Forum:Doctor Who: Worlds in Time

Index → Panopticon → Doctor Who: Worlds in Time

Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.

Opening article for editing

I know I have not edited in ages, but I started playing Doctor Who; Worlds in Time, after seeing it advertised in Doctor Who Magazine, I typed in on google Doctor Who WIT (Short for WorldsInTime). I began an account and started playing, it is a really good game. I decided to do a search on here, but found an article had not been made, It is a really good game, in the game, you can play as a male or female and any of these four species, Human, Silurian, Catkind and Forest of Cheem member. You start of in earth and battle the Autons, then Ember and fight the Clockwork droids (Ember featured, in A Christmas Carol in 2010), New New York where you save ood from being sold and Mars where the Judoon try to find you guilty of messing with the time line. I also have not reached starship UK, but that is also featured. Hope you can help Catkind121 23:29, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

The reason there's no article is that it's not been officially released. As far as we can tell, you're playing a beta or preview version, which means the game is therefore ineligible for an article. See this thread for more.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  14:54: Tue 21 Feb 2012

And just to confirm that they're still in beta, here's twitter exchange:

Michael French @Michael_French

They appear to have softlaunched the new Doctor Who online game - @DoctorWhoWIT - by Three Rings (now owned by Sega) doctorwhowit.com

Worlds In Time @DoctorWhoWIT

@Michael_French Yes! We are still in preview, but there is plenty of game for fans to play through. :)

9:24 AM - 8 Feb 12 via web

Wouldn't it make sense to create an article for it already when it's in beta stage, even if we don't add information from it to other articles yet? After all, we do have an article on Series 7. 78.8.48.6^{talk to me} 01:27, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

According to our previous discussions over the years on this matter, no. Series articles are specifically mentioned by T:SPOIL as the one area of exception within the main namespace for spoilers. This allows people who want to spoil a place to focus their energies. But it also says to those users who don't want to be spoiled a clear page to avoid. We really don't want this wiki turning into a place where spoilers are completely unregulated, so that we can benefit from the contributions of editors who don't want to be spoiled.

I understand the frustration with this particular video game story — because you probably think of it as being effectively released — but wiki administration is simply easier if we have clear rules and we follow them.

We're going to need to have a discussion on what "counts" in this game and what doesn't, anyway. We've never had to deal with an MMORPG, and it brings up a number of issues over what parts of the story happen canonically and which don't. Obviously, different players will have different experiences in such a game. So does your run through the game reveal the canonical "truth" of the game? It's an interesting question that Wookieepedia have to deal with on a regular basis, but which our particular fandom never has.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:41: Thu 23 Feb 2012

It has now been officially launched. Can we have the article recreated? 87.105.191.40^{talk to me} 00:25, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeedy. Restored to the point of the last substantive edit.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  22:14: Wed 14 Mar 2012

What about this game will we cover?

Well this how canocity usually works in regards to MMOs. For starters, all the quests are clearly canon and aren't in anyway differed by the outcome. As for the players involvement, seeing as their gender and race is changaable, they can be simply referred to as 'an unknown traveller', 'spacer', 'unidentified companion' etc. which you can see acknowledges they exist but doesn't describe their appearance. --Victory93 ^{talk to me} 01:42, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

As this is the first DW MMO, there is no "usually". And we, as a community, kinda avoided the issue when we were first confronted with it on Attack of the Graske, the first new game following the creation of the wiki. We've never really settled the question of how games "work" as narratives. Sure, we can have pages about games as products. But given that different outcomes are possible, games don't quite work the same way that non-interactive narratives do. The problem is compounded, it seems to me, by an MMO, since you've got other players interacting with you, subtly changing the way that you experience the narrative. And, if it's like other MMos, you're probably not forced to do certain quests, so do all quests count, or only the ones necessary to advancing the plot?

