Talk: Dragon Age (tabletop RPG)

{{Talk page}}

== Pen? PenCIL ==

I've always had a real problem with the term "Pen & Paper". Who in their right mind uses a '''pen''' to play P&P RPGs? It's a blatant misnomer. :)
--[[User:XavierGrimwand|XavierGrimwand]] 17:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is what it's called on the DAO website. 

[[User:BorderlineWaxwork|BorderlineWaxwork]] 19:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

:Firstly, I was attempting to be humorous. And secondly, BioWare isn't always correct. ;)
:--[[User:XavierGrimwand|XavierGrimwand]] 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, sorry Chuck. And no they aren't, but it is still what it's been called. Anyway, it's rather irrelevant because I doubt they'll still be calling it the 'Dragon Age: Pen and Paper RPG' when it's released.

[[User:BorderlineWaxwork|BorderlineWaxwork]] 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

==Availability==

Any Word on when this should be released or if it's even still in the works? I would love me some D&D style DA:O [[User:Da&#39;Bardman|Da&#39;Bardman]] 20:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

It is in stores now.  [[User:AusJeb|AusJeb]] 15:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

==Fan Materials==

Any interest in added fan-generated materials for the tabletop RPG to this wiki?  [[User:AusJeb|AusJeb]] 15:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Green Ronin has it's own Forums and Fan site for such.  You may enjoy browsing and adding there.  [[User:Ozena Lyn|Ozena Lyn]] ([[User talk:Ozena Lyn|talk]]) 14:42, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

== Table Top RPG ==

The publisher, Green Ronin, has it labeled as "table top" RPG, but I think Pencil and Paper is definately more correct than Pen...perhaps an edit there?



It shipped to stores in early June. The game play is very simple. I was a D&D player in my youth, but never DM a game before. I was able to pick this up, read the books, and run a game for middle school students with minimal difficulty. I think children younger than 14, with the attention span needed to follow this sort of game, can easily enjoy this adventure. We had an 8yo "apprentice" who followed the story line and captured more detail than some of the older children. Overall, a very enjoyable introductory adventure. Using the free character generator from the BioWare forums really cuts down on character setup and makes moving into the actual game faster as well. [[User:Ozena Lyn|Ozena Lyn]] ([[User talk:Ozena Lyn|talk]]) 11:44, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


[[File:Travel guide.JPG|150px|right]]
:So you're suggesting a page move to either "Dragon Age (tabletop RPG)" or "Dragon Age (pencil and paper RPG)"? I probably prefer tabletop myself, but can go with either if we get consensus. I hope you keep having fun with it!

:Also I remember uploading this picture ages ago for this page, but I don't where it fits in. Are you able to help? {{User:Loleil/sig}} 00:32, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
:
:
:If it was me, I'd rename it "table top RPG" and maybe note in parenthesis (pencil & paper) for clarification.

:

:I've not seen that picture, it's not the box or the books I've got...but it's lovely...wonder if it was concept art, or a collector's edition...or game book 1 that's not out yet. The adventure book is to have 3 full length adventures and 3 adventure outlines. I'd so love to have a book that looked that nice! [[User:Ozena Lyn|Ozena Lyn]] ([[User talk:Ozena Lyn|talk]]) 00:43, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this discussion is worth bringing up again, but I think that Dragon Age (tabletop RPG) would be the correct name and also a better name, being shorter and all. --[[User:Davilimap|Davilimap]] ([[User talk:Davilimap|talk]]) 04:19, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

::That's possible. Feel free to add a move candidate on the page in order to start the voting process. {{User:Viktoria_Landers/Sig}} 09:44, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

== Beta Test-Rule Set 2 ==

Green Ronin has available on it's website forums the Beta Test for Rule Set 2.  I wanted to post a note just in case there were other Table Top players that hang out here, instead of there, like I do.

Happy download and reading.

[[User:Ozena Lyn|Ozena Lyn]] ([[User talk:Ozena Lyn|talk]]) 10:38, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

== Question from a Wikia contributor ==

I Have a wonder in this wiki of plunder I saw a book that my Eye doth Sunder but I where can I buy this book in which I hunger?[Shadow0fnight] (I copied the Elder oak on this one but the qustion still stands)


Moved your question to the talk zone off the info page :)  [[User:Ozena Lyn|Ozena Lyn]] ([[User talk:Ozena Lyn|talk]]) 14:41, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

==Dalish Curse==
Glad to see the note about how Mythal is incorrectly identified as the god of vengeance (Mythallen should really be named "Elgar'nanlen"), but what about his minions? They're referred to as "darkspawn", even though they seem to be the result of "corruption" from the abomination. The Revengers are even noted as "Rage Darkspawn". Is it just a very consistent error, or from earlier DA:O notes? There are other little things, like the Chant being called "the Song", that make me think the latter is possible. - [[User:Wandrew|Wandrew]] ([[User talk:Wandrew|talk]]) 09:44, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

==Not Canon==
Green Ronin has officially stated that while they are fully licensed, they are not canon.

