Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notes and References

Just wanted to make a few comments on the principles I have been using to create notes and references in this article as this topic has not really been discussed recently and was raised in peer review feedback.
The sources both in the references and footnotes use Wikipedia:Citation templates except in a few cases where the unusal format is required to references the peculiarities of a game as it varies from standard reference types. As these templates are based on the Harvard Referencing style, extrapolations of unusual cases have been based on trying to follow the style of these. General sources which apply to the article as a whole or are refered to numerous times are in the references section, specific sources applicable to one or two points only are in the notes. The footnotes are all one of three types:

  1. A reference by author and data to one of the general sources in the References section, with page number and section heading or quote where relevant.
  2. A full citaion in the same format as those in the references section.
  3. An explanatory note of the text footnoted or a quotation, followed by the Source as per (1) or (2).

Some of the more unusual types of sources to be dealt with include:

  1. Books without page numbers, particularly Jonhson et al. (2004). This book has several authors listed inside the back cover, who have all been listed as authors of the book as a whole in the references section. For particular citations I have referenced author and section name and the chapter it occured in as there is no page numbers to reference by.
  2. Boxed sets have been listed as a set, particularly as in these cases, unlike some other games such as Warhammer, the box has an overall ISBN and author but the individual books do not. When refering to a particular item in the box have referenced the name of the book/handout/etc in the reference.
  3. Dragon/The Dragon/Dragon Magazine title given as of time of article but each linked to Dragon (magazine) to show they are the same journal. This title is unusual in that it has over all issue numbers (as per magazines) as well as Vol. and No. (as per journals). For earlier issue all three numbers are on the cover, latter issues show the latter two on the contents page only. All three are included by adding the issue number as it appeared on the cover to the title but unlinked. In the template | volume = Vol. Number | issue = No. Number (including descriptive text of these numbers)

The notes currently mostly conform to these standards described above, and I am currently working through changing those that don't. Please help in article and/or agree/disagree/discus with above below. - Waza 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just found the page numbers in Jonhson et al. (2004). They are hidden in d% in the middle right of each right hand side page only. I will now add then into the citations. - Waza 20:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Influences - unreferencable statements

I have been hunting high and low for references to support the information from the article as follows:

Dungeons & Dragons and the games it influenced also fed back into the genre's origin—miniatures wargames—with combat strategy games like Battletech, Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer 40,000. Collectible card games, like Magic: The Gathering, were also heavily influenced by Dungeons & Dragons and its legacy.

I have been unable to find anything. the closest is this web page http://logosresourcepages.org/Occult/magic-g.htm which says that the creators of Magic were fantasy role-playing enthusiasts. Lacking any sources I can see the only way forward is to delete these scentences. However as they seem to be statements that may be true I thought I would ask here first if anyone else can point to any references. Of the four pages linked only MtG wikipedia article even mentions D&D and that is a single unsourced statement:

Although the original concept of the game drew heavily from the motifs of traditional fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, Magic bears little resemblance to pencil-and-paper adventure games.

Any objections to deleting please note here, or any sources to allow keeping of this pleas add in article. - Waza 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Search the text for the word influenced warhammer, warhammer. As you say, I can't find that Magic:TG was influenced by D&D, but there's lots of articles that say the creator was a D&D player, like this. Not alot there, you make the call. - Peregrine Fisher 04:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All this has been removed except influence on Warhammer Fantasy Battle which is now references with http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/ingenre04aug04.html warhammer - Waza 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Images of actual D&D games

I have been thinking for a while that this article needs some images of some actual games in progress. The fair use images of the books are good for displaying them but they don't show anything about how the game actually works. I have added in an image I got permission to use from Phillip on the Dwarven Forge forums [1] but it would be good to show a variety of game styles. Here is how I see three "in game" pictures scattered through the article:

  1. This first one I put up, I was looking at this option for a picture showing one extreme of what can be done, with lots of optional accessories. I think this is good image for this but it may be possible to get better one.
  2. It would also be good to see the opposite extreme, perhaps and earlier edition AD&D/D&D with no minis/grid, players round a table (maybe coffe table?) with DM's screen, character sheets, references books and mapping on smaller scale grid paper.
  3. And then maybe something in the middle. For example using the grid from the back of 3.5 DM's guide with counters (not mini's). Or maybe the black box (1070) of mid 1990's, I have never played this version but from 30 Years of Adventure: A Celebration of Dungeons & Dragons it was a very popular introductory version of D&D which I believe came with a dungeon board and cardboard minis.

Any actual pictures or suggestions/comments please. - Waza 22:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone tried not three days before this comment, but they appeared to be harshly POV and the user was blocked for harassing User:FeralDruid. -Jeske (v^_^v) 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Which was a silly reason, IMHO. The user in question was actually spamming numerous pages with images, including Gary Coleman and NASCAR, pictures of himself and friends in D&D costumes on Dungeons & Dragons and d20 System, and for some reason the image of a goat on Harley-Davidson. The harassment of me was little more than uploading an image of someone wearing a wizard's hat and a beard, under the filename File:FeralDruid.jpg.
Anyway, the only picture I can really see being useful is of players around a battle mat with character sheets, dice and figures. Is this what you had in mind? Tuesday we're supposed to be helping save a town from marauding pirates; I can try and get a picture or two from that. -FeralDruid 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That would work. -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination - Please help.

This article is currently nominated as a Featured Article. Please come and support the nomination. Check this article is up to scratch against the FAC criteria (listed above), look at the other critism, and either help address the concerns of those that oppose it and/or support the article if you believe those concerns are not legitimate.

To help I have summaries concerns raised at the nomination, at the moment there are two oppose, no support and several comments. Please note this is a summary of concerns raised on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Dungeons & Dragons and not my views (In fact while I see the merit in the first major and first minor critism, I have argued strongly against the others)

Summaries of concerns/opposition to Featured Article status. Minor concerns have been raised by one person, Major ones have been supported by others. - Waza 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Major:
    • Featured Article Criteria 1a - Well Written - Article is not well written and still requires major edits for gammar etc.
    • Featured Article Criteria 1b - Comprehensive -
      • Article requires more information on "treatment of the subject as a business commodity"
      • Article requires critical reaction to the various editions
    • Featured Article Criteria 1c - Factually Accurate - Needs more printed (not web) non-primary sources. (i.e. reviews and articles about D&D from independant books and magazines)
  • Minor
    • criteria 1b - Related products section is too brief and needs to be expanded some (Does not need to contain all related product though)
    • criteria 1c - All footnotes must be at end of scentence (preferably) or after a , etc (Note: I strongly disagree that this is required)