I remember, too, that one big problem of Graske, that surely applies to this MMO, is that they have straight-up first person perspectives. I'm not sure about a lot of things having to do with games, but one thing I'm absolutely sure about is that the player cannot be considered a part of the DWU. For instance, in Star Wars: The Old Republic (that is, the original Xbox game), the player was playing a character within the GFFA. That's fine. We can write about that character. But in Graske, you're blatantly, explicitly playing yourself. The Doctor is talking to you, not a character you're controlling. I don't know how it works in DW:WIT, but if you're playing yourself (that is, if you get to actually name your character) then writing about the game is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. Your solutions of "unknown traveller", "spacer", "unidentified companion" are far too flimsy a disguise for the word "me", and don't work, as far as I'm concerned. The editors of this wiki are not resident in the DWU.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  02:24: Sun 04 Mar 2012

Well then for the time being, we can simply accept that the NPCs, locations, races and worlds exist. Although if you've noticed, the quests in the game are unlocked in order of completeion which include a small narrative. Like mentioned, each quest's story doesn't change pending on the player's choices, it's just experienced differently depending on how the user plays it. For example in The Adventure Games, the narrative is the same it just depends on how the player experiences it or what actions they take with no alteration to the narrative. --Victory93 ^{talk to me} 03:39, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that would work. Let's say there's an Ice Warrior in the game. How would we talk about the Ice Warrior without describing his opposition (you)? What does the Ice Warrior do in the game, if not oppose you? What happens to him, if not that which you do to him?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  13:59: Sun 04 Mar 2012

Well I suppose we can just talk about the background of the encounter or appearance. For example, (here's a spoiler so be warned) there's a mission where the Vespiform have invaded Sardicktown which happens to be located on the planet Ember. Here's how the article entry could look like:

"At some point in time, one of the shards of time landed in Sardicktown on the planet Ember where the Vespiform had intended to capture it. (VG: Doctor Who: Worlds in Time)"

See it has no mention of the player's involvement apart from the background of the mission. Why no mention of player I don't understand as it isn't breaking the fourth wall but this I suppose is as close to how it could work. --Victory93 ^{talk to me} 03:08, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the way I had thought of it was this:

The companion you play int he game is indeed meant to be there, but it is basically up to you to decide it's name, gender, and race. So I created Companion (Worlds in Time), with the photo of the character in the shadows befor you choose his features. The way I see it, we could have something like this on a page for Zygon; (Warning, spoilers)

Sometime in the future, the Zygons invaded the planet Messaline to look for the crystals. They encountered the Eleventh Doctor's companions. (VG: Worlds in Time)

This shows what happend wothout showing something the player changed; I.e. the character.

Now, the reason I use the word "companions" over "companion" in the above sentence is of coarse because of the Multi-player option, but there is also other things I would like to point out. You see, when the main player does not add other players (I.e. does a "solo" mission) there are automated players made to fill in the three spots left. These players are previously designed and named, so we should include these as pages, as I have started. Ese charactors include Darren, Gethin, Meera, Noma, Nneka, Silas, Steven, Talia, Camile, Will and Mal. For more info on the subject of these "back-up characters," see Their official WITpedia page.

Speaking of which, do we plan to link to WITpedia on the main page? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 15:54, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's examine this point by point, roughly in reverse order.

Nope, won't be linking to this wiki from the front page. The front page links are reserved for Wikia wikis only. Of course, you may link to it in the "External links" sections of articles, provided that it can be viewed without being signed in. (I haven't actually checked this, since I've been signed in when I've visited.)
WITpedia is in no meaningful sense "official". Yes, it's hosted on the BBC Online servers, but it's not a closed wiki edited by the staff. Were that the case, I'd call it "official". Instead, it's open to anyone to edit, which means it's no more official than this wiki.
Companion (Worlds in Time) has been deleted. That doesn't even rise to the level of discussion, I don't think, since that's just another way of saying "you", and "you" aren't a part of the DWU. Moreover, the multiplayer aspect absolutely complicates the writing of the article to an essentially unworkable degree. In order for the narrative of this game to work at all on this wiki, it has to be relatable from the point of view of the Doctor. Which means, fo course, that this game really can't be written up on this wiki. I don't see how you tell any of the story without referring to the player, and the player isn't playing — as is the case in many Star Wars and Star Trek games, or even The Adventure Games — a named, established character in the fictional universe. Every player is playing a different character that they have themselves named. That just doesn't work for us narratively.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:45: Fri 23 Mar 2012

