Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 9

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 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Proposing a new approach to subtopics

@BOZ, TTN, Necrothesp, Piotrus, and NinjaRobotPirate: Over the past few years, there have been a large number of nominations for deletion of articles relating to aspects of Dungeons & Dragons, with mixed success. This has led to coverage of the field which, to me, appears scattershot and internally inconsistent. I propose that rather than continuing this ad hoc approach, we examine the area from the other direction, and develop a list of articles on D&D that we can generally agree should exist, and then create an architecture for how information about the franchise and its elements can best be presented. I expect that this would including generally merging up subtopics that are noteworthy for mention in supertopic articles, which we may not presently have.

Note: I am pinging editors who have participated in a number of the aforementioned deletion discussions. Please feel free to invite anyone else who may have insight into this topic area. BD2412 T 19:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It might be easier to have this discussion at a WikiProject. But, anyway, I suspect that the content most likely to be notable are the elements that are unique to D&D: beholders, mind flayers, owlbears, Vecna, Greyhawk, etc. Mythological creatures are found almost everywhere in fantasy. Unicorns, for example, are a staple. If someone wanted to write a standalone article about how unicorns are portrayed in their favorite fantasy work, it'd probably take a lot of work to show that independent reliable sources sources actually care. Unicorns are one of those mythological creatures that have become so popular and generic that people just assume they'll be in the work and that they'll be the same as every other depiction of a unicorn. But if you include an owlbear in your TV show? That'll probably be commented on by Entertainment Weekly. And they might even dedicate an entire article to describing what owlbears are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few outlets in popular culture where D&D comes up in this way - for example in the TV series The Big Bang Theory and Stranger Things. I suspect that the more detailed recaps of episodes of those series would mention these. I agree that we can most often fold the use of generic creatures such as unicorns and minotaurs into their broader articles, but I think that there are some areas where broad classes of creatures such as dragons, giants, the undead, and elves will likely merit separate treatment. BD2412 T 23:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the first thing is determining if Wikipedia has a duty to cover every single aspect of a fictional series down to the most minor of minutia. Do we need to list every monster, character, item, class, etc, or do we list only those that meet a certain threshold? I'd say that's the biggest issue with pretty much all of the Old Wikipedia fiction-related holdovers. There's obviously some attempt to move forward, but there's a lot of pushback even then. The state of 2019 D&D was quite largely similar to 2008 D&D. If there's no agreement on that, then it's pretty much a futile discussion that can only be handled via AfD. TTN (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that we need to have a separate article on everything, but to the extent that such things are already covered, I see no problem with merging content up rather than deleting it altogether, if a merge is feasible. BD2412 T 23:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

