Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Dungeons & Dragons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Miniature figures, combatants

There were two recent edits to the sentence "The wargames from which Dungeons & Dragons evolved used miniature figures to represent combatants," that tweak the phrasing: 1, 2. I believe they're well intentioned, but I don't see what they added. (An anonymous editor apparently agreed and did the first revert.) Xaendrik, before you have at it again, could we discuss what you're trying to accomplish? The phrasing as it stands seems clear enough, but it looks like you disagree. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is okay as written, although some miniatures can also represent objects and terrain features.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Famous D&D players

The list of prominent D&D players is tabulated on Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture#Players. Per WP:SS, I'd like to suggest trimming the list of names to four or five prominent examples. Perhaps Stephen Colbert, Vin Diesel, Tim Duncan and Robin Williams?—RJH (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not - that's pretty much all this article had previously. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I implemented this change. I also added a redirect link to the longer list. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you make this change? A robust list of famous people who play D&D is better than a narrow one edited down by you. 71.184.251.201 (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RJH asked for input, the single response was positive and there were no objections, so he changed the article. This was almost a year ago, mind you. Your "robust list" is available at Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture#Players and linked in the article, as he mentioned. Not sure what more we can do. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

News story

Not sure if this is useful for this (or another) article:

Frum, Larry (June 8, 2010). "Dungeons & Dragons tries to lure back players". Geek Out!. CNN. Retrieved 2010-06-14.

—RJH (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, CNN? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cable news seems to be turning more toward interactive services these days. CNN has a Geek Out! blog, for example.—RJH (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another example

The following addition implies that there is more than one example:

D&D and its fans have been the subject of spoof films, including Fear of Girls.

Can anybody name a second? (Is the first even a "film"?) All I'm aware of are spoof episodes of shows such as South Park. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There's The Gamers (film), but that's fairly under-the-radar. While looking that up, though, I did discover Gamers: The Movie which is rather more notable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gamemaster, Gamemaster, What Have You Done? and to an extent its sequel Dungeon Rubber. My recollection is that both are short and straight to video. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

External links: any better wikis?

Currently, the only wiki in this article's external links section is focused heavily on hosting 3.5e OGL and 4e GSL content, particularly homebrew content. Are there any wikis focused on providing encyclopedic coverage of D&D in general? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that external links need to satisfy the requirements in WP:ELNO and WP:ELPOINTS. Those that do not are typically expunged.—RJH (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

First copy of D&D sold

There was a discussion back in 2004, All RPGs can be traced back to Gygax and Arneson?, where a link to the following text was posted:

 Greg Stafford: I knew about D&D. I had a friend in Lake Geneva who was
 picking  up  abelt  buckle catalogue at the printer and he saw another
 guy  there  and  asked  what it was. They guy said, A fantasy game. My
 buddy said, Hey, I have a friend making one of those. Can I buy a copy
 from  you?  And  he  did.  Well, The guy was Gary Gygax and the gaming
 system  the  first  copy of D&D ever sold.  We read it but if you know
 that game, it was editorially terrible. At Chaosium we thought about a
 role-playing  game  with  Glorantha  as  gaming world, but we needed a
 gaming  system.  I finally met Steve Perrin who had developed a gaming
 system and he created our system: RuneQuest. It was published in 1978.

The link provided, though, rotted away and died, but Alexander Dotor, the game designer who carried out the interview, has put up the transcript again, at http://weltentore.dyndns.org/?Interviews:Greg_Stafford:English_Version

I'd say that a credible interview where Greg Stafford, founder of Chaosium, says that his friend bought the first copy of D&D sold and gave it to him, is worth putting in this page. But, I'm not willing to edit such a well-established page, on a topic as far outside my expertise as D&D, hence the posting of links and an excerpt to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.77.199 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Some dude who was a buddy of Greg Stafford bought the first copy? I'm not clear how that is significant. Could you clarify? We should probably try to avoid trivia, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections).—RJH (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

D&D is famous for being the first table-top role-playing game, and RuneQuest for being its first competitor in this field. RuneQuest's gameworld, Glorantha, unlike that of (generic) D&D, had a prior history, in the *White Bear, Red Moon* and *Nomad Gods* board games, and this has led to a fair bit of discussion of whether Glorantha was the first role-playing gameworld. There's more to be said, but I guess that clarifies a bit where I'm coming from. I'm not saying it must be on the D&D page - I don't have enough knowledge of Wikipedia's role-playing pages to say where it should go - but I do think this data should go somewhere. 91.65.77.199 (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if this helps clarify which was the first RPG, then it is significant. But I think it should be stated in that context so as to avoid appearing trivial. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think what would be most relevant would be something to the effect of "My friend bought the first ever copy of D&D and showed it to me, and I was so impressed that it inspired me to create my own game system," or something like that. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... this fact is already covered in the "Acclaim and Influence" section at an appropriate level of detail. I'm not sure we need to cover the details of how every other game system got it's start. Perhaps it belongs in the article on Glorantha?—RJH (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Related games: What I didn't see was a section related to other gaming systems that D&D spawned, such as e.g. Metamorphosis Alpha, a game very similar except that it takes places in space (or on large ark-like spaceships) and allows advanced weaponry like that in Star Wars (1977). Same concept but futuristic instead of medieval. 2001:470:D:468:4D38:4D80:C9B0:7B3C (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Anon. edit

This anonymous edit made several changes to the references and page content. It seemed well-intentioned, but I am unclear whether this change is valid. (It had the comment, "revoked the right wording suggests they have the legal right to do so, which is a unsupported legal POV - also removed some sources that fail WP:RS".) Is anybody able to confirm this? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No idea, but it looked suspicious to me. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous edition mechanics?

