Talk:Paranoia (role-playing game)

General

So what happend to paranoia? I was under the impression that when W.E.G. claimed 'chapter 11', W.E.G. sold some of their copyrights off. I heard a roumer that Wizards of the Coast now holds the rights and is making/has made a D20 system version of paranoia (game).

From Greg Costikyan's personal site, costik.com: "Eric and I finally got the rights back from the now-defunct publishers. Skotos is currently working on a text-MUD version, and we may find someone to bring the game back into print soonish." 64.231.165.143 08:41, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wow, Costikyan deals with Paranoia again? Good news. Well I have heard in 2000 Torg 2 will be released in GenCon 2000, (deleted for security reasons) and I subscribed there to their newsletter on reprint of Torg comic, blah blah blah anyway Happiness is mundatory. Then I think Acute Paranoia and the scenario-I-can't-mention-without-getting-treasonous-points-but-with-a-mustasch-oomigod should be listed on related items. How about them? Have a nice daycycle, Citizen. KIZU 15:29, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Possible fodder for an external link? Paranoia XP Design Blog DanaJohnson 02:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on a large rewrite of the Paranoia article in my user space, the main idea being to give more information about Alpha Complex and the differences between the editions. Feel free to drop by and edit or leave comments/suggestions in the talk. Vogon 19:24, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

User:Radiant's recent changes ([1]) appear sincere, but they focus too much on specific interpretations. It's particularlly noteworthy given Paranoia XP, which provides for a wider range of play styles (including a low-humor "Straight" game) and discourages intentionally dooming the PCs. I'm contemplating a serious edit to remove big chunks, verging on a revert. (Relatedly, Vogon's rewrite is looking like it's reasonably far along. Any reason not to just drop that in place now?) Alan De Smet | Talk 22:55, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The (non-existant) 5th Edition

I feel that some mention should be made of ParanoiaXP's rather humorous in-character bout of "Product Denial" when it comes to some of the... less enjoyable modules made in the past, including the disasterous 5th edition. I'd do it myself, but I'm worried that I wouldn't be able to keep the academic voice in this case, since I'm a huge fan of the game and find it difficult to NOT use the in-character voice when discussing the game. Fieari 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A Treasonous Mistake

"The Computer serves as the game's principal antagonist." Obviously whoever GM'd this editor did an awful job. The entire point of paranoia is that they PLAYERS are the principle antagonists.

Pictures

Who the HEL Sector randomly added XP covers throughout the article? Now it just looks weird and confusing.

Nonlinear time

Ummm. . . .

• 1st edition (ISBN 1869893) - written by Greg Costikyan, Dan Gelber, and Eric Goldberg - published in 1986 by West End Games. In 1985, this edition of Paranoia won the Origins Award for Best Roleplaying Rules of 1984.

Anville 20:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Strange, that shouldn't be. I'll change it back to 1984. --01:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio is treason

Commie mutant traitors have uploaded pictures to your friend, the wikipedia, without copyright classification. Copyvio is treason! Andjam 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alpha Complex a communist state?

The main blurb states that "Ironically, Alpha Complex is, itself, a communist state, inhabited solely by mutant secret society members". Back in the old days I played some highly enjoyable sessions of Paranoia, enough to remember that much of the fun is derived from the fact that everything is self-contradictory, and that the Computer often "fights" against itself. However, I don't remember the Alpha Complex being communist. Does the rulebook even state this? It is a completely invasive totalitarian state, but that is not the same. In fact, wasn't the Computer built during the cold war in order to fight Communism? To suggest that the Alpha Complex is communist is Treason, Citizen!

(I've modified the original line accordingly; if someone can support the original claim with a link to the rules, I'll have no problem restoring it) 157.92.4.2 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It was referenced in the Paranoia XP rulebook. The original Alpha Complex wasn't communist but it certainly was highly planned and ordered, people had their possessions largely provided by the state and there wasn't much use for money. --Kizor 13:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As they say, people often become what they most fear. It's a few years since I played 'Paranoia', but could certainly agree that Alpha Complex had become a communist state in an attempt to protect itself from communism: though I couldn't find a definitive quote to that effect. Mark Grant 13:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Methinks if it's blindingly obvious enough, you might not need a definitive quote. On the other hand, to quote Arthur C. Clarke, it sometimes takes a genius to see the blindingly obvious ... --Yar Kramer 15:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know how to format, but, I do have information that is relevant. In the new Traitor's Manual, it mentions, under communists, how confused Alpha commies get if they get ahold of actual ancient Communist dogma and literature, as it so resembles day to day Alpha.