[[File:Green Ronin on RPG canon.png]]

<span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 14:40, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

:Thank you for providing this important update.

:If there is no objection, I would like to remove all non-canon sources from the wiki. {{User:Viktoria_Landers/Sig}} 18:43, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

::No issue here.<br/>{{User:Ursuul/s.css|6:45 PM Thursday, October 31, 2019 (UTC)}}
::Support. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 18:55, October 31, 2019 (UTC)

::It seems like an awful lot of useful and interesting info to just delete. My suggestion would be that any non-canon info be included but in a separate section or with a tag identifying it as non-canon. So much work has been put in to add it to the wiki. Why should all that work be destroyed or nullified? --[[User:HolyGuardian80|HolyGuardian80]] ([[User talk:HolyGuardian80|talk]]) 00:25, November 1, 2019 (UTC)
:::So, the main reason that game wikis (for example, TES wiki is also like this) stick to "canon" is not from some sense of utility, but because once we include one non-canon thing, it opens the door of precedence to all kinds of other non-canon things. Eventually, we wind up hosting fanfic and other random things. Wikis change over time, and yes, work put in is sometimes undone. I suggest you review the work I put into [[Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts]] and compare the page to how it is now - great deal of what I did there was later undone. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 01:28, November 1, 2019 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. I trust you all to make good choices. Best, --[[User:HolyGuardian80|HolyGuardian80]] ([[User talk:HolyGuardian80|talk]]) 02:05, November 1, 2019 (UTC)

I'm very much in the camp of sticking to canonical materials. Much of the info in the RPG books is downright contradictory to canon lore. [[User:Sir Insomnius|Sir Insomnius]] ([[User talk:Sir Insomnius|talk]])

To clarify, my intention is to remove the lore surrounding the events that this RPG provides, nothing else. {{User:Viktoria_Landers/Sig}} 09:18, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

:Because what it actually says is "We give the player information on various location, characters and mosnters that come from Bioware...and let the player take it from here."
It seems to refer to the development of events in individual sessions on the tabletop not being canon, not the settings or npcs or monsters themselves

If we're going to adopt viktoria's "slash and burn" solution we also run into greater issues:
Take the Gell Lendon article for instance, that is a tabletop character but Gell Lendon is mentioned as the arl of edgehall (another tabletop location) in two of the comic series. His mere existence directly recalls one of the pre-designed tabletop adventures. Now, do we strike these off as viktoria says, or do we keep them? And of course, that's just the start of the quagmire if we take the maximalist interpretation some here to seem be arguing for. Another source of conflict would be the "Heroes of Dragon Age" images (many of which you yourself have uploaded viktoria). Their status as canonical depictions of characters and creatures is highly dubious at best. 

I share your concern for keeping out non-canon materials but I think there is a huge gap between official bioware materials and fan-fic crap. If we were proposing hosting actual crap some random git thought up on their own while playing the tabletop, I'd quite agree. But that's not what we're talking about here. I personally still hold to my original belief that the bioware license is where we should draw the line. 


-{{User:HD3/Sig}} 09:23, November 3, 2019 (UTC)

:I am surprised that even the e-mail by the publisher is not enough for you. At this point I don't think any proof will convince you.

:Even if you have doubts, the encyclopaedic approach is that we should always err on the side caution than make the mistake of presenting falsehoods on the wiki. {{User:Viktoria_Landers/Sig}} 09:59, November 3, 2019 (UTC)


::Because the statement from them is incredibly poorly worded? It seems to at least be referring to none of the events derived from player agency, (outcomes outside the manual etc., random character appearances, changes in history) being non-canon. Which everyone agreed on to begin with. If you had an e-mail that said "Literally nothing we put in is canon" I would readily agree but instead we got a statement that says "Nothing is canon! But also all our characters, locations and monsters are just from bioware." The obvious end point of which would be that none of bioware's own material are canon to their own universe
-{{User:HD3/Sig}} 10:45, November 3, 2019 (UTC)