Versions 3.5 and 4.0 are readily available these days, and forums with all the info in those books exist online. Obviously they should be covered here on Wikipedia, but I'm personally far more interested in seeing a bit about how the fundamental game mechanics changed from 1st edition, to 2nd edition, to 3rd edition. I started playing at 3.0, and though I knew that d20 was not always the underlying mechanic, I have always been curious about how it worked before then. This information seems to me to be the most important part of an encyclopedic reference to the game. Far more so then famous players at any rate. -Adam.braley (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You'll want to take a look at Editions of Dungeons & Dragons and Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. Plenty of info there. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Daggerdale

Has nobody even thought of creating this article yet? I mean come on, it's the next in the main series of the D&D Video Games and nobody's even mentioned it. This is a good place to put this discussion since there is no other place and it's a D&D game. Okay, somebody create a quality article. Schmeater (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do have Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale, but it needs some work. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Creating an article is relatively easy; making it stick can be much more difficult. We would need secondary sources so that the article can satisfy the notability requirements (WP:NOTE). You might want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (instead of here where it is off topic).—RJH (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll add it to the template. --Schmeater (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Italicized game name

Trying to learn WP editing better, am confused on a style point, can someone plz explain ...

All occurrences of "Dungeons & Dragons" in the article appear in italics. But, WP:MOS says italics for titles are reserved for works of art, books, names of films, etc. (so presumsably not game names/titles, no matter how artistically the game might be rendered). ? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The names of published (or "brand-name") games are usually italicised. Compare Monopoly and Killzone which are italicised throughout their articles to chess and hide and seek which are not. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it! (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(It seems WP:MOS is misleading then, by not mentioning it!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It (board and role-playing games) should probably be added to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), which already includes "Computer and video games".—RJH (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Chess is a board game, but it's not italicised. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's because it's not a brand name, as opposed to Monopoly. Nor is it copywritten. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my point. You can't just say that names of games should be italicised, it's more subtle. I think it boils down to the definition already in the MoS: whether the subject is a "work of art or artifice". In other words, names should be italicised where the subject is something that was specifically designed by its creators and is not generic in nature such as "Dungeons & Dragons", as opposed to a subject that is relatively unattributed and generic such as "cowboys and indians" or "chess". I think this is already implied in the MoS. There are doubtless blurry cases on the borderlines, perhaps famous historical rhymes of uncertain authorship (e.g. Humpty Dumpty), but D&D isn't such a boundary case, it's a clear cut "work of art or artifice". Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons is certainly a "work" (of something), and it's certainly (looks like) done "artfully," but in the end it's a game, and not "art." (I think you agree w/ me, is that right?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crimping down on the word "art" too much ... In the realm of patent searches for e.g. there is "prior artwork," but what's meant certainly doesn't qualify as "art"! (So, is "art" in MOS context like that? Meaning something like "an identifiable piece of work"? If so then I simply misinterpreted.) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So I guess I'm suggesting maybe, games associated w/ patent applications ("prior artwork") are italicized, and games that didn't go thru such paperwork, are not!? (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why can't a game also be art? It's not like the authors are randomly placing words and charts on pages with no care for underlying meaning or emotional intent. I'm currently reading a book on the periodic table by Theodore Gray and it's obvious that he took great care in its writing, so much so that I wouldn't hesitate in calling it literature. I don't see why art must be confined to something you'd find in a museum. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Me thinks there's no reason a game can't also be art, but, that is usually not the focus, or the case. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As this topic is probably more general than just Dungeons & Dragons, you might want to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles).—RJH (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

