Talk:F.A.T.A.L./Archive 1

Comment
We, Ghost Police and Oddsod, members of RPG.net have edited in the truth about this game's content and history, without bias or libel. As well, Oddsod had a few things to say about the hit placement and magic rules in FATAL.

Please give generously to the Darren MacLennan fund, for an improvished game reviewer who was traumatized by game literature in the early 2000s.

Neutral POV
I just made a quick edit to remove unnecessarily biased language and to insert a neutral point of view. Hopefully this text will not be whitewashed away. Simply because a new edition of a game is pending does not make a review of an older edition worth passing off as the work of an obsessed, lying detractor. I have a copy of the original version of F.A.T.A.L. and can confirm that at least 95% of what was covered in the Atrocities Review was valid. The game developers and supporters are welcome to disagree with the review but they are not entitled to erase history. -aeon


 * Well said. Particularly since those who vote against deleting it seem to be agreed that the "firestorm of debate" it caused with the vile content is what makes it important. teucer 18:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
Kudos to whoever put the NPOV in there. I'm going to be taking this article, taking out the factual errors, adding some more structure (section breaks, etc.) and generally filling it out. Almafeta 18:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Finished my edit, but will be leaving the bias code in there for a few days, so others can read and check it. Almafeta 19:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Almafeta, it's still pretty freaking biased
A laundry list of things I see as needing some sort of change to be properly NPOV:


 * "This has lead to false assertions by his detractors that the game promotes misogyny or rape" - false? The game is very definitely biased against women, which (Unless this has changed) it treats as inferior in every way - so yes, it is misogynistic. It also has a great deal of focus on rape - whether it promotes it or not is a judgement call, not something that should be flatly asserted or denied.
 * "or that Bryon Hall is a homosexual or a pedophile" - who asserted this? The closest thing I remember ever seeing is a discussion by a police officer of his reaction to reading TGTMNBN with a copy of DeCarso's Sex Offender Traits for cross-referencing, and saying the author seemed to be "deeply unsure of their own gender orientation" - not an assertion of homosexuality.
 * "Unfortunately, this defamation has forced the development group to be closed, and has delayed the release of the game by some months" - Wait, you had to stop developing this game because people were saying not-nice things about it? That's like if White Wolf had to stop developing the new World of Darkness because fans were bitching about how it wasn't as good as the old one. Sorry, I don't buy it. Also, "defamation" is a very loaded word, and should be avoided except in the case of provably false assertions - which apparent strawmen and judgement calls aren't.
 * In the character creation section, I'm assuming there's some kind of agenda involved in the removal of any mention of such things as anal circumference. Is that a myth, or are you trying to cover something up?
 * "Combat is similar to most roleplaying games in that one rolls dice and consults various charts to see where one has actually hit the target" - Most RPGs I've played have not involved any chart lookup during combat. Some do, sure, but most is stretching it.
 * "There are also rules provided for worshipping, losing faith, and falling from favor, invoking demons, naval warfare, and many other activities not covered in normal fantasy or horror RPGs." Every fantasy or horror setting in which demons can be invoked, there's rules for it. They may just be the magic system with different flavor text, but they're there.
 * "The most obsessed and vocal detractor of F.A.T.A.L. is Darren MacLennan" - He's hardly "obsessed"; he's a regular reviewer of games who cowrote a review of a game he disliked with another reviewer. Vocal detractor, though, very much so.
 * "His review was carefully loaded with lies, half-truths, pornographic images, and personal attacks against Bryon Hall." "Lie" is a very strong term. Not having read the game itself, I don't know if it applies in this case - what would be an example? (Okay, come to think of it there is one I know to be false - where he calls FATAL the "date-rape RPG", which Byron points out in his counter-review is innacurate because no dating is mentioned.) Also, including a Tubgirl link, while hardly appropriate for an RPG review, is not exactly "loading" the review with pornographic images.
 * "Although the game Mr. MacLennan describes is an interesting one indeed, there is little it shares in common with the actual game besides the name." This may be completely true, for all I know, but surely you can find an NPOV way of saying it?

Generally, I thought the stuff on gameplay was pretty well-written, assuming the things you removed are in fact factually innacurate, and it seemed a valuable contribution.