Characters

Nomenclature

For dabed names, would you create Person (Worlds in Time) or Person (Doctor Who: Worlds in Time). Which is "correct"? -- Tybort (talk page) 21:26, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Name (Worlds in Time). We probably need to have a broader discussion about consistent use of the term "Doctor Who" when it's naming something in its franchise. Sometimes, it seems, we want to put "Doctor Who: <name>" and sometimes we don't. I've never particularly understood why we ever do so. The whole article should probably be at just Worlds in Time (video game), but maybe someone has a compelling argument for keeping the Doctor Who: on the front? For the purposes of disambiguation, though, there's absolutely no use in the prepending Doctor Who:
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  21:59: Sun 18 Mar 2012

General approach

So, some articles have started to appear on these little NPC characters that can accompany you on missions, people like Darren (Worlds in Time) and Gethin (Worlds in Time). As written, they're being declared as "companions of the Eleventh Doctor". Really? I don't know if I'd go so far as to call a random sprite — I've never gotten Gethin when I've played, for instance — a full-on companion of the Doctor. And really, in terms of game mechanics, they're your companion, not the Doctor's. I don't know if these totally insignificant characters deserve any kind of article at all. They don't add anything to the plot of the game. They might not even show up when you yourself are playing. Therefore to even give a broad overview of their "lives" is a bit dubious. When I've been playing, as far as I know, Gethin has not accompanied the Eleventh Doctor to London, for instance. Are we even sure that these names are consistently applied to the same character, or are they just randomly generated? I mean, is Mal always Catkind, Talia always Tree and Gethin always human? Or is that just what happened on the instance that OttselSpy25 took the screenshot?

I think we should resist the urge to start creating a ton of pages before the game has been played more and we really understand things about its mechanics. I also strongly feel that none of the PC or NPC characters seen in this game are in any way companions. They're tools in the game; they have no in-universe significance.

At the present moment, I think it advisable to simply create a real world list called List of NPCs in Worlds in Time and chart the information there. I really don't think we should be treating any of them as legitimately in-universe.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  15:39: Fri 23 Mar 2012

Well, yes, they are always such that you mention. their official WITpedia page lists their gender, race and names. You can also note a repitition of charactors in the images I posted. File:Noma Meera Silas.jpg, File:Noma Mal Talia.jpg, and File:Steven Noma Nneka.jpg all show "Noma" to be a female Silurian in a red coat, for instance.

However, I can see what you mean about the importance of a charactor, so I am up to discussion on weather or not we should make or keep these pages. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 16:00, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Do any of these characters get involved in narrative elements or are they just assists to game play? --Tangerineduel / talk 16:42, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they ARE just assistants to game play, never referred to in the plot, but arguably, neither is the main companion...

I still don't see why that (Companion (Worlds in Time)) was deleted, I mean, what the main companion does in each level is basically set in stone, only his name and race is left to question... And no, I don't think it's a way to say "you," similar to Graak. If Graak was unnamed, wed still have it's page! So do we not plan to have a page on this companion on this wiki? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 17:06, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Because narrative happens to a particular character. What happened to Jo in The Mind of Evil did not also happen to Sarah Jane in The Brain of Morbius. Or in gaming terms, what happens to Samus in Metroid Prime doesn't happen Sonic the Hedgehog or <insert name here> in <insert game here>. It doesn't happen to millions of different characters. Your approach and success with Worlds in Time is going to be different to mine. I might invite people to play with me, and thereby kick "Darren the Silurian" — which must surely rank as one of the stupidest names ever — out of the narrative. We might face basically the same mission, but it's going to transpire differently, if for no other reason than that I have real players on my side and you have NPCs. For you, the story might be, "The Companion (Worlds in Time) tried to defeat an Auton, but was repulsed several times until he finally overcame the pesky plastic creature on the tenth attempt." For me, it might be, "the three Companions easily overwhelmed the Autons and saved London in the blink of an eye." Which is right? They both are. Which is why this doesn't work. There's no character to the companion. There's no way to describe them except in terms of what obstacles they overcame.

