Dungeons and downloads: collecting tabletop fantasy role‐playing games in the age of downloadable PDFs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to provide libraries with collections advice regarding fantasy role‐playing games. Design/methodology/approach Current and emerging publication and sales models of pencil and paper, tabletop fantasy role‐playing games are explored. Details of print, print‐on‐demand, free and purchasable downloads, and subscription‐based options for major fantasy role‐playing games and alternatives are provided. Findings Many options are available to libraries wishing to provide support for fantasy role‐playing game programming. While an overwhelming quantity of publications are often available for purchase, usually only a bare minimum is required to run a role‐playing game. Free or modestly priced options are available for libraries on a shoestring budget. Libraries interested in supporting fantasy role‐playing game programming with collections need not spend much. Spending less on collections requires a greater amount of imagination, socializing, creativity, collaboration and literacy on the part of program participants. Originality/value Many libraries are interested in supporting fantasy role‐playing games with collections, but do not know where to start. While much is being written about gaming in libraries, little has been written to help libraries navigate current role‐playing game book publication and sales models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it