I am wondering if the readers of this talk page think that these issues have been addressed? To me it appears that it has, but I'm not familiar with the state of the article prior to this FAC run. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no reply. As best I can tell it meets the above criteria, so I think another FAC is appropriate. — RJH (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible additional sources

One of the oppositions for the current FAC nomination is needs more non primary, preferably printed not online sources. I have started going through anything I can to find this information, particularly magazines that may have reviews of core games and key supplements or discuss D&D as a "Business comodity". I am finding little so far, but am starting this section to note what I have found. The first ones I am adding do not appear to be too useful, but if nothing better is found it is best to have a note of them as they may be better than nothing. Please add here anything that may be useful if you don't have time or ability to integrate it into the article. - Waza 21:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1980-81 White Dwarf citations

I picked up a few old issues of White Dwarf that may be useful for additional citations. On the down side, the publisher, Games Workshop, was TSR's distributor at the time, so there is a conflict of interest. (I enjoy the irony that Games Workshop was once proud to be party of the greater gaming industry.) It's still a third party and may be useful. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when or if I'll get around to adding these to the article; I would welcome other editors to do so. If you incorporate all of a given citation into the, please mark so here. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "Questionnaire Results", White Dwarf (London, England: Games Workshop) (17), Feb/Mar 1980: 24  Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Popularity of D&D "Last issue we published our second questionnaire to discover once again our readers' like and dislikes." (I don't have the previous issue, so I can't refer to it. However, it's probably Dec/Jan 1980, Issue number 16) "3. Give a percentage breakdown for your idea of the perfect article balance of the Role-Playing Games: (a) Dungeons & Dragons...53% (b) Traveller...16%" (All other games listed had less than 10%. Other games listed were Gamma World, Gangster, Boot Hill, Runequest, Chivalry & Sorcery, and Other. Other is noted as including En Garde, Superhero '44, and Starships & Spacemen.) "Analysis: No surprises — D&D continues to dominate" "4. Each issue contains a game or scenario. Give a percentage breakdown for the type preferred: (a) Dungeons & Dragons mini-dungeon...62% (b) Traveller mini-adventure...14% ... (g) Boardgame (as WD 15)... 14%" (All other options listed has less than 10%. Other things listed include scenarios for Runequest, Gamma World, Gangster, Boothill, and Other. Other included scenarios for Starships & Spacemen.) Since apparently voters gave percentages, it's not totally clear how these results were arrived at. Still these numbers do so strong support in England for D&D.
  • Pulsipher, Lewis (Feb/Mar 1981), "An Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons", White Dwarf (London, England: Games Workshop) (23): 8–9  Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Overview p8 "Dungeons & Dragons and its successor Advanced Dungeons & Dragons are usuallyed referred to collectively as D&D. D&D is a "role-playing" fantasy game, that is to say, each player acts as an individual hero, wizard, priest, or other character out of the fantasy traditions of J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, and other authors." "Though competition can be arranged, normally players do not fight each other; they are on the same "team", and play against the sinister creatures controlled by the DM."
    • AD&D vs D&D p8 "Although Advanced D&D consists of over 400 pages of rules, the Basic version is only 50 pages long and either version is very easy to play — you imagine yourself in the situation the DM describes and tell him what you intend to try to do. If no rules cover your idea, the DM invents them on the spot."
    • Dice p8 Special 4, 8, 12, and 20 sided dice are used as well as the ordinary 6-sided kind; these are referred to respectively as d4, d8, d12, d20, and d6, and are used to determine the success or otherwise of certain actions which have less than a 100% chance of success."
    • Who plays? p8 "It isn't necessary to believe in the occult, astrology, or other such things to enjoy D&D; in fact, few players do, and their ranks include lawyers, doctors, executives, and scientists — hardly crackpots. Nor is it necessarily a "kid's game"; one of the designers is in his early 40's, a minister and former insurance executive — the average age of players is around 21. some players are accustomed to games of mental skill such as chess, others are parlour game fans, and oters still don't play other games."
    • History/Basis of D&D: p8-9 "In 1972 Dave Arneson described the original campaign to me, althought I didn't know it would become D&D. It sounded like a normal armies vs. armies campaign, but the role-playing element existed in the background. In the next year Arneson got together with Gary Gygax, who used his Chainmail fantasy rules (written with Jeff Perren) as a base for emphasising the individual action of the game. The result was Original D&D, three 40-page rule booklets. Chainmail was needed to conduct combat, and the whole game suffered from rushed production. It wasn't surprising that the major wargame companies wouldn't publish such a revolutionary and undeveloped game; Gygax decided to publish it himself. D&D was the first role-playing game and the first fantasy game to be marketed commercially." "The rules problems, derivation from miniatures rather than from boardgames, a high price, and limited distribution all meant that the game did not immediate become the remarkable phenomenon that it is today. However, with the publication in 1975 of a supplement, Greyhawk, D&D became to take off. Greyhawk introduced a new combat system and clarified many ambiguities of the old rules. ... By this time, however, many other role-playing games were on the market, some threatening to overtake D&D." ("this time" is 1975-1976). "Gygax then began to revise te rules completely. The result, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, is the larger, more details, and far better produced."
  • Livingstone, Ian (Apr/May 1981), "(untitled editor's introduction)", White Dwarf (London, England: Games Workshop) (24): 9  Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Sales "Last year TSR sold 500,000 sets of D&D."
  • Pulsipher, Lewis (Apr/May 1981), "An Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons: Part II: Dungeon Mastering Styles", White Dwarf (London, England: Games Workshop) (24): 11  Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Styles p11 "Basic D&D style ranges from the "simulation" through "wargame" to "absurd" and finally "novel". As one moves along this continuum the DM's procedures become less rigorous — remember that no DM uses every rule. At one extreme we have a DM who uses a pocket calculator to compute results, at te other a DM who makes up almost everything as he goes. Most campaigns fall toward the middle of these two extremes." " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan De Smet (talkcontribs) 20:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

There is no mention of the different gods/goddesses worshipped within the D&D framework. A small note on the different deities would improve the article, I think. --WoodElf 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's setting info, which varies with each setting. Or do you mean the Greyhawk deities used in the PHB? 85.227.226.168 09:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Besides, some DMs use different deities, and the Deities and Demigods book contains real-world gods. Specify the campaign setting, please - as 85. noted, we have no way of determing if you're meaning the Greek parthenon (Deities and Demigods 3E), the Faerun parthenon (Forgotten Realms) or the "standard" parthenon (Greyhawk). -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Across the various setting there are literally hundreds of deities. Even a small blurb on each of them would take a massive chunk of space. DoomsDay349 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
True. It would also be mildly off-topic (the individual settings articles would be more appropriate). However, the PHB does include a set of dieties (extracted from the Greyhawk setting), which implies a certain "officialness" which might warrent at least a brief mention. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I shall add it right now. I must find it on the website though. Neopetslovette 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

4th edition

I would expect Wikipedia at least to have the official information on this.