D&D is clearly a "work of artifice". Whether or not it's also a work of art is entirely subjective, just as whether anything is art is. We popularly categorise creative writing, fine arts, and music as art so those things are easy to identify as art for Wikipedia's purposes, but "is it art?" is a question that plagues many other types of work. Some people argue that some games are art. But for our purposes here it's irrelevant, because D&D already meets the alternative criteria of a "work of artifice". Ryan Paddy (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. (I assume "work of artifice" roughly = "prior art" in realm of patents, etc.) But WP:MOS doesn't say "artifice" (or am I missing it in WP?). Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, okay I found it ("Works of art or artifice") MOS:TITLE. But "artifice" is not defined, and I don't see exactly where a game like D&D would be implied in the list given, what am I missing? Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(What I'm missing is "alternative criteria," where is that? Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be assuming that MOS:TITLE provides an exhaustive list. This is rare in Wikipedia guidelines. Common sense applies here. If something like computer games are italicised, then it would be common sense for brand-name tabletop RPGs to be italicised. You may also find that italicising the name of such works is the common convention in books about roleplaying games, in which case Wikipedia tends to follow the common practice in reliable sources (see WP:NAME for an example of this in regards to the titles of articles, similar logic applies in regard to formatting if there is ambiguity). Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The MOS:TITLE list was pretty long already, and by specifying "computer/video" game it in, it seemed to be intentional distinction made from "other" games. (E.g., whomever included "computer/video games" in the list, if the list is only a partial set of examples, then why wouldn't the same person throw in "tabletop/board games" while they were at it?) So I think it was fair to say the list was/is misleading, nor is the list intended for only those familiar with role-playing game literature. I really don't like the implication I've shown not enough "common sense". Sorry I opened the issue. Goodnight. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No insult was intended - I pointed to the common sense topic because it describes how Wikipedia guidelines are not to always be taken as absolute, some interpretation is often required. Someone who cares about computer games probably added that to the list. Someone who cares about tabletop RPGs could do the same. Or someone could try to figure out what they have in common and list that instead of such specific examples. That MoS guideline strikes me as incomplete - and likely to always be incomplete, because the lines are blurry and an exhaustive list would be excessive. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a similar thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#MoS Italics and projects. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the MoS guideline was that traditional games were not italicised. Chess and Hop-scotch etc. would be traditional, but for these purposes it is effectively the same as not-brand-names. Battleships was traditionally played on paper, so I dread to think how that would cover the battleships plastic upright game from the 70s. (similar to a Connect 4 board) Chaosdruid (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edition History

I had changed edition history, because AD&D 2nd edition was published from 1977 up to 1980 and not up to 1979. I have a 6th printing of the first edition printed in 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerun (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; the original MM, DMG, and PHB were published in 1977, 1978, and 1979 respectively; no new core books for AD&D were printed in 1980, just books like Deities and Demigods. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote removal

Sorry but I chose to remove the following hatnote:

To me it violated WP:RELATED and seemed to contain trivial information. Personally I find large stacks of hatnotes to be on the obnoxious side because they draw attention away from the main article and provide little value in return.

I hope this explanation was satisfactory. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Dungeon Masters

This film, while not particularly well known, is a really good documentary showing aspects of d&d subculture, though not an explication of it. I think it might belong in the "see also" section. its also about the rpg subculture, but it does make a number of explicit references to dnd.{mercurywoodrose)76.245.45.179 (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We do have an article called Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture, although it tends to attract unsourced content that violates WP:TRIVIA. That page is already linked from this article, so I don't think we need to include the film link separately. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

agreed thats an appropriate link. however, its no longer there. i added it back.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.137.132 (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, and another editor then removed it. See the page history for details. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of looser/tighter

In the following sentence:

In 1977, the game was split into two versions: the looser, more open framework game system of Dungeons & Dragons and the much tighter and more structured game system of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...

what are the words 'looser' and 'tighter' intended to convey? Both words have multiple meanings, so this reads as somewhat ambiguous. Also, readers may be unfamiliar with the expression "open framework game system". I'd like to clarify the meaning of this sentence if possible. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What source did that come from? If I have a copy, I'll take a look. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two sources listed: the first is a FAQ, which doesn't appear to express an opinion on the matter; the second is an old Dragon issue. I suspect now that by 'more tighter' the sentence means 'rigorous' or 'more concise', whereas 'looser' means 'informal'. The 'open framework' perhaps means it is more subject to liberal interpretation (which means the same as non-rigorous). Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What you're saying is probably accurate. Which issue of Dragon was that? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons#cite_note-Dragon_26_Gygax-4

Gygax; "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" in The Dragon #26 - yep, that's old. :) Hopefully if someone can reference that, we can straighten this out. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dragon #26, May 1979, pages 28-30, gives a very interesting and detailed take on Gygax's perspective of D&D's history up through that point. The exact quote I believe we are looking for is, on page 29: "Where D&D is a very loose, open framework around which highly imaginative Dungeon Masters can construct what amounts to a set of rules and game of their own choosing, AD&D is a much tighter and more structured game system." A large part of the article involves contrasting the D&D system with AD&D, which was just coming to print, to explain how it differed from the version of the game everyone was used to at that point. Do you need to see more? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes that does confirm the sentence, although it doesn't clarify the article's terminology for non-gamers. Perhaps something like the following would work?

In 1977, the game was split into two versions: the loosely-defined, more flexible game system of Dungeons & Dragons and the more rigorous and structured game system of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...

RJH (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not - that sounds good to me. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

5th edition information

The announcement on the 5th edition is preliminary at this point, so I'd like to suggest that we apply WP:WEIGHT and keep that information brief. Too much disproportionate bloat is probably going to get trimmed anyway, and additional information may be better added to the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Basic Information Missing

What is the object of this game? How does one win (or lose)?