As someone who's been editing since 2004 I didn't realise there was an "Old Wikipedia", or indeed a "New Wikipedia". Although I certainly do remember a time when editors were more interested in creating than deleting, respected each other a little more and weren't so obsessed with imposing non-existent rules on other editors and mocking and sneering at them when they held another opinion - is that what you mean? Yes, what a terrible time that was! I agree with BD2412. Merging and redirecting existing content is always better than deleting if there's a feasible article to merge to. That goes with all topics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If editors use merging and redirecting as a stop gap to keep and later sneakily restore non-notable information over a decade, then no, it is not better. Even if the core editors of the topic are in fact not the ones logging out to restore the articles, they are still guilty of standing by while it happened. On the general topic of merging vs deletion, it's only better if there is content worth preserving in the target article. But instead, we end up with literal hundreds of redirects that are ultimately too minor to mention. It's a case by case basis, so it is not literally always better. TTN (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There's absolutely no problem with any redirect if it's sensibly named (i.e. something that somebody is actually going to search for) and is a term mentioned in the target article. WP:NOTPAPER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And that goes back to my original question if a general encyclopedia has a duty to mention even the most minor of topics. Most of D&D's monsters, not worth mentioning. They're just generic creatures with minor variations. The ones that should be mentioned are those that originated there and those that otherwise have obtained significant coverage. Most of D&D's deities, not worth mentioning. They're mostly setting pieces and ideals to follow for characters over being real characters. There are some that exist within the fiction as tangible characters like Lolth, but that is the minority. Most of D&D's characters, not worth mentioning. Having read the Drizzt series, there are more minor characters in that series than there are characters in general in many other series. That's just one series of 30+ books, one small fraction of D&D's total fiction. NOTPAPER only extends so far once you're reaching the most minor of minor topics. Could Wikipedia list every weapon in Final Fantasy VII? Sure. Would it at all be beneficial to the general reader? No. That's the same with much of D&D. TTN (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, something that somebody is actually going to search for and mentioned in the target article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of what my point was about. Many of the articles being merged or redirected are not suitable for inclusion even in a list due to how minor they are in the scope of D&D's depth of fiction. TTN (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, there are 2,744 unique articles currently under the Category:Dungeons & Dragons category tree. BD2412 T 00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I'm only particularly interested in the fiction, which is now greatly reduced in scope. Unless I'm misremembering, I feel like there were at minimum 1000-1500 articles previously. It seems to be under 200 now. TTN (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Under 200 of what? D&D monsters? BD2412 T 03:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The current culmination of all in-universe items from what I could tell, unless I missed a category somewhere. I think the monsters are near the 100 mark. TTN (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't make the in-universe distinction. BD2412 T 13:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Sites like dandwiki.com and others are most appropriate for holding the information once contained in many of the articles recently deleted. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE and not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In my opinion, the Dungeons & Dragons product is not so unique that we need inherent notability standards for it. The only article on this subject I "agree should exist" is Dungeons & Dragons itself. I'm fine with everything else being subject to our WP:GNG, meaning it needs WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, RS being understood to be reputable publications like the New York Times or CNN, indexed journals with ISSN numbers, books published by mainstream publishing houses like Routledge or Penguin or Harvard University Press; not rpgsuperfan228.blogspot.com or a photocopied zine briefly printed in a garage in Lake Geneva in 1986 and not held by any library in the world. Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No one has proposed an inherent notability standard. I have proposed a more orderly process for determining what should be kept, and how. BD2412 T 01:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Understood. To clarify, I also oppose the creation of any new process that would create an inclusion criteria unique or specific to the topic of Dungeons & Dragons and/or a "process for determining what should be kept, and how" for D&D other than the existing WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of articles are low quality, fancruft or OR. They are being slowly deleted, but the gaps are simply the result of the deletion being slow. Also, sometimes the gaps are intentional, for example a small number of monsters, for example, are notable. The rest are not. Are those deleted 'gaps'? I don't see a problem, through as always, we lack volunteers who could improve the articles fast enough. At least this one is FA, through in all honesty I think it is way to short for such assessment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is, I think, a complete list of just the creatures as of now:

I think some of these are categorized incorrectly. For example, Demogorgon, Orcus, and Tiamat, although "creatures" within the scope of the game, are really characters in the game, as opposed to being types of thing. BD2412 T 04:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be taken to a Wiki Project page or something - the scope discussed - especially with this gigantic list of monsters - is WAY beyond the content that is on this page and is thus not applicable to this Talk. If you want to just talk content on this page, you need to greatly narrow your scope. Ckruschke (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

This article is the supertopic to all of these subtopics. I don't see a better place to have this discussion, which needs to be had. BD2412 T 18:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Greatly disagree. This page isn't a compendium for the monster manual and this is what you are discussing. You wouldn't goto the main Lord Of The Rings page to discuss issues about individual character pages from the books. Ckruschke (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Dear Ckruschke, this discussion is not only about D&D monsters, though they are a big part of it. Anyway, to help interested parties find the discussion I have added a note at the WikiProject's talk page. I hope that helps. Daranios (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation scheme