As far as I am aware that would amount to "Nothing is known about a 4th edition as of yet".

85.227.226.168 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Besides, you just missed a dispute over Pokemon names that turned out to be official, so just because we don't know about it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Geeks play DnD

I just deleted that, as I am 100% sure that shouldnt be in the article. Neopetslovette 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Most definitely not. Typical vandalism given the topic. Good job taking care of that. DoomsDay349 01:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Funny; there was a thread here asserting the exact opposite (i.e. that jocks were playing D&D; it's been archived since). -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh. I like the 'famous people' section, "Many players, miffed with this stereotype,[138] embrace the fact that comedian Stephen Colbert, musician Moby, and actors Vin Diesel, Matthew Lillard, Mike Myers, Patton Oswalt, Wil Wheaton and Robin Williams have made their D&D hobbies public." Uh... If you're trying to REVERSE the stereotype, noting Patton Oswalt and Wil Wheaton aren't exactly the best examples. (And Matthew Lillard, Mike Myers, and Robin Williams are questionable.) I also think it's funny, I recently had the pleasure of witnessing something that I was certain was a sign of the impending apocalypse: a D&D playing group composed of greater than 50% women, none of them that could be described as conventional "geeks". 71.193.207.217 23:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm certain George W. Bush pulling out of Iraq would be the sign you're referring to, and he hasn't done so yet. He's only going in deeper. D&D, on the other hand, isn't, even though I see more male than female players. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

'dominate'

There are several occurances of the word 'dominate' throughout the article that seem to be a phrasing more appropriate to a WotC marketing blurb than an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.231.113 (talkcontribs) 07:35, June 3, 2007.

Atually, since D&D has outsold all its competitors by decent amounts, "dominate" can be called the correct word. -Jeske (v^_^v)
I'm with Jeske. D&D is the 700-pound gorilla in the market. No other game comes close in sales. As to dominating the style of play with things like character sheets, GM-centric play, dice, and numeric attributes, I don't think that's debatable either. Any other accurate term ("overwhelming" leaps to mind) would suffer from the same marketing-speak sound. But such words are accurate. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Saving throws?

Should the game mechanics section cover saving throws? — RJH (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes. -Jeske (v^_^v) 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay I stuffed something in there. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Good work. Now you just need to Reference your statements. BreathingMeat 01:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Alan De Smet for taking care of that. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


  • 4a.The section Controversies is of higher priority than Related Products. and needs a higher place.
  • 7a.Some Image Captions contains fancruft.

-Flubeca (t) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why has the article been rated as A-class by the Dungeons and Dragons WikiProject when it has failed a number of good article criteria? --tgheretford (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, "Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class." (Emphasis in the original). Maybe it doesn't deserve the A rating, but failure to be a Good Article isn't evidence against it being A rating. — Alan De Smet | Talk 20:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As GA reviews go, that's pretty close to success. (The reviewer is a little new at this process, which is why it failed instead of being put on hold.) I made a few changes to the article to address the above objections, then re-submitted it for another try at GA status. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More sources

This search contains numerous magazine articles about D&D. I hope the authors of this article can make use of them. Particularly, I think there may be good information here about the sales and business side of the game. — Amcaja (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Article is factually accurate with many sources to back up the information.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. Article covers all aspects of the game throughly and adequately.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. Controversies section is good enogh and the article is written in a NPOV.
5. Article stability? Yes. Article is not subject to edit wars.
6. Images?: Yes. Images are properly tagged.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — --Hdt83 Chat 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Hdt83. — RJH (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct citation

I was wondering if this citation is correct?

From the Sorcer's Scroll: D&D®, AD&D® and Gaming...

Should it say "Sorcerer's Scroll"? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Some concern has been expressed during the FAC concerning the use of a pair of images on this page under the Fair Use criteria. For the moment I replaced the PHB image with a Commons image of a game session in progress and commented out the module image. — RJH (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced addition

This was just added, but lacks a reference:

Although a small adventure entitled "Temple of the Frog" was included in the Blackmoor rules supplement in 1975, the first stand-alone D&D module published by TSR was 1978's Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, written by Gygax.

I temporarily removed it from the body as the page is in the middle of an FAC. It probably is correct, but fails to meet 1(c) of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. (I looked but I could not find a sufficiently solid source.) — RJH (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Will this do as a source? The Acaeum is pretty definitive. If so, please move the comment back into the article with reference, or I can as well. Fairsing 02:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I did find that site but it is not clear why that would be considered authoritative. The page doesn't even list an author; it just looks like some generic D&D fan web site. (Normally I would have just added a {{fact}} tag, but the page is currently undergoing a FAC so I didn't want to add any excuses for that to fail. Sorry.) — RJH (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the Acaeum is a widely recognized authority on older D&D materials - perhaps the single most authoritative source on the internet. But I agree about the FAC. If the consensus of other authors is that the Acaeum isn't autoritative enough (anyone else have an opionion on this?), then I'm ok leaving it out for now. Fairsing 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Widely recognized? Err, the Alexa ranking is 234,011, which is pretty low. I'd never even heard of it until yesterday: it just looks like an auction site rather than an academic source. Perhaps there's an article in an old Dragon issue that would work? There was also a pretty good book called Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role Playing Games (by Lawrence Schick) that might cover the topic, if somebody has a copy. (Unfortunately somebody stole mine. :-/) — RJH (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        • P.S. The FAC isn't going to pass, so I put the text back with a Fact tag. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another unsourced

Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition (also called 4e) has been announced by WoTC and is slated for release in 2009. It is believed that this is so in order to keep a fresh new torrent of new players. Many 'veterans' of DnD believe that this is merely a cash grab.

