Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.
See also: Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

Protected

Protected page because of vandalism by 86.18.4.5- N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' T a l k 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Genres

For some reason the other genres that entered D&D around 2nd edition, via the various TSR campaign settings, such as sci-fi, horror, Arabian folklore, and so on, are not mentioned here. They should absolutely be added to the "influences on the game" section.

I wouldn't say so if they were added at 2nd Edition. They aren't "influences" per se in my opinion; rather, they're addendums. However, I do think the "Arabian Folklore" bit could be added as an influence. Genres aren't necessarily influences. -Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 04:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say they were added around 2nd edition (c. 1989) either. S3 Barrier Peaks (sci-fi) was published in 1980, I3-5 (Arabian) in 1982, I6 Ravenloft in 1983. Sure they weren't full-blown campaign settings, but they were very influential in their time. Jonadair
The never was a true 2nd edition of D&D. That is a problem with the article. All those type things are AD&D. The sci-fi type Spelljammer could be included if a proper AD&D article was introduced, but things like the Alternity setting was more of a stand-alone game and not intended to be incorporated into use with AD&D. Please don't confuse the 3 systems, that is where i see the problem as noted below. There is D&D and its variants, AD&D and its variants, and the new d20 system D&D. Each should be considered as they were intended as seperate games from each other and not meant to be totally compatible with each other. The only part compatibility really played in them was the ability to force people to buy the new material so the company could make more money. For D&D there were some relative weird genres like the Alice in Wonderland type adventure (I forget the name but it is for free download at WotC site), but they weren't really any different than any other adventure. The settings for D&D were mostly Oerth and Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Hollow World. Campaign settings were mainly introduced in AD&D and carried over into the d20 system that is now called D&D 3rd. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree. While there are various versions and editions of D&D (as you point out), it is *all* effectively considered "Dungeons & Dragons" by both the majority of people who play the game (in its various incarnations) and people looking in from the outside (who are even in a worse position to tell the difference). While ALternity or Gamma World are NOT D&D, AD&D, the Basic set, 3E, and even crazy home-brewed rules, etc. . . are all considered "Dungeon & Dragons" and should have something that discusses them as a collective phenomenon. -User:el-remmen

Forks

I think there is still some potential to shorten this article by forking off sections which relate to Role-playing generally rather than D&D. In particular, I think we could give Powergaming and Religious Objections to Fantasy Roleplaying their own articles. BreathingMeat 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Powergaming definitely. Fairsing 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. Article is too large for anyone but a very interested reader. Summarise all and move info to new articles. I think the whole Controversy and notoriety section could be reduced to a paragraph with links to more detailed articles. especially as many are general critisims of RPGs and/or Fantasy rather than D&D specifically. -Waza 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OGC/Copyright violation?