There is no direct mention of Alpha Complex being communist, but in XP there is a paragraph that mentions how the Computer carefully controls the economy and takes "from each according to his ability and gives to each according to his [CLASSIFIED]" (This is an approximate quote.)

The society of Alpha Complex, especially in pre-XP editions, was clearly based on the Soviet Union's implementation of communism, with a focus on the discrepency between the the claims and the reality. In theory all citizens are equal, but in practice many are more equal than others. Citizens theoretically rise to their optimal level of service, but the system is deeply buerocratic, corrupt, and disfunctional. All of a citizen's necessities are supposed to be provided by the state, but in reality people turn to black markets and illegal contacts to survive. XP's addition of semi-private service firms is a clear echo of perestroika (the Soviet attempts at economic reform). I deleted the claim that Alpha Complex is instead a totalitarian dictatorship, it's not mutually exclusive (it seemed to work for Stalin), and it's not relevant (The point is the irony of Alpha Complex being anti-communist). Alan De Smet | Talk 02:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (Editted to clairify and correct own points. Alan De Smet | Talk 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

To reply to you, Alan, shouldn't it be changed to "totalitarian communism" or "Stalinism"? After all, Soviet Communism was quite far from Marx's original ideas. I am no expert, just my two cents. 93.166.114.170 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Tone of "Secret societies" section

The society descriptions are a marvellous read and - here's the thing - due to the nature of Paranoia, work far better as descriptions than bland, serious ones would. Whoo. --Kizor 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanka. I really put some thought into it. Although, I see they're putting it up as needing Cleanup. Seriously. I'm all in favor of equal, even information distribution on Wiki, but, for something like paranoia, the zing is what makes it appealing The societies lose their edge if you try to bare bones lay them out. It's a commie plot, really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.145.167.215 (talk • contribs) on 27 August 2006.

I'm not about to slap the cleanup tag back on it, but the secret societies section needs an overhaul. As an encyclopedic article the goal is to factual and succinct, not amusing. Coverage of humor should explain the humor, not attempt to be funny in and of itself. Alan De Smet | Talk 23:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Secret Societies section needs to be split into its own article. It gets in a little too much detail for the main entry on the game.JBPostma 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it really notable enough for its own article? To me, it seems like trivia, and if we look at formal criteria, I'm not sure if it satisfies the "multiple independent sources" criterion (all the sources seem to come from the publisher of Paranoia). If it gets in too much detail, the other alternative is to abbreviate the section. I would support split if there existed for example "rpg-philosophical" works that discussed how the secred society system adds to the role-playing experience.Punainen Nörtti 06:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Scrubbing the article

The article has gotten more than a little out of control. It's a little too much into the game, reading more like an enthusiastic review and less like an article in an encyclopedia. It's full of unexplained in-game terminology. Listing names for fictional foods eaten by various security clearances is useless for a reference work. There are lots of jokes (especially about treason and executions) that are inappropriate (this is a reference) and simply incorrect for the Straight style of play. I've gone through and scrubbed several sections. More work is needed. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I Swear I'll get an account soon. Me again, The one who wrote the too-goofy Secret society blurbs. Well, I've had another crack at it, and expanded on some of the ones left short. I've tried to keep it drier this time, so as not to be seen as overdoing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.167.215 (talk • contribs)

No Paranoia game by Manifesto Games?

I deleted the claim that "Greg" from Manifesto Games is planning on creating a Paranoia game. It lacks a citation. It's implausible as the point of Manifesto Games is to support other developers, not develop games itself. It's not been announced anywhere I can find (including the blog of Greg Costikyan, the founder of Manifesto Games, nor the MG site itself). My guess: someone suggested such a game could be created, and Greg said it sounded great and he'd love to add it to what Manifesto Games offers. If someone finds some evidence to support this claim, you can find my edit here, the better to reapply it. Alan De Smet | Talk 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Email from Greg:

Just for the record, I never said any such thing. But hey.

