Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Chick Link 2 Atari as licensee (Gauntlet) 3 Campaign Settings 4 Article work 5 Added Miniatures Section 6 Articles on manuals 7 Gygax & Arneson History 8 Miniatures - Minor Deletion... 9 All RPGs can be traced back to Gygax and Arneson? 10 Hobbits or Halflings? 11 3.5 no longer "open source" 12 Computer Games / Software 13 Controversies 14 Character Sheet 15 opinion, written in poor prose 16 Lord of the Rings 17 D&D-specific copyrights? 18 Society for Creative Anachronism? 19 How to Play? 20 Random Objects as Miniatures 21 New Wikicity 22 Little error 23 list of manuals 24 Too long? 25 Mentioning AD&D right in the lead 26 Editorial quality of D&D and EGGAD&DTM 27 Swords and Spells

Chick Link

.--The_stuart 01:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link is valid... the server just happens to be temporarily offline.  ALKIVAR™ 03:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Atari as licensee (Gauntlet)

Recently added to the main article:

In 1985 Atari released an arcade game called Gauntlet, which was closely based upon the format of D&D. The game was a huge hit, and it spawned a series of fantasy role-playing arcade games.

I don't believe Atari was a licensee of TSR. So Gauntlet was not an official D&D game. Unless someone can come up with evidence that there was a license, I'm going to take it out.

I would also argue that it was not closely based on the format of D&D either. Well, no more so than AD&D: Dark Legacy.  :-) -- Ansible

Campaign Settings

Actually, all of the campaign settings need some serious work - they are unorganized and need to have a similar style. Perhaps by comparing them all to a default campaign Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or Forgotten Realms. Those realms need to be developed first with the possible organization:

• General Flavor
• Plot Arc
• Payable Races
• Character Classes
• Interesting Places
• Interesting Personages
• Current Status (is the setting alive or dead?)
• Historical Time Line
• External Links

I'm sure some one will just step up and do all that  ;-)

Thank you for volunteering! :) --Modemac 19:55, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also missing - wasn't there a setting in which you could play dragons and half dragons? Oh yeah, the Council of Wyrm

The whole article could also use a place for a brief history of the "Gamers are Psychopaths" Meme crosslinked with the "Comics will Turn you into a Deviant Commie" Meme.

Reid

That is already discussed under Role-playing game - see the "Tales from the Darkside" section. (Feel free to expand.) I don't think this page needs to mention it.

Zack

Ok, ok - I can do Darksun - I don't own any of the other settings, but have a passing knowledge. So, wikipedians, what's the baseline D&D setting? Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, or Dragonlance? Which was first? Which is the most popular?

Reid

Greyhawk was first, Forgotten Realms was most popular. Gentgeen

I just added some notes at the bottom about Living Campaigns. --Kjenks 20:08, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article work

I just re-organized most of the article and generally cleaned it up. Sorry for the numerous edits, but I edited it section-by-section. If the "compare versions" feature in the "Page history" ever works, you'll be able to see all my edits in one swoop.

I added a "Manuals" section since it seemed worth mentioning (also wanted to provide a wikilink to Monster Manual). Since I stopped playing before the Third Edition, the list is based on the Second Edition (which is noted). If someone wants to add any manuals that I missed or add a Third Edition list, please do so.

I also added a "Dice" section since it wasn't mentioned in the article (I hope it isn't mentioned in role-playing game or elsewhere already—I didn't look). It'd be great if someone could add a pic of one of each die to the section (I would, but I gave all my dice away long ago). Please check the new section for accuracy; it's been a long time since I've played.

I also don't see a section on lead figures (I guess they're pewter now?), which, for me, was a significant part of the whole D&D culture. Gosh, since they were lead, I guess that accounts for all of my brain damage! If someone else doesn't add it, I probably will—someday... —Frecklefoot 17:41, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Added Miniatures Section

Okay, I warned you! I added a miniatures section. I assume one of you will end up moving it like you did the Dice section (grr!), but I kinda like it here. Oh well, whatever is best for the 'pedia. :-) —Frecklefoot 22:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Articles on manuals

I just added the article for the Player's Handbook. I just wanted to mention it here since I though it'd get more notice this way. Please edit, hack and slash it mercilessly. Thanks. :-) —Frecklefoot 16:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just added the Dungeon Master's Guide article too. Please edit it mercilessly as well. Also, thanks to those who added to the Player's Handbook article. —Frecklefoot 22:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, now I just added the entry on Deities & Demigods. Take a gander if you wish. —Frecklefoot 18:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gygax & Arneson History

Does anyone have a source for the story about Gygax and Arneson playing Arthurian knights? I tried googling for it (web and groups), and didn't find anything.