These are common features of other "game" articles, but I don't find either one clearly addressed anywhere in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.150 (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Those concepts are pretty difficult to define for Dungeons & Dragons. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The article tries to define the objective in the second paragraph: "Together they solve dilemmas, engage in battles and gather treasure and knowledge.[3] In the process the characters earn experience points to become increasingly powerful over a series of sessions." Some additional information can be found a Role-playing game#Purpose. There is no clearly defined goal to win (except possible in specific adventures). The main objective is, of course, to have fun, but that's true for any game, right? Daranios (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

D&D is not a game about winning or losing. It's about what one experiences along the way - i.e. "it's the journey, not the destination, that counts." However, to put it in terms of win/lose, if one's "character" is still alive, that could be called a win. 2001:470:D:468:4D38:4D80:C9B0:7B3C (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say: to gain XP and raise your character's class.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Article issues?

This article is tagged for using predominantly primary sources. This may affect the article's status as the Featured Article and depict the quality of this article. Any other issues? --George Ho (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see how the use of primary sources is excessive. They are plenty of reliable third-party sources used in the article, and the primary sources are mainly related to rules descriptions and the like. I think the tag should be removed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It is hard to tell (given the split between notes and references), but over 90% of the article is primary sourced information. Also, if you need to rely on primary source on rule discriptions and game play then it should not be covered in the article. Spshu (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I found another issue: one of the sentences is tagged as "original research". Perhaps someone must do something about that? --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That sentence is from the part about running AD&D and D&D at the same time. "Almost from its inception, differences of design philosophy caused this dual marketing approach to go awry." 24.12.74.21 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tolkien

I don't think we can take Gygax's comment about not being influenced much by Tolkien that seriously. I think this influence goes much beyond elements such as orcs. Both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings feature motley parties of adventurers which are very similar those in D&D. Bilbo is recruited as a thief for the dwarves' quest, while the Fellowship of the Ring is formed from characters of different races and with different abilities. The scenarios of the Lonely Mountain, the Mines of Moria, and Shelob's Lair seem to be inspiration for the idea of the "dungeon" which is central to the game.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support that opinion? DP76764 (Talk) 06:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this could be proven or disproven. Tolkien's works certainly had an influence in the later versions of the original game, but as a person who owns that collector's set plus the original Chainmail rule book, there is very little fantasy at all in the latter, although in its 5th printing from 1978, Chainmail's pages 28-39 are dedicated to fantasy settings. In fact, in this 5th printing, it says that, "[W]e are including a brief set of rules which will allow the medieval miniature wargamer to add a new facet to his hobby, and either refight the epic struggles related by J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers; or [one] can devise [one's] own world...." The copyright page makes it clear that such was an addition not present in the original 1975 printing (3rd edition). The remainder of the book has no reference to any fantasy aspect -- directing itself to the recreation of true historical battles and alternative outcomes. The original D&D books bear a copyright of 1974, but the first edition of Chainmail would be earlier (1971c.). As such, Gygax's comment could very well be true in the early 1970's - but as his rules were applied to D&D grew, so may his view have changed.

In the OD&D Men & Magic forward dated November 1, 1973, Gygax himself credits Dave Arneson, his D&D co-author, for the expansion of Chainmail's rules into that which became D&D, along with the former Castle & Crusade Society. That does not speak to whether Gary Gygax himself was or wasn't influenced, but he was certainly aware that others were so influenced. 2001:470:D:468:4D38:4D80:C9B0:7B3C (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The question is about D&D, not Chainmail. The Influences section here gives the impression that Tolkien's influence was much less than that of many other sources, including Lewis Carroll and the Bible. That is hard to believe. I haven't read Poul Anderson's book, but from the description it sounds very different from D&D. Because of the copyright issue Gygax has a strong motive for playing down the Tolkien influence.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So would you prefer to go with some original research, or as someone asked earlier do you have any reliable sources to back up your assertions? 2601:D:9400:3CD:79BE:7D75:126E:6DBF (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia now required citations for making comments on a talk page.

The predominant source cited currently in this article is Gygax himself. I think it would be worth mentioning that Chainmail rule book that mentions Tolkien and Howard.

The main article on Influences mentions Tolkien multiple times, so there is some kind of imbalance here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In an interview with One-Ring.net, Gygax said Tolkien had "plenty" of influence on D&D[1].--Jack Upland (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Having now read Poul Anderson's book, I'm even less convinced. It seems influenced by Tolkien (or at least has the same sources!!!). It refers to Mirkwood and wargs. And "Middle World". It has anachronistic tobacco, a riddle contest, a monster turning into stone when the sun rises, references to werebears, and a character called "Frodoart". The only dungeon crawl sequence is the brief excursion through a troll's hole. Unlike Tolkien and D&D, the story does not separate itself from the world of Northern European legend which is its inspiration.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, Poul Anderson works is cited as influence not for the dungeon crawl part but for the alignment system (and maybe the paladin class). Dungeon crawl were born from the idea of Dave Arneson to send his players under castle Blackmoor.--Moroboshi (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

He was cited on the dungeon crawl page, but I've removed the citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe Arneson was at least partly inspired by Moria. 2601:D:B480:ED2:4990:49BE:6CC1:DDBE (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

With regard to Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, I was partly reacting to the DeVarque source which mentions it 31 times. But it would probably be more appropriate to discuss this on the main page for Sources and Influences...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation?

