Talk:Exalted

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exalted article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Role-playing games High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Every other page gone

Why has all other source information about Exalted vanished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.8 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC): As the author of the vast majority of those other pages, it was "felt" by other users on Wikipedia that those articles were not significant enough to be added to an encyclopedic entry... Or something of that nature.[reply]

It is a shame that the good information that wikipedia had about the game is gone. Seems odd that there are pages and pages about different TV shows, but something with as much depth as this Role-Playing Game isn't allowed more then one page. Did they feel that this was some sort of marketing ploy by White Wolf? Or just that it was not very important?--Alabrax (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC): I believe they felt it wasn't important. I had thought about attempting to rewrite the information in a more wikipedia-approved format, but I wasn't sure I wanted to put all the time and effort back into it. Also, since television shows are much more visible, I think there's far less of a challenge to their verifiability than there is to a game that seems to get few reviews (insofar as what I've been able to find online, anyway).[reply]

--Alabrax (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC) So if there were more reviews of Exalted we would be more important, or at least more verifiable? Hmm I will have to search for some reviews for Exalted, I know they are out there. Also I think I will check out the D20 page to see how much information they seem to have on that. I am not for or against either system, however I would contest that any one gaming system is more important than another with out some very good reasons. I am fairly new to editing and authoring on this wiki so I am not 100% what they are looking for other then outside views on the material.[reply]

Lonesoldier 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I can't directly link since there's no permalink, but check out the rpg.net reviews page. Click "Power Search" and then under "Product Line" type Exalted. Voilà, dozens of reviews.

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC): Thank you for the link and information, Lonesoldier. While I think that rpg.net is a great resource, I'm not sure if it is considered a significant enough source to qualify by the standards of Wikipedia, and I am hopeful to find more peer-review (rather than review by individuals) in reputable publications about table-top gaming. Dragon Magazine would be a good example of such, but it doesn't deal with White Wolf lines if I'm not mistaken. However, something along those lines would be awesome if someone knew where to find it.[reply]

There's a definite double standard here. If a goddamn DM screen warrants a two hundred word article then those pages should still be up. 75.173.74.39 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audochthon did what?

According to the current version of the article, "The Primordials took the unshaped chaos that was later to be called the Wyld, and with a single blow from Authochthon's great hammer, forged the world, called Creation.". Was the origin of Creation retconned, and, if so, can someone provide a source for this? As of 1st edition, Creation was made by the Gaia and Cytherea. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreso, Creation is Gaia, and might also have been part-Cytherea before the Primordial War. I went ahead and deleted the reference. Aprogressivist (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually according to Exalted Author Michael Goodwin Gaia is not actually Creation, not in the same sense that the Unconquered Sun is actually the sun. --Alabrax (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of pedantry – the Unconquered Sun is not the sun. The Daystar and the Incarna himself are separate, though linked more than most gods and that which they represent. 87.194.82.149 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're both right. This was retconned. So when Alabrax made his statement, he was right. When you made yours, you were right as you came out after the Daystar articles screwed up the setting's original metaphysics. 147.240.16.59 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References and Sources

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC): I believe I've done an okay job so far of referencing materials from Exalted without violating any of White-Wolf's copyright. If anyone else wants to assist in this endeavor, please feel free to do so. The more references we can cite, the better for the article.[reply]

OK, it's a game, we get it!

Do we really _need_ to have "In this game setting", "within the game", "Within the game’s history" or "According to the authors of the game" in EVERY $%^&ING PARAGRAPH?!?