Normally I'd hit this with {{Fact}} but seeing as we're trying to get to FA status I shifted it to here. BreathingMeat 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly not true. If WoTC had "announced" anything, it'd be on their press release page. It's not. Powers T 21:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
At GenCon it was just announced 4E would see release in May 2008. --Thomas B 00:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Got old gaming magazines? Old reviews would be helpful

Over at the featured article candidate discussion, Axl suggested including some references to early reviews as details of critical response. That sounds like a really good idea to me. Unfortunately the easiest magazine to get archives from (Dragon) isn't appropriate, as TSR published it, making it a huge conflict on interest. So, if anyone has old gaming magazines from the 70s or early 80s, relevant snippits and citations would be helpful. I'm thinking something like "Example Games described the first edition of AD&D as 'complex and rewarding'." Possible sources that leap to mind are Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer and White Dwarf. We can probably benefit from details from reviews from all editions, but the early ones seem most important. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

as i am but a few months older than D&D i have never heard of those magazines, but will check with relatives that played to see if anyting of that nature has survived attics or garages for the past 33 years. White Dwarf also might be a CoI as they were the competition to D&D. how many "gaming" magazine did exist back in 1974? shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a place to collect citations; a scratch space: 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon further thought, use the already provided location above instead of fragmenting them. I've moved my own entres up there from here. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis of FAC

The article failed to be promoted. Here's a synopsis of the objections that were not addressed:

  1. Citations — More academic studies need to be cited. For example, Gary Alan Fine's Shared Fantasy.
  2. Editing — Some short paragraphs could be merged. Several paragraphs go uncited. Some adjectives could be removed.

Of these, the citation issue seemed to be the most serious objection. The remainder are, to me, minor editing issues. There was also a comment about needing more critical acclaim and wanting to see more quotes from gaming magazines from White Dwarf and Roleplayer (magazine). There was also an objection raised about some of the images, but I think that has been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like these have been addressed, with exception of the gaming magazine quotes and critical acclaim. (But I don't think those two can be remedied.) — RJH (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I'm not clear why the following is notable:

  • OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) is an attempt to re-issue the rules for First Edition AD&D while complying with the OGL.

The only publication associated with OSRIC is a free set of rules. The only indication is a "coming soon" announcement. Yet it is listed as a "key example" in this article. It should probably be removed unless the notability can be established. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not a "key example." However, it's apparently notable enough to warrent a Wikipedia article (or at least hasn't been noticed by more deletion oriented editors yet). So I moved it into "See also", which seems appropriate to me. If the OSRIC article gets killed for notability, then I'd delete it from See also. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article's statement about D&D being the inspiration for Tunnels and Trolls, RuneQuest, Chivalry and Sorcery and Empire of the Petal Throne is corroborated by a pair of online articles from a single, anonymous author:

On the other hand, if I look at Ken St. Andre's SFWA web page, he says nothing about being inspired by D&D. What's more, he even says his (T&T) was the first to bear a copyright notice. Does anybody happen to know of a more academically-solid reference for these factoids? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed this. — RJH (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Acclaim?

I've been searching around, trying to find some positive, notable acclaim for the game (that also has solid, independent references), but I couldn't seem to find much:

Dr. Joyce Brothers said Dungeons & Dragons:
The game has also been endorsed for its educational content by the National Association of Gifted-Creative Children.[2]

It seems like there should be a lot more. Does anybody have some suggestions or useful links? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like that is a "no". :-) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

4th edition - for real this time

No, this time it's not random and wild speculation. this is widely being taken as the announcement of the 4th edition. Obviously, I do not expect Wikipedia to insert this now, but when the announcement is made (likely, it will first be made at Gencon Indy tomorrow) formally on the website, it'll be smart to be on top of that. DoomsDay349 03:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappointing. I was just feeling comfortable with 3rd. =( Anyway, we need references in the article. Powers T 12:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
When the announcement is made, could it be covered on a new page and only be very briefly summarized here? It doesn't seem appropriate that a yet-to-be-published game should get more coverage than the well-established versions, and I'm sure it will lead to massive article bloat that will need to be culled back. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
WotC has made an announcement- see this. J Milburn 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Considering the countdown is still running on the official D&D web site, I'm suspicious of any announcements made on other web sites. -FeralDruid 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
added a bit of 4th edition info and where the official announcement and info from GenCon cn be found. i think i did the ref correct. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WHile at Gen Con yesterday, Goodman Games confirmed that WotC was doing 4th Edition, and that it would be OGL.--Bedford 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot anecdote valid addition?

In this edit RJHall pulled some details from this Slashdot article because "rm slashdot entry; the author is anonymous and evidence is anecdotal. Unsuitable for FA material." I'm not so sure about this. The author is not anonymous. Quoth Next Generation: "Michael "Zonk" Zenke/Editor, Slashdot Games/Michael Zenke is the editor of Slashdot Games. Under the pseudonym 'Zonk'...". Zenke has credentials beyond Slashdot, including at The Escapist ([2] (you'll need to click "Advanced Search" then select his name from the Author list; it's not linkable.) and "Massive Update" for 1up. I believe a post by Zonk on Slashdot qualifies as a reliable source. As for it being anecdotal, I believe it's reasonable for Wikipedia to report that a reliable source reports on anecdotal evidence. Ultimately much of journalism is simply anecdotes of things observed by the journalist. That there is at least some initial hostility to 4e is noteworthy. I'm not deeply attached to the sentence in question, but I think it did add something to the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm on the fence on this one. Zonk is regularly derided for his poor journalism within the Slashdot community itself, but it is a reasonable anecdote from a high-profile source. If the quote is explicitly attributed, it's probably okay. android79 19:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry if my action was inappropriate. However, I'm not clear that the mood of the moment (at a single conference) is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If it produces a lingering disaffection in the industry that leads to the decline of D&D, then perhaps so. The comment had been moved to Editions_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons#Dungeons_.26_Dragons_4th_edition, which this page only summarizes. Would it not make some sense to expand the entry on the Editions page for full coverage, then rewrite the entry on this page to summarize the result? I know there will me more to add. — RJH (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • There probably is some angst about the new edition, but one statement by a single writer where the writer even explicitly says that he's just stating his own anecdotal opinion probably shouldn't be included. What might be ok would be to provide multiple citations from other independent reliable sources saying similar things about some initial skepticism of the new edition. It's quite likely that 4th edition is simply undergoing the same receptive cycle that 3rd edition experienced, with people who currently play 3.0 or 3.5 feeling uncertain about whether or not they'll invest in 4th edition pending seeing more details on it. If this release is similar to 3.0 or 3.5 than the number of skeptics will decrease over time as more details are released and people get used to the changes or notice various improvements. Dugwiki 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous PoV addition

The following addition by an anonymous editor appears PoV and is uncited:

This not only led to problems for TSR but for fans of DND who faced further social ostracism, unfair treatment and false association with the occult and satanism regardless of an individual fan's actual religous beliefs.

This page is in the middle of a FAC so I don't want to slap a {{Fact}} on the sentence and have the page fail. So I took the extreme liberty of reverting the text, pending a suitable reference. — RJH (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good choice. We probably can find a source to back it up, but until we do it's best to leave it out. -- Kesh 14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Good call RJHall. Fairsing 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I found this undergraduate paper (used on the "moral panic" page) that may serve:
It seems well developed and referenced. Sorry for the bother. — RJH (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is D&D based on Chainmail?

