Talk:Werewolf: The Apocalypse

NPoV
This article has massive NPoV problems which are beyond my ability to fix since I'm not a player of W:tA. If some W:tA player would care to edit the article to make it more coherent and less praising, that would be greatly appreciated.


 * Iceberg3k 13:31, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * What exactly is so praising? I've just stated some in-game description of world and especially first two sections seem very factual. The next two perhaps seem pathetic but they simply reflect the way the story is given in the books. Certainly there isn't any WW worship - rather simply presentation of what they put into books. I think it is pretty NPOV. Or perhaps you think that NPOV demands a voice of explicit critique? I know that criticizing WoD was once trendy but we really don't need to include fans' and their opponents' reaction in an article presenting the game itself. If you wish to include this critique perhaps article on World of Darkness or some splinter article would be a better place.


 * Anyway, please give some specific examples on what you see wrong here - perhaps I overlooked something.
 * Forseti 15:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The first two sections are acceptably encyclopedic. The sections after that point, though, are presented from the same point of view as the one found within the books, instead of being re-cast from a neutral point of view (not a critical one, just not one that is uncritically accepting of the world as presented in the game), which would be acceptable.  The fifth and last section is not so much a summary as a glurge over the perceived spiritual insights of the game.


 * IMO, it's kind of a sign of mental instability to be looking for insights into spirituality, life, the universe and everything from a role-playing game. And I say this as a gamer of 17 years who's played every game I can butt my dice bag into.
 * Iceberg3k 18:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, first let's give off talks about mental instabilities. While I can't deny your practice in RPG, I won't agree at your remark that looking for insights from RPG is pointless. It's like insights from film, book, speech... - of course few such mediums offer such insights, but some certainly do. It is not the medium that counts but story and its presentation.


 * But ad rem. As of 3rd and 4th sections is not a review here but rather brief summary of game world history and present. I admit however that I passed to in-game story without warning. I'd alter the section titles later - perhaps it will suffice.


 * Last section indeed needed rewording and I'll still try to polish it. As of your addition at the end I'm afraid I had to merge it with 5th section main as Wikipedia strives for NPOV not for presenting pro- and con- POVs. In merging I tried to save as much of your input while rejecting opinions and providing useful interlinks.


 * Looking at effects of those few edits, I note a start of a good collaboration here. Perhaps we could make something really good out of this article. I'd be delighted if it would attained featured status. :)


 * Forseti 00:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I looked over your edit Forseti, and it's certainly an improvement, but I think the "Out of Game Summary" should be just that - an out-of-character summary of the game's setting, themes and goals. At the moment it reads more like a history of gamer culture opinion of the game, which while interesting is straying from the topic. I think we need to rationalise this section and cut it back, with some brief mention of prevailing opinions and some external links to lengthier discussions on the topic. Guybrush 02:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * IMO it was such (barring its unclean wording) until Iceberg3k came and said it was POV. So I merged his edits in, cutting the most obvious 'author's opinions' out. Now you come and say that I should have basically just revert Iceberg3k out of Summary. I'm plain confused. So just be bold and edit it to you liking - I won't revert for now as I don't want revert war.
 * BTW, I think that separate article on subculture around WoD is a good idea. It could describe both fans and opponents of it. Then links from major games and World of Darkness itself would be made to it. -- Forseti 10:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you! I wasn't going by the article's history, just from a current read-through and the last set of changes. Generally I think an article should be considered from the point of view of someone unfamiliar with the topic, and I think there's too much about gamer opinion in the last section - it needs to be as factual as possible, though of course it should mention important opinions. Maybe I'm missing something from my experience, but the kinds of views talked about in the article don't come up that much in discussions I've been privy to about Werewolf...
 * I do like your idea for a White Wolf fan culture article, though; is there a gamer culture article we can sit it under? Guybrush 01:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whew! I've corrected a lot of factual errors, thematic mistatements, and grammatical disagreements, as well as reorganized the content into more accurate categories. I've done my best, wherever possible, to retain the original wikies and content (when correct) in this new form. I've also tried to capture both sides of the game's controversy in a NPOV way. While the original "out-of-game summary" section did have some good points, it was largely a soapbox defense of werewolf, which isn't what the article is for (if anything on Wikiedpia, it's what Talk is for :-). The POV/NPOV debate stems from two criticisms (and the appropriate rebuttals) of Werewolf: it's excessive emphasis on outrageously over-the-top violence (using uprooted streetlights as melee weapons, for example) and its clear ideological opposition to certain political issues. I think the article can (and should) discuss this conflict, but should try to avoid the use of unqualified adjectives. Being someone with my own POV, of course, that last section may not have been as neutral as I imagine it is, so please further neuter it as seems necessary(I think that's the right verb...)! Belarius 00:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, mostly good job, although I moved it around somewhat in attempt to introduce some logical flow (not that original article had it :) ). A Theme part was renamed Spirituality and merged with Cosmology. Also I miss section on game themes but I must think it over.