Well, sorry to stir the pot here, but it seems to me that the current note/reference scheme on this article makes it more difficult to maintain. I think it would be cleaner if the numerical link went directly to the source, rather than to a brief note that then requires a manual search step to find the actual reference. (P.S. this talk page could also use some archiving. :)—RJH (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes are the preferred citation style for articles on Wikipedia; see WP:CITE. And it appears that the vast majority of sources used are not online sources but rather things like books and magazines, so there's no way to link directly to them. Powers ^T 16:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood (or I miscommunicated) what I was saying. As an example, take footnote #2. This says only, "Birnbaum; Gary Gygax Interview". To actually find this reference, I then have to bring up the browser search dialog, do a copy/paste of the "Gary Gygax Interview" and locate it in the references section. This is okay for single references, but if I want to make sure all of the notes are correct, and don't contain some rubbish, I have to individually search every one. This is a royal pain. It is much easier when the references are embedded directly in the citation, rather than listed separately. If this is unacceptible (even though it was the original form), there are alternatives such as wikilinking to full references. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of adding these links. I hadn't know about {{Harvnb}}, that should speed things up considerably. Thanks! — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current situation in inelegant, but it's the best solution I'm aware of for multiple citations to a single, multipage source. Take, for example, "Cook, Williams, Tweet; Dungeon Master's Guide v3.5." There are about 7 citations to it. We could merge them into a single note with a full citation, but then the citations would unhelpfully say "pages 41, 43, 46, 98, 197, 289, 296". For a given claim in the article, we wouldn't know what page to look up. We could duplicate the full citation each time so that each could have it's own page number, but duplication makes it easier for errors cropping in, and it would make the section huge. I think what we have is about as good as it can get. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm... not quite. Please see my reply above. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the ref field, and linked to it in the first ref (diff). That one doesn't use multiple pages, so I'm not sure why it isn't just put in the Notes section, and removed from the References section. Maybe that's a style thing required for FAC, I don't know. Anyways, it works pretty cool. Try clicking on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That link seems good. Anyway, there are a few reasons for this format: 1) Inconsistent formatting (multipage things being in the current format; singlepage things just being linked in the footnotes) is... well... inconsistent. 2) Not all of the citation templates have a ref field (who knows why) which was probably why I didn't use them when I reformatted them (see the section upaways). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That works nicely, thank you. From past experience, I find the drawback to this scheme is that it is difficult to maintain consistency between the notes and the references. There is no one-to-one mapping between the references and the citations, so you can't be sure that every reference is still in use unless you go through the list and check everything off. But oh well. :-) —RJH (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Length of Introduction and Reversions

Dear anonymous contributor: The intro may be just within guidelines but the second paragraph along the lines of "What is a roleplaying game" is overly long (in an already long article) for a summary and reduplicates the description given later. Likewise the "unassailable market position" is duplicated in the introduction itself and comes from a piece of WotC coporate bragadoccio which is not a good Source. It is not good to keep reverting and putting it back in. Paul S (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the longer version is the appropriate one, per WP:LEAD. A reader wouldn't really know what playing the game is like just by reading the short version, but they'd have a pretty good idea with the longer one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. The original lead is entirely in line with the consensus wikipedia policy in WP:LEAD, and it is completely appropriate to repeat information in the lead that is contained in the article body. This article has undergone extensive review, including featured article status, and the lead was deemed acceptable at that point. I fully support reverting the otherwise well-intended edits by Paul S. to the previous form. If he wants to challenge a particular source, well there are appropriate templates for that task.—RJH (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys - that's pretty much what I was thinking. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, let the edit warring commence. It's very obviously not a reliable source to quote a piece of WotC bluster about their contempt for rival companies, on top of the fact that the same introduction already states D&D is the top selling RPG anyway. The controversial paragraph explains what an RPG is in general, not D&D specifically, which information could be provided to the reader simply by clicking on the appropriate links to Fantasy and Role-playing game. It is redundant in an already bloated article. Vis-a-vis feature article, I wonder quite how long it has been since the last FAR and what has been added since then, because to me, it has an odour of fanboyism about it. Paul S (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How about, let's not let the edit warring commence, whether or not that comment was meant in jest. If you honestly feel that a FAR is required, you may nominate this article. Edit warring is not acceptable, however continued discussion is the way to go. Perhaps consider an article RFC regarding certain sticking points as an alternate first step? BOZ (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course discussion is the way to go, but it's disheartening when (often anonymous) people just revert all your edits with no real reason given. The article may have been good once, but it's got more and more bloated. Yes, it may be within the strict "letter of the law" regarding introduction length and so on, but if you read the article, it is unusually long bearing in mind most sections also contain a Main Article link. Has it been decided in the past to shorten by creating separate pages, only for more and more to be added back in? Since this article was made a Featured Article in 2007, there have been over 1600 edits and reversions. Whatever the article was then, it has changed significantly to what it is now. Paul S (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what it was at the time. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Essentially the same, but I have to say having read the Featured Articles Log, there seems to have been no debate at all regarding the style or point of view of the article. At the risk of sounding impolite, it looks as if a bunch of D&D geeks all got together, agreed the article contained everything they could think of about the game, and so approved it as a featured article. If I ask for a review, I've little confidence the same wouldn't happen again. Paul S (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry - here is the Featured Article Debate Paul S (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's very fair to assume that a review would not be thorough, nor that "a bunch of D&D geeks" are incapable of reviewing the article fairly. Your bias is showing. Powers ^T 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul S: see Wikipedia:Civility and kindly moderate your presumptive tone. Your attitude thus far has been anything but persuasive, and I'm pretty close to completely discounting your clearly biased opinion.—RJH (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise is in order. I can see the utility of explaining briefly about the operation of the game, but I believe Paul S is correct that the section as written is too long and unnecessary. Can we look at paring it back to just enough information to give the reader an idea without taking up a whole paragraph? Powers ^T 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't examine that. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly we can discuss an improved write of the second paragraph. However, if the original editor, Paul S, can not be more civil and desist his clearly biased edit warring behavior, we may need to request a block.—RJH (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents. The sentence "Miniature figures or markers, placed on a grid, are sometimes used to represent these characters." is not lead worthy. The rest is fine and not too long either.--LexCorp (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