--AdamM 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox graphic

Curious as to why the representative picture in the infobox is from the 2nd edition cover rather than the most recent version. TheBrigand 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Related Publications tweaks

I've refined this list slightly - previously it was a list of fifteen or so Paranoia books from all editions of the game ending with "...and many more". Now it's sorted by edition and (I think) includes all published books. A previous editor put in full book citation entries for a couple of the books, which I've left untouched... Not sure if such extra detail should go here or on a seperate page - Paranoia RPG Publications, or The Paranoia Timeline or something. For the same reason, I've refrained from attempting to put the books in a logical reading/playing order, or subdividing 2nd edition into Classic / Secret Society Wars / Crash / Reboot eras. Do we need a second page that goes into more detail on the line, what each book is etc? Would that exist alongside wiki pages for each individual book, or replace them? Dantheman123 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The list isn't so long as to justify being on its own page. Putting a full citation is appropriate (the book acts as its own citation), but if a given book has its own page, the citation becomes redundant (but basically harmless) here (of course the book's own page should have the full citation). Ultimately I'm not sure it's that important. Nice edits, by the way. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like 'em. Per the book list, fair enough. I still think a guide to playing/reading order would benefit interested readers, but perhaps this is beyond the remit of an encyclopedia and should be composed elsewhere (and linked to from here). For now I've added a note on Metaplot to the Second edition description, which adds a bit of context to the alphabetical title listing. BTW thanks for tweaking my previous lot of tweaks, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm not yet up to speed on footnote generation and whatnot :) Dantheman123 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I revised the contents and appearance of the related publications lists to have sortable columns, a brief description of every product, and booksource links from the ISBNs. One thing missing is the publisher's own id number (e.g. WEG 12001), but it's not clear if it would serve any real purpose when we have the ISBNs. (Perhaps for sorting, but that depends on how publishers assign these numbers.) Arkku (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultraviolets reprogramming the Computer

A recent edit to the security clearances section says "even Ultraviolets reprogramming the Computer is treasonous"... I don't think that's true. Can someone who has the rulebook to hand check it out? I thought they were entitled to reprogram the Computer, hence the name "High Programmers".Dantheman123 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's absolutely false. "High programmers" = "the Computer trusts them enough to alter its code." —Yar Kramer 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought so. I've removed the offending sentence, and added a note near the beginning of the section which emphasises the role of trust in security clearance.Dantheman123 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That publications list (again)

Alan, I see you've started standardising the list to include full citations; while I can see the reasons for this - this is an encyclopedia after all - the resultant list is not very readable. Once you've completed the annotations, is there a way of formatting it that improves readability and usability without violating Wikipedia guidelines? Also, can some repeat information (such as the publisher) be stated only once in the list? (Just asking at this stage; I'm not going to randomly format or alter your edits)

I suppose one way of dealing with the info-density of the resulting list would be to have wiki entries for each individual book, those pages having bibliographic info and perhaps a guide to where they fall in the "continuity" of editions. That's a fairly big project, though... Dantheman123 13:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that one of the existing entries used the template, so I figured, "What the heck" on the theory that more information is better than less. As you say, it does harm readability. I'm hesitant to start new articles these days, my tolerance for notability deletion fights is pretty low these days, but I'm not against it. Perhaps another solution is to stick the full citation in as a <ref>. It's a bit weird, but arguably the full listing is a reference showing the books existance? I'll give that a try. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is to tabulate the data. Like on this D&D books page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_adventures Then if anyone fancies a crack at creating a new page for a particular Paranoia module, they can. Otherwise they get the bibliographic data, and maybe a one-sentence summary of the book content, laid out in a more retina-soothing fashion. Either way, it's appropriate to have the biblio detail in there *somewhere*, so the layout is something to think about after that's done.Dantheman123 08:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started doing this on my own inititive, with tables. Anyone able to fill in holes, please do so! Those intrested in Paranoia matertial other than the books (i.e. magazine articles) may want to check out http://www.paranoia-live.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5985 EllePollack (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Theres no XP in PARANOIA

Just so you know. One other company made them remove the XP from the game title. So the newest PARANOIA is not PARANOIA XP its just PARANOIA. With caps.. And they removed it a long time ago.. Source: http://www.costik.com/paranoia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.214.215 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What's te problem? The edition was called Paranoia XP originally, and the name was changed. The article notes this. (That they want the name in ALL CAPS is marketing and irrelevant.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Paranoia (Dan Gelber, Gamma World)

With this edit, I removed the following text. It's absolutely awesome and would be a great addition to the article, if it is true. I've never heard it before, I can't find any support for it, and it wasn't cited. So I've erred on the side of caution and deleted it. If anyone can find a citation please re-add it with a citation! Or just put a comment here noting where a citation can be found, and I'll be happy to track it down and add it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Costikyan, the original concept for Paranoia was Dan Gelber's, and first saw light as a one-off comedy scenario in an ongoing campaign of Gelber's - possibly a Gamma World game, since post-apocalyptic wastelands, artificial intelligences, strange mutants and secret societies also feature strongly in the Gamma World setting. Enthused by the concept, Costikyan and Goldberg would help Gelber develop it for publication as a stand-alone game.