Alex Clark, 30 Mar 2004

Miniatures - Minor Deletion...

I deleted "Though D&D can be played without such miniatures, it is almost universally played with them" from the miniatures section.

I've known a great many RPG-obsessed DnD fanatics (myself included, shhh!), and although I know that at least *some* people must be buying and presumably using these miniatures, I've never actually known anyone who did (especially since the gameplay is so much different using them, many who've tried them have said it just didn't "feel" like Dungeons & Dragons). Those rare few people I've spoken with who try using the miniatures, used them once or twice, and then just put them on the shelf and went back to playing plain ol' D&D the regular way.

Now, I could be totally off-base on this, so go ahead and put the sentence back in if you want to, but I think saying that it's "almost universally played with them" is a little presumptuous and compromises the integrity of the article. And by that I mean that many readers who, like myself, haven't met very many people who use the miniatures, will probably conclude that this statement is not an objective one, but one made from the personal experience of an author whose said personal experiences are directly opposed to those of the reader.

Howabout something like, "Though D&D is often played without the use of such miniatures, there are a great many people who play with them." I think that's ambiguous enough that you're not going to end up possibly alienating half or more of the world's D&D enthusiasts.

--Corvun 23:28, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion - the phrase was too far-reaching for the reasons you stated. I would like to see the article cover this idea... that the game was originally based on miniature combat, that miniatures have been informally used for many years, but that now a series of miniatures [1] are available which can be used interchangeably between miniature combat and the role-playing game. The section should describe this as the game coming "full circle". -- Netoholic 01:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I am probably the one who wrote that sentence. When I played D&D in the '80s (AD&D actually), my friends and I always used miniatures. In fact, if we didn't have enough miniatures for a given situation, we'd use dice or other items as stand-ins. We couldn't fathom playing the game without them. Perhaps it was because we were teenagers and the miniatures fascinated us, we spent a great deal of our allowance on these little guys. We also used a large sheet of graph paper covered with acetate and a grease pencil to illustrate the dungeon as we played. The miniatures were a great boon in visualizing battles and encounters.

I had no idea some people (sounds like most people nowadays from the above comments) played without them. How is that done? You just sit around while the DM describes what's happening? I like Corvun's revised sentence. If no one else adds it, I will eventually. I might even add that miniatures were more popular back in the 1980's (when I was a big player). Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:01, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Basically, the way I always played, and the way everyone I know plays (and this may very well be a regional thing), was sort of like telling a story round-robin style, but with dice and hitpoints and all that. We just repended more heavily on our imaginations (occasionally aided by maps) to picture what was going on. The DM "directed", or at least tried to direct, the flow of the story.

I was always under the impression that this is how most people played, since the 3rd Edition has separate rules for playing with miniatures that were released after the normal 3rd Edition. I was reckoning that if the majority of people played with miniatures, it would've been the other way around (separate rules for playing without miniatures would've been released after the original 3rd Edition).

What I'm curious about, is how you deal with not being limited by miniatures. I mean, if you have a set of miniatures that includes a Half-Orc Berserker, a Human Bard, and Elven Archer, and a Halfling Thief, what do you do if you want to play a Gnome Paladin, for example? Or can you just pretend that your miniature is just a minature of something else? Monsters are another issue -- they don't even have a miniature for everything in the Monster Manual, so many of them you would end up having to imagine anyway. I'm actually really interested in this now. I might even have to save up some money and buy a few sets of miniatures and try it for myself. --Corvun 09:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most people nowadays play without minatures. Ausir 10:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most of us had a set of the common types of classes: fighter, magic-user, thief, etc. Actually, most of us had several of each of these, in different poses, costumes, etc. If we had a character that was one of these classes, we'd use whichever one suited our fancy. We couldn't care less if our character was elven or a dwarf or human--we just used whichever figure we wanted; our character sheets said what the character actually was. The figures were used just for placement and conveying what class the character was.