:::I am now of mixed feelings. On one hand, I believe that when Dylan Templar wrote "none of it is canon", the 'it' refers to the RPG as a whole. I think that is the plain reading of that sentence. On the other hand, the fact that Bioware effective canonized RPG characters by putting them into the comic books is giving me grounds for pause. I am now leaning towards removing RPG lore that is not so canonized, but that seems like a very hacky and special cased rule. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 15:01, November 3, 2019 (UTC)

:::On some reflection, I remembered a trick from elsewhere. Please see https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/The_Towers#References .  On the TES wiki, when we run into things like this, we put that banner over the references that says "Notice: The following are unlicensed references. They are not copyrighted by a ZeniMax Media company, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are included for completeness." The linked to category says, "The following unlicensed texts are not found in any in-game books, but can still be considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore and are listed here for completeness.".  So, perhaps we can copy this solution by marking all of the RPG stuff in a similar way? <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 15:11, November 3, 2019 (UTC)

::::Aye, I'd accept that as a solution. 
-{{User:HD3/Sig}} 09:27, November 4, 2019 (UTC)

::::I am afraid but this is reserved for information that is considered part of The Elder Scrolls lore, it is simply unlicensed.

::::Here however we have to deal with information that has been declared as non-canon by the publishers themselves. Huge difference. {{User:Viktoria_Landers/Sig}} 11:19, November 4, 2019 (UTC)

::::Perhaps we could use something similar to the TES wording. Something like "Notice: The following references are licensed by Bioware but should not be considered canon for lore purposes and are merely included for completeness." [[User:Sir Insomnius|Sir Insomnius]] ([[User talk:Sir Insomnius|talk]]) 22:40, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

:::::Something like that works for me. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 23:01, November 5, 2019 (UTC)

::::I should clarify that I support removing all the non-canon references from the Wiki. I was just providing a wording for a compromise entry from before.[[User:Sir Insomnius|Sir Insomnius]] ([[User talk:Sir Insomnius|talk]])

:It seems eminently obvious to me that the authors have declared its entirety to be non-canon, as DaBarkspawn said of original reading. As for RPG elements surfacing in comics, if BioWare makes some specific thing canon then it is canon solely based on its inclusion in X (e.g. a comic) by BioWare itself, it doesn’t automatically extend canonization to an entire work. Moreover, the language seems particularly clear when they note that they “extrapolate [their] own stories” from existing canon; the ''extrapolation'' from what is canon is not canon, they have definitively said it is not canon, & only what BioWare includes in their own recognized releases is canon. Therefore I’m more than happy to ax everything not also found in a comic or some other official work, although I could live with definitive markers over such content that declare in no uncertain terms that it is not canon.<br/>{{User:Ursuul/s.css|3:26 PM Wednesday, November 6, 2019 (UTC)}}
::I agree with this. As another example, we don't consider anything from Felicia Day's ''Dragon Age: Redemption'' series to be canon, but ''Mark of the Assassin'' certainly is. That is, Tallis got canonized in exactly the way Ursuul describes above. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 02:14, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

:I'd feel more comfortable with deleting all Green Ronin information from the wiki if there were some official statement from Bioware on canonicity; they are the more appropriate last word on the subject, IMO. Lacking that, I'd prefer to see any GR RPG references that relate to 'factual' aspects, such as geography, political groups, history and other 'world building' retained and clearly identified as to the source, while removing anything solely to do with the tabletop campaign stories and plots.  [[User:Theskymoves|Theskymoves]] ([[User talk:Theskymoves|talk]]) 01:45, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

At this point the resolution acceptable to the broadest range of people here would be to apply some sort of marker strongly & clearly indicating the non-canon nature of RPG content. The issue is settled at this point & that is the consensus that can be carried out.<br/>{{User:Ursuul/s.css|10:31 AM Wednesday, November 20, 2019 (UTC)}}

== Tabletop Lore. Revisiting canon status ==

Given the recent discussion within the community about how it isn’t the wiki’s place to decide the non-canon status of any material that isn’t declared so by BioWare (such as the IDW comic run), I reached out to Green Ronin about the lore within the tabletop to try and get a clear answer of what was BioWare lore and what was simply for tabletop use. This is the response I got:
[[File:Green Ronin Email 2022.jpg]]
[[File:Dragon Age Tabletop clarification Email 2022.jpg]]


With this clarification, that the tabletop lore was provided by BioWare and that everything was reviewed and approved by them, I feel that the tabletop template shouldn’t declare it as non-canon and that it should be treated as any lore if it is not directly contradicted by any new lore; especially if referenced by more recent lore media. However, if it is outdated or contradicted by current lore, it should be placed in the trivia section as the wiki is serving as an archive of Dragon Age lore. 