Hi Alan, recently Allen Varney was interviewed for the RPG podcast "Animalball", episode 55: http://animalball.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=364856 He covers the genesis of Paranoia, and although the fine detail escapes me (and my MP3 player isn't on me) he does cover Dan Gelber's proto-Paranoia game.Dantheman123 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dantheman123: Thanks for tracking it down! I haven't yet had a chance to listen to it yet, but it is on my list of things to do, hopefully within the next few weeks. (Of course, if someone else beats me to adding a citation, ideally with time markers, I won't complain.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dantheman123: I've listened to the entire thing now, and I didn't hear anything about the proto-Paranoia. I'll relisten to chunks of it when I get around to adding proper citations, but I'm not optimistic. Can you direct me to the time where it is discussed? — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm finally getting to it, and am about a third of the way through. I'll just dump my notes here; seems as good a place as any. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• 10:00-25:00(ish) - General introduction; nothing lept out.
• 20:00ish - Varney claims that the "something falls off" moment from "Me and Shadow Mark V" is a widespread shared moment.
• 25:30 - Varney explicitly notes irony of computer running a totalitarian communistic society as a defense against communism.
• 26:00 new edition added capitalism. Adds tension because money is something pcs can aspire for and be at risk in addition to promotions
• 27:30 added things to increase distrust between players: includes perversity points that can screw other PCs
• 40:00 paranoia-live/jparanoia drew new players in while game was in limbo 2000-2003
• 42:00 - Player input donated to game via dev blog. Use of the Toothpaste Incident Lexicon Wiki game to develop content and find contributors for the line. About a dozen were found. Issue 4 of The Escapist talks more about this. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_4/25-Player-Prompted-Paranoia
• 49:30 - Microsoft and Paranoia XP: Disgruntled freelancer ratted them out, Microsoft made threats, XP was dropped.

Ack, evidently I was mistaken - so I've just emailed Greg Costikyan and asked him direct. If he replies, can we cite that? :) Dantheman123 (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Greg emailed me back to say: "Dan Gelber's home-brew Paranoia used a system of his own that I'm reasonably certain was in no way derived from Gamma World". The designers' notes in 1st edition say: "Paranoia was designed to fill a role-playing need, rather than to fulfil my design ambitions. There was no game which fostered a play environment of treachery, suspicion, fear, and quick and easy death, in which the players compete just to stay alive." I've found plenty of evidence of people speculating there was a Gamma World source material influence, but nothing citable. I guess I must have read one of these speculations, along with our anonymous contributor. Interesting that the game was designed to support a whole new play style - more interesting, in fact, than it being designed as another post-apocalyptic title.Dantheman123 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries on the mistake; the time spent did turn up some useful stuff anyway that I'll try to add "soonish." For future reference, direct contact with a subject isn't too useful as other editors can't easily confirm what was said. It may not work, but if you're lucky the subject will be interested in writing a little bit of history, if only for the chance to "set the record straight." A better option would be ask the subject to write up and post somewhere reasonably official (like their personal or business web site) something about it. Even better would be to convince a reliable source to interview the subject, ask these questions, and write an article about it, but that's understandably tricky. :-)— Alan De Smet | Talk 22:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapsatron & Spin Control

Do they exist as separate volumes ? There are traces, but nothing sure... As Sweep of Unhistory/My First Treason does exist as a standalone as well as in ACN2, I'd like to know if Collapsatron or Spin Control exist as standalone volumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.77.163 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Collapsatron (a proposed Zap! collection which would include the reprint of Orcbusters) was never published; it and "Outdoors Sector" (Clones in Space and The People's Glorious Revolutionary Adventure) became Flashbacks 2 instead. EllePollack (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

“Friend Computer”

Appropriately enough, “Friend computer” is a redirect to here. But, guess what? There's no explanation in the article that “Friend Computer” is one of the names by which the ruling AI is known. Which communist is responsible for this?!? —SlamDiego_←T 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing worth mentioning links to Friend computer, so I don't think it's necessary. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia articles often do and should provide infrastructure for other Wikipedia articles, that's not their primary purpose. There are allusions “out there” to “Friend Computer”, and standard accounts of the game often mention the name. —SlamDiego_←T 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

many edits and a rewrite

I've done several (relatively minor) things to this article. Most notably, I have moved the old introductory text into the first subsection The Basics and renamed it Overview as a more encyclopaedic title. The old intro was far to long and contained a list of 10 things Paranoia is somewhat similar to. Most of these have been excised as redundant. I have also uploaded a better quality image of the first edition cover, and updated the ISBNs of the core editions to modern 13-digit values, as per wikipedia policy. I have also set the cover image sizes to 150px across the board as the thumbnail tag was producing random sizes, which looked quite odd and unprofessional.