nitpicking I would change the word "dilemmas" by "quests"--LexCorp (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first. However, "quests" make be considered jargon. Perhaps simple is best: how about "problems"? I think I would also toss the parenthetical statement, "(abbreviated as DM, also known as a Game Master or GM)" as not adding much of significance. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RJH, in what way am I the one 'clearly biased'? You are the one defending the retention of a clearly improper source: a WotC exec's braggadocio assertion that "We ARE the roleplaying game industry!" in order to repeat what's already said about sales in the next paragraph anyway. The Featured Article discussion does look a bit like geeky fanboyism: it might have been good if someone had commented who wasn't a D&Der and could view the article purely in terms of style and NPOV. Curious, is it not, that this article was FA nominated five times and failed on the first four occasions? The word Fnord might almost spring to mind, but you'd probably only accuse me of being a Steve Jackson fanboy... Paul S (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Civility.—RJH (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF is probably more appropriate. It is considered extremely bad tact to make assertions about other editors; please consider taking a breath, and a step back... :) BOZ (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent). Okay, the above is all tl;dr to me, so I'm just chipping in (I think that the discussion is about the content of this diff). IMO, the level of detail given is excessive for the lead section of the article; however, more about the gameplay needs to be in the lead than was previously there (which was, essentially, nothing). Maybe just two sentences like, "The game's players take on the role of characters in an imaginary world, and one of them, the "Dungeon Master", create stories and controls the characters' opponents." Just something short like that, not a whole paragraph. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this edit. BOZ (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks good so far. Nice job. However, I noticed the current lead section is not fully in compliance with WP:LEAD. In short, it does not summarize the first two paragraphs of the "Acclaim and influence" section, nor the "Licensing" or "Adventures, campaigns and modules" sections. (Parts of these were added after the FA was achieved, so that's probably why they aren't in the lead.) I'd like to suggest that we have a sentence for each of these. The last paragraph of the lead is only two sentences, so I don't think it would hurt to add the first two there. Finally, I think we should consider filling in the "skills" field in the {{Infobox game}} template.

To shorten the rest, we can probably replace ", by extension, the entire" with "the" and remove the ", such as Tunnels and Trolls, Traveller and RuneQuest." Also, "Despite this competition, D&D dominates the role-playing game industry, enjoying a nearly unassailable market position" could probably be shortened and disambiguated so as to clarify that it is referring solely to the financial aspect (and not game design). Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea... although maybe we'll need a version of {{Skip to talk}} created for the mainspace now. :) Seriously though, the lead does need at least a sentence on each of the main topics. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay I updated the lead accordingly. In addition I added a skills entry to the Infobox. I wasn't sure if 'creativity' and/or 'imagination' belonged in there as those seem more like traits than skills.—RJH (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting workspace

Hi there! User:Drilnoth/Sandbox contains a copy of this article so that we can work on the citation format. I hope to get it into a more standard format using {{harvnb}} and related templates in the next few weeks, and any help would be appreciated! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mimic_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)

FYI. Ikip (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Try notifying the Wikiproject? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why isn't there a separate article for each edition? Doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't really need one; we have Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because someone will claim the individual article topics aren't individually notable enough to justify individual articles, delete them, and then we'd be back where we are. This has already happened for a variety of more specialized D&D articles, so many of us are a gun-shy of putting the work in to crafting such articles and having them get deleted. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely; countless reliable sources have been written about each edition. Powers ^T 12:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There maybe could be individual articles, but I don't think that it would be beneficial beyond just having Editions of Dungeons & Dragons cleaned up more. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd love that. As is, it's close to unmanageable. NotARusski (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some general guidelines for splitting an article at Wikipedia:Splitting. But otherwise, it is usually better to have a single article because it will avoid redundancy, provide a more coherent picture, and it is easier to maintain a single article.—RJH (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