I query this - "This activity is performed through the verbal impersonation of the characters by the players..." - and this - "...and converse with the DM in character" from Player Overview. Is it necessarily true? --Jack Upland (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes. It's a play style variance. Some players really get into character like actors. Others not so much. oknazevad (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Not necessarily true. And impossible in many instances... --Jack Upland (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fast Play product line ?

It seems that TSR/WOTC put out some D&D product lines around 1998-99 called "Fast Play" which were simplified AD&D 2nd Edition rules and adventures. I am trying to find out more about these products. It seems that according to this website there are two different version of the product (Fast Play 1 and Fast Play 2) but what the difference between FP1 and FP2 is (if any) I don't know. Also, there apparently was another FP product (FP3 ???) released around 2000 as "as an intro to 3E". That first website link also mention there is more info in Dragon #251, Dungeon #70, and Dungeon #71 (which I do not have). I will look for whatever other sources I can find but if anyone has any info I think this topic should be included in this article or in Dungeons & Dragons-related products. Any help with sources/facts on this topic would be appreciated.

PS: It is notable (in the real world sense, not the WP meaning) that these products were based on 2E rules but labeled themselves as simply "Dungeons & Dragons" and not "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". Could this be the first instance of WOTC dropping "Advanced" from the product lines which they officially did in 2000 starting with the release of 3E? Would it be WP:OR to say so or do the dates support the claim as obvious fact?

I do not think it could be flat-out said:

The Fast Play (D&D) games were the first AD&D products released by WOTC without using the prefix "Advanced" in the name.

unless you had a WP:RS to support that, but I do think it could be said (borrowing some text from the existing article):

Following three years of development, Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition was released in 2000. The new release folded the Basic and Advanced lines back into a single unified game and dropping the word "Advanced" from the product name. Prior to the release of 3E however, TSR/WOTC did release the 2nd edition based Fast Play (D&D) games which also did not use the word "Advanced" in the product name."

without a source (other than the source(s) used within the Fast Play topic text. The above wording is rough but I think you can see the idea. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The absence of "Advanced" from the titles of those fast play modules certainly does seem to point towards that. That said, it may have also been simply a desire not to scare off potential players with the word "Advanced".

As a note, there were actually 6 such fast play modules total. These all had simple dungeon crawls and pregenerated characters. The first was called simply Fast Play, but is commonly known as The Ruined Tower after the main setting. It's actually available as a PDF from WotC here. The next two were The Eye of the Wyvern and The Wrath of the Minotaur, which can be either played on their own or as follow ups to the first. They all use the same simplified version of the 2ed rules. The next two were Crypt of the Smoke Dragon (available here) and Fast Play Diablo II Edition (based on the video game and available here). Both of those use distinct custom rules using only d6s. The last was Caves of Shadow (available here), which was an intro for 3e (the pregenerated characters are the "iconic characters" from the 3e core rule books).

Now where this information should go is a good question. I don't know if these products are really significant to mention in this article, and they don't really belong at Editions of Dungeons & Dragons,. It seems that they're pretty trivial in the long run, probably don't need to be mentioned at all. oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

History of Ability Scores

Not sure if I will ever get around to adding this to any article, but putting it here will at least add it to the permanent record so that this won't be lost in the future. I found a history of ability scores. A brief history of ability checks in D&D 76.100.136.246 (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A better place to add that sort of information would be Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

WEIRD AL YANKOVIC LYRICS. "White & Nerdy"

I think it is worthwhile to mention Weird Al lyrics in the "popular culture " section. The song was Weird Al's largest, controversial due to licensing issues with Coolio, and portrays D&D in a culture-specific manner -white. As such it is fitting for the popular culture section. Two cents. Matt Bianco (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a passing reference to nerd culture at best, one of dozens in the song, no more significant than any other. And you're incorrect on many facts. The Coolio issue was about "Amish Paradise", not "White & Nerdy", and his later album Mandatory Fun is actually his largest selling, being an honest to goodness Billboard number 1 album. It would be a classic case of WP:UNDUE in a pop culture section, exactly what Wikipedia needs less of. oknazevad (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please Settle an Ambiguity

" D&D settings are based in various fantasy subgenres and feature varying levels of magic and technology."