User:67.9.42.103 brought up the disagreement about D&D's history between Gygax and Arneson. It's way back up in User:Waza's "Featured Article Criteria Checklist & Comment Space" section dating back to the beginning of the year, and likely to be overlooked. So I'm copying it down here so it can be more easily found and discussed. I've also taken the liberty of intending them instead of making them a list, more in keeping with usual Talk comments.

Point of fact: Dave Arneson (co-creator of D&D) disputes that the rules were based on Chainmail: http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/ori.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.42.103 (talk) 17:02:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC) (Copied from above by User:Alan De Smet.)
I had read somewhere that the D&D rules were only very slightly associated with Chainmail.[3] But this may also be related to the long-brewing contention between Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, so who knows? — RJH (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (Copied from above by User:Alan De Smet.)
Wouldn't NPOV dictate that this stop being quoted as a fact, and instead shown as a disputed point? Seems like only 2 people could know for sure, and they disagree. 67.9.42.103 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (Copied from above by User:Alan De Smet.)
In at least one matter, it is not NPOV. It shows Gygax's claim of the Chainmail origin of the rules, but not Arneson's contradiction: http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/ori.html ... only the two of them could know for sure, but Gygax has repeated it so much that that's become the folklore. 67.9.42.103 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (Copied from above by User:Alan De Smet.)
What does the article actually claim? "It [Dungeons & Dragons] was derived from miniature wargames, with a variation of the Chainmail game serving as the initial rule system," and "Dave Arneson used Chainmail to run games where players controlled a single character instead of an army, an innovation that inspired D&D." What does Dave Arneson claim? "Role playing came into it's own for me when I thought about using the Medieval skirmish rules called CHAINMAIL...." and "So we began wit CHANMAIL'S simple combat matrix and the handful of monsters and spells that it contained." Arneson seems to support the claims as the article stands. Did you have some other detail you feel needs changing? Mind you, this really has nothing to do with NPOV. It's not necessary for an article to include every alternate claim to be neutral. (Tellingly, the article lacks my alternate claim to having created D&D in 1956, only to have Gygax, Arneson, and the military industrial complex conspire to steal it from me.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a fair comparison for NPOV. Only two people have valid opinions on the origins of D&D: Gygax and Arneson. Both opinions matter, neither dispute that the other was in the room where they (and everybody from D&D's early days) would say that you were not in the room.
While the statement you quote certainly gives one impression, this is incorrect from Arneson's POV on further reading from other sources- he says that Chainmail's influence was minimal (the combat matrix). More info on their disagreement here: http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/chainmail.html This might seem like a minor point, but the Arneson filed a lawsuit partially based on this (self-interested, but so is Gygax's claim) point. 67.9.42.103 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If we're down to not only discussing Arneson versus Gygax's claims, but also Arneson versus himself, we're doomed. Arneson has made claims on his own web site that appear to support the article as it stands. D&D is, by Arneson's own words, derived, at least a little bit, from Chainmail. Chainmail was the basis from which development started (even if it was almost entirely junked very soon thereafter). A third party believes that early D&D editions required the Chainmail combat rules. Arneson did run early RPGs using Chainmail as a basis. That's what the article claims. That's what Arneson has said. What exactly is the disagreement here? What needs to change to make the article better? The article doesn't claim that Arneson was irrelevant, or that D&D is almost entirely Chainmail. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixes needed

I'm sorry I was tied up and didn't review at FAC before this was promoted; there are numerous WP:MOS and WP:WIAFA breaches that should be addressed, hopefully before this article is proposed for the main page. There is incorrect bolding throughout (unless that has been corrected since I first left the message); please see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:LEAD for descriptions of how and where to use bolding. There are also WP:DASH breaches throughout (no spaced emdashes on wiki). Citations are not all formatted; see criterion 2d of WP:WIAFA regarding consistent formatting of footnotes and examples at WP:CITE/ES. Publishers need to be identified on all sources so that reliability can be verified, last accessdate is given on websources, and author and publication date are listed when there is one. On a purely practical note, empty parameters in the cite templates chunk up the article size unnecessarily and make the article hard to edit it; I hope regular editors here don't insist on policy reasons for making common sense edits. Here are examples of poorly formatted or incomplete citations (samples only):

  • Myers: "Mike Myers". Inside the Actors' Studio. February 4, 2001. No. 9, season 7. (fix the date wikification, please)
  • ^ http://theminiaturespage.com/news/519193/ (completely unformatted citation)
  • ^ Beattie, Robert. A Timeline of the Historical Miniatures Wargaming Hobby. Retrieved on June 8, 2006. (no publisher identified)