In addition to Acclaim and Controversy and Notoriety, there should probably be some space for critical remakrs that have been made about the article's subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.249.160 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you think the "Controversy" and "Notoriety" sections are for? Powers ^T 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That section, from my reading of it, seems more like controversies in the media or culture at large, but not critical remarks or criques about the system itself.Spidersense215 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, find some and add it! DIY, you know. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spidersense215 that criticism is distinct from controversy and notoriety. For example, criticism of D&D's Vancian magic (pre-4e), or classes isn't necessary controversial nor particularly notorious. However, while I'd like to see summaries of some of the more significant criticisms, I'm not sure there is much in the way of criticism from reliable sources. I don't think getting bogged down in a bunch of reviews is terribly productive. I think we'd need to be looking for more academic works about the hobby. Original anonymous poster: did you have any particular sources you were considering? — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, technically, controversy about the game and criticism of the mechanics are different. However, criticism of the mechanics of any role-playing game is almost always non-notable, with maybe the exception being the creation of GURPS-like games. Is there research or books or anything that even implies that people whining that 4th is different from 3rd if important? Yes, some people don't like it, but that isn't notable, just as it wouldn't be notable to say on Pickle that some people don't like pickles... - IanCheesman (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, finding sufficiently notable criticism is a difficult problem. Objections raised in a blog or chat room wouldn't satisfy the WP criteria, so you would need to find somebody with a publishing record who is willing to post their opinion on a reputable media source. This can be hard to dig up.—RJH (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Release Dates

I notice that publication/release dates all seem to be limited to a given year, not a month or day. Not sure if that is intentional, or due to a lack of information. 3rd Edition was released on Thursday August 10th, 2000. My primary source for this information is personal memory, but with consideration that personal memory cannot be referenced as a source, an alternate source is an Amazon.com review from [1] Titled "Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons Debuts with Style" by Donald Jackson, published on August 11th, 2000, and beginning with "The Player's Handbook for the third edition of the Dungeons and Dragons game has only been out for a day now...." (and the day before August 11th, 2000 being August 10th, 2000, that continues to be the day I claim as 3E's release date.) --Volkai (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That level of detail may be more appropriate for the edition history article. Just listing the year(s) of release in the infobox seems sufficient for most purposes; otherwise the box may get all cluttered and unwieldy. Just my opinion anyway.—RJH (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

D&D novels

The following contribution by an anonymous poster was reverted by another anonymous poster:

The root game inspired a number of authors to gain permission from the various owners in conjuntion with them to create very popular novels that have appeared in many book stores in a section devoted to fiction inspired by games in general. Many of these games began as table top role playing games. The influence of the games has been great enough to inspire many to emulate characters from the novels in the games on table top and the online Massive Multi Player Role Playing Games that take some of games varieties online. Many of the novels inspired by the game have strong links to adventures in the game. The most recent series of Drow novels were inspired by Descent into the Depths and Queen of the Demonoweb Pits adventures. Knowledge of the original premade adventures is some help to the current generation of novels set in the worlds inspired by the games.

However, it appears that the "Related products" section of this article does not mention novels based upon D&D. There doesn't appear to be an article we could link, although the Category:Dungeons & Dragons novels category exists. It would help if somebody could research a general Dungeons & Dragons novels article. Is anybody interested in starting this? Thanks!—RJH (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should get into things such as novels and computer games; I reverted that primarily not because the information was not useful, but because it was unsourced and I don't believe it's a good idea to slap a bunch of unsourced text into an FA. I think an article on D&D novels is a fabulous idea; we have List of Dragonlance novels, List of Forgotten Realms novels, Greyhawk#Greyhawk novels continue without Gord the Rogue, Ravenloft#Novels, Dark Sun#Novels, Spelljammer#Spelljammer novels, Planescape#Novels, Mystara#Novels, Birthright (campaign setting)#Novels, and probably other places to pull from. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. The addition contained vague comparisons and unencyclopedic language that would have made wholesale editing necessary anyway. (No offense is intended to the original editor by this; it's just that getting an article to FA is a pretty rigorous task in the scholarly sense.) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good taking off point: Dungeons & Dragons related products#Novels. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but an issue with that is the need to establish notability with at least a couple of reliable sources (per Wikipedia:Notability). Otherwise the article may just get slapped with an AfD and removed.—RJH (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If that happens, it can just get merged back into the D&D related products article. But you're right, finding sources first is a good idea. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I started the article at: Dungeons & Dragons (novels).—RJH (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New 4th Edition Products Announced