I should point out, by the way, that someone on the development team for a product really isn't the best neutral source of information on that product. It's sad that you can't lay aside your biases while editing the wiki page.

teucer
 * Well said, Teucer. I agree wholeheartedly with your points. Almafeta, your phrasing doesn't give me confidence in the objectivity of your article. Even if the facts are right (and I have no idea whether they are or not), the way you put things makes it seem like you're pushing an agenda.


 * Do we need to have someone buy the game and verify things? Jiawen 06:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it seems to inspire pretty strong feelings, either pro or con, in nearly everyone who comes into contact with it. So the result would be unlikely to be NPOV unless the Atrocities review is every bit horribly inaccurate as Almafeta suggests. teucer 14:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's why I left the NPOV warning in there, Teucer. I don't think all your critiques are true, but I suppose being someone who actually has read the game is enough to make my additions NPOV in the eyes of others.  -_-;  Almafeta 10:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Having read it? Nah. MacLennan and Sartin read the game, too - surely, it is possible for someone to find a middle ground between you and them. Working for the creators? Yeah, that means you have to be really, really careful about keeping your bias out. teucer 14:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to dismiss that myth here and now. RobMuadib took a line I made on #rpgnet (about my researching the effects of mental retardation on learning times), perverted its meaning, and proclaimed on RPGnet (while I was banned there and could not reply) that I was an 'employee' of FATAL Games.  Now it's taken as fact, when it is not.
 * Wow. Your dishonesty never ends, does it?  I was in the damn channel when you admitted it.  JArcane
 * JA, do you by any chance have a log of this? Because evidence would be good... if it's true, then editing the page in a biased manner and denying the business connection would probably be something to take to the arbitrators. But only if you can prove it, because it's a pretty serious allegation. teucer 23:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? That's good to know. This is the first I've heard you say anything to debunk it when it has come up in the past both on the forums and in IRC. I've heard it claimed that you have even confirmed that you were working on the intelligence rules. Now that I have your firsthand comments to go by instead, however, I will put no more stock in that rumor. teucer 20:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So you were banned and could not reply when the rumor started. Then why have you not corrected things. Ever. Until now? I prefer to take people at their word, but I have to be honest, I'm having a hard time doing so with you.69.201.34.195 Jack
 * Darren, please sign your contributions with four tildes (or three, to leave out the timestamp) so we know who you are without having to check your IP like I did. teucer 23:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm still pretty new to this whole Wikipedia thing. BTW, it appears looking up the IP is unreliable. 69.201.34.195 Jack
 * Indeed it is. You were in the same IP range as Darren MacLennan, so I mistook you for him.
 * Additionally, MacLennan and Sartin did not actually read the game, so much as skim the rules for things to quote out of context. Almafeta 16:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Byron Hall wrote a rebuttal to their review, which I have read. I must say, the impression it gives is of someone who doesn't know the First Rule of Holes - the rebuttal tends, to my mind, to affirm the negative opinion M&S impart to their readers. While it starts with Byron complaining about the attack-like nature of the initial review - a criticism which is spot on, IMHO - once M&S start talking about the content of the game, Hall does a poor job at dispelling the myths (if myths they be) about the game. I will mention a few relevant points below, however, I should point out that - despite your claim that the reviewers take stuff out of context all the time - the game's own author only twice asserts that something has been taken out of context.
 * Perhaps the most famous line of the counter-review, for example, is his response to Darren MacLennan's characterization of FATAL as the "date-rape RPG" - Hall writes that this is "Another faulty conclusion drawn by Darren. Where is dating included?" When defending the rape content, Hall states that "This section on rape is intended to present it realistically, not from a biased perspective of a rapist. Elsewhere in Chap. 6: Sociality, _Medieval Prostitution_ is cited for the information on rape in societal terms" - in other words, he has the view he does of the middle ages being full of sex because the books he read in doing his research were about sex. Further, Hall asserts that the game does not focus on rape because there are only two pages which mention rape - except that a lot of the spells involve rape, and for unspecified reasons they don't count towards the two.
 * Hall attempts to justify the concept of "Retard Strength" - in which those of diminished mental capacity have a chance of being stronger as a result - based on the fact that some people he claims to know in college worked "taking care of retards" and "would tell stories of how some of them would flip out, and how it would take multiple male nurses, or whatever they are, to subdue them".
 * As I know people who work with the mentally handicapped, they can be surprisingly strong. This may be due to surprise more than anything. One second the person is sitting there quietly. The next, he's hitting you with everything they've got. Even so, it's a poor reasoning for "retard strength." 69.201.34.195