And then there's the vexed question of describing their relationship to the Doctor. Or, worse, what their room aboard the TARDIS looks like. It's an awfully important part of WIT, that room, yet it'll be as individualised as the person playing the game. Because, again, "the companion" is you. It has no back story, no life prior to or after this game, no relationships of any kind. The Doctor merely welcomes it — you — on board and starts telling you what to do. There's no narrative there, no character, nothing to write about from an in-universe perspective.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  17:35: Fri 23 Mar 2012

So then,how are we to write the pages then? Do we say the same as if there was a page? (See my Zygon quote above, but icnore the link) Or do we icnore the character intirely, claiming it was the Doctor?OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 17:50, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

You know, I was writing up some proposed guidelines at User:CzechOut/Video game policy, when it struck me that we've long had on the books Tardis:Canon policy#What is not considered a valid source, and why?

Worlds in Time is a role-playing game. Sure it's a massive, multiplayer online RPG, but it's still an RPG. And RPGs were thrown out years ago. I don't think we can write up anything about the game in an in-universe way. Tangerineduel, is that how you'd interpret that part of T:CAN?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  18:49: Fri 23 Mar 2012

I don't quite see HOW it's a role playing game... It's just as much a role playing game as Final Fantasy VIII is. Sure, you can choose the characters name, but where you go, what you do, and how is basically set out for you. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 19:02, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, they ARE role-playing games. There's no denying that. That's what the technical name for both are. However, the aforementioned T:CANON bit was made before Worlds in Time was even announced. We threw out tabletop RPGs years ago, not MMOs. Does the rationale for disallowing the FASA settings really count for Worlds in Time as well, given the divergence computer RPGs have made over time?

Of course, reading T:CANON's reason for disallowing the RPGs, television and prose stories conflict with television and prose stories, but we still allow them. So, could someone who was there at the time explain better for disallowing FASA's settings?

Also, I disagree that we can't write about anything from that game. We can't refer to what the companions did to complete the stories, but we can still say "alien V invaded planet W" or "NPC X belonged to organisation Y and lived in City Z".

Though just to clarify, did the Eleventh Doctor actually do anything in the game's missions, or did he simply land the TARDIS to start of the players' missions in whichever locale? -- Tybort (talk page) 19:51, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

To answer in roughly reverse order:

I'm not seeing the Doctor taking any overt actions. He's always in the TARDIS, acting more like "M" to your Bond than Doctor to your companion.
Since the Doctor doesn't leave the TARDIS, does he actually experience the content of the game? If he doesn't then it's only we, the players, noticing that "NPC X belonged to organisation Y and lived in City Z". And that doesn't count.
An RPG is an RPG, whether the computer is throwing the dice and doing the math or you are. As I read T:CAN it's throwing out the concept of RPGs, not just table-top RPGs.
The origin of the ban on the FASA game has eluded me, as well. I asked for its origins a couple a years ago and got nada. Searches lead me nowhere. Nevertheless, I wasn't asking because I disagreed with the ban, only cause I wanted clariy. RPGs should be banned. Any game which centrally has a character you created and uses items you created is fanfic. T:NO FANFIC therefore applies.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:24: Fri 23 Mar 2012

[/edit conflict]

Well, he basically drops you off, tells you he's trying to save the planet, and then buggers off. I still think that qualifies as "visiting the planet" though... And I agree with you. to rebut Czech earlier argument about how things change, there are still very set-in-stone things in the game. FOr instance, the correct way to reference the game would be

The Eleventh Doctor's companion went to <planet> and encountered <species>.