I plan to move all of the references to cites located at the bottom of the page, as in-line cites disrupt the flow of text unnecessarily. I am also planning to move the entire Related publications to a new sub-page, (probably titled Related products as one of the products is a cardgame) as although the info is useful (and I don't want to lose it,) it adds a lot to the article without adding much value for the casual reader. less is generally more in these cases - if anyone reverts or has objections please state your reasoning here, as I don't want to get into an edit-war and discussion is the obvious solution RayBarker (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also strongly thinking about simply deleting the long list of secret societies and their descriptions, as it's simply too specific and irrelevant to anyone who doesn't already play paranoia. We're not meant to be rewriting the rulebooks here, and that level of detail goes beyond what's encyclopedic into copyvio territory. RayBarker (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

also I am deleting the "History" section, as it's the in-game history of Alpha Complex (which is something even players and GMs don't need to know) and it is written in an in-universe non-encyclopaedic style - don't think it can be rescued. A section called "History" should concern the history of the game, rather than the history in the game. Accordingly, I will retitle the "Publication" section to "History", which will help to seperate it from the "related publications" section. RayBarker (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left the "other publications" section alone, as I'm not watching Wikipedia closely enough for the inevitable AfD that it would go through. I've also left the "secret societies" subsection alone even though I believe it deserves deletion, because it's well organised - I'm confident some well meaning editor would re-add the information in an inferior fashion. Unfortunately whoever's editing the article from an IP seems to be well-meaning but without regard to redundancy, organisation or comments and with even poorer spelling and grammar than mine. Based on User_talk:212.188.171.250 this seems to be a habit. I shall leave the article alone for now. RayBarker (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I could walk away, but it bothered me too much. reverted the section with a comment asking them to check the talk page. Hopefully 212.188.171.250 can say why we need to specify details like year 214 AC having been repeated several times, and isn't just a GM using the wiki page as a new player orientation tool - that's what the manual is for. RayBarker (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

ISBNs

Just converted all the ISBNs in the article into the modern, 13-digit versions as per policy at Wikipedia:ISBN and modified the layout of the tables accordingly. Left the Games Workshop one as it is, because it's not valid! RayBarker (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Space Station 13

Curious, really. Is it worth mentioning the inspirations from Paranoia in the game Space Station 13 (SS13)? The whole Asimov-complex, strict rules (depending on the captain), everyone is paranoid about traitors. I'm not saying the creators of SS13 imported Paranoia into space, but to me, at least, the inspirations are obvious and I do believe SS13 at least deserves a mention in the See Also section. Your resident Traitor Communist Anonymous 93.166.114.170 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable third party source discussing this, it could be added (ideally with an inline citation). However, based on just what you said would consist of WP:OR. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Troubleshooters and InternalSecurity Authors are correct?

Excuse. I have confused. What's the meaning authors? and what are correct?

Wikipedia(current revision)

• Troubleshooters: (authors)Allen Varney and Gareth Hanrahan
• InternalSecurity: (authors)Gareth Hanrahan

Books

• Troubleshooters

(Cover)New PARANOIA edition: ALLEN VARNEY

(Credits)Writer: ALLEN VARNEY

(Credits)Additional Material: GARETH HANRAHAN, ...

• InternalSecurity

(Cover)New PARANOIA edition: ALLEN VARNEY, GARETH HANRAHAN

(Credits)Writer: GARETH HANRAHAN

(Credits)Additional Material: ALLEN VARNEY, ...

--Chiether (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Mutant Powers

The article mentions the fact that every player has a mutant power, but gives no explanation or examples. (Nor does it explain the significance of the fact that most players are unregistered mutants.) I'd love to flesh this out, but I don't have any of the manuals any more so I couldn't provide any citations. If somebody who does have access to the sources would put in a small section, explaining how unreliable the powers are and giving a few examples, it would really help readers who've never played the game understand it better. JDZeff (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)