Monsters figures we used very loosely--sometimes we didn't even use minatures: a 20-sided die strongly resembles a beholder. :-) Usually we'd use just whatever monster miniatures we had handy--it didn't really matter what they looked like. The DM would set down a troll miniature, for example, and say, "You see a bugbear." From that point forward we'd know the troll was actually a bugbear--no big deal.

Back in the '80's when I played, there weren't seperate rules for playing with or without figures: they were just part of the culture. The rules rarely mentioned figures, if ever. We just used them as it pleased us. I think it was expected that you would use miniatures, as everyone I knew who played D&D used them. I think this was reinforced by the fact that TSR (who published D&D back then) had their own line of lead figures. I don't think WotC sells miniatures, so this may be why they've fallen out of use.

By the way, the TSR figures were almost universally despised. The TSR miniature manufacturer--I think it was Grenadier (sp?)--produced some pretty lousy-looking figures. Ral-Partha and Citadel figures were widely regarded as superior. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:05, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I play and DM, and we generally use the miniatures only in combat. In fact, most of the time we go through the entire encounter without using them, but once an initiative roll is cast we place people's minis where they wanted to be at the time. No sense wasting time arranging such things until they're used.

Also, minis don't have to be what they represent. Think how difficult it would be to tell figurines apart if the adventurers fought a group of bandits ... much more confusing for the players than if it was humanoid PCs vs a dragon.

I think the minis are neccessary if you think they are. I could no more play without them than Corvun and the like would be able to play with them. It's a matter of taste. Then again, take this example: PC#1 is facing a monster's left side. He is 30' away from it. PC#2 is facing the monster's front, and is 25' away from it. What happens when PC#2 wants to get close enough to PC#1 to heal him (close enough to touch), without coming into the monster's Super Special Attack range? Unless you use minis on a grid, or the Pythagorean theorem fairy comes calling, you're left to guess.

Daniel Smith 6 August 2004

We mainly just used them for combat too: we didn't play moving our pieces like in a game of Candyland. But if our party split up while we were exploring a dungeon, we might move our pieces to indicate where were going. This helped keep clear who was where and doing what. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:41, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

All RPGs can be traced back to Gygax and Arneson?

Nice article, quibble follows.

The article states:

All other RPGs of today--including both pencil and paper and computer role-playing games--can be traced back to the original creation of Gygax and Arneson.

While there is some sense in which this is true, taken most plainly, I think this is not right. Some issues:

• What people do in historical reeneactment, SCAers and improvisational theatre do is role-playing, some of it quite formalised, and all of these have had an influence on pen and paper role-playing;
• RuneQuest can be seen as work in progress in 1974:
  • The game world mythology and history (ie. Glorantha) dates back to 1966, and the idea of Glorantha as a setting for gaming was already being developed in 1974, though first, as a board game. The creator, Greg Stafford, was also involved in the SCA scene, and was familiar with non-pen and paper role-playing;
  • RuneQuest itself was a response to, and was shaped by the 1974 release:

  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.

From an interview with Greg Stafford

• • So while there is a connection, and indeed a causal one, it is not right to say RQ can be traced back to D&D: the essential ideas were already germinating in Stafford's mind.

I propose a modification, to saying something like; the 1974 release began the world of pen and paper role-playing, and all of the subsequent pen and paper role-playing games owe this system a great debt. (Pen and paper role-playing games is awkard, but role-playing games is not specific enough). Comments?

While I'm at it, comments sought on Glorantha ---- Charles Stewart

If your quote is accurate, than I think your rewording would be a good rework. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:15, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm confident the interview accurately captured what he said; of course I can't really vouch for the accuracy of Greg Stafford's memory, but I don't see that it sounds so unlikely. I'll apply the rewording ---- Charles Stewart 17:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've applied the change. The quote I cited above is interesting because it is a claim to have been the first buyer for the system. Maybe it would be interesting in a trivia section? ---- Charles Stewart 17:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hobbits or Halflings?

I'm pretty sure that the player's possible races for the original D&D were Hobbits, Dwarves, and Elves. An anon recently changed it to

Players could choose to have their characters be Halflings, Dwarves, and Elves.