As far a I know, the description of the exact detail of how to generate stats are outside the Open Gaming License. As such they should NOT be included in this article as it is a copyright violation. Cmschroeder 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My understandingn is that text can be copyrighted, but not facts. For example, take the game Monopoly (game). You can write in the Monopoly article that when you land on or pass the "Go" square you collect $200 from the bank. But that comment must be in your own words; you cannot copy the text directly out of the Monopoly rules (which would be a copyright violation). The same thing holds for D&D -- you can describe the actual game mechanics so long as the wording is your own and not taken verbatim from copyrighted materials. The exception would be a short excerpt taken directly from a copyrighted work as a quotation, with an appropriate citation for that quotation. Fairsing 14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Fairsing is correct, albeit you must cite the paraphrase as well.--67.67.216.182 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. Then 3rd party publishers could simply rephrase the character creation rules, and thus make it unnecessary for their customers to buy the PHB.213.112.249.111 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly with things revolving around the original game from WotC, gamer material is copyright but game mechanics cannot be. Therefore, saying you need to roll certain dice to generate a character's ability scores is describing the game mechanics. While telling what table results apply from those die rolls would be the game material itself. I might be wrong, but that was my understanding around the situation of Magic: the Gathering refereing to "tapping" the card was the copyright and the actual action of turning the card sideways was not able to be copyrighted. And in that game companies DID rephrase the term "tapping" to turning the card which WotC could not fight about since it didn't use their coined phrase "tapping" the card. What company would dare face the humilitation of trying to copyright the act of rolling dice? 71.71.79.235 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I doubt that they can claim a copyright on the system used, as it is a general D20 system, and if you look...a lot of games use it. The only things they can really copyright are the classes, races, skills, and abilities. The system in general is everywhere. If they could copyright the idea of a D20 system, they would have a monopoly over EVERY D20 gaming system, and by making your own D20 system (which a lot of people do, by the way...) you would be guilty of copyright infringement. That would be akin to copyrighting a name...If they could do that, then there would be no other D20 systems, as they would be in a lawsuit upon release. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.157.63.156 (talk) 16:14, October 1, 2006.
theres a difference between copyright and patent. you patent the idea, and you copyright text. patent says you cant make money off the same idea. i know that for a tv series you only need to make 7 differences though, and you can call the idea your own. copyright just says you cant publically use the exact text they use. i use the word patent but i think thats actually not the right word. if im correct you only need to prove you came up with that idea at a prior date then anyone else can prove. one way is to mail the idea to yourself in a closed envelope. I have spoken 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually the races, classes, skills, etc cannot be copyrighted. They neither owned nor created the terms Elf, Navigation, etc. These are all terms that reside pretty much in the public domain. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, its true that most of the material is actually in the public domain, or doesnt strictly belong to WotC (Either derived from mythology, LotR, or Lovecraft). Most people use point buy these days, and many companies have created calculators for it, and yet not one has recieved a C&D from Wizards, so its probably a safe bet that WotC doesnt mind. Even then, its basic math, which is very hard to copyright (Though not impossible). Piuro 21:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
To clarify this entire discussion: The material in question has not been placed under the OGL by WotC, so it's not OGC. If you're using the D20 Trademark License, that license explicitly forbids you to include any information on how to create a character (as explicitly defined in the D20 Trademark License). However, if you're publishing a product using only the OGL, you can legally create your own version of the character creation information legally under copyright law -- this has, in fact, been done several dozen times. All of this, however, is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia: Wikipedia's material is not being drawn from the SRD. It is not being placed under the OGL. It is not being published under the D20 Trademark License. The material on Wikipedia is being used under fair use doctrine. None of the terms that OGL/D20 publishers agree to under their licensing agreements with WotC apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a signatory to those licensing agreements. Justin Bacon 18:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

repitition

...of the use of the term "Campaign" with a qualifyer such as "often referred to as a..." or "sometimes called a..." has gone too far, this needs clean-up.ReverendG 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Related Products

I would support the re-deletion of most of the info under Related Products as it is repeated in the Dungeons & Dragons related products article. BreathingMeat 03:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just re-deleted it. In fact, that's the reason I created the Dungeons & Dragons related products article, using the same information that was in this one, because this article is too long and needs to be shortened. Since related products are technically not D&D itself, it should be on a separate article anyway.154.20.208.181 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm fine with moving the related-products stuff to the new article; helps keep the main article streamlined. Only some of the headings and content from the original article made it over to the new one, however, so I just added the Novels, Comics, and Boardgames material to the new article, and also added it to the D&D category. In addition, there was quite a bit of other content that also disappeared from the main article. Specifically conetent under these headings: References in popular culture; Controversy and notoriety; See also; References; External links; plus the categorizations for the article and the non-english lanugage tags at the bottom. I guess part of what I'm saying here is let's be careful about what we're doing. The goal is good (keeping the main article readable), but because the job wasn't done thoroughly, Wikipedia readers temporarily lost access to content in the related-products article, significant content in the main article, plus all the Category tagging, etc. As Sgt. Phil Esterhouse used to say on the TV program popular at the time of D&D's early days (Hill Street Blues): "Hey folks, let's be careful out there!" Thanks. Fairsing 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I just looked through the history, and all that extra stuff that was removed had already been removed before I made that edit. The D&D article just ended after the computer games section of "Related Products", which is why that's the only part that was put into the new article. In any case, thank Fairsing, I'm glad you noticed what was missing and fixed it.154.20.208.181 08:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I see what you mean from the history. Looks like a vandal got to the article before you did. Well, glad its all fixed. Cheers! Fairsing 05:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

History: Influences and Influence

It looks a bit goofy for there to be subsections within the same section named "Influences" and "Influence". Reading over the "Influence" section, I'm not really sure what theme holds all of that info together. I suggest that someone who understands the intention of the "Influence" section rename it and rewrite it, making sure that all info within is relevant. Perhaps some of it needs to be moved out to other sections. BreathingMeat 05:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed one of the headings, and there have been some other changes, so it should be ok now. --Ssilvers 04:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

General Editorial Queries

1. The first paragraph of the entry says "Originally derived from tabletop wargames...." Is this right? I would aver that D&D is originally derived from Tolkien and other mythologies and adapted to a role-playing game. D&D normally bears little resemblance to a wargame, IMO, which focus on moving your pieces into position strategically. Compare to the first sentence in the "Introduction".

