Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Drow

Have a look at the article and talk page; I've been putting a lot of work into it. :) BOZ (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you have; congratulations. I think that we'll be able to get this one to GA! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I promise to get back into this after the you-know-what's are over; my time and attention (in addition to some UGH yuck IRL drama) have been pretty occupied otherwise. :) BOZ (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like fun.</sarcasm> I hope to put some more work into it after working on Arneson's article... at this point, I think that that is a bit more important than the drow. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Plus, with all the work that's gone into Arneson's article lately, it's a much better candidate for GA. But I will come back to this one before long. :) BOZ (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I did start this thread at ENworld, and it may have a useful tidbit or two, and we can always ask for more. :) BOZ (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Arneson has passed

http://scifiwire.com/2009/04/dungeons-dragons-dave-arn.php - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now see, that's what I was talking about above. I can't prove it, but I just went over that line by line, and it could very easily be a summarization and paraphrasing of Arneson's WP article. That's what I meant when I said we have to be careful; if there's any inaccurate, incorrect, or just plain wrong things in a bio, it can get snatched up and immortalized in an obit. They even have the same picture we have here. :) BOZ (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually one can pretty much prove that their article was lifted directly from WP since they have the "left TSR in 1979" error I referred to in the edit history, as a misinterpretation of what was /previously/ written on WP (which had stated that Dave sued TSR in 1979 and later in same para that he left TSR, which was taken to be /afterwards/ even though it wasn't stated explicitly). Fixed/clarified now, of course, but I didn't get around to that (finding the best ref. was on my "to do" list as I'd spotted the possible issue) until their article reminded me to do so! => http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Arneson&diff=282908480&oldid=282905079

Nice of scifiwire.com to credit their sources, correct or otherwise... not (x2). ;) Harami2000 (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he really is dead, though.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not doubting that with all that we've seen. I was sighing because of how news-type sources use Wikipedia as a primary source of information, rather than as a guide to find reliable sources. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"maintained by Drilnoth". Heh... I hadn't even spotted there that there was such an attribute.

Well, if you still have a "sigh" left, save that for WotC whose poorly phrased (or ignorant, more likely?) tribute to Arneson was picked up and reported as "fact" in the most widespread news reports. "That each player controls just one hero" (a separate stand-alone clause in the WotC tribute) is /not/ a "fundamental idea" that was "developed by" Arneson. Arneson throwing away the rulebook when he was playing /in/ a 1:1 scenario is something that is attested to (by Wesely), and is arguably one of the fundamental steps in the development of the modern RPG. Although I guess WotC is hardly likely to draw excessive attention to that aspect, given their own interests. ;) Harami2000 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I still have one. *sigh* –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

: ) Heh... sorry!

(aside: on the article, yep, a refimprove on the "actively pursuing protection of their IPRs" amongst others in that section was also on my list but needed to check the dead trees to get the best sources on that and time was very much of the essence when updating the article. Good, well-focused spot ;) Harami2000 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Any sighs left, Drilnoth? :)

Tada, the NY Times got it right on http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/arts/11arneson.html for when Dave left TSR in their (belated) article.

Catch being that they used the precise reordering of clauses from /after/ I'd carried out the edit above.

So much for any residual confidence in the media, eh? *shakes head sadly* If anyone wants a clear example of how the media uses WP without due credit or caution, here it is. Harami2000 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*. Have they read our guide on researching Wikipedia? –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'd doubt that every journalist has done so. Maybe the WMF should email copies to the press?

For whatever good that would do. Heh... Harami2000 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Something I've been wondering

Do you think it would be possible to have a bot, which searched for all articles linked to by articles with the project banner; would it then by further possible to cut the articles with the project banner out of the list, sorting by number of times linked? For example, most D&D articles have the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons fantasy roleplaying game" somewhere in the lead; Dungeons & Dragons would not be on such a list since it has the project banner, but fantasy and roleplaying game would be near or at the top of the list.