On January 28, 2010, Wizards_DnD at http://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD posted the following comment:

“

RT @criticalhits: Worldwide D&D Game Days: PHB3 On March 20, Dark Sun in August, D&D Red Box in Sept, Gamma World in October #ddxp

”

— Wizards_DnD, The official channel for the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game

Here are some of the details I have found regarding these upcoming products:

Player's Handbook 3 - ^[1]^[2] ISBN-10: 078695390X, release date is March 16, 2010.

Dark Sun Setting - ^[3]^[4] ISBN-10: 0786954930, release date is August 17, 2010.

D&D Red Box - ^[5] ISBN-10: 0786956291, ISBN-13: 978-0786956296, release date is September 7, 2010.

Gamma World Setting - ^[6] ISBN-10: 0786955082 , release date is October 19, 2010.

I am presenting this information as a reference to the release of these products. As more reliable citations become available, this information can be migrated to their respective articles and subheadings.

This is not spam! Xin Jing (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry but this information about upcoming products from WotC. It sure doesn't look like a discussion about improving the current page. If you really need to store this information somewhere, then you've always got your user page. If you are posting here to obtain comments, then you need to make that clear. To me, the other option is that your post is spam to advertise upcoming releases and generate buzz. Most likely your post was well-intentioned, but I hope my interpretation is understandable.—RJH (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and suggestions. As you indicated, my intentions are sincere - I was attempting to generate discussion and awareness about these just-breaking products. Obviously there are enough valid citations to keep this on the Discussion Page and none (yet) to move it to the article. The first of these four new products will become available in less than two months. At some point, and with verifiable references included, we should be able to bring appropriate topics to the Discussion Page in the interests of preparing them for inclusion in the article as new content. Xin Jing (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

None of these publications appear to be the types of material that would go on this page. Rather, I think they belong on appropriate sub-articles. Even the Player's Handbook 3 really belongs on the Player's Handbook article. The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons discussion page is perhaps a better place to post this information.—RJH (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again thank you, I had no idea that such places existed. You've definitely opened my eyes to article generation, maintenance and management. Thanks for the food for thought for future contributions. There's always another layer... Xin Jing (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you as well.—RJH (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Online Tabletop

including the capability for online play via a virtual 3-D tabletop.[88]

This text should be redacted; there isn't any firm evidence that WotC continues work on this functionality.

JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.2.5 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that they have stopped? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that they haven't stopped?! Uhh.. 213.249.147.10 (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question! We need a source to reference, one way or the other. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is already a source for the current statement. If you want to contradict the statement, then you will need a new reference. Otherwise this is just speculation.—RJH (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the second paragraph it says "D&D departs from traditional wargaming and assigns each player a specific character to play instead of a military formation." I dont know if this is relevant to the article,but sure its funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.235.100.86 (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant because it's describing the differences that distinguishes D&D from its progenitor, Chainmail (which is referenced in the paragraph previous and is a wargame). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dungeons and Dragons Text based computer game

Hi, there was a "text based" computer game ... Edit: I found there is a page in Wikipedia called DnD which describes the Dungeons and Dragons I know and played. It would be nice if someone could enter a link to that page. Merging the two would get this one too big. But people looking for the old computer text game should be able to find a link here without having to dig through 2 disambiguation pages. 2600:1700:1C60:45E0:919:270D:B6F5:8943 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about dnd (video game), the unauthorized video game inspired by (and named after) the tabletop game. I'm not sure it's a good idea to link to it, however. This article is already fairly long, and we don't even link to official D&D video games. If we linked to every unauthorized—or even authorized—third-party product, this article would be a bloated mess. Woodroar (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

That said, I think we could afford to have, say, at least one full paragraph about D&D video games and D&D's influence on the development of video games? There are only two very brief mentions at the moment. 2601:249:8B80:4050:4AF1:7FFF:FEE5:C031 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Section and/or separate page on things D&D has influenced