Now, that we can't deny. The Doctor's companion DID go to these planets, and DID encounter these aliens. We don't say that he did good or bad because that varies. But, you see, what he/she does does not. That's why I don't rally think of it as a role playing game. You see, role-playing games usually have multiple things that make it such:

1) YOU choose where to go

2) You design and name your character

3) YOU choose dialogue and emotions in conversations

4) YOU choose the path to where you head

WIT does one of these things. Basically you choose what order you do things in, which is not very you-choose-your-fate-ish. Sure, you have a chat box, but that doesn't affect the plot or conversations (the most it can do is get you banned for cursing...) So... the most it does is let you be who you want to be, but, really, the charactor you creates appears before you make it, that's why I used File:Companion.jpg for the image, because it was before you got to choose ANYTHING for the character. So really, you just gave features to an already-there-character. It'd be like if they made a video game centered around Scared Man and let you change his name. He's still be Scared Man, only now he'd also have been in a video game... possibly The Adventures of Scared Man 5 or something...

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not a role playing game, I'm saying that it doesn't give a lot of freedom to the player, thus making it very easy to write about the game without including info that the player chooses, like name and such. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 20:30, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Do we cover RPGs or not?

So despite the fact that OttselSpy25 has just spent a number of posts seeming to argue that WIT is not an RPG, we seem agreed that WIT is an RPG. So, our question becomes much simpler. Are RPGs covered by this wiki?

I say there's been a ban in place for four years or more, and that this game only confirms the difficulty of considering an RPG as canon. Our lives would simply be easier if we classed RPGs outside our remit entirely, put up an {{nc}} flag on WIT and work on hammering out a video game policy to better establish what's in, what's out, and why.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:53: Fri 23 Mar 2012

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not a role playing game, I'm saying that it doesn't give a lot of freedom to the player, thus making it very easy to write about the game without including info that the player chooses, like name and such.Myself, just above.

Now, in truth, I never saw why we don't include some RPGs. I mean, hell, I notice we do! I see no marking calling Search for the Doctor or it's series category marked as non canon, and that story ALSO includes an unnamed character... (Although arguably I understand that she had a back story and gender) and I notice that an image from it appears in the in-universe part Omega... and 2056...

So, let's look at the official reason we don't call FASA canon... '"..these [books] sometimes contain histories and other information which conflicts with the television and prose stories." That really doesn't fit with this as a reason... Hey, if this is our reason, can we mark Lungbarrow as non-canon too?

In truth, I don't see exactly WHY they aren't canon.. In some cases, where the canon contradicts TV canon to a point of annoyance, we can use that over-used-yet useful phrase "One account suggests...'...

Plus, I see no indication that we made FASA not cannon other than because it contradicted other stuff... And sense WIT hasn't, I see no reason to make it nc. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:53, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not especially following the "character is customisable, ergo fanfic" argument, I don't think Search for the Doctor is an RPG either. It's a choose-your-own-adventure book. I actually don't see the Make Your Own Adventure with Doctor Who books (or Decide Your Destiny) either way on T:CANON, in fact. -- Tybort (talk page) 14:34, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

To answer above, CzechOut's question regarding T:CAN, I'd actually interpret WIT under a different portion of the T:CAN, in that it's not a story at all and is instead merchandise.

I know this is a somewhat odd direction to go in, but these various characters, these player avatars let you wander around in the DW world. Just as you can mess around with Dapol or Character Options stuff, it might be a representation of DW, but it's not a DW narrative.

I believe the origin of the FASA ban was that kinda like other in-universe non-narrative reference books it was believed that the FASA stuff was made up just so there'd be enough content for the FASA game.

I don't think RPGs are canon, simply because it's you or a representation of you. Plus to go back to the key element of T:CAN, and my above question, the lack of a narrative. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:56, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

And I don't understand how the people chased by or chasing aliens that invade planets can be considered a lack of narrative. The player characters and bots defeating Autons I can see issue with, but not the Autons' invasion and presence on Earth themselves. -- Tybort (talk page) 15:53, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