 * With regards to the aforementioned misogyny, there is a lengthy portion of the review devoted to the ways in which FATAL treats women as inferior to men. For example, being female gives a penalty to intelligence. They point out that even the author admits that the highest recorded IQ is that of a woman, but the rules don't reflect this. Hall simply asserts that women are stupider than men on average, and thus his oversimplification of the true differences between the sexes - about which the reviewers provide some further information from Hall's own sources that was excluded - is not misogynistic.
 * When talking about how anakim may make people around desire anal sex according to their sexuality, Sartin points out that hall ignores the fact "that sexuality can be argued to include 'Does not desire anal sex from either gender'." Hall's response is that anakim cannot be asexual - which misses the point rather completely, and does nothing to correct the assumption that FATAL has a fair amount of focus on anal sex.
 * It should be noted that, in explaining that the absence of non-caucasians is not racism, Hall demonstrates a lack of understanding of European life in the middle ages, which suggests yet again that he did not actually do the thorough research he claims about anything other than sex. (Hall explains that "One assumption I have made in writing FATAL, and it won't be made explicit until the gaming world is written, is that all non-European influence has been removed. That's right, I've attempted to minimize Asian, Middle-Eastern, and Egyptian influences, as well as others. Therefore, corpses are not embalmed and buried, but burned" - um, then what's with all the medieval European burial mounds?)
 * In discussing the famous vaginal size rules, Hall does not even attempt to justify the need for such - instead, he debates the factual accuracy of his rules, saying "Darren expresses his limited knowledge of the vagina. Although a vagina can expand, it may not have sufficient time to expand without ripping when encountering a manhood that exceeds its Vaginal Circumference Potential. I have known it to happen." (Also, is anyone else creeped out by that last sentence?) Equally alarming is when Sartin is mocking the rules for Hymen Resistance, and Hall decides to take his suggestion of making the "manhood" involved in the encounter have some impact thereon. Way to miss the point of your reviewers' criticisms, dude.
 * Remember how I said it seems a lot of Hall's "research" involved reading books about sex? One of the sources he cites is a book called "Reign of the Phallus". Really.
 * At one point Hall is defending the Debauchery chart, and makes Darren's argument for him. "What he was unable to express," writes Hall, "is that he thinks it is unrealistic that according to the rank-ordering of debaucherous acts, that a female character cannot be willing to have anal sex, but unable to entertain multiple partners. Nothing is perfect, but when considering large numbers of females, I suspect they are more likely to represent the chart, than not." Remember how mythical the claims of FATAL's misogyny are supposed to be?
 * What is Hall's justification for the fact that strong females or weak men are more likely to be homosexual? The fact that "Oftentimes, stereotypes exist because they are generally true; this is why they gained support in the first place."
 * Hall does assert that MacLennan seems to have been skimming FATAL to quote things out of context, but he only twice in the entire review suggests that something has actually been taken out of context.
 * The worst thing about being hit in the genitals in combat, for a woman, is loss of sex drive. Not only is this not being quoted out of context, but when Sartin comments on it, Hall says it seems like he's finally getting the idea.
 * The sheer number of rape-related spells is justified on the basis of historical accuracy. Many of the spells, Hall says, come from ancient Greece. I assume the Brazier of Drooping mentioned wasn't?
 * MacLennan lists a long number of racist magical items. By racist, here, I mean derived entirely from real-world racial stereotypes, such as the Armor of Jewy Jewbacca (which shrinks your manhood, enlarges your nose, makes you extremely greedy, and causes hair and BO). In his defense, Hall states that he is not a racist.
 * After Sartin complains about the Jar of Jacking Off item, Hall claims that this has been taken out of context. (That's two.) Given the item description, I don't believe there's any possible context that could make it anything other than a very immature joke. One that is not the least bit funny, I might add.
 * In the critical spell failure chart, there is a section which Sartin quotes that involves a number of sorts of fruit that might grow from the caster's "dickhole/cuntpipe" and ripen in ten days, followed by failures involving copulation between the caster and the target. Hall comments, not that this is out of context or something, but that "We generated this list by passing it to many people for input, and as you can see, the ideas were downright humorous."
 * For those who want to read the entirety of the review and rebuttal (with comments not just by Hall but by FATAL fan "Burnout"), see http://forever_fatal.tripod.com/review.htm. teucer 20:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One quick note: This is Oddsod - the line about consulting charts after rolling dice was mine. I forgot that that is mostly a fantasy RPG rule - it is more common in games like Rolemaster and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay than games with modern or futuristic settings.