 * Please do not use first-level headings - this is discouraged in Manual of style.


 * btw: There is a Polish web page on wolves with info, galleries, forum... standard. It's funny though that the page is hosted by... Pentex. Yes, it is their ISP :) Curious coincidence isn't it? Have a nice day -- Forseti 01:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow. This is MUCH better.


 * Iceberg3k 16:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

fixed POV problems
I fixed the sentences about "ecoterrorism" and "ecotage". Werewolf is supposed to be morally ambiguous -- they are not flat-out ecoterrorists. Being as this is one opinion among many, I altered the text to display this. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 00:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citations Galore needed
Unless someone is going claim that everything in the "Real-World Controversy" section is in Werewolf: The Apocalypse (Revised Edition). ;) ;)

We all know the drill, citations needed, or deletion will follow.

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 07:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Truthcatcher?
(Changed philodox description from judge to mediator since the truthcatcher is the garou judge and a philodox isn't. He the middle moon.) 

I have never heard of the truthcatcher auspice. Even if it is an element of the game I don't remember, it is definitely not an auspice. This being the case, it can hardly replace the function of "judge" among the other auspices. (Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Agreed. I have never heard of truthcatcher either. I say keep it as judge unless someone can supply a cite otherwise. Asatruer 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my typing here, don't know anything about the Wiki-netiquette. In fact, the Truethcatcher is a sept office not an auspice. The Truthcatcher is the sept's judge. The Truthcatcher is usually of Philodox auspice, but that is not necessary. The philodox is often mistaken as judge but as the middle moon, he is the mediator among the other werewolfes and to keep the disputes among the packmates in check. Judging them might be a way to do so (especially as pack alpha) but other philodox will try to educate or otherwise resolve the disputes. Philodox are usually all about traditions and honor. The 1st Edition named Philodx the Ritualist, since they are the keepers of protocol and often act as diplomats. In fact most garou rites with a social background are philodox or galliard work, not theurge work. So a judge nature might be a good philodox character concept but it's not a auspice description. Sept offices are in various book, the latest would be Giardians of the Caerns. If you open a sept article i'll fill it with descriptions of the sept offices: Greater: Septleader, Maser of Challenge, Warder and Guardians, Mother or Father of Den etc. Lesser (needed for Moot-Rite): Wyrmfoe, Fool, Caller of the Wyld, Truthcatcher, Talesinger (Heinrich without account, 14,Nov,2006)

Addition: If you check the Werewolf:revised Core Rulebook (ISBN 1565043650) on page 33, you might be able to read: "Halfmoon (Philodox) can see both sides of any issue, which makes them expert mediatoras and judges." The more complex Philodox description in the same book page 65 states: "The Philodox is couselor, mediator and lawkeeper of the pack." So, since you don't even know what a truthcatcher is, just trust me, that the focus of the Philodox auspice during the game is to mediate and not to judge. If you don't then buy the damn out of print book and try to grasp the mood of the game for yourselves. I'll now change judge to mediator. Thanks.

The reason I am putting back the added categories
They are relevant to this article and it's subject. The added categories might rightly be related to the category that is there but if you actually follow the links of the categories involved, as I did, there are differences between them. Furthermore, they are relevant to this article.