It seems like given D&D is a wildly influential work that has birthed still omnipresent tropes and archetypes, a page or at least section on the influence D&D has had on other art works seems essential. The "pop culture" article does not cover this, as it focuses almost entirely on explicit references rather than inspiration and thematic similarities e.g. RPG class archetypes.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to write it but I wanted to suggest it for someone who has a strong knowledge of the history of various art forms and the influence D&D has had on many works, perhaps most notably fantasy literature and video games, and most obviously on role-playing video games. Voyaging^talk 23:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can come up with the sources to support it, I say go for it! 98.32.192.121 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree - ideas are usually directed back upon the idea person with the suggestion to "Be Bold". That being said, my opinion is that the art form far proceeded D&D and in fact D&D pulled ideas, tropes, and images from classic fantasy artwork and literature (see Fantastic art). It would be an interesting tightrope to walk to divine out the subjects, subject matter, and artists who were influenced merely by D&D instead of following in the footsteps of, say, Boris Vallejo, et al. Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Mephit

Mephit and mephits redirect here, but aren't explained on this page. Is there a better redirect target or should they be added? -- Beland (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters and retargeted there. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! 2601:249:8B80:4050:D5C8:5AD2:F657:D849 (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Audio file

The audio file for this article is almost 13 years old at this point. Could someone update it? Hextor26 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How do we even do that? 207.229.139.154 (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not being critical though, you have the right idea, I just don't know how that would be accomplished. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There's WP:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia; they take requests and have advice about how to create a recording. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

2020 Polygon report section

The paragraph opn the Polygon report needs to be rewritten or removed. Firstly, it is way to long and smacks of WP:RECENT. Secondly, it is mostly just a series of quotes but doesn't clearly state what the actual issue is. If the section stays it needs to be clearer about the changes, and not just use euphemisms. In general, the quotes should be removed and replaced with clear statements of what actually happened. Ashmoo (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation of personal impact

Hello everyone! I've found a very nice quote by David M. Ewalt from Of Dice and Men, p. 201: "Role-playing games allow me to experience the fantastic, and even though it's make-believe, the catharsis is real. My life isn't wanting for magic, because I've got Dungeons & Dragons." I think the part "even though it's make-believe, the catharsis is real." would be a worthwhile addition to the Reception section, as it evaluates the personal impact the game can have, which I think we don't have yet. However, I don't know if that's ok and where it would fit best into the flow of the section. Thoughts anyone? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good inclusion. :) BOZ (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking

For the record, the article is overlinked. And yes, the words like 'dice', 'suicide', fantasy, video and improvisation are totally standard words that should not be linked. WP is not a dictionary. Anna (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I just checked and it's not that bad – just 11 duplicate links. Praemonitus (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Article in GAMES magazine

If anyone has the time to read through it and integrate into the article, there is an article by Jon Freeman, author of The Complete Book of Wargames, in the September 1979 issue of Games on archive.org: [2] BOZ (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:URFA/2020 review

Following notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject, I submitted the article for peer review to get the ball rolling. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Dndbeyond reverts

@Sariel Xilo. @SkumbergletheRat: guys, please remember not to WP:EDITWAR. How about we discuss this here and I can act as a mediator? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the revert. We should rely on reliable, secondary sources, not primary sources like D&D Beyond. In addition, the source didn't support the claims being made; it didn't highlight longswords, plate mail, dagger of venom, or either the hand or eye of Vecna. (Yes, they can be found at D&D Beyond, but it was SkumbergletheRat's choice to mention them specifically.) If we're going to feature specific items as iconic, we need to let our reliable sources call them out. Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus! Just want to flag that I'm not the IP who reverted SkumbergletheRat after their 4th inclusion. My initial revert was due to the paragraph essentially being OR and when challenged, SkumbergletheRat re-added it with D&D Beyond as the source. Per Woodroar, the primary source isn't highlighting specific items and we shouldn't rely on primary sources for determining what items are notable. I think SkumbergletheRat (as a new editor) doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards on sourcing per their response to my talk page notices on reliable sources. Since SkumbergletheRat wanted the concept of items to be highlighted, I pulled two sentences (with secondary sources) from Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). I don't think we need to get hyper specific on items when there's an article focused on D&D's magic items. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be appropriate to cite primary sources for some simple explanation of mechanics (though the SRD itself would be a better choice than D&DBeyond), but I agree that it should be done to the minimum amount necessary for readers to understand the topic. Calling out specific examples that are especially notable should really only be with secondary sources. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry for any confusion, but I was simply talking about those items as examples. Sorry for the complaints as well, I recently made the account and was upset that all of my edits were being deleted. It won’t happen again. SkumbergletheRat (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I know it can be frustrating to have content removed. I would suggest checking out the tutorials for new editors; also, you can bring questions to Wikipedia:Teahouse which is a great resource where experienced editors help answer those questions. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@SkumbergletheRat I am glad to see that we are now past the R step of WP:BRD and we things seem to be safe in the D step. In the future, remember that it is best practice to go to the talk page and start a D(iscussion) after the first R(evert). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Per above, that paragraph should be removed for being poorly sourced. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Almost as an aside, from the discussed and now removed section: Thanks to Sariel Xilo for working in the condesed version! The classes of magic items are already featured at Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). What I think is nowhere present on Wikipedia is the importance of mundane items in the game. I think this might actually be a worthwhile addition if someone wanted to have a close look at this, presumably within Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. In a quick search I only found very short comments on those in secondary sources, though, in Religions in Play: Games, Rituals, and Virtual Worlds p. 278, Dungeons & Dragons Art & Arcana, p. 404, Game Love: Essays on Play and Affection, p. 69. Daranios (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