Just in case anyone was unsure about what teucer's last line meant.
Almafeta is an employee of Fatal Games, the makers of F.A.T.A.L.

That right there pretty much nullifies much hope of NPOV, I should think.

Total rewrite.
While the present document is not quite within standard tone for Wikipedia, it is a marked improvement over the biased hijack job commited by the previous writer.

I leave this here for now, in the hopes that someone not affiliated with the company in question as it's present editor and apparent public relations agent will write a more even and accurate article.

Any further attempts by said PR agent will result in similar edits.

For What It's Worth...
Alamfeta is lying when he says that I didn't read the rules in full; trust me, I read them. I wouldn't have certain scars if I didn't.

Almafeta also grossly distorts the content of the Atrocities review, making a number of accusations without any particular backup.

I also note that none of the original content mentioned within the Atrocities review, including the casual racism, juvenile obession with sexual and scatalogical characteristic, appears here within this review.

Essentially, the authors of FATAL are trying to rewrite history so that FATAL never had any of this conten.

I wish them the best of luck, because it's going to be one hell of an uphill struggle.

-Darren MacLennan

69.171.130.30 07:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

How much does the New FATAL really differ from FATAL Classic?
To test this, I just generated a character using the free character generator, hoping against hope it would contain no "vaginal size" or any such things.

Opening the executable got me a warning message: "Note: The terms of the End User License Agreement for Visual C++ Introductory Edition do not permit redistribution of executables you create with this product." I clicked okay, and found myself in a dos-prompt type window of dark red text on black (very hard to read).

First, it asked me if I was 18. I said no, and it closed. This is not a good sign. So I tried it again, saying yes instead, and got a brief introduction to the fact that this was a character generator for FATAL.

Next, I was given a laundry-list of races to choose from. (Two of them were labelled as NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.) Remembering the Atrocities review, I chose "Anakim." It then said, "Your character is an anakim. Press any key to continue." Thanks.

I was asked to choose a gender. I told it to pick at random, and got a male character.

"The following table will display your currently unmodified ability scores. Press any key to continue." I did, and got a fairly vanilla stat block. Nothing remarkable, so I pressed my handy-dandy any key and continued. Next, it asked, "Would you like to reroll any sub-abilities? You may re-roll up to four times, and that includes rerolling one sub-ability multiple times." But there's a catch - "Each time you re-roll, you will aquire a random mental illness. If your ability is lower than before, then I guess you're just double-fucked." So, what the hell, I thought, and re-rolled my "Vocal Charisma", which was only 66. This raised it to 127. I don't get to find out my mental illness(es) until I'm done rerolling, but I decided to take four and see what they were later. Despite the thing about only getting to reroll four sub-abilities, it asked if I wanted a fifth. I said yes, and it told me "You can't cheat THAT easily!"

Okay, so my mental illnesses are "avoidant personality disorder", "voyeurism", "esthesiomania", and "mania". Not having a copy of the game, I can't look up their in-game effects.

Next, I get to choose my age. I let it pick randomly, and it made me a child. Then, it asked the question I'd been waiting for: "Would you like your character to have randomly-generated sexual features?" I chose yes. It told me that "Your character's sexual features will be shown to you later in the generation process." I almost quit right there, not really wanting to see the sexual features of a male anakim child. Then I remembered it would probably just be a bunch of numbers, and kept going.

"Now roll to determine your random anakim traits!!!" Wow, he is thrilled about those, isn't he? I got to press any key to continue, taking me to a screen that said "Now to determine your random anakim traits... Press any key to continue..." I have a total of 5! (Wow, 120 traits?) "Here they are... press any key to continue..." I did.

I got "Anakim has telekinetic power," "Anakim has a scaly tail 4d12 inches in length," "Anakim's knees protrude through skin two inches," "Anakim has a 10% chance to attack anyone who insults them," and "Anakim is able to cry at will, with tears." Damn, no causing-everyone-desire-anal-sex.

I wound up with bad stats - negative modifiers for most sub-abilities and all overall abilities. "Now to see your randomly-generated bodily features..."