The reason I ask is that such a list might help us identify any articles out there which out to have the D&D project banner on them. For example, there might be a designer, or a product that we overlooked. I know I still find them from time to time. BOZ (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea; you could try asking at WP:BOTREQ. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, I was just curious. BOZ (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can do something like that with AWB. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created a list at User:J Milburn/Non-tagged D&D related articles. This lists all links to pages article space that are not part of this project from any pages that are tagged as being part of the project. If it is linked multiple times, it is listed multiple times. The list is in alphabetical order, and there are some false postives in the form of links to redirects that are not part of the project. I know some projects tag redirects- perhaps it would be good if we did too? If you'd like me to filter them out of the list, I can do. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't know that that was even possible. Anyway, filtering out redirects would probably be a good idea if you're able to count the pages that they redirect to instead. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant filtering out the pages that redirected to pages that were part of this project. For instance, it lists Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, because Talk:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons has no banner. The article is a redirect to Editions of Dungeons & Dragons, whose talk page does have a banner. I'm sorting that issue now, and then I'll see what I can do about your suggestion. (I'm also quite surprised I managed it, I'm usually terrible at this sort of thing...) J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. In that case I think that removing redirects would be nice; I think that the consensus for this project is to add banners to redirects which used to have content in them but which were redirected without merging (although a number of Redirect-Class articles never had content, because they were tagged before the consensus was reached). –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the redirects to articles that are tagged and posted the new list at User:J Milburn/Non-tagged D&D related articles (no redirects), keeping the old list in case it's useful. I can't think of an easy way to make your suggested change. J Milburn (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work! It'll take some time to go through that (I'm thinking maybe 1-5% of that will yield what I'm looking for?) but it'll be worth it to see if anything fell through the cracks. :) BOZ (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can go through the list with AWB to find each one that contains either "Dungeons & Dragons" or "Dungeons and Dragons", pretty quickly. I can probably do that tomorrow... it would save a lot of time and just locate the ones which themselves discuss the topic. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not going to be that easy, and has to be done manually. It requires looking at each one which could be an article that needs the banner, and making a decision on each one. Just mentioning the game in the article is not enough. I added a few just to give it a try, so see if I made the right decision. :) BOZ (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But if the article doesn't even mention the game, why should it be part of the project? Even 4-sided die contains the game's name. I won't object to doing it by hand, I'm just wondering why we need to. I wasn't talking about tagging the articles using AWB, just finding them. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting our wires crossed. The significant majority of articles which will have the project banner will be linking to the Dungeons & Dragons article. Some will not, such as Dragons of Summer Flame. What I mean is that not every page which mentions the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" should have the project banner on it (oh, no) nor should every page which has the banner necessarily contain the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons". This is what I mean when I say each page should be evaluated independently. "We" don't need to go through them one at a time, because I'm perfectly willing to do it alone, but I would appreciate any help since it's a long list. BOZ (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... gotcha. Well, if you'd like I could use RegEx to find anything with either spelling of Dungeons & Dragons or which has any of the campaign setting names. Then, I could create a list of those and you could go through to tag them appropriately. It doesn't really matter to me (honestly, I don't think that we're missing all that many), but I'll try to help when I have the time. Do you think that ones which we've checked should be removed from the list so that we don't go and both check the same one? –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and we can cut out all instances of fantasy, role-playing game, and any other heavily repeated ones just to cut the list down in a hurry. :) I'm sure there aren't a ton of things missing the banner, just a few stragglers. I'm a bit of a completionist at times. :) BOZ (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that we shouldn't count pages with fantasy, rpg, etc., in them, or that we should cut out ones that don't have those? I can't quite tell from your comment, but I'm assuming the latter. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure I know what I'm talking about anymore... time for bed soon. :) I cut out all instances of fantasy and role-playing game (as well as any dates i.e., 2005) from the list, because those are significantly generic enough that we wouldn't put the project banner on those articles. We must be talking over each other, so maybe if I get some sleep and rethink it tomorrow it will all make sense. See you tomorrow morning, and hopefully with some good news. :) BOZ (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I see. And ditto on the good news. –Drilnoth (T • C) 03:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Book covers