To me, it's more that it's a lack of consistent narrative. See, if I go into WIT with friends who are roleplayers, we can make a story that isn't there if you just play alone. The fact that you can make your character talk means you will never, ever have the same experience as another player. Imagine that I'm playing a militaristic Silurian and my friend is playing a speciest human. If we're really roleplaying, as the game allows, we'll be at each other's throats between trying to solve the little puzzles. If I'm alone, the computer may not randomly asssign a human to my party, so that whole narrative element is gone. What I'm saying is that RPGs encourage and allow for fanfic, which is clearly not allowed. But maybe, you say, you can just ignore all the in-game communication. It's a huge part of the game, but fine. Let's throw it out. You're still left with the possibility that if you're playing with someone else, they might intentionally choose not to help you out, which changes your perception of progress in the game. More than that, you don't have to choose the missions (called rather stupidly "interventions") in a particular order, by and large. Which means for you, the game may progress from intervention a, to intervention d, to invervention c. For someone else, it might go in alphabetical order. Thus your "plot" is scrambled. I think that to include a particular story, i must be a story that progresses in the same way for everyone experiencing it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  20:04: Thu 29 Mar 2012

Yes, when you go to the roots, despite the fact that you can design characters, there still is a narration plot. Although you do have a freedom to go where you like, each planet is set into levels that have to be done in a certain order. You can't go wherever you want, you indeed have to go through the order previously set. Each planet has it's own narrative. Earth, for instance, needs the Autons that invaded it removed, and Mars with the Judoon. This is why I compared the game to FF7 above. In Final Fantasy 7, you can change EVERY characters name to your fitting, yet the game is the same. If your name is "Cloud" or "Gaylordsteambass" it doesn't matter because it's still "<Spiky haired character> went to <place>." If "Bob the Silurian" or "Quintus the human" went to Mars, then the statement is still "<companion> went to Mars." Basically, past naming your character, you don't get to choose diddly-squat. Basically what I'm saying is this: It is indeed a previously set up and planned narrative, you just get to add pretty images to it. And we can ignore that quite well. We'v done it in the past, you never see this on a page:

The Graak had trouble battling the Dalek without the Dalekanium

Why? Because that describes how the PLAYER DID, not how the character did. Heck, DOTD gave more freedom to the player than this! so why are we arguing over it?

Lemme put it this way, what if the "companion" had looked like this the hole game instead of just first off? Well, then It would be exactly the same. No difference in plot occurs through the changes the player makes in the game. All the player can change is what he looks like and (in a very limited way) what order he takes. (I.e. you CAN go and do New Earth or the clockwork planet before finishing Earth, but it doesn't affect either narrative. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 16:14, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

As Douglas Adams once said, "And another thing..." I notice we thoughtlessly cover VG: Attack of the Graske, despite it being WORSE at what you guys claim then this is. Now, Czech argues that the "companion" in the game is just another way of saying "you," "you're" helping the Doctor. I don't see it that way. He's not talking to "you," he's talking to "you're character." This is not the case of Attach..., in that, he is literally telling you that YOU'RE helping him. From your couch, through your TV. No character, no cover-up, just "YOU need to help me... remote control..." So, why is Graske episode not up to question but WIT is? I digress. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 23:34, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Don't mistake "having a page" for "what we cover". We're on a multi-year saga to define the scope of the wiki. As with the issues expressed at Forum:BBV and canon policy. we start from a position where the wiki wasn't policed and was covering everything that vaguely had an association with the DWU to firming up the borders a bit. Tangerineduel, Revanvolatrelundar and I have been trying to actively prune the wiki for a while now, and we've deleted scores of articles, while at the same time redacting hundreds more. It's a process, so you can't use the argument "You've got somethign on Attack of the Graske so that means you must have something on Worlds in Time

Put simply, that ain't the way the ball bounces.

I the last coupla rounds of posting have strayed from the original question. I'm not looking, at the moment, at the merits of Worlds in Time. What I want to know is this:

Doesn't the ban we already have in place against the FASA RPG naturally cover all RPGs?