I think he/she was thinking of a later version of D&D, as I remember TSR changing the name from Hobbits since it was copywrighted. I'm reverting it back now; post here if you have any objections. --pie4all88 20:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, halfling is another name for hobbits even in Tolkien's books, so it would be IMHO a better word to use for all versions of D&D. Ausir 21:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Halflings were originally "hobbits", treants were originally "ents" and balors were originally "balrogs". They were changed in the second (or was it third?) edition of the original game when Tolkein's estate or someone connected with the estate got in touch with TSR. -Sean Curtin 22:55, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

second; you had it right. -Rey

You can find some more info at the Hobbit article --Alphax 16:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

3.5 no longer "open source"

"Officially, the new version of the game is simply a "revision" and not a new edition of the game, but with the release of 3.5, Wizards of the Coast abandoned the open source format."

What's up with this? They updated the SRD to 3.5 and the OGL still exists.

Made me wonder too. I remember from skimming the books that a disclaimer said the "product does not contain open gaming content". It merely means they didn't use other people's work and can claim an exclusive copyright, but it might have been mistaken in the sense of the quoted sentence. Either that, or this sentence completely failed to convey its meaning, so I removed it. Femto 15:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Computer Games / Software

someone needs to backfill in a complete list of the D&D/AD&D licensed computer games. a good list can be found at | mobygames but as i am not completely familiar with all of them i would appreciate some help. It could probably also stand to have more data added on the other related software like Campaign Cartographer and other similar utilities. Alkivar 23:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More info on the video games can be found here. --pie4all88 04:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Using these sites I have compiled a relatively complete list of games. My next step is to list what systems they were available for, and to fill in the gap on the right hand side of the lists with a few screen shots of games. Alkivar 04:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Controversies

Should most of this section be moved to Role-playing game? PhilHibbs 11:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. However, a lot of criticism was levied against D&D specifically because it was the most popular RPG of the late 70s/early 80s (actually, a lot of critics didn't even know the term "role-playing game" and just used the term D&D, as if it were the only RPG around). Stuff that deals with RPG's in general could be moved to that article. Just my $.02... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

As some one who is going to be writing his MA's Thesis on RPGs and D&D, alot of the back ground articles mention D&D specifically as the game that killed/maimed/whatever to their kids, and MADD means Mothers Against Dungeons & Dragons, anf focused its attention on D&D fot the most part.--Azathar 05:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Character Sheet

could someone please add a small thumb of a Character sheet next to the re-written How-To play section. Thanks! Alkivar 19:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would, except for the fact that a Character sheet is two-sided. And I only have access to pictures of 3.5e. Should I just go ahead and put on a pic of the front side of a 3.5e char sheet? --mathx314

It doesnt need both sides, its just to give an idea of what it is. And it has to be a photo not a scan of it (unless its one of the D20 licensed sheets) otherwise we're violating copyright. If i could find my binder with all my old character sheets i'd have put a few up to show the differences from 1980s basic D&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, 2nd Revised (never did play 3E). ALKIVAR™ 00:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure whether or not this would be an issue of copyright: screen shot of a PDF file of a character sheet, so long as I crop it so that all that shows is the sheet itself. Legal or not? --mathx314

I've decided that under Fair Use this should be legal. I'll do that ASAP. If you find that is indeed not legal, please rv ASAP. --mathx314 23:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've acquired a PDF of a 2e character sheet. Would people rather have that or the 3.5e image currently up? →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 21:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd stick to 3.5e since its D20'd and somewhat open licensed, rather than a copyrighted 2e sheet. ALKIVAR™ 03:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

opinion, written in poor prose

"The pen-and-ink illustrations within these volumes, especially the Monster Manual, is uneven—some artwork is amateurish (as was all D&D art in the early days), while some show skillful use of lines and media. Despite their uneven quality, some fans regard these illustrations as the best in the series."

I removed this. It's poorly written, and a matter of personal opinion not appropriate for this article. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

I didn't write this section of the article, but I'll defend it. The prose was simple, clear, and to the point. Now in my book, that's not poor -- not for an encyclopedic entry -- that's downright excellent. I'd go so far as to say that such writing is a standard that should be aspired to here on Wikipedia.