66.188.98.83 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC): To meet the guidelines for writing about a fictional universe in an out-of-universe perspective, yes. Having been the primary writer for this article, I've seen that stupid "in-universe" tag on the article so long that I finally just gave in, put all that crap on it, and they finally took the tag off. So, in essence, I guess I have to say, "I hear you. I agree with you. But... Just deal with it."[reply]

Most gaming articles on wikipedia seem to get by with 1 or 2 disclaimers in the whole article, or at most, 1 per section. I'm just saying it's overkill. 66.188.98.83 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhisattvaspath (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC): True as that may be, we had no less than three disclaimers previously and the stupid in-universe tag kept being slapped on the page. It may be overkill, but now no one can claim it's written in an in-universe style. As wikipedia editors do not list the portions of text that qualify as having been written in an in-universe style, now no portion of text can be questioned. The problem has decisively been dealt with.[reply]

Graduate Your Game 2008

SarimUriel (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Seeing as I rather suck at it, I was wondering if someone would like to add some info about Graduate your Game 2008 from White Wolf? I'd think a promotion giving away 2500 free books in return for people turning in their copies of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Player's Handbook (for destruction) would be worth a mention.[reply]

The article announcing it can be found here: http://www.white-wolf.com/exalted/index.php?line=news&articleid=901

And the actual promotion overview can be found here: http://secure1.white-wolf.com/graduateyourgame/default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarimUriel (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Fixed the history section which read incoherently before. The previous version went from talking about sales, ranking on Amazon and market, to the era of the current Exalted game - the Age of Sorrows - and how they seemed to be somewhat linked to the old World of Darkness and the new World of Darkness, and then back to talking about the market percentages; and all of this in one huge paragraph.

So as you can see in the link I cut out the lines talking about the links between AoS and oWoD & nWoD, then pasted it back but in it's own paragraph below the market percentages, ranking and all that. So there shouldn't actually be any information missing, just rearranged into a more coherent read.

However, now that I'm thinking about it the "history" section seems to be too broad. It not only touches on the history of the company (which includes Exalted, but Vampire as well) but also the history (or really the "links") from the AoS to oWoD & nWoD. If that's the case the data on the company seems that it should be moved to either its own section or to the White Wolf page itself; and the "history" section should be changed to the something like "possible links between AoS, oWoD & nWoD" (or something like that). Because it's not really talking about the history at of Exalted (the first Primordials all the way to the Age of Sorrows), and the first part seems to be talking more on the lines of popularity of the game. I'd rather someone who not only does a lot more editing but actually likes editing Wikipedia to do that - lest I invoke the wrath of the edit gods.-- Frosset Mareritt
05:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second paragraph is off-topic and should be cut. IMO the history section should be expanded to cover the game's development history. Exalted was originally intended as a direct World of Darkness spinoff, set in a much earlier age, however during its' developement, it became a separate setting. Unfortunately, this is from memory, and I don't have any citeable sources to back it up. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the second paragraph should be cut from the history, and as one of the authors for the previous version of the history section, I thank you for cleaning up the information I contributed. When things calm down a little from running the Exalted Wiki Contribution Contest and trying to get one of White Wolf's new freelancer blogs, I'll probably come back and do some more editing and consistency formatting like I used to. But, I want to say thank you to everyone who's helped to make Exalted a much better article. –– Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs 13:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Booklist Section

I don't know when the booklist section exploded, but the Exalted Booklist has contained all of the information including book number for several years now. I deleted this section. If someone wants to add the information for the electronic releases to the current booklist it will be complete.16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.201.98 (talk)

Could there be a more succinct summary?

I visited this page today to, as a gamer that has never used this system, get a sense of what the main features of the system and setting are... After having struggled through a fair chunk of the wall-of-text that is the article I am not sure that I am any wiser on the topic. Is there any chance that someone who knows this game well could add in a more succinct summary of what Exalted is all about and/or clean up the dense prose in order to make it more readable? 165.118.1.51 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more concise summary of Exalted --24.209.151.217 (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre in lede

The discussion of the genre in the lead is a bit strange. Who classifies it as 'high fantasy', and who decided it would be better classified as 'mythic fantasy', and what is 'mythic fantasy'? Ashmoo (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx Path

The article makes no mention of Onyx Path Publishing with the exception of a single link to Onyx Path's website in the reference section. As the company producing Exalted 3rd edition (not to mention the rest of White Wolf's 2012/2013 line), shouldn't there be at least some mention of it? --BBM (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The history sections sees like an appropriate place for it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes between Editions

With the new third edition, some things have changed, some things have been added, and some things have been deliberately returned to vagueness. What is the Wikipedia standard for this kind of situation? Mockery (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]