Talk:Dungeons & Dragons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Dungeons & Dragons is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 14, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Games (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of game related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Role-playing games (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.
 
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

Miniature figures, combatants[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

Sorry but I chose to remove the following hatnote:

"Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" redirects here. For the Community episode, see Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community).

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[edit]

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[edit]

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://en.wikipedia.org/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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Article issues?[edit]

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 talkedits 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[edit]

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)