I'll check back periodically to see if these items have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The WP:MOSBOLD should be totally resolved at this point. The only bold text is: in the lead, correctly used; in the volume numbers in cites, correctly used; and in a list of editions, which is essentially a definition list and acceptable by MOSBOLD. (The other option is to instead make them sub-headings. They once were, but it was changed a while ago for style reasons I didn't follow at the time. I believe it was to resolve an objected in a previous FAC nomination.) As for the empty parameters, that isn't quite as common sense. I certainly prefer that they be there in some cases. Deleting them is probably harmless, but it's a matter of personal preference. I would be hesitant to go changing them to my preferences about with them in articles I wasn't following. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Bolding looks good, dashes still need attention (saw many spaced emdashes in External links), I added some of the missing publishers to show the work needed (on cite journal, the name of the journal suffices). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In this edit SandyGeorgia noted in the edit summary, "more cleanup, missing publishers, almost no IBSNs on books". While ISBNs are a nice addition, as "[[WP:CITE/ES#Books|The ISBN ... is optional," it doesn't seem worth specifically calling out as a fix. And listing publishers can help identify sources as reliable and generally improve the article, I don't see any guidelines making it something we need to do. So long as enough information is present to identify and investigate the source, that should be plenty. In the case of web sites, it's easy enough for another editor to check it out. These both seem like good improvements (and many thanks for adding them!), but not necessarily things we absolutely need, say, to be feature article material. (I have no thoughts on the dashes, and agree that the less formatted citations really could do with a good polishing up.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me phrase it hopefully more clearly; if more editors had been paying attention, this article shouldn't have passed FAC with breaches in WP:DASH, WP:MOSBOLD and unformatted and incomplete citations, particularly missing publishers (which invariably turn out to be sources of questionable reliability). Most of these are easy fixes; pls finish the work; I've done samples to get you started. If the article comes to the main page without these things fixed, I will flag the sources that need {{vc}} or sections that need cleanup. FAs exemplify our best work and other editors view them as samples and use them for guidance, so deficiencies should be addressed; you got through FAC with some breaches in WP:WIAFA, but you should have plenty of time to fix them before the article potentially comes up for mainpage, as most of them don't seem to be big items (in fact, in the time you've typed on my talk page and here, you probably could have finished). No, you aren't required to add ISBN's but to many FA authors, it's a matter of pride in the product to have everything perfect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to make the article as good as possible, but I think that "this article shouldn't have passed FAC with...incomplete citations" is going too far. ISBN is good, but optional. I'm not aware of any guidelines or policies suggesting that publisher information in citations is so important that it should be required for FA status. If it is documented somewhere, please let me know where. If it's not, it's not a reasonable standard to object to a FAC. Editors striving to bring an article to FA status already have to consider dozens of pages of MOS, policies, and guidelines. Expecting them to follow undocumented standards isn't reasonable. If it's not documented, it's personal opinion and preference. I can't look at an article and consider if it's FA quality if the standards are hidden in the heads of my fellow editors. My point isn't that we shouldn't add this information (I agree it would improve the article), but that you should take care to not hold articles to undocumented standards or to suggest that these preferences are required.
As for publisher information allowing reliability to be verified, checking that the publisher looks plausible is a really poor way to validate a citation. A citation might have inaccurate publisher information by accident or malice. A citation might have accurate publisher information that seems reliable, but isn't. For example, there is a long history of groups giving themselves names that suggest a level of officialness that might not be earned. The junk mail I get from "Domain Registry of America" has nothing to do with my actual domain registration. Or, can you tell the difference between the Air Line Pilots Association and the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association? I know one of the two doesn't actually represent pilots and is a lobbying group (right now I don't remember which one). It could be an overinflated sense of importance, "The Journal of Game Theory and Design" might be a widely respected peer reviewed journal, it might be a small group of hobbists, or it could be the blog of a really opinionated guy. To validate a citation's reliableness you need enough information to uniquely track down the source. The source itself then needs to be considered. Publisher information can help track down the source, but using it to verify reliability is a bad idea. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia's concerns have been addressed now. Congratulations to all the authors who contributed to this FA article! Likely the page will still need periodic weeding to correct for entropy, and front page exposure tends to produce a blizzard of edits (not all of them useful). Good luck. — RJH (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the WP:DASH has been resolved (perhaps another editor did it). And while I don't think missing publisher and ISBN information is required, adding them is a good suggestion. I'll continue my publisher review. Perhaps another editor can see about adding ISBNs for books lacking them? — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, I see you beat me to the publishers, RJH, thanks. I tweaked one and added another. It looks like we've got them all for now. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good; good luck on the main page! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced PoV addition

The following addition:

Outside of its original pen-and-paper incarnation, Dungeons & Dragons is perhaps best known for its associated TSR novels, the acclaimed Baldur's Gate computer games, and the critically-panned Dungeons & Dragons film.

is unsourced and (to me) presents a particular point-of-view. I moved it here pending references to corroborate the opinions presented. It also presents more detail than is provided by the "Related products" section, so it is not a summary (and hence belongs in the body). No offense was intended toward the editor by this act; it just needs to be done in order to maintain the page's FA status. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok no worries. Whether or not it's true, it is unsourced, so I understood it might be quickly removed when I added it. I took a chance that the perhaps would mitigate the need for references, but I suppose not.Vranak 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Very sorry. However the Dungeons & Dragons related products article could do with a more detailed lead. Perhaps I could suggest starting there, as it is a forked article from this page? — RJH (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's got links to the D&D movie and a nice cover picture of Baldur's Gate near the top of the page, that's good enough for me. Vranak 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It probably would be good to get those forked articles up to GA status at some point. That'll make the D&D article tree more solid. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Which forked articles? Vranak 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well the five "main article" links listed under the various summary sections. — RJH (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing information?

This is a great article (obviously, or it wouldn't be featured), but I was surprised there was no mention of the game as a social activity -- something friends get together to do on a weeknight or weekend, ordering or cooking food (especially pizza and soda pop) -- along with how groups often rotate the DM either within a campaign or among several different campaigns or even other RPGs. I realize a lot of this is not unique to D&D but D&D remains the reference point for gaming culture. Powers T 14:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • LtPowers -- Are you aware of press coverage / reference works that indicate this to be an imporant aspect of the game's culture? It makes sense to me intuitively, but for WP we need to be able to verify the information as true from independent sources before it goes into the article. Fairsing 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I haven't done the research yet; I thought it best to ask here if there was a specific reason it wasn't included. Powers T 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It proved fairly difficult just trying to find acclaim for the game (outside the industry). A topic like the one you suggest could be treading into PoV and non-encyclopedic territory, so it would need very solid references to back it up. But I think that's an interesting idea, if you can pull it off. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Reason for "Advanced"

My understanding was that the whole reason that AD&D was called that was because of some contractual agreement between Gygax and Arneson, where TSR could avoid paying Arneson some royalty if the game wasn't literally called D&D. AD&D wasn't literally named D&D, so Arneson got no royalties from it. Then Arneson and Gygax didn't speak for 20 years, or something. If someone could verify this, or the grain of truth from whence this story came, it ought to be present in the History section. Tempshill 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe that the name Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was the name of the set of rules created to cover mid and high level campaigns and characters, as in the basic Dungeons & Dragons rules weren't covered. So the name was "Advanced" Dungeons & Dragons because those rules allowed Players to "advance" their characters beyond low level. I think this was explained in the summary of the history of the game that came with the TSR Silver Anniversary Collector's Edition Boxed Set, though I'm not sure about this. --Carlos 18:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Carlos is incorrect in this case. He is referring to the "Expert Set" which was for basic D&D. AD&D was a different game as people have noted below. It's a common mistake though. Ethan a dawe 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
this is a popular misconception that AD&D was a set of rules to further D&D. it was in fact a new game system. not very different than what 4th edition will be. "Advanced" was used to try to seperate it to NOT confuse people about it. new name = new game kind of thing. but obviously that didnt work too well. shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As far I know, D&D and AD&D co-existed, the former being directed more to the experienced players, and the latter was a simpler ruleset for beginners. The Merciful 09:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
'Even if you are not familior with fantasy role playing games in general, and DUNGEONS& DRAGONS in particular, you will find this work (with its companion volumes, MONSTER MANUAL and DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE) is a complete game system in itself. It will stand alone, and it has been written and edited in order to moke the whole as easily understood as possible without taking anything away from its complexity and completeness. If, on the other hand, you are a veteran adventurer of many swords & sorcery campaign games, ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS will prove to be superior to any past offerings in the fantasy role playing game field.' — AD&D 1st edition players handbook p.7 it says to me that it is seperate from D&D and a 'complete game system in itself'. also somewhere Gayg Gygax mentioned that AD&D was NOT an update to D&D but a new game, but i cant find that Dragon Magazine article currently to provide that information. it had to be around the 1978 time frame as my PHB because i dont think the question would be unanswered for long period of time after the game came out. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, editors!

