''From TabletopGamessDiscussion''

{{phantomreader42}}: Added link to FailedASpotCheck (based on an OrderOfTheStick gag, rooted in a DungeonsAndDragons mechanic). Ironically, put it in the wrong list for a moment, after failing my OWN spot check.

FastEddie: This should be renamed TabletopGames, so wikiword will form correctly. Any objections? Hmm. I see there is already a redirect.

{{Ununnilium}}: No real objections, I suppose. I made the redirect, so...

{{Burai}}: Does "open game content" really need an entry? It's not really a ''trope'', in the sense of being one of the internal tools used to create stories. It's as if we wrote up "blast processing" as a videogame trope.

Entries like GameMaster strike me as borderline cases (which is why I went ahead and wrote one up for it), in that to a degree they're prerequisite terms that may need to be common knowledge before actual tropes can be explained/discussed. But not ''all'' gamer jargon is going to be relevant here, right?

{{Ununnilium}}: Well, maybe not. But I'd say it's a good idea to explain the whole "open gaming" thing and how it's changed stuff. Dunno what the trope title should be.

FastEddie: There is certainly precedent. The {{Fan-Speak}} and ScriptSpeak indexes are all about the jargon. Sounds like OpenGaming would be an item on a {{Gamer-Speak}} list.

{{Yoshi348}}: Two of these entries (SpaceOpera and {{Toons}}) are clashing with existing entries that should probably take precedence. I guess we're probably going to have to set up a separate namespace like with comics, but what to call it?

FastEddie: Seems like Games/SpaceOpera is pretty straightforward.

{{Ununnilium}}: At this point, don't add any other examples unless you're actually going to make an entry for them. >>v Otherwise we'll be drowning in red links.

{{Burai}}: I hope putting the red links in a float box helps us tread water a bit better. I'd have pared down the list but I'm not feeling hubristic ;-) enough to judge "''This'' game is truly Notable, but this one is just cruft."

{{Seth}}: I like it this way, i had almost forgotten we had floatboxes, its been a while since ive had to make one.

{{Duckluck}}: Regarding whether we want an OpenGameContent (or whatever you want to call it) entry, I'd like to remind people that ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability. Of course, the real test is whether anyone actually makes an entry for this.

{{Burai}}: Well, yes, but ''I'd'' like to remind people that "notability" is not the same as ''relevance''; in fact, that very article (ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability) implies the distinction, to whit:
-->If it fits the trope description, then it can be put in.
Presumably, if it does ''not'' fit the trope description, than maybe it shouldn't be put in (or should be taken out, as the case may be). Saying "this isn't 'important' enough to mention" is notability; saying "But that's not really an example of X" is relevance. The former is explicitly to be avoided here, but the latter is more or less a necessity to have any meaningful entries at all.

SciVo: I honestly don't see the distinction between Role Playing Settings and {{Settings}}, and I really don't want to duplicate that huge index here, so I changed it to that.

----

SusanDavis: Nuked all the red links on the grounds that we can just add games to the list as we actually write pages for them. For that matter, the list really ought to be its own index page rather than a sidebar here.
----
LargeBluntObject: doop de doop, for posterity: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=98on9k5k

''(copied for the ykttw)''
The reason Tabletop[=RPGs=] doesn't have its own page right now is because either FastEddie's magic didn't do a complete job or people are putting wicks for Tabletop[=RPGs=] back in. Since the need for a unified category to put examples under was what caused the name change (D&D examples being put under the header TabletopGames is okay, Warhammer40k being put under Tabletop[=RPGs=] is not) and since there are still messy wicks about, Tabletop[=RPGs=] was made into a redirect. We can still have a page, but that would either need every wick to TabletopRPG, Tabletop[=RPGs=] et cetera (which currently point to a category) being changed or for the page to a different name of its own (say, TabletopRoleplaying Games.)

{{Etrangere}}: I'm not sure I follow you. Does that mean that once the messy wicks are dealt with, we'll go back to having a separate page for [=RPGs=] and other kinds of Tabletop games? If that's the case, I'm fine with it and if you need help for dealing with the messy wicks point them out to me!
I'm surprised Warhammer40k wasn't a rpg actually, I thought it was, if only recently. Maybe this is also fairly about worldbuilding? That is to say even if Warhammer40k isn't a RPG, it's got a fairly complex world which is detailed with a history etc. so do some CCG (although some of them do lead to RPG anyway ^^). I wonder if there was a way to deal with world building related tropes on its own...

LargeBluntObject: I don't care either way about ''pages'', what I care about is the heading under the example sections on trope pages. That being TabletopRPG has to be changed. It should be linked under TabletopGames. From there, you can have pages for as many different kinds of tabletop game as you like, but TabletopGames should be the catch-all heading. It seems some tropers are still treating TabletopRPG as a catch-all term for tabletop strategy and RPG alike, which is just... wrong.

LogicalDash: ''Card games come in two flavors, collectible/trading and dedicated deck''

Um... Hearts and Bridge are both played with the same deck...