I've just removed some random book covers from Dave Arneson. Can I remind everyone that book covers should be used only if the cover itself is significant- this means, basically, that the cover will need to have some significant discussion. Other than that, a single identifying cover on an article about the book in question, preferably in the infobox, is fine. Multiple covers on a single article, or covers on an article not directly about the book in question, without any real commentary, should be avoided. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you show where this is explained in wikipedia policy? Otherwise it is unclear why this is necessarily so. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There's another discussion about this at Talk:Dave Arneson, but I'm not sure which came first. –Drilnoth (T • C) 03:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I could find anything specifically pertaining to book covers, but perhaps he is referring to item #8 of WP:NFCC? It would seem like certain historical book covers would be allowed under this criteria, E.g. first edition of a rules set, etc.—RJH (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure how I was meant to know the discussion was over here since all I had was notification that the images were orphaned. Yeah, the extensive discussion on Talk:Dave Arneson started shortly after and I've just arrived here now. I don't really follow that logic as to why a "book cover itself (should be) significant" and neither can I see any hard-and-fast rules on the subject when there are no subpages for /notable/ works.

If you could point me to the policy that states why a book cover /cannot/ be shown on an author's page under such circumstances, that would be appreciated; and in this there were 60,000+ article views and no other objections, despite being a relatively high profile news article. As noted on Talk:Dave Arneson, is this actually an "unwritten rule" or personal interpretation (applied on whim?), otherwise? Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not getting into specifics, WP:NFCC talks about it. I don't really agree with the rule myself, but you'll find there is a big group of pedians (and admins) who take a hard line against non-free images. Basically, if you want to keep them without a fight, the best thing to do is find references that talk about the book cover. Another thing to do is look for refs, and add the images that illustrate them. - Peregrine Fisher 05:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I would count as one of those admins who takes NFC very seriously. Basically, non-free content cannot be used decoratively, it should only be used when it is actually illustrating something that adds to the article. For instance, in an article on a book, knowing what the first edition of that book looks like would be extremely beneficial. In an article on an artist, seeing an example of their artwork (if their style of artwork is discussed at length) would be beneficial. Merely whacking a few images of book covers into an article about an author when the books themselves (nevermind the covers) are not mentioned is clearly not acceptable. It's all covered in the non-free content guidelines and the pages and pages and pages of archived discussion all over the place. This essay may also be useful reading. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have once again requested a clarification of NFCC's vague "for critical commentory" language at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 41#For critical commentary? and placed an RFC. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Adminship congrats

Just so we can get it on the record in case someone needs admin help, I'd like to congratulate User:Drilnoth and User:BOZ on their new wiki upgrades. Now that you guys have passed RfA with almost no opposition, can I give you a hitlist of users to block? Just kidding. Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You can give me a list and I'll keep it in my pocket. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You can give me a list, too, but I'll probably never get to it. So much time, so little to do! Oops... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Greyhawk revision