I read this article over a year ago, and it was... ahem... not ready for prime time. You have really done a spectacular job. -- Ssilvers 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, great job as well, this is one of the topics that can easily get out of hands, and I am sure one look at the history would confirm it has, but you managed to make the front page. [DnD Geek]You just rolled a natural 20 on the Craft Article check[/DnD Geek]Youkai no unmei 12:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to lock this article for today since it seems to be undergoing persistent vandalism.Dp76764 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As today's featured article, protection should be avoided if possible. The vandalism is actually quite a bit lower than I had expected it to be. --OnoremDil 16:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes! Maybe just blocking the IP's that are vandalizing then?Dp76764 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, we *can't* protect articles on the front page barring severe, unrelenting vandalism and extenuating circumstances (see WP:NOPRO). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked today and only a handful of fixes/reverts seemed to be needed. Most of the edits appeared beneficial or neutral. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Online communities

I deleted the recently added "Online communities" section. Here is what it looked like at the time of deletion. It didn't really say anything interesting. That a hobby community would form online communities isn't noteworthy. The link to dndonlinegames failed to cite anything at all. The link to Gleemax failed to support the idea that WotC was attempting to capitalize (indeed, D&D Insider is the attempt to capitalize). Perhaps we should include a brief note about online gaming, but I'm not sure it needs a full section, and we'll need some better citations. Given that the article recently received Featured Article status, and my desire to enjoy the FA glow for at least a few weeks, I'm erring on the side of caution and deleting it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • With the right references, I'm sure we could have an interesting section on online play, but that isn't it. android79 03:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • i don't think anything for online gaming needs to be in the D&D article. it may well serve as its own article, and many more thing have been played online prior to the recent WotC decision to support online gaming. shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I more or less agree. The topic wasn't specific to D&D, and the citations didn't seem to support the statements. Perhaps something could be said about the social aspects of role-playing, including online chats and communities, but that topic probably belong on the role-playing game page. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tabletop" fantasy role-playing game

Part of the discussion during the FAC process resulted in the addition of the word "tabletop" to the first sentence in the article. I've been trying to maintain good faith by restoring the word whenever it is deleted, but at least one editor finds it objectionable. So, I'd like to ask the article audience which is better:

  1. Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D or DnD) is a fantasy role-playing game (RPG) originally designed by...
  2. Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as D&D or DnD) is a tabletop fantasy role-playing game (RPG) originally designed by...

I understand that the later is not literally true, but the word "tabletop" was added to indicate that is by far the most common mode by which this game is played. Comments appreciated, thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I kinda agree with the latter because "role-playing game" can also be taken to mean a video game such as Final Fantasy or Breath of Fire - nowadays there's no real distiction between D&D and its ilk (i.e. P&P RPGs) and Final Fantasy and its ilk (i.e. video game RPGs). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead needs a qualifier such as "tabletop" or "pen and paper" to distinguish it from electronic RPGs, even if those descriptors are less than perfect. android79 21:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As role-playing game notes, RPG has been partially co-opted by the video gaming industry, so "tabletop" alerts readers more familiar with CRPGs that this is something different. Furthermore, "tabletop" distinguishes it from the other major type of RPGs, LARPs. I'm not real fond of "tabletop", nor "pen and paper," because, as the RPG article notes, "neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary," but I'm not aware of a better term and there is significant benefit to readers. I do counter propose a slight tweak: "fantasy tabletop role-playing game." This emphasizes that "tabletop" is a specific kind of RPG. If you click that link, the page does mention the significance of "tabletop" for readers who are interested. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm so used to seeing "fantasy role-playing game" that inserting 'tabletop' after 'fantasy' seems a little odd. But no matter. — RJH (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
tabletop is a type of roleplaying game as mentioned to distinguish between live action, or computer. pencil and paper would work also, becuase they are need via the 'rules' of D&D. it also signifies that like board games D&D is meant to be played with a group of people together. the move of people to create what is know as virtual tabletops in order to play many games also emphasizes this classification. when looking at Micro Machine video games they could be consider miniature games, but they are not tabletop miniature games. i think it better NOT to confuse people and a single word doesnt deter from the entire article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus is to include "tabletop" in the lead. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hackmaster.

before chaning i think it should be discussed. Hackmaster was created from a real licensing of the AD&D material. it was not a product under the OGL, and WAS AD&D material not D&D as the section last changed before this posting suggests. i propose that it state it is a satyrical look at AD&D rather than elluding to it being any of the D&D version without the Advanced nomeclature added. and that it be understood that it was a license and K&C held the copyright to the matreial for time of about 7 years until recently WotC did not renew it. whatever sources to prove it was a real license i will leave to people better at finding sources, but the game itself is the source that it is a satire of AD&D not D&D as was present in the KoDT comic. again i would jsut change this, but wanted to prevent some edit war now that we had seen the rise to FA status with this article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The last two sentences of that paragraph don't seem especially notable. We could just change them to read:
Other companies have created complete game systems based on earlier editions of D&D, such as HackMaster (2001) by Kenzer and Company and Castles & Crusades (2005) by Troll Lord Games.
People who want to learn more can drill down. — RJH (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
so long as it is agreeable and understood that HAckMaster as referenced within the article was not OGL, and was a satire of AD&D version and NOT any version of D&D. again i jsut dont want to edit it and start some edit war now that we have FA status...would prefer someone with better copy-editing skills than myself to word it. shadzar|Talk|contribs 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg

I would like upload Image:Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures 2.jpg on Commons (it has a free license), but I think that it will be deleted there, because it needs fair use, it's a derivative work from copyrighted works (see this section of Commons:Derivative works). I think that the shoot it's too much close to the miniatures.--Trixt 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that photo can go on Commons. Indeed, I would argue it needs a fair-use rationale here as well, as copyright for the miniatures themselves is not the uploader's to give away. --Agamemnon2 05:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Mind you, a photograph of a copyrighted work (the miniatures) involves two copyrights: the copyright on the miniature, and the copyright of the photograph as a whole. (This assumes that the photo isn't a trivial reproduction. In this case, I believe a carefully posed, lit, and framed scene of miniatures is just as creative and thus copyrightable as a posed, lit, and framed scene of people.) The photographer (me, in this case), can license his rights however he likes. However, that license may not be enough. At the time I uploaded it, I didn't see (and still don't see) any plausible copyright claim on the part of Wizards of the Coast, but since it was so easy to add a fair use claim, I just added one just in case. I've since reorganized the claim to make it slightly more specific and overt. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that for clearness it's also necessary including on image description page this template, {{Non-free 3D art}}.--Trixt 22:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Basic D&D Confusion