Height (82 inches) and handedness (right-handed) didn't seem so surprising. Being told my character's BMI (24.53) and foot size (7 inches) was a little odd. My skin color is "light" - not surprising, as apparently there are no dark-skinned people in Neveria (at least according to the Atrocities review and Hall's rebuttal). My most attractive feature is my waist, and my most repulsive feature is my mannerisms (despite which I am "perceived as having a big heart, tolerant, pleasant.") I have a mole near my eyebrow, but it doesn't say which eyebrow.

Next, I was told my sexual features. These included manhood length (9.77 inches), manhood circumference (8.31 inches), tongue (1.00 inches), areola diameter (3.00 inches), areola hue (difficult to identify), nipple length (0.50 inches), anal circumference (5 inches), sexuality (heterosexual), and debauchery score (43). Yes, evidently my one-inch tongue is a sexual feature.

Now I got to determine my disposition. I am unethical with neutral tendencies and immoral. I worship intermittently, though may attend regularly. I was then given a chance to reroll each portion of my disposition, again to a maximum of four rerolls. Each time, I get a random allergy. Okay, four rerolls it is. Somehow (maybe as punishment for losing count of my rerolls and being told to stop trying to cheat) I ended up with six random allergies (allergic to mammals, hay fever, allergic to bee stings, asthma, allergic to dust, and allergic to eggs).

Next step, determining temperament. I was Melancholic Phlegmatic. Next, my sociality. My birthday is 5/1/5091 (and I'm 9, so it must be 5100 now... what if another character's stats disagree?), I'm a bastard, a slave, have 4 s.p., am illiterate, was born in hamlet, have no siblings, and am not married.

Next, I learn that I don't even get to pick a name for my character. I am named Gregory Hatcliffe.

That's it. Oh, and I have a screen shot of this in action, in case we feel this page needs an image.

teucer 18:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the whitewashing of FATAL.
Some posts from the FATAL_Creations Yahoo Group:

"Anyone can create an account for free. A free account can create and download one free PC .pdf for free per week. No sexual features, no saving, no webpage with built-in skill check rolling.

For $6 per quarter, you can save a certain amount of characters on the server, download an interactive charsheeet, link people to your charsheet, join gamegroups, and modify your created characters as you see fit (although it flags your file). You also get the option to roll for sexual/rare features.

This way, people can create a character to their satisfaction, and possibly be turned on to the game." --  Shanya Almafeta

"Buying each component separate should cost more. I also agree with cp. Being the only registered puritan (and sex offender) in a group of, how shall we say, morally casual people (take that infidel defiler!!!) there should be a cleaned up version of F.A.T.A.L. I say cleaned up because only the government can sensor something.

It makes sense from a marketing perspective too. It would sell more copies and reach a broader audience perhaps even with some of the, suggestive, artwork which I happen to like. Ejaculate acid??? Come on. I want to make sure this game reaches as many people as possible because it has the potential to revolutionize this genre." -- Greg

"I think fatal lite is actually a good name for it. Fatal will be realesed firt and it'll get a lot of press and controvesy. So a lot of people will know about it yet think it's to extream, detailed, discusting or whatever. Then fatal lite will come out and people will go "hey!" and take a look at it. Fatal lite could also be a little cheaper cuz it will be less pages, making it even more mainstream." -- "cp9005612001"

"None taken. I'm glad I'm unaffected by what the majority think, because I have my own opinion of the majority. If I made FATAL for the majority, then I'd be a horrible salesman, but like you said, I made it for me.

I guess I don't feel bad about butchering it after all, because the full version will still come out, unedited. Whether it sells on the market more or less than a version that's simplified and PC doesn't matter to me at all. So, in the end, there will be a version that makes me happy, and a version that more people can get into. I'm good with that.

...

Can anyone think of a better name for it than FATAL Lite? Of course lite isn't even a legitimate word, and I despise blatant stupidity from people (in this case editors) who should know better, so to give any respect at all to the English language it should probably be FATAL Light, but that sounds like the other version'll be called FATAL Dark. Well, there's no hurry on this one, but I'd like the name to be clear and not confusing, but not a mockery of the English language either, as if at FG we speak Ebonics or something." -- Byron Hall

So in other words, I'm seeing here an active campaign to whitewash FATAL. Put on a nice public face, while hiding the offensive material until after people have bought into the damn thing. --JArcane 01:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That has got to be the most disturbing thing I've seen in a while.

Those guys are so exteam. 69.201.34.195

Is it possible to get the name of the entry changed?
The periods play hell when linking it in some programs, especially that ending period.