Percy, you have said twice now that, "Werewolf category implies other categories". This would appear to translate to, "we don't need the other category because the 'Werewolf: The Apocalypse' category makes them redundant". Or that somehow it covers what the other added categories cover.

This is not true, the World of Darkness category is relevant and so is the "horror role-playing game" category. We may be able to tell or figure out that Werewolf is a WOD game and horror RPG, but there is no reason not to have those categories here since Werewolf games do not encompass the whole of WOD or horror RPGs.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 15:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To sum this up another way, the WOD and Horror RPG categories which I have added back 2-3 times now, are distinct from the Werewolf category. If you actually go to each of these categories, you will see that they are related, yet different.

To put it another way, the Werewolf category does not encompass everything in the WOD and Horror RPGs categories. The Werewolf game is a WOD and Horror RPG, but if we go to the Werewolf category, we don't see ALL the other WOD and Horror RPG games.

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

—Asatruer 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorization guidlines indicate that "articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory". Since Category:Werewolf: The Apocalypse is in Category:World of Darkness, which is in turn in Category:Horror role-playing games, this article should only be in one of those three categories. Categorization also suggests "placing articles only in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in", which means the category for this article should be Category:Werewolf: The Apocalypse.

Thanks for the dose of clarity

 * Oh.


 * Well thank you for taking the time to explain this. :)


 * The edit comments being left weren't clear; it sounded like he just thought the categories were redundant so let's cut them out. But if the policy had been cited or even just referred to more clearly, I would have looked it up myself and let it go.


 * --Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Werewolf Wild West Spoiler Warning
Shouldn't the part about the Storm Umbra and what actually created the Storm Umbra be marked with a spoiler warning, since it it part of the Werewolf Wild West Meta Plot ? Heinrich k 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to furry fandom lead to end of game line
Because it's rumored that the appeal of WT:A to the furry fandom led to Ethan Skemp wanting to end the line and remake it as W:TF. Because in 2005 it was nominated as a furry game,and the maker Ethan Skemp supposedly got upset. Can anyone confirm this? Werewolffan98 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The line ended in 2004. Also, it seems unlikely that White Wolf would have continued the Apocalypse line after launching the NWoD, when they didnt do so with Changeling, Vampire, Mage, Changeling etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.199.104 (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"in 2005, W:tA was nominated as the 'furriest RPG in existence' by an informal study at RPGnet. Ethan Skemp, then line editor for Werewolf, replied by saying: "God damn it." He then later went on to say that Werewolf could not be a furry roleplaying game "because werewolves don't have breasts," implying he associated "furry" with furverts.

In the sequel to Werewolf, Werewolf: the Forsaken (or WtF), most of the elements that made it appealing to the furry fandom were removed. This included changing many aspects of the game; rather than fight against corporate (and mainly human) opression, the main opponents now come from the spirit world, which is described as a Darwinistic nightmare; all werewolves are derived from human stock, to focus on the "human comes to grips with monstrous urges" aspect of werewolf lore; and the focus is now local, with a more realistic (and uncertain) pack mentality."

Werewolffan98 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Source

 * https://archive.org/stream/UneditedPCGamer_marktrade/PC_Gamer_078u#page/n239/mode/2up/search/intertainment
 * https://archive.org/details/gamelivepc042/page/n31
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20020310031127/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2008350,00.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20011224052337/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2008337,00.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000116095427/http://www.pcgamer.com:80/news/1999-09-30.html
 * http://web.archive.org/web/19981203031713/http://www.next-generation.com:80/jsmid/news/4471.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000225235345/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/7147.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20030227122717/http://videogames.gamespot.com:80/features/universal/graveyard/sony20.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/19991128162253/http://www.gamecenter.com:80/Peeks/Werewolf/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000306213740/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/7894.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000304160508/http://www.ascgames.com:80/100-GAMES/werewolf/index.html
 * Designer diaries
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000303185920/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/5122.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000310000433/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/6670.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000226085023/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/9151.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20000414154905/http://pc.ign.com:80/news/9870.html
 * https://www.cbr.com/rpgs-better-worse-dungeons-dragons/