Should we ask User:Guinness323 if they want to move their version of Greyhawk at User talk:Guinness323 into article space? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to take a good look at it, but what do you think about it? BOZ (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to support it, as it's well done, but I have reservations. I know the temptation is to use things like Gary's forum posts, and I certainly consider these reliable enough, but I don't know that a GA reviewer will. Unfortunately, Guinness's version, while probably the best we could ever hope to get it, probably has no chance of passing a GA because it relies heavily on these posts. You don't know how badly I wish Gary's Q&A threads could be published by someone, at some point, because we could go to town with them. If you think we can get around the whole "don't use forum posts as sources", I'll change my mind in a hurry. BOZ (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Following up on my comment, I definitely think we should mine it for stuff we can use, such as things sourced to Dragon articles, of which there is also plenty. It's definitely a good read, though, and he should keep it available in his userspace for people to have a look at. BOZ (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably will need some work, but it seems better than the current live version. I think we can get away with forum posts in a GA (not FA), if we can find something that makes us pretty sure that it really is GG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm... shouldn't all sources be reliable regardless of article quality? In my opinion, even if a source could be in a GA but not an FA, it shouldn't be in the article because its still an unreliable source. Having said that, I feel that forum posts made by Gygax should be considered reliable; perhaps asking at WP:RSN would make sense to try and establish whether or not the wider community thinks they are reliable? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a controversial issue. Spoo got demoted from FA for using forums, but it's now a GA. I'm not sure it's a good idea to ask, becuase although a number of people feel those kind of sources are reliable enough, it's easy to get a pile on of people who don't look into the situation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I really just don't know the best course of action. I guess I'd say "Go ahead!" on using the Guinness323's version (as long as he's attributed in the summary) and if we take it to GAN we can see what the reviewer thinks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just worried about having to pull all of that info out later, and what that would do to the article. I mean, we're not talking about a few instances; more than half of the 81 citations are to EN World threads. I think we need some kind of input (an RfC maybe?) to get some kind of community agreement that it is OK to use the Q&A threads as a source before we go ahead and do something we may regret later. As it is, Guinness's work would be a fansite masterpiece - extremely well sourced and detailed. Wikipidia might rip it to pieces because Gygax's recollections haven't been published by a reliable publisher (and oh how I wish they were!), and because although damn near everyone at EN World was sure it was him, we may not be able to submit "proof" that Col. Pladoh was him, which is really a shame. BOZ (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(redent) Is there a way we can be sure it really is Gygax? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not; it could have always been a very clever impostor. :) The EN World admins always vouched for his identity, so I think the rest of us just assumed that it was him. That was always good enough for me, but I think Wikipedia doesn't work on an "assume until you hear otherwise" basis for stuff like that. :) BOZ (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the use of on-line forums is questionable most of the time. In this case, I was willing to use the ENWorld Q&A forum because it was Gygax who actually referred me to the Q&A sessions when I chatted with him for 15 minutes in 2005. (He was a special guest at GameExpo in Toronto; during a dead period at the Troll Lord Games booth, I talked with him for about 10 minutes about early days of D&D but when some more people came along, he told me to check out the Q&A sessions on ENWorld and either post my questions or simply look and see if they had already been answered.) However, I realize that my word on the subject is not verifiable (unless I write a book). Therefore in using the ENWorld archives as source material, I have tried to use three sets of reasoming about the strength of this source. 1. Since ENWorld invited Gygax to participate in the Q&A sessions (as opposed to Gygax initiating them) and granted "Col Pladoh" forum admin status, I reason that ENWorld did their due diligence in ensuring that Gary Gygax = Col Pladoh. 2. I also reasoned that it would be easy enough to corroborate that it was Gygax by simply asking people like Frank Mentzer, who knew Gygax personally, and met him face-to-face occasionally at the same time that both of them were contributing to the Q&A forums (see http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/121380-gary-gygax-q-part-viii-13.html). (Unless, of course, someone was impersonating both Mentzer and Gygax, and who continues to impersonate Mentzer, using Mentzer's own name as a handle---highly unlikley.) 3. Finally, I reasoned that the long-term nature of the Q&A (from 2002 until Gygax's death in March 2008) would speak against forgery--one could assume that if Col Pladoh was just a fanboy impersonating Gygax (and doing a fantastic job, even to remembering to not post during Gygax's strokes and convalescence in 2006), that word of the impersonation would have gotten back to Gygax sometime between 2002-2006. Guinness323 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above, we could sidestep this issue of using the Q&A forums as sources by finding the same material in published interviews with Gygax; and if anyone can point me to sources, I would appreciate that. I have tried to find as many interviews with Gygax as possible, and to date, none of them go into as much fine detail as the answers he provided in his Q&A forums. (Or rather, it is possible he provided the same details to the interviewer, but those details got red-pencilled.) Guinness323 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Even more further to the above, the work I have done on this article is only about half-complete, as you can see. My plan is to add the following items:

• the differences in the 1980 folio and 1983 boxed set;
• the origin of the "Circle of Eight" and the "Obsidian Citadel";
• addition of the Suloise pantheon (based on Lakofka's Dragon article;
• a listing of mods 1975-1985 that used the Greyhawk setting;
• Gygax's use of the setting for Gord the Rogue;
• a list of other Greyhawk novels;
• TSR's initial Greyhawk post-Gygax (1986-1990);
• the Castle Greyhawk mod;
• the development of the Greyhawk Wars storyline;
• Roger E. Moore's boxed set and TSR's subsequent decision to kill Greyhawk;
• WoTC's revival of the setting for the 3E Core rules;
• further development of the storyline in anticipation of the Living Greyhawk campaign;
• notable differences between the campaign setting details for LG and Gygax's version;
• WoTC's decision to dump Greyhawk in favour of Forgotten Realms for 4E.

Any help on any of these topics would much appreciated; also, your opinions on including the above content, or other topics that need to be addressed. Once I had completed the above, my next step was to approach this page for opinions on if the rewrite deserved to replace the current live article. Guinness323 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, your arguments are certainly persuasive. :) Does anyone know where we can go (reliable sources noticeboard?) to request some commentary so that we can (hopefully) get an "Approved" stamp that we can use Gygax's comments to verify what he did and when? This way, we can point to that if anyone questions the validity of their use. BOZ (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said! I think that WP:RSN is probably the best place to ask, as long as we direct them to this post. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion at WP:RSN was that if we could link the names Gygax and Col Pladoh in a third-party publication, we can use the ENworld forums as a source. I dug around a bit deeper than usual and found this in a 2003 interview with Gygax by KCGeek: "Q. What online forums do you frequent regularly? A: I hit EN World as Col_Pladoh. I also post a lot on the www.lejendary.com boards, and on the MSN Lejendary Adventure Community, and www.dragonsfoot.org ones about once a week." (edited trascript at http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/dungeons-dragons-cre.html, complete interview archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20031204163509/www.kcgeek.com/archives/interviews/mordenkainens_fantastic_interview/031302.html) Gygax, in his own words, links himself to his handle. So let's continue with the work of revising Greyhawk.Guinness323 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good! Is there some way we can get that quote placed somewhere, so that we can point to it easily if someone challenges it? BOZ (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! The top of the talk page would probably be a good place to put that, as well as a link to the RSN discussion, for future reference; then in the article you could just put "Gary Gygax (as Col Pladoh)" as credit. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This should help with tons of articles! Could someone more familiar with how EN World works maybe compile links to the various interviews in our references department, so that it's all easy to find? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[Redent] Oh, that it were that easy. The ENWorld Gygax Q&A forum was an open-ended Q&A session that ran on for 6 years, 12 Parts and hundreds of pages, covering thousands of questions. It took me two weeks of almost continuous reading of the archives to pull the various quotes that I have used. Making an index for it... several months work, at least. That's one reason I haven't delved into the RPGNet, Troll Lord Games or Dragonsfoot Gygax Q&A sessions there as well. Undoubtedly there are more nuggets to mine, but whew... what a job! I have added the above quote to my ongoing revision on my talk page, comments welcome.Guinness323 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh... gotcha. I haven't really looked at the Q&As, I just know that they have a lot of good stuff in them. Wow. Maybe since it's considered reliable (albeit primary), we just need to go through the whole thing one page at a time and add relevant refs to each article, rather than focusing on each article separately from the othres.

Although I guess that that would take years. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It would help if someone who was paid to do that sort of research to write books would do that... and write a book. :) That would be super-A plus for folks around here, but it would sell like hotcakes to the D&D purist, and to plenty of gamers who don't know jack about Gary or how the game was built! But, lacking that, we can just do everything else that Drilnoth just recommended. ;) Do that, and my concerns for using EN World threads for citations on the Greyhawk article will melt away, I assure you. :) BOZ (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A book... that would be nice. It would look pretty good next to The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)