I do, however, recognize the want to err on the side of caution. Which I support and and suggest if that is the desire to do so, we keep the disclaimer for any lore not reiterated in newer media and modify the text to say the following: 
“The following information comes from the Dragon Age Tabletop RPG and might not reflect currently established lore.”
[[User:ExhaustedArchivist|ExhaustedArchivist]] ([[User talk:ExhaustedArchivist|talk]]) 04:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

:We don't really know if BW's review was intended for canonicity, though. It could have just been "good enough for the TTRPG" without extending the imprimatur of canon. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 04:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:: That is part of my point. Recently, we have discussed in the community how it is not the wiki’s place to decide on canonicity, much less the intention of BioWare. But as stated in the emails everything was provided by BioWare and/or reviewed by them. We also know from Mark Darrah that BioWare worked closely with the development of this product. Which further illustrates the fact that this isn’t simply a third party product that was given material and simply reviewed to be of a minimum standard.
:::I think there is a bit of a logic problem with this. In the absence of knowledge, we cannot affirm anything. Therefore, the only safe course of action is to affirm nothing. Affirming all runs the risk of affirming things that are false. Said a little differently, I'd rather see Type II errors than Type I errors. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

:: But as we cannot know which is provided material and which was simply reviewed, we also cannot say that one piece if lore is/isn’t material provided from the canon. That is not for the wiki to decide without evidence. Thus labeling the entirety of the tabletop non-canon is going directly against that concept. We also are not suppose to treat lore as non-canon without proof either the lack or an official source, the lore is being contradicted by newer media, or BioWare themselves state the material isn’t canon. Like they did with the IDW comic run. [[User:ExhaustedArchivist|ExhaustedArchivist]] ([[User talk:ExhaustedArchivist|talk]]) 05:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

:In the previous discussion of this topic, HD3 pointed out that there's a different possible reading for Green Ronin's statement: "It seems to refer to the development of events in individual sessions on the tabletop not being canon, not the settings or npcs or monsters themselves". I came to agree this is a viable interpretation and I'm now not so sure that "none of it should be considered canon" refers to the entirety of the TTRPG. In their reply to DaBarkspawn, Green Ronin then talked about "locations, characters and monsters that come from Bioware (as contradictory as it can be sometimes)", and in the recent exchange with ExhaustedArchivist, they admit that Bioware has either '''provided''' or approved things in the guidebooks. I mean, in the development process of the TTRPG, Bioware had to supply them with ''some'' material that they would later extrapolate from, no? The problem is, we don't know what exactly Bioware gave them in terms of lore (which would be considered canon, I presume), and what they created themselves. Are we to assume literally everything in TTRPG that has not yet been addressed in other media is Green Ronin's extrapolation? I think the TTRPG-unique material should continue to be placed under a disclaimer on the wiki, but maybe the wording could be less authoritative and not declare it all as non-canon but merely draw attention to its dubious status. [[User:Ammocharis|Ammocharis]] ([[User talk:Ammocharis|talk]]) 20:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
::I agree that sometimes the declaration of 'non-canon' sounds much authoritative rather than cautious. It doesn't seem to fully reflect Green Ronin's words. [[User:DA menso|<sup>DA</sup>menso]] [[User talk:DA menso|💬]] 17:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

:{{Tick|No}} Did anything change in the TTRPG approval process since an Editor last contacted Green Ronin? If not, then we don't have a reason to change our previous ruling.
:They write their own stories and lore, BioWare merely approves them. That has nothing to do with Prima which uses '''only''' information that BioWare provides them, and thus, our issue there being simply whether it's outdated or not. {{User:Viktoria_Landers/Sig}} 09:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
::Agree. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

:: All third party media, such as the comics and the recent show, have this same process. BioWare provided these creators with the lore, they then pitch stories, which go through a process of review before being published. If that plays into the reason that the wiki is deciding the content of the ttrpg is labeled as non-canon that is a double standard. [[User:ExhaustedArchivist|ExhaustedArchivist]] ([[User talk:ExhaustedArchivist|talk]]) 05:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

:Hello. The 2019 answer is controversial: when Dylan wrote that "none should be considered canon" he intends for all the content of the manual or maybe for the stories and stats related to the nature of the tabletop game? Because in the next part I read that material about locations, characters and monsters come from Bioware although sometimes it is contradictory. Does this mean that such information -outdated or not- is canon? [[User:DA menso|<sup>DA</sup>menso]] [[User talk:DA menso|💬]] 09:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