Clearly, the current wording at T:CAN is not the real reason the FASA thing is banned. Narrative contradiction is the rule of the DWU, not the exception, so you can't throw something out just because it doesn't jive with another story. The real reason for the ban must surely be that RPGs are internally unstable narratives. They don't come out the same each time you play them. So anything which happens differently each time you play it shouldn't be considered a part of our tardis.wikia.com canon, because we don't know which outcome to go with. This would mean things like the DYD and FYF books would also be slapped with a {{nc}} warning. I don't see anything wrong with saying:

Only those narratives with a consistent narrative, experienced in the same way for all those that consume that narrative, may be considered a valid source for the writing of articles.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  19:51: Thu 29 Mar 2012

...is that me, or is that quite possibly excluding any video game apart from the really rigidly linear ones? Not making judgements (at least not yet), just asking. -- Tybort (talk page) 20:07, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I never saw a reason to ban them. The way I see it, if there is still a recognizable plot, we can still include that on the wiki. I once more refer to Search for the Doctor. Despite being (what I think is but I have been told once that I'm wrong) a role-playing game, we still include it on the wikia. Why? Because in theory, every alternate page still sticks to the same basic narrative: The Doctor, Sarah's descendant, K9, and friends must stop Omega. The way I see it, if a story can still be written in a way that it NEVER varies due to direction, I should be canon. (This MAY make Attack of the Graske a bit questionable, but the "happy" ending IS the ending the game designers wanted you to choose) However, if a plot varies dramatically, even possibly resulting in the Doctor's death and regeneration into the same form (As I believe a FASA book does) then it shouldn't be canon. And User:Tybort is right, your rule WOULD make most video games non-cannon, which is particularly bad idea.

And I'm sorry to come back to this, but worlds in time does not fit the criteria of "Only those narratives with a consistent narrative, experienced in the same way for all those that consume that narrative, may be considered a valid source for the writing of articles," because THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IN EACH LEVEL FOR EACH DIFFERENT PERSON IS WHO YOU ARE. The plot doesn't change differently because of who are what you are, even to the point of confusion. One Silurian you meet claims to be the last Silurian, even if YOU'RE playing a Silurian.

Well, to close my statement, I think we need to reconsider FASA's ban, although I do not own the books, so I don't know how far they cross the line. wE need to at least come up with a REAL reason for it. Far too often we come up with an excuse rather than a reason. For instance, on the Dimensions in Time page, (Which by the way, I think we're the only fan site to actually state "No, this isn't canon" on the episode. Most sites, like DWR, Wikipedia and the BBC site just not it at confusing or "possibly non-canon") our reasons for it not being canon is:

For Doctor Who fans, EastEnders is firmly shown to be a television programme in Army of Ghosts, and implied to be so in The Impossible Planet and Night Terrors, making it hard to explain Albert Square's existence as a "real" place in Dimensions.Our Dimensions in Time page.

This reason is obviously an excuse. The story was considered debatable long before Series 2 aired, and I don't note Mistaken Identity (short story), and I doubt I'll see that Star Trek crossover marked as such either. You see, if we were to all actually sit down and discuss DIT, I don't think we could all think of an actual reason for it not to be canon that wouldn't also make a bunch of other stories non-canon, so we use an excuse. I'm not saying that we SHOULD include DIT, I'm just using it as an example. If we DO use an excuse, it needs to be an efficiently used one. The I'm probably rambling now, so I'll close off... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:09, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

"The real reason for the ban must surely be that RPGs are internally unstable narratives. They don't come out the same each time you play them." Yet all Star Wars RPGs are covered by Wookieepedia and considered to be official LucasArts canon. For MMOs, they just use words like "a spacer" or "a Jedi Knight" did this or that. 87.105.185.91^{talk to me} 21:22, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. This is a very good approach to the subject. I think so anyways. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 22:24, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars is a very different franchise to Doctor Who on this very point. What works at Wookieepedia does not work here. They have the advantage of a copyright holder that takes the time to establish what canon actually means. Thus Wookieepedia's canon policy is essentially what Leland Chee tells them it is. Doctor Who has no one doing anything like the job of Leland Chee. It's not a priority of the BBC to sort out the question of canonicity in any way.

