. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Uncited Sources Tag 

message: Does anybody know where we can find information on the 1st edition (and revised 1st edition) core rule book?  I think it would be interesting for historical reasons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.239.203.207 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Edition 

message: Even one such as I, having collected every title in the PFRPG series - and many others, besides - over the last 15 years, must concede that Palladium is notorious for its inability to adhere to its own publishing schedule. To serve as just one illustration out of many, consider the recent Mysteries of Magic supplement, released EIGHT YEARS after it was first announced (The Rifter, Number 16, p.10). In a similar respect, almost all of the titles listed in the "Announced Supplements" section (added 3 January 2010 by 209.78.90.7) have languished in development - if, indeed, they are actually being developed - for significant periods of time and may continue to do so indefinitely. For instance, Land of the Damned III: The Bleakness was supposed to have been published in the Fall of 2002, but, for any number of reasons, its release date was pushed back to "sometime" in the early part of 2003. However, that deadline came and went, and it was pushed back again. So, all these years later, it has yet to see the light of day and there is no guarantee that it ever will. Strangely enough, though, you can still submit a pre-order on their website (a fool and his money...). At this late remove, I have learned enough to approach Palladium's product release schedule with a healthy dose of scepticism; accordingly, I reserve the full measure of my enthusiasm for the moment I hold one of their long-promised books in my hands. As such, I would venture to say that it is altogether inappropriate to include information of such a variable and speculative nature in this article, which is why I have deleted the "Announced Supplements" section. This is also in keeping with the principle underlying the revert performed by Kralizec! on 30 August 2009 with regards to a similar contribution by the user in question. Apo-kalypso (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming Attractions 

message: Just dropped in to look at the Wiki article, and noticed the absence of mention of mechanics in the game in an article largely dedicated to the game world. Perusing Palladium rules I had noticed the inclusion of complex combat mechanics in an early-ish RPG, and game mechanics, while it may be a cliche, are both important and a regular obsession of RPG gaming. 
A Reddit item here testifies to the mention: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/4kz0cm/thoughts_on_palladium_fantasy_rpg/
Visitor 185.14.212.181 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Mechanics