Secondly, this analysis is not merely "opinion"; it gives real information concerning the history of the artwork within the franchise and the fans' response to it and the changes it has undergone. The fact that many fans prefer the older, "amateurish" artwork as opposed to more modern artistic treatments shows the deep-rooted sense of nostalgia that many D&D fans hold.

I think it should be re-included. --Corvun 21:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. If the phrasing is poor, improve it, don't delete. I could probably turn up a professional artist to attribute the comment to, if that's the problem; I think the assessment is blindingly obvious to anybody who's had at least one art class, and I bet you will not find anyone in the world who will say that the artwork is of uniformly high quality. Look at 1911EB articles, still highly regarded despite being nearly a century old; they're full of opinions and assessments, and they quote lots of authority to back them up. Stan 05:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I did write that little blurb, but only after research. I can't really vote on this issue, I guess, since I'm biased. I'll abide by whatever the majority rules here. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:31, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

It's been quite a while and no one else has said anything. So far it's two against one, with Frecklefoot abiding by whatever the majority rules, which makes it three against one. So, Frecklefoot, did you want to do the honors of putting your 'blurb' back in? If there are any more serious objections to it, the phrasing can always be slightly altered to make it more NPOV. --Corvun 21:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure, done. Thanks for the support. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:33, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm coming to the discussion late. I am not in favor of using "amateurish". It is a loaded word. It might be re-written to state something along the lines of how they didn't have a whole lot of money to hire professional artists and did the best they could, but that sounds amateurish itself. Consider this a vote against calling artwork "amateurish". Markkawika 03:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything particularly loaded about the word "amateurish". I suppose to some it might mean "inferior", but all it means is "unprofessional", which depending on who you talk to, could be considered a very high compliment! Especially when one considers some of the crap being churned out by professional "artists" these days, some which admittedly shows great technical skill, but is more often then not completely devoid of any of the more esoteric and intangeable qualities that distinguishes true art. As any real artist will tell you, someone can have all the "technical skill" in the world and still not be an artist, while someone else might only know how to draw stick-figures and be more an artist than half of the so-called "professionals"! --Corvun 05:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

I was just reading Gary Gygax interview at Gamespy here and he says that Dungeons & Dragons wasn't influenced with much of Lord of the Rings. Prehaps this should be changed to the books mentioned in the interview or just fanstasy books.

Done. I also added another author he mentioned. BTW, this image from the interview is awesome. Too bad we can't use it here in the 'pedia. :-( — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:55, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

D&D-specific copyrights?

I notice almost every RPG (paper or computer-game, including the popular Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, etc franchises) ever made takes many, many ideas that I understand D&D invented, especially monsters and races. Have the D&D trademark owners ever had any problems because of this? How do some non-D&D RPGs get away with, for example, using Beholders in them? Were Beholders a concept before D&D existed? What about Drows? Do RPGs get away with using Drows because D&D took the idea of Drows from traditional mythology? And EverQuest... people tell me EverQuest pretty much depends on D&D-originated trademarks for a vast lot of its content (well, D&D and Tolkien, lol), although as far as I know it has no legal affiliation with D&D. Just something I've always been curious about. --I run like a Welshman 23:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's actually a touchy subject. In the case of Drow, they are from traditional folklore, although most other RPGs tend to use the term Dark Elf since as I understand it, the makers of D&D have a copyright on them. Likewise, Hobbits were changed to Halflings in D&D because the Tolkien estate had a copyright on Hobbits -- oddly enough, "halfling" was the only term for them that Tolkien invented, whereas something called a "hobbit" existed in English folklore and was known around the time Tolkien began writing The Hobbit, even though it slipped int obscurity by the time the book was published.

Wikipedia's information on this latter subject is HIGHLY biased in favor of hobbits only "alledgedly" existing in folklore in the "opinion" of "some few people", because of the large number of Tolkien fans contributing to the site. Note that here on Wikipedia, Tolkien has also been credited at various times with the invention of Ents, the Pagan holiday Litha, and is regarded as the man who single-handedly introduced the Americas to the concept of Trolls. The general POV here on Wikipedia seems to be that Tolkien is "The Creator" of absolutely everything that ever appeared in his books, even though all he really did was just re-hash the same old stuff he taught about in class.

Lots of creatures that existed long before either D&D or "Middle Earth" have been trademarked and copyrighted, probably because those who work at such government instutitions are not required to be experts in the fields of folklore and mythology.