For a novice reader, this statement is ambiguous because it has multiple interpretations. I believe it needs clarification. Does the magic in every setting vary either randomly or per some rhythmic pattern? Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It means that the level of magic is not the same from one campaign setting to the next. There's nothing ambiguous about the sentence, and the use of "varying" is a case of string parallelism in sentence structure with the word "various" in the previous clause. I'm sorry, but I think the issue is you, not the sentence. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand the intent, but your logic is incorrect. The subject is "D&D settings", not fantasy subgenres. The 'and' indicates both apply to the subject, and they can be read as independent clauses: D&D settings are based in various fantasy subgenres -and- D&D settings feature varying levels of magic and technology. My point is that the word "varying" can have, well, varying interpretations here. It's simple enough to pick a word with a clearer meaning. Praemonitus (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That is precisely the intent, your interpretation. The difference is that I feel the word is precisely clear and the one best suited to the meaning. Is there anyone else watching the page who can give a third opinion? oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it can be ambiguous: "varying" can mean anything from "different" (as it does here) to "variable" and "fluctuating". I would suggest something like D&D settings are based in various fantasy subgenres and feature different levels and types of magic and technology. Maybe even D&D settings are based in a range of speculative fiction genres and can feature different levels and types of magic and technology which covers a broad spectrum of fantasy/sci-fi/horror/magical realism. Woodroar (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Woodroar. Oknazevad, does that change make more sense now? Praemonitus (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a little wordy, but I do like Woodroar's first sentence; I'll put it in myself. (I'm not keen on "speculative fiction" as a term; I think it misapplies the word "speculative", as many fantasy works are not appropriately described as "what could (have) happened if...", which is the meaning of the word "speculative". It's an attempt to have a catch-all term for fantasy/sci-fi/alt history/horror/etc., but it falls short.) oknazevad (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Support the change to "different levels and types" as suggested by Woodroar; and concur that it resolves the ambiguity. Happy with "speculative fiction" as a term of art in a broader context, but agree with Oknazevad that "fantasy subgenres" is preferable here; Even factoring in the horror aspects of Ravenloft & space aspects of Spelljammer, Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings are overwhelmingly fantasy based. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That was my other thought; D&D is a fantasy game, so using the word "fantasy" is preferable. oknazevad (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy

I applied some fixes for redundant writing per the guidelines here. For example:

A Dungeon Master serves as the game's referee and storyteller, while maintaining the setting in which the adventures occur and playing the role of the inhabitants.

means the same as this:

A Dungeon Master serves as the game's referee and storyteller, while also maintaining the setting in which the adventures occur and playing the role of the inhabitants.

but the former is more direct, professional, and crisper to read. If you disagree, please clarify. Praemonitus (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to that sentence. My concern is that any one-size-fits-all rule can easily lead to lost meaning, and is not inherently better writing. This is the case with the passage that I object to the removal the most, specifically:

The only items required to play the game are the rulebooks, a character sheet for each player, and a number of polyhedral dice. Many players also use miniature figures on a grid map as a visual aid, particularly during combat. Some editions of the game presume such usage.

Here the also is describing the miniatures as being additional to the required items. Now if it were all the passage were saying, then yes, it would be redundant. But that ignores the sentence that follows (which should probably be joined with a semicolon instead of a separate sentence). The point is that while players of all editions use miniatures (though not at all times or all tables), some editions of the game, especially the revised 3rd edition (3.5) and 4th edition, in practice do require them (else it becomes too difficult to keep track of the in-game combat, due to the situational effects). "Also" here acts as a needed joined and transition to make the whole passage, not just the one sentence, make sense and read properly.

So again, it makes little sense to demand its removal to force a one-size-fits-all rule, as it doesn't properly reflect the content. There's no one, definitive right way to write English. Trying to make it so only looses the meaning of the language. oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If your intent in retaining the also is to link the first and last sentences, then it does a poor job of this task and the sentences need to be rewritten. Otherwise the also is word padding and it is an grammatical improvement to remove it. Either way this needs to change. Praemonitus (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In my (subjective) opinion the "also" makes the sentences flow together better. If keeping it makes it easier to read the paragraph then it should be kept. If not, then it should be removed. We're trying to help the WP:READER, not necessarily be as concise as humanly possible (although obviously it is generally helpful to be concise). Sizeofint (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I see there was a rather sneaky revert of the topic under discussion by Oknazevad here. I'm trying to follow WP:AGF, but I find this editors behavior has been rather unhealthy – bordering on WP:OWN. I think I'm done here since I have no interest in dealing with this type of behavior. Bye. Praemonitus (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is not okay. Sizeofint (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My bad. That was unintentional. Was looking at the diff with all changes since I had last looked at the page and saw the vandalism and just hit undo. Sorry about that. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Adventurers League

Something that I believe is really missing from Wikipedia for D&D is the D&D Adventurers League. Why hasn't this been added already? Anyway, it's a huge thing, a Wizards of the Coast supported system for players to continue to play every week. It's practically tournament play. Anyway, even if it doesn't get its own page, could someone add information about it here on the main page? I think it deserves a mention. I'd do it, but I don't know the future history behind it so I don't know where to start with it. Eric42 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. A section on organized play would be a good addition. There's definitely enough history there, dating back to the RPGA days and early convention play (hello Tomb of Horrors) through the 3e-era Living Greyhawk campaign, the 4-e era Encounters in-store program, to the current evolution of hat as the Adventurers League, there's enough for a section, I'd think. It'll take a while to gather suitable sources, so I'm not adding it right away, but it makes a lot of sense. oknazevad (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/garygygax1.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/garygygax2.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-favreau5-2008may05,0,6653890,full.story
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807234115/http://www.necromancergames.com/ to http://www.necromancergames.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_History.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000823050742/http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/rpgoverview.html to http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/rpgoverview.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hercules.argonaut.uidaho.edu/content/view/360/38/
Added archive https://archive.is/20130414204458/http://reconstruction.eserver.org/011/GeekCulture.htm to http://reconstruction.eserver.org/011/GeekCulture.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812234110/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html to http://gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/hallofame.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/zagyg/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608063823/http://games.necrosys.com/gal_paladin.shtml to http://games.necrosys.com/gal_paladin.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050312100758/http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/03/29/open_dungeon/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/03/29/open_dungeon/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neccessary Updates