Is it possible to have the article renamed, or moved to just FATAL?

--66.98.186.40 15:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Note from first author
I know there was a prior article on this game, and I know it was deleted. I hope that since the game is no longer available and the furor surrounding it has died down, a neutral article on it can continue to exist. Thanks to its controversial nature, F.A.T.A.L. is more noteworthy than many homebrew games and the controversy that surrounded it is documentable in a mature, neutral fashion. If you disagree, I will not oppose a deletion. --Agamemnon2 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to RPGnet review
The article was written by someone connected with the game and has widely been discounted as a viable review. If someone puts it back up, I'd reccomend mentioning that it was written by someone affiliated.


 * Duly noted. I just wanted to include another review besides the infamous one at primaryerror.net. Reputable reviewers didn't touch the game with a ten-foot pole, though, so it's hard to get non-inflammatory or non-fabricated reviews. --Agamemnon2 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zerfetzen's edit
I have no vested interest in this article other than a somewhat bemused scholarly one. However it seems that Zerfetzen's edits tend towards the "whitewash" end of the spectrum rather than seeking to be fair and balanced as he implies. Reviewing all of his changes is moot as anyone can view history. However, several notable changes merit discussion.

First, he changes the date of publication to a much earlier and vague "date when development began" for some unknown reason.

Secondly, he eliminates the mention of the book's original title, Fantasy Adventure To Adult Lechery. I have a digital copy of the original and I know this was the title so pretending it wasn't doesn't change anything. His deletion of all mention of a "second edition" is no doubt part of he same mission to purge all mention that the game originally had a different title.

Third, and most obviously, he eliminates all mention of the well-known Sartin/MacLennan review, including (most egregiously) the link to said article. While certainly not favorable towards F.A.T.A.L., the lengthy review does play a major role in the history of this controversial game.

In fact, Zerfetzen's edits to remove all notion of controversy from this article would, in my opinion, push this article towards the realm of "Recommend Deletion: Non-Notable". It is controversy that makes F.A.T.A.L. worthy of an article, and whitewashing it removes its importance.

I will make no further edits because I don't intend to waste my time with a silly reversion war. However I do hope this sorts itself out, either through restoration of the content that makes the article worthwhile, or through its deletion. aeonite 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Aeonite's Previous edit
While Aeonite cites a scholarly interest, his preference seems for sensationalism rather than the objectivity he touts. I also watched the game develop, and think enough flames were fanned. Rather than linking to an article filled with a thousand occurrences of the f-word, I focused more on the game. Although I also remember the previous title, I remember them saying on their website that multiple editions never existed, but the game was merely made public on the net during its development. As much as the game changed over time, do we want to try to cover all of it here? I didn't think so. So I went for more brief and to the point. Sensationalism isn't what makes something worthwhile.

Your points are worthwhile, and I think that the current content of the page is acceptable, even without the link to the review in question. I do, however, still question the overall notability of this game if the article omits said link, since it is certainly the case that most people know about this game because of that review (F-words or not). Without said review, this would no doubt be just another among hundreds or thousands of independently-produced RPGs that no one ever heard of. aeonite 23:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say I was surprised that there is still enough interest in this abortion of a game to result in an edit war. I understand the first F.A.T.A.L article was deleted for being vandalized countless times, I didn't expect the topic to still be in any way controversial.