SkumbergletheRat, please stop removing other people's talk page comments. You may remove your own comments if no one else has replied to them, but you do not have the right to remove other people's comments from a talk page. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I am removing this topic many times because it is no longer relevant. The page is over an edit war, this has been resolved by all parties. I am removing it because no one else will respond to me about the removal of this non-relevant topic. SkumbergletheRat (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@SkumbergletheRat, this topic isn't just about you or your edits. It's for anyone who might want to add content from D&D Beyond in the future, or anyone who digs through the article's history and wonders why there were so many reverts, or for literally any other reason. Almost nothing on Wikipedia is deleted. Eventually this topic will get archived, just like the 200+ other topics that have already been archived. If you'd like it to get archived any time soon, I'd suggest that you stop replying—because topics are archived based on inactivity, every new comment resets that timer. Woodroar (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Publication.

I know it’s comparatively trivial, but do we have a publication date?

Beyond just 1974?

Cheers.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the closes I've seen: https://www.blackgate.com/2014/01/28/40-years-of-adventure/ 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, that blog doesn't really arise to a reliable source. And neither is the blog that it references, which is decidedly non-committal about an exact date and essentially picks the day at random to serve as a date to have a 40th anniversary party, not to state it was the release date.

Because, as both blogs note, the game didn't really have a formal release date, as it kinda just trickled out. It's not like modern practice in media releases where there's a firm street date. What date would we actually use for D&D? The date the first copy was printed? The date the first copy was sold? What about the fact that the game was already being played by the original campaigns by the time of the first publication and early copies were given to those players? So to answer the original question, no, we don't have a date beyond early 1974. And I don't think we really need one. oknazevad (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Acaeum.com also proposes January 1974, and lists, among others, Jon Peterson as their source, just as Black Gate does. Maybe more officially, the Catalog of Copyright Entries. Third Series 1976: July-December, p. 1761, has an entry "Dungeons and Dragons ... 30Jan74...". I wonder why this appears in the 1976 volume. I assume this means D&D was registered for copyright on 30 January 1974, and the copyright was renewed in 1976. But we would need someone who knows better how to read the entries in this book to be sure. But this could be the reliable source we would want to see. That said, the arguments of oknazevad about there not being one "true" publication date still hold. Daranios (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Theives

Could we get a paragraph or at least a mention of the movie? King kobra2 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned directly under "later editions" and the film series is mentioned under "related products", how much more were you looking for? BOZ (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

sorry I did not notice King kobra2 (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

mechanic

which article talk about / should talk about short and long rests? Arlo James Barnes 00:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. oknazevad (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-4th-Core-Rulebook/dp/078695390X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264783842&sr=1-1

[2] ttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780786953905

[3] ttp://www.amazon.com/Dark-Sun-Campaign-Setting-Supplement/dp/0786954930/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264784071&sr=1-1

[4] ttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?EAN=9780786954933

[5] ttp://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Game/dp/0786956291/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264784368&sr=8-7

[6] ttp://www.amazon.com/Gamma-World-Roleplaying-Game-Setting/dp/0786955082

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]