This doesn't include anything about 5th edition dnd. I feel that this needs to be updated to include more modern referencesBlockCrew (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should receive about as much coverage as 4th edition on this page, but then we need the reliable sources so it can be added. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional abbreviations (D&D vs DnD)

Hey there, new user here, I've made changes in the past with IP but this time I decided to make an account.

Anyways, kind of feel like I've been not quite bitten, but just mildly slobbered on. I recently made an edit to also include the abbreviation "DnD" next to "D&D". I did not include a source since the current source already mentions both abbreviations and because the official website in the info box on the right is literally "dnd.wizards.com". Nevertheless, thank you to FreeKnowledgeCreator for staying vigilant.

That being said, misunderstood the definition of edit warring, since Woodroar told me on my talk page to not do it. Having only superficially read the Three Revert Rule and being told by a fellow 'Pedian, who shall not be named, that "If you have valid reasons then one revert is fine", we reached where we are now. My apologies if an overstep has happened on my part and thank you.

Interesting mention: That same edit has happened in the past with 192.5.18.31 and Oknazevad.

Edit: And as it turns out, the disambiguation page DND redirects here, mentioning it being "an alternate spelling of D&D". Is it "unnecessary" there too?

HnZ88 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I called it unnecessary as it's not mentioned further on the page, but thinking on it, you are correct, so I'll self revert. Sorry if it felt bite-y. Please accept my apology. oknazevad (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Just voicing my opinion that the "DnD" spelling should be mentioned in the article. In the Internet, using the "n" instead of the "&" makes URLs more human-friendly. The fact that high-visibility URLs use it seems sufficient evidence of its relevance. For instance, the Wizards Twitter and the subreddit. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If others are fine with it, then I am as well. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I was ambivalent, but the original editor made a good case. Keep. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

D&D is definitely a more "official" abbreviation which I have seen used by both companies that published the game, as well as by other game companies that wrote about the game. DnD is in wide use, mostly by fans. I figure both are worth a mention, even if they tend to be used in different contexts. BOZ (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/garygygax1.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/garygygax2.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401155452/http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29743/ to http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29743

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

D&D pictures up for deletion

Just thought I'd let you know, some editions of D&D photos are up for deletion and no courtesy notification was presented at the articles they effect. So I'm doing that in lieu of the nominator. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I hope they end up being kept, the images add information about how the game was presented. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Plus, as the pictures are used in the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article, these are permissible non-free use as the images are used for identification of the respective editions, which is the very subject of the article, making their inclusion a matter of commentary. In short I dispute the claim that these fail the WP:NFCC. I cannot remove the speedy tags as I was the uploaded of these images (but the original, mind you, but I reuploaded them after a previous removal without discussion resulted in their deletion), so would someone please remove the speedy tags and take this to WP:FFD, as I would like this to be settled by more than just the opinion of one admin. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Great! But your argument falls on deaf ears here, you must argue your points at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 13. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, you must add your arguments to the FFD page for them to hold any weight. 2601:240:E000:7A5:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Didn't realize that there was a discussion started. There's more files than just the few already listed there. All should be kept. oknazevad (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, there are several! And more were removed by the same user from several other articles maybe 4-7 days ago. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

dndtomb.com

I'm looking for opinions about using dndtomb.com as a source, specifically their article The Ultimate Guide to D&D Dice added as a source here. I originally removed it because User:68.94.118.129 had added dndtomb.com to 4 different articles in a way that looked to me like spamming. In addition, the site appears patently unreliable for Wikipedia. Their articles appear to have been written for SEO, they're filled with affiliate links, and all of the articles I checked were written by "GREYHAWK". This article also includes several images that are uncredited and appear to have been stolen from other sites, for example this watermarked image on Etsy. I reverted what is, to me, clearly refspam, but it was reinstated by Leitmotiv. I don't want to edit war so I've brought it here for discussion. Is this a valid reference or should it be removed as spam? Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Even presuming good faith on the IP's part, as a blog it is a WP:SPS and not reliable as a source. I think it should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Woodroar: I may have reverted too quick, but that's likely because I didn't see this particular edit as refspam (it was the only instance I saw). I merely briefly looked at the source, saw it wasn't a wiki, and reverted seeing that another inline citation is not a bad thing (at least presumably). I wouldn't call the site a blog, though it may qualify as not being "an expert" per @Oknazevad:, though we routinely call newspapers experts and cite them, but they are frequently inaccurate (they make tons of mistakes and routinely get their facts wrong - it's a widespread phenomenon). However, seeing as how the site is being questioned, I have no problem with it being deleted as being an invalid source. I just thought the original revert was a kneejerk undo. I stand corrected. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all. There was always a chance that I was missing something obvious about the site or something I didn't know. It's definitely happened before and I'm sure it'll happen again.

Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that considering newspapers "experts" in virtually anything backfires more often than not. However, this is a 2-page, 4 months old, "anonymous" blog which looks too much like WP:SPS to me. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Too short/not comprehensive enough for FA

Per WP:FAR, the first step of a review is to see if anyone cares to address the issues, which in this case are simple: this article is too short. The popular culture section, for example, is just few sentences. The 'Related products' section is also super short and unreferenced to boot. There is some OR / unreferenced content elsewhere, and strange decision on what to split into subsections, namely 'Miniature figures' which get their own section - which is fine, but the fact that for the much more popular these days computer games, for example, are mentioned in a single sentence, is a good example of how incomplete this article is. Unless someone can fix this in the near future, I think delisting from FA to B-class at best will have to happen. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason minis get their own section is because they're a part of the play of the table top game itself, while the computer games are licenses brand extensions. Remember, this is the article about the tabletop game first and foremost, not the licensed media that has grown around it. It is going to emphasize the actual play of the game, and releases for that. The rest of the material is best left in other linked articles so as not to distract from this article's main purpose, the actual tabletop RPG Dungeons & Dragons, a game that is more popular than ever. oknazevad (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Length alone should not necessarily be enough of a reason to bring an article to FAR; for example, Ashcan comic was the TFA just a few days ago and that article is tiny compared to this one. That said, if the issue is a lack of comprehensiveness, and there are certain areas that could use more detail, this would be a good place to discuss what specifically needs a higher level of detail and address that. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree delisting is in order. I have less a problem with length than with WP:RS. More than half the sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT. Other sources are seriously suspect. For example this [2] was given a pass probably because it has a .edu address. But it's just the personal website of a computer lab staff member at CMU, it's not a publication of CMU nor the academic writing of a faculty member. Another source is an archive of a geocities page! And, we have an entire section that has no sources at all! There are some RS in there like the AP story and Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, but they're too few and far between. On sourcing alone, a fresh review wouldn't get this through GAN, let alone FAN. Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Per above concerns on sources, I've started to go paragraph by paragraph replacing/updating/fixing formatting of sources. Schedule wise, I have a bit of time today, no time tomorrow and more time in the back half of the week to continue this. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Content Organization

I think some of the concerns above could be addressed if we reorganized the article a bit (or at the very least make gaps that need to be filled more obvious).

Play overview: I think this and its subcategories don't need to be moved
Game history: I think Sources and influences, Edition history, and Controversy and notoriety should stay (Edition history needs a bit of help & probably dates in the subcategory titles).
Related products: I think Licensing should be moved here. If we fold all of this together, this might address Piotrus's concerns with video games et al not having a big presence.
In popular culture: There's a note here to not make a list because of the link to the list page. Is that still relevant? Should we highlight a few of the most popular bits of popular culture?
Acclaim and influence: I think this should be its own category with subcategories for Critical Reception and Awards

Let me know your ideas & suggestions. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like some reasonable ideas. The edition history can be increased by mining the article about the game's editions, probably. Not sure who added the note about not mentioning more about popular culture, but possibly that was a WP:UNDUE concern? I agree with expanding the acclaim and influence. BOZ (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Re the point above about miniatures vs computer games: point taken, but I still think we need to add quite a few paragraphs here about popular spinoffs (also novels and board games, to think of a few others). I also note that the article cites a very interesting book I've read, Fine's Shared Fantasy, but only in passing. That source is very helpful as an ethnographic study of early DnD players and their behavior and culture and I'd expect this article, to be comprehensive, to discuss such issues more. In either case, I recommend it as a solid and fun read to anyone interested in expanding this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If you've got a copy of that one, help out if you can. :) BOZ (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to that through my library's consortium. I only have access to 2 reviews of the book on JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/539941, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2780127). Should we be considering a section (or subsection) on player demographics where we put more of a focus on behavior/culture? Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think such section is a very good idea. I thought it would be at LibGenesis but nope, I am afraid one would have to rely on a traditional source (library), which is how I read it ~10 years ago. Sadly I don't have a copy anywhere in my vicinity, neither. That said, there are dozens of other academic books and hundreds of academic articles on D&D. I'd strongly recommend mentioning the ones that are highly cited according to GScholar, for example those articles have 50+ cites: Alienation and the game Dungeons and Dragons, Emotional stability pertaining to the game of Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons: The use of a fantasy game in the psychotherapeutic treatment of a young adult, suggesting they have been rather impactful in the field. About a dozen or two of other papers seem to have 10+ cites and I'd recommend reading them as well for helpful soundbites to cite. Another book, Of Dice And Man (review) also has 50+ cites, but it also seems to be missing from LibGen :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)