 * I'm pretty sure this one will also end in deletion as soon as the AFD Inquisition gets a whiff. --Agamemnon2 09:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Restored non-whitewash version. Now making grammar fixes. Any article on this without even a link to the Sartin/McLennan review and that fails to mention why the massive hate-on for it is ridiculously lacking - David Gerard 14:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit from an assitant writter
I helped write fatal while it was alive but don't be alarmed, I am somewhat level headed (I found the sexual content very juvenile, unnecessary, and disgusting and did not use those rules). I have added a small section at the end of the article to help explain its disappearance. And yes, I was the assistant author who jokingly told Hall that fatal was his midlife crisis. If you have any other questions about the game that someone a bit more on the “inside” like me might know, feel free to ask. Also '''if anyone would like a free .pdf of the last release of the game you may IM me via AIM. My screen name is cp900562'''. Xian4250 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It's good to know the dates and approximate reasons behind Hall's disappearance. --Agamemnon2 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unclear about this - did Hall abandon the project because of that one comment? That seems strange, given the amount of abuse handed out to FATAL on the internet.  Could you elaborate a little more?  Also, is the game finished for good, or merely out of the public eye for the time being?  Mentalepsy 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure why Hall abandoned the project. All I know is that after I sent him that email he never replied back to me, and he seemed to disappear completely.  I like to see humor in things, so I assumed it was due to my comment.  But to be more realistic, it was probably due to something else in his life. His disappearance more likely just happened to correspond to when I sent him that email.  One possiblity is that Hall got frustrated and gave up with FATAL because he had been working on it for over 6 years and there was still no end in sight.  Fatal was never finished and I have been out of touch with Hall for about a year now.  So I wouldn’t know if Hall is still working on it secretly.  For all I know Hall could have been hit by a car and died.  For some reason he just… went away.  I have even tried calling his home phone number, but no one picks up.  I even left a message but my call was not returned.  I actually just called him again as I was writing this, just to make sure; this time there wasn’t even an answering machine, it just kept ringing and no picked up.  I have never met Hall in person.  We only knew each other through email exchanges, forum posts, and phone calls.  Overall Byron Hall disappeared for no apparent reason, and due to Hall’s disappearance, F.A.T.A.L. (as far as I know) has died.Xian4250 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OnMouseOver the e-mail link in the original post in the RPG.net thread, I would wager that "Zerfetzen" is Hall. Carolus 05:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that is correct. Zerfetzen was Hall's online name. Xian4250 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article here?
The previous FATAL article was determined to be non-notable and deleted. Nothing has changed since that time, if anything what little new information here suggests the game and it's creators are no longer even in business.

Previous discussion regarding this articles deletion was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/F.A.T.A.L.--72.14.99.245 09:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The AFD that resulted in the deletion of the first article was a weak consensus. The earlier version ended up in trouble was because the game's "devotees" were, at the time, vandalizing it severely. Personally, I feel the AFD was in error, and as such cannot acquiesce to a summary deletion. The game being defunct, in and of itself, is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we'd have to remove Soviet Union, too.


 * No, not seriously. But I do contend that F.A.T.A.L. has more global notability than an average RPG-related article in Wikipedia presently. --Agamemnon2 12:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am currently looking for sources that establish this game's notability. J Milburn 12:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability
I realise it's kind of difficult to verify much about F.A.T.A.L. from third-party publications, as it was independently published and didn't get a lot of mainstream attention. However, any observation of RPG-related fora makes it clear that the game is notable - it's pretty much the standard shorthand for referring to bad/offensive games, and the yardstick they are judged by. HRDingwall (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia requirements for notability are listed at Notability. Reliable sources are part of the requirement, per Reliable sources. If you can demonstrate that the source meets those requirements, then it should suffice. Forums open to anonymous postings generally wouldn't serve.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What about referencing a review of a different game that used F.A.T.A.L. as a comparison?HRDingwall (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If it meets the reliability requirements, then i think that would at least help establish the notability of the topic. Usually it's good to have at least two independent secondary sources.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * F.A.T.A.L is notorious amongst RPers. Anyone who roleplays more than casually will know of it. Getting rid of this article wsould be a bad thing.BodvarBjarki (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why that matters. Wikipedia has its own fairly stringent criteria for notability that must be satisfied, and this depends on the reliability of the source. Unfortunately, being notorious in RP forums doesn't meet that criteria. The notoriety/notability needs to be documented in a well-established and reliable source, such as a book, journal or newspaper. If the notability can't be reliably established, then there are those who will gleefully push this article through AfD. I've seen it happen many times, alas.&mdash;RJH (talk)

Wow
Hey User:Guinness323, I happened to come across this one while looking around at the RPG project page. On the one hand, as part of covering everything, I kind of think we should have a page on this game... but on the other hand, I really don't know if we want to have a page on this game, LOL. It is more known by its... reputation. If you wouldn't want to search for sources using a 10-foot-pole, I would completely understand. :) Since this hasn't really been touched in over a decade (eww, I feel slimy just saying that), I doubt that User:Hobit would mind either way. BOZ (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I ever read it. It is crazy icky.  Hobit (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah but no, so many other articles to work on... Guinness323 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost anything else is far more deserving. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to ask for a userspace speedy on this. If someone wants it, take it in the next couple of days. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I was thinking about moving it back to article space before deleting in case some future person with an interest would want to use something from the edit history - you never know. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)