In the "Edition History" section, there's a bit of confusion about the Basic Sets. The first one was by Holmes, as mentioned, and the second was by Moldvay. However, the "Basic-Expert-Companion-Masters-Immortals" progression didn't exist until the third revision of the Basic Set, by Frank Mentzer. The Moldvay version consisted only of the Basic and Expert sets. (Thus, Moldvay-era D&D is referred to as "B/X", while Mentzer-era is "BECMI".) The different versions are distinct enough that they (all three) have their proponents and regular players, even now, with "Rules Cyclopedia D&D ("RC") being still a fourth permutation. (In addition, the "Immortals Set" wasn't so much reprinted in '91, as it was revamped into "Wrath of the Immortals", a supplement for the Rules Cyclopedia.) The text only needs a few small changes, but this is an important distinction to make. (For confirmation of this, check www.acaeum.com.) --DestroyYouAlot 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The acaeum site is anonymous, so I personally don't consider it authoritative. This article is also written summary style, so it needs to be brief. Perhaps you could add the fine details to the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article? — RJH (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous sites and sites that do not reveal their sources are not usable as sources themselves unless it's their own article. I've been through this with Serebii and the 4th-gens, and (to a lesser extent) SIHULM. -Jéské(v^_^v) 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RJHall: You can consider it authoritative or not, but the information presented is still factual, and commonly known among collectors and players of these editions. If the Acaeum doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for references, I can find another reference. The article is a summary, granted, but if it's going to contain information about two of the authors of the major revisions of the Basic Set, it should contain the third - or none of their names, and simply link to the edition article. As it stands, it's a rather glaring omission. (The "Editions of D&D" article isn't missing this information, so no need to edit that.)--DestroyYouAlot 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If we remove the "1991" from "Immortals (1986, 1991)", and then added "The Immortals set was revamped as Wrath of the Immortals (1991)" to the end of the same paragraph, would that address your concern? Add we need then is a solid ref. for the latter. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anybody here owns a copy of the original 'Wrath of the Immortals' (1991) boxed set? Could you tell me if it be used as a reference for this page to show that it superseded 'Immortals'? If so, do you have a page number? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
you mean the one from 1992 form the bottom of the page? 'Allston, Aaron (1992). Wrath of the Immortals. TSR. ISBN 1560764120.' either way i think all this belongs on the editions article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Either way. I was just trying to reach an accomodation without adding significant bloat. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
i still don't think it is necessary for the main article since each seperate edition isnt discussed there, but all part of the Editions of article. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects in the lead

The header section now includes three different redirects when only one is actually needed. (The other two should be covered adequately by the second.) I'd like to propose replacing the three redirects with this one:

For other uses, see the role-playing game.

Are there any objections? — RJH (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems confusing that someone looking for the video game "dnd," unaware of its origins in D&D would need to follow a link titled "Dungeons & Dragons (disambiguation)" to get more details. The same goes for someone looking for information a citation of "Drunk & Disorderly" or "Drag & Drop." I agree, the current version is a bit of a mess, but redirecting everyone to Dungeons & Dragons (disambiguation) seems worse. I'm not fond of custom article hats, but perhaps this is the place for one? Maybe a special "D&D, dnd, Dungeons & Dragons" disambiguation page we can link to? Unfortunately I'm not coming up with a better way to phrase this. Perhaps "This article is about the role-playing game. For other uses, see Dungeons & Dragons (disambiguation). "D&D" and "dnd" redirect here. For other uses, see "D&D (disambiguation)". This would necessitate putting a link to dnd in the D&D disambiguation page. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Or we can just have D&D and dnd redirect to D&D (disambiguation) and get rid of those headers from this article. — RJH (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I was "bold" and did this. =) The computer game was added to the D&D disambiguation page. — RJH (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I don't understand why the external link for the Wikia Wiki is so high up at the top when it is a horrible wiki. The D&D Wiki is totally active... recent changes was all filled up, but Wikia's had only 2 edits. It seem like it is very biased to me. TheFlow 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd support its removal. Not a very useful external link at all. android79 21:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of bias, but I'm not terribly sold on either wiki providing much of particular value above and beyond what we can provide in the article proper. Any reason we shouldn't pull both? — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that any WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided can be purged. — RJH (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both. Anyone considering readding them, be sure to specify exactly what information is on those sites that can't be included in articles here but is reference material. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm late to state my opinon: I can understand the deletion because both wikis do not as yet provide much information beyond wikipedia. On the other hand a number of D&D articles have been given a box that questions their notability. I think the notability guidelines are quite harsh, but a great many subjects from D&D detailed in wikipedia do not satisfy the it. E.g. any number of monsters, NPC, etc. have never been covered by secondary sources. The official guideline from wikipedia says, that if this is not the case, the article should be moved to an appropriate wiki - if available. There is a wiki for Dungeons and Dragons, even if not yet a good one, and I fear a great many articles would have to be move there from wikipedia, if wikipedia guidelines were strictly applied. That's why I included the link and why I'm for reintroducing it.
Ideally the Dungeons and Dragons wiki should become better first and the link should be introduced then, but I don't know if this works, because the wiki is not known to most authors working on D&D at wikipedia. Daranios 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't really the right place to advertise any web site, including a wiki of topics that might be considered non-notable here. You could mention the site on the WikiProject pages, however, as a place to put material that might be deleted from here. Also, you're always free to mirror existing material there under the GNU Free Document License. — RJH (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Jep, those seem to be the things to do. Daranios 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Although we removed the link from here, personally I would like to see a successful D&D wiki. So I hope it works out. In fact we could almost use an entertainment wiki (to include all of gaming and media), since those are the types of topics that most often seem to irk the WP deletionist mob. No offense intended to individual mob-ettes, of course. ;-) — RJH (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would note here point 4 of the "Links to be considered" section of the External Links guideline: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This would seem to me to be exactly the sort of thing that is (should be?) on a D&D wiki, and is also the stuff which is (reasonably in many cases) being removed from Wikipedia. --Pak21 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What are the knowledgeable sources? Anonymous editors? Bullet 13 of "Links normally to be avoided" explicitly excludes "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." — RJH (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)