:: That is what we're discussing. Due to the wording from the 2019 email, and the interpretation by the majority, it led to the consensus that the ttrpg in its entirety was non-canon. But with the clarification of the 2022 email that nothing "new" was created purely for the tabletop, and with the understanding that the process of creating it was no different than the other third party authorized media. Which is why I brought up revisiting its status on the wiki. [[User:ExhaustedArchivist|ExhaustedArchivist]] ([[User talk:ExhaustedArchivist|talk]]) 05:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

::: What do you think about a template with both possibilities? <br> <code><nowiki>{{Tabletop RPG material}}</nowiki></code> default version with declaration of 'non-canon' (stories, stats...) <br> <code><nowiki>{{Tabletop RPG material|uncertain}}</nowiki></code> for the proposed version (locations, characters, monsters...) <br> In this way an editor could decide which marker is most appropriate for the situation. [[User:DA menso|<sup>DA</sup>menso]] [[User talk:DA menso|💬]] 17:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

::: I think that would be more complicated than necessary and could lead to confusion. For editing and comprehension purposes, I feel a simpler solution is to just remove the non-canon declaration from the template. Especially since using two templates is still the wiki deciding canonicity. From the conversation, it is clear that the disclaimer as a blanket tool is still favored, which is understandable, so simply putting that it may not reflect current lore would be the more streamlined approach. If there are any direct contradictions/outdated information, those can be noted either in notes or the trivia section. [[User:ExhaustedArchivist|ExhaustedArchivist]] ([[User talk:ExhaustedArchivist|talk]]) 20:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

: I'm in favour of the general sentiment that the disclaimer could be the least editorial possible, and err on the side of cautionary rather than concretely damning. Instead of asserting with certainty that it's not canon, warning that it ''may'' not be canon, or contain information not corroborated elsewhere, etc. The wiki shouldn't be making such authoritative conclusions, and should instead present information open for individuals to make their own conclusions on the canonicity. [[User:NotYourParadigm|NotYourParadigm]] ([[User talk:NotYourParadigm|talk]]) 23:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

: Given the conversation thus far, the overall sentiment seems to be that the ttrpg disclaimer is retained but reworded to ensure due caution is taken with the ttrpg lore should it only appear in the ttrpg. Would it be amenable to everyone to have the template re-worded to suggest that the tabletop material simply may not be current with canon. Therefor maintaining the caution for the material but also updating the template to where it does not make any declaration of canoicity. Something along the lines of:

<blockquote>The following is mentioned only in Dragon Age Tabletop which may not reflect currently established lore.</blockquote>

:Is this something that would be agreeable to everyone?[[User:ExhaustedArchivist|ExhaustedArchivist]] ([[User talk:ExhaustedArchivist|talk]]) 20:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

:{{Tick|yes}} I'm okay with it if a few others chime in and agree. {{ColorPositiveStat|—[[User:Zj24|Zj24]] ([[User talk:Zj24|talk]]) 02:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)}}

:{{Tick|yes}} The disclaimer should also inform '''why''' TTRPG may not reflect currently established lore. If possible, let them know what determines this state of uncertainty. [[User:DA menso|<sup>DA</sup>menso]] [[User talk:DA menso|💬]] 12:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

:{{Tick|No}} If anything, the arguments here give reason to be stricter about other third party media, not more lax with TTRPG. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

:{{Tick|yes}} I'm good  with this wording. I also think Menso's addition of why could be worth including, but either way I think is better than the current disclaimer. [[User:NotYourParadigm|NotYourParadigm]] ([[User talk:NotYourParadigm|talk]]) 00:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

:Given the time this has been given to rest since the last response, it seems we have reached a general consensus, broadly speaking. 

:To reiterate the conversation and the purpose of the change in the disclaimer, it is primarily to take away the definitive verbiage of the current disclaimer which declares none of the content in the tabletop lore as canon. The revision is to allow for a more blanket and open ended warning and simply advise that the tabletop lore may not reflect current canon at points. This change is to reflect the fact that the Tabletop RPG received lore from BioWare, crafted a story that was reviewed and approved, and then published; like all other official third party media approved by Bioware. That it's canon status is fluid due to the decisions of Bioware with future media and not simply because the producers of the tabletop created the lore.

<blockquote>The following information is only mentioned in Dragon Age Tabletop. Certain portions of this media may no longer reflect currently established lore.</blockquote>

:With that, I ask if the topic feels completed and enough to move forward with implementation of a revised disclaimer based on the concerns expressed. In regards to the general, wider topic of how the wiki handles third party media, that is an additional topic to be addressed in the future.
[[User:ExhaustedArchivist|ExhaustedArchivist]] ([[User talk:ExhaustedArchivist|talk]]) 08:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)