Thus we can't just copy their canon policy because it doesn't make sense for us. For example:

They consider that action figures themselves are canon, and that the packaging on an action figure is a completely valid source. We're never going to do that.
They consider that non-narrative statements from George Lucas are binding upon the narrative. Thus, if Lucas says x about Yoda in the Empire commentary, that can be used within the in-universe article about Yoda. We absolutely don't play that way. If Russell T Davies says something about a character in a commentary, then we can only include that as a behind-the-scenes note.
They specifically allow in West End/Wizards of the Coast roleplaying books. We've specifically said that the equivalent FASA books are not valid sources for over five years now.
They specifically think that conjecture published by Lucas Licensing is good; we've been fighting a battle against all conjecture for years. Steven Moffat's musings about the potential future of Amy Pond are likely to be misleading. His job, quite different to George Lucas, is to sell Doctor Who, which involves lying. Lucas doesn't care about selling to the same acute degree; if he never made any new content, Lucas' bank account would still be secure. Which Moffat, despite his success, can't really say.

And I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that they are simply different franchises. What works in one doesn't necessarily apply to another.

Beyond which, we aren't really saying what is canon and what is not. Every person is free to decide what they believe is canon or not for their own personal use. We are merely trying to define the functional scope of this wiki. If you want to believe that the scenario you played out last night on Worlds in Time is canonical, that's your prerogative. But that's not what we're talking about. Put simply, our canon policy is not the same thing as canon.

We're defining what sources can be used to write in-universe articles on this wiki. That's all. Because of the vast differences in the way that the two franchises are managed by their respective copyright holders, Wookieepedia's stance doesn't help us a whole lot.

Moreover, you're totally misrepresenting what's actually happening at WP. They don't actually have an article on "a spacer" or "a Jedi Knight". Their article on spacer is talking about the generic term, not its applicability in a particular game. If you look at WP, they don't try to cover the character the player plays in their MMOs, like Star Wars Galaxies. They're a very broad church over there, but even they don't attempt articles on player-named, player-created characters, as are the norm in MMOs. What they do have is articles on LucasArts-named characters that the player plays. That's fine. We've got much less of a problem with games like City of the Daleks where you're playing the Doctor or Amy, and there's a more-or-less set story you're trying to get through. An open-ended MMO, RPG or Decide Your Destiny experience requires greater discussion. How do we know which is supposed to be the course of events that is "correct" and which is "failed"? How do we know whom the events happened to if they happened to millions of different players around the world, all playing unique characters? This is what makes this whole question so difficult. And unfortunately the Star Wars example doesn't really help us as much as it might appear at first glance.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:31: Thu 29 Mar 2012

Getting back to the question of RPGs

I note upthread that we've had even more new comments that are off topic. We're not debating the whole of canon policy. This section isn't about Search Out Space or Dimensions in Time or the broader canon policy. I emphasise again that "canon policy" doesn't mean "canon". It means merely what are the limits of this wiki. The need for the distinction is obvious when you think of thorny fan bugbears like the question of whether the Doctor is half human. The sources you're allowed to bring into the consideration of that question matter very much to the answer you're going to get. If you can't bring in The Forgotten, just because it's a comic book, then you're going to have a different answer than if you do. Thus when we say "canon policy" we are talking more about what this wiki allows you to bring to bear on any particular subject. We're not actually trying to tell you what to believe about canon. If you want to make Worlds in Time a part of your personal canon, that's fine.

The question before us, again, is nothing to do with canon in the way that fans usually use it to denote whether a story is in continuity. Rather, it's whether it makes sense to allow RPGs into our list of things which comprise our list of approved sources?

I say it's difficult to see how that's possible, because RPGs, definitionally, have

an open-ended narrative structure (even WIT lets you pick the order of "missions", especially if you paid real money into the system)
the ability to allow players to roleplay characters to varying degrees (even Worlds of Time allows this, as described above)
Characters named and created by you, the player, making them for all intents and purposes fan creations, which aren't allowed under T:NO FANFIC

So, again, forgetting any other considerations, without trying to make comparisons with this story or that other franchise, what are the merits for allowing RPG-based material on the wiki?
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  23:56: Thu 29 Mar 2012

Okay, what about this: If your actions as the player affect the events of the charactors or events dramatically, then it is non-canonical. I.e. there are two diffrent paths, dramatically diffrent from each other. (Which I would images is so for many of FASA's stuff. OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 00:08, March 30, 2012 (UTC)