I've never seen Beholders in any RPG other than D&D, but I assume they are an original creation. As far as I know, there are no Beholders in folklore or mythology, but it is possible that D&D got them from a source in fiction that had by then slipped into the public domain.

Really, this is a convoluted situation. A trademark or copyright is only of any use if the holder of the trademark or copyright wishes to complain. In the case of copyrights, anything and everything used by an author/artist/other is considered protected by copyright unless it can be proven that some particular aspect of a work isn't protectable because it came from the public domain (Elves, Dwarves, etc.). Even then, a copyright might still endure simply because it goes unchallanged (Hobbits, Drow, etc.). --Corvun 00:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Society for Creative Anachronism?

Pardon, but I believe that the SCA link does not belong on this page. The SCA is committed to historical re-creation (however leniantly you might want to use that term) and has nothing to do with dice and character sheets and elves and whatnot, even though some members have been known to be avid RPG-ers outside of the SCA (myself included). Putting a link to the SCA article propogates an identity-crisis that the SCA has been plagued with since its split from amtguard, namely that the SCA encourages fantasy roleplaying.

Small unofficial RPG and fantasy parties have been known to attend large SCA events hoping to "Live Action Role Play" (LARP) and this has had rather disasterous results at times (I was involved at an event when "ninjas" ambushed the camp of the local principality-- it scared us all terribly, scared the "ninjas" terribly when big men with live steel came running at them with serious intention to do them harm since we all had NO idea that said "ninjas" were all simply LARPers who were terribly mistaken in their choice of venues, and resulted in the police being called).

People who choose to attend an SCA event and play at fantasy-type games are not actively dissuaded, so long as they stay away from official functions at the event and don't disrupt anyone; however they are not really all that welcome as they do alot to kill any historical atmosphere.

I hope that you'll help the SCA avoid further episodes like the one described above by not putting the SCA link back in this article.

Historically the SCA was the first LARP group. That is not debated, however the SCA has gone from its original origins as a "realistic live action fantasy roleplaying group" (aka no magic users) to its current form which is much more about battle reenactions. I think the SCA still deserves a mention. ALKIVAR™ 00:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We don't re-enact battles, but that's beside the point, which is that the SCA got away from anything resembling role playing a long time ago and no longer functions as an outlet for fantasy gaming. It shouldn't be listed here-- it's misleading. When there was a big dispute as to whether fantasy was going to be allowed or not. All of the people who wanted to pursue a mediaeval/fantasy fusion made their own group, Amtguard and broke completely with the SCA (Of course, the way they tell it is that WE broke off from THEM... Amtguard and the SCA both claim to be the bigger of the sister organizations and there's still some bad blood there). I propose that we replace the Society for Creative Anacronism link with a link for Amtguard (article yet to be written). Here's their web address (http://www.amtgard.com/), and if you review their website I'm sure that you will see that Amtguard more appropriately carries on the LARPing goodness inspired by D&D and would be a better supplement to this article. --- Idonea, Feb 11th 2005

How to Play?

I think the How to play section is misnamed. Also, all the sections underneath it are improperly categorized.

The section does not go in-depth on describing how to play a game, it merely gives on overview of how to play. Wikipedia is not a "how to" collection, so this section should not go in-depth. But it should be renamed to something like "Play overview" or "Play description."

Next, the section has subsections such as Edition history. What does that have to do with how to play?

I suggest that we:

1. Rename "How to Play" to something more correct, such as "Play description" or "Play overview."
2. Move "Edition history" to a sub-section of Overview and history.
3. The other subsections can remain, since they apply to playing the game.

Please post any comments/suggestions here. I'd normally go ahead and make the changes, but since this is a heavily watched/modified article, I wanted to discuss the changes first. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:13, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Right on dude! Go for it! --Corvun 02:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sorry it took so long to get to, but I don't get paid for updating Wikipedia. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Random Objects as Miniatures

Frequently when roleplaying, during combat situations, we would take pieces of candy or coins or dice or beads or whatever was handy and use them as our miniatures, but I'm not sure if I should include that because it might be just a local thing. 67.124.122.26, Mar 6, 2005

We did too, but usually just for monsters and such, since we had plenty of miniatures of adventurers. I don't know if it bears mentioning or not--it was kind of obvious for us. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I play 3.5e, and there aren't too many easy-to-find adventurer miniatures. What we usually do is use spare dice to represent ourselves and monsters. I don't think that that is necessarily encyclopedia-worthy though. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 23:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Wikicity

Two things regarding a new Wikicity which aims to make a collaborative D&D 3.5e Campaign Setting:

1. I founded it, and just wanted you people who might actually use it to pop on over. The Main Page is here.
2. Would it be okay to put a link to it at the bottom of the page under the External Links section?
   

→mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 02:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Little error

In the article it lists White Wolf as using the D20 system, however this is wrong. While White Wolf games are pencil and paper RPGs, they use only 10 sided dice(D10s) and follow a completely different system of rules from the D20 system.

Actually its not wrong, they also create D20 modules for use with Dungeons & Dragons. Their OWN games however are D10 based. ALKIVAR™ 16:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

list of manuals

Someone added a list of 3.5 edition manuals. This is entirely outside the scope of the main article. I have over 100 manuals and modules in my purely second edition collection. Out of fairness, a comprehensive must not be included here. --metta, The Sunborn 15:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree the list is rather long. Perhaps we should create a new article, List of Dungeons & Dragons manuals, or just Dungeons & Dragons manuals? We could move most of the manuals there and leave just the most important manuals listed in the article. Just my $.02... :^) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I saw someone leave a list of manuals on the page (which was full of typos and had no description) so I tried to fix it up. The list as it stands is not 'comprehensive': it is a list of the universal 3.5 sourcebooks,, those relating to no specific campaign worlds (I made an exception for the Races of Eberron because WotC specifically included it in the "Races of" series). I don't see a problem with it being in the article, any more than I'd see a listing of the 3.5 Forgotten Realms books being put on the Forgotten Realms page as out of place. Also, please keep in mind Wikipedia's guidelines; the space taken up by information is never a good reason to remove it. ElKabong

Yes, but also guidelines state that if an article is too long, it should be broken up. This article is approaching that point. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:53, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Too long?

I think this article is generally too long. For example, I wonder if the section on polyherdral dice should be broken off onto its own page. Poly-dice certainly are central to D&D, but not exclusive to it. I'd like to see it taken to its own page. I'll do this soon (with re-writes) if there are no strong objections. Any other ideas on condensing this page? JRice 14:29, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Polyhedral dice already has its own article (or, at least it did, until someone merged it with dice). I think it was broken off long ago, but then users started adding to the section again until it's grown to its current size again. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The dice section really ought to be cut down to a paragraph or two and merged into the main section on gameplay. Listing what each die can be used for is close to overkill. -Sean Curtin 00:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to make a comprimize. I think there's something to be gained by listing some common uses for each die, but not the mechanics and physical descriptions of the dice--that belongs on the dice page. I also kept the picture, because, well, that's part of the allure of the game. ; ) ...I hope this all resolves well. I've actually stopped watching this page (my interest in the game is waning again), so I leave it to users' contributions from here! JRice 17:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Page could be further condensed by moving most of the "Edition History" section to Differences between editions of Dungeons & Dragons -- this main D&D page repeats much of the info that is at "Differences .." and it seems like the differences between the editions is too specific for this main page. RKallberg 21:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning AD&D right in the lead

I've noticed that "Advanced Dungeon & Dragons" redirects here, and many articles link to it. Others link here, but the link text reads as "Advanced Dungeon & Dragons" beacause of the contex. So potential reader may be a bit confused why he/she game to mere "Dungeons & Dragons". I tought the distinction between the two versions had to be adressed in the lead.--The Merciful 17:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Editorial quality of D&D and EGGAD&DTM

I've added a comment on the quality of the original rules. They handed over a mess of notes to the printer and believed him when he said he'd sort it all out before printing them. But this too inspired people, including the first competitors - you'd already had to invent a pile of stuff to play the game, so it wasn't such a great step to replace the combat system, the magic system etc too.

I've also added the official title of AD&D - no wonder Arneson was annoyed. He wasn't just 'not acknowledged' but completely done over. -- Lovingboth 26 July 2005

Swords and Spells

The minatures section refers to Swords and Spells. Does anyone have any details on what this product is? Does it even exist?