    • Yep, go read Gary Gygax. He built it off of minitures. Both miniture wargames and D&D have changed over the years.

2. Are we sure that Gygax's version of D&D was the first D&D? I thought that people were playing very similar games long before Gygax wrote it out all nice and pretty? I am skeptical of the statement in the first paragraph that: "D&D's publication is generally regarded as the beginning of modern role-playing games". Maybe it should say that its publication was the beginning of the widespread popularity of RPGs?

    • I wouldn't call what Gary wrote as "nice and pretty," but yeah, he wass the first to do it with individual character. The similar things were table-top war games, which "chainmail" was built out of. D&D was developed out of that. But regardless, D&D is by definition the first D&D. Don't make it complicated.
Actually I think this is where the conflict came in about the origins of D&D. Chainmail was created as a fantasy an non-historical miniature wargame because Gygax got tired of playing out historic battles the same way everytime, or something like that. Then Arneson took the idea and went working with changing fram an armchair general game to people playing an individual character for Blackmoor. This I think is where either I am confused or the conflict between the two came when Gygax began selling the one-player-one-character game that became the basis for table-top RPGs. But it did all start with tabletop miniature wargamming. I would have to search through my Dugeon Magazine Archive to find specifics if that is where I saw them originally. 71.71.79.235 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

3. I felt that the "Introduction" did not give much flavor about the game, so I added a paragraph giving a basic sort of overview of what the game looks like that will, I hope, prepare complete newbies for the more specific sections that follow. I hope this is helpful. Well, no more time now, but as the Terminator said: "I'll be back...." --Ssilvers 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Two comments re: Ssilvers edit/questions:
  1. Intro Section: Your addition was very value added there IMHO -- nice edit! I relocated one sentence for reading flow.
  2. History: Gygax & Arneson certainly invented D&D, and the predecessor was definitely Chainmail / table-top wargames. I believe the information in the "Influences" sub-heading of "Game History" is correct with regards to Gygax's statements about the Tolkein influence. I have marked the relevant statement with the "citation needed" template; perhaps someone can pls. add the appropriate citation to help remove any doubts about this. I'm not aware of any previously published RPGs (at least as we think of RPGs today), but if you have some specific citations / examples in that regard perhaps they could be worked into the "History" section.
Cheers! Fairsing 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I started playing in 1976, and I had no idea that it was such a new invention. The people I played with acted like they had been playing rpg's for years. But I see no reason (and certainly have no citations) to show that Gygax and Arneson didn't make it up entirely. BTW, how about the statement about the impregnable market position of the game? I know so many gamers who play other rpgs (not me!). Is it clear the D&D is still the dominant rpg in the market?
Also, re: the Tolkien influence, the quoted statement says that he threw in the elves, dwarves, dragons, etc because of the popularity of LoTR, but these elements all pre-date LoTR--They are in Norse and other mythologies. But perhaps what GG meant is that he made HIS elves, dwarves, etc. look like Tolkien's in order to capitalize on the LoTR craze? --Ssilvers 23:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they pre-date LotR, but I think lots of people wanted them in the game (I recall reading somewhere that people were asking him how many hit dice a balrog had), so he put in elves, dwarves, hobbits, ents, and balrogs. The Tolkien estate threatened to sue, so they were pulled out of the game, or just renamed. Since elves and dwarves were not invented by Tolkien, they remained, but hobbits became halflings, ents became treants, and balrogs became balors. Even aside from that, though, I think there are other Tolkien influences on D&D. The idea of dragons sitting on hoards of treasure is probably based on Smaug from The Hobbit. Gygax was a bit upset with the Tolkien estate, so he's always downplayed Tolkien's influence ever since. Note, however, that I can't verify any of these statements, but I've heard them many times.154.20.208.181 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

4. I lived in Eleutheria co-op in East Lansing in 1971. One of my house-mates was Steve Sensig. He was a Dungeon Master for a game called Dungeons & Dragons, which was played in the basement of one of the Michigan State University dorms. They played rolls, used multi-sided dice, acumulated power etc. and generally did everything that players do in Dungeons & Dragons. Although this is a long time ago, I remember it distinctly. Eleutheria burned down in 1972, and I moved to Ann Arbor in 1974. *Then* I started to see copyrighted Dungeons & Dragons! I was shocked. How could this be?!? I still do not understand. Does anyone have any inkling? User:Nwbeeson

Show us the proof. -Jeske (How's My Editing?) 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof comes from deciding who you belive. Based on conflicting testimony, you must decide. I just gave evidence. I testified to it. Just as in court. I would be more than willing to testify to this under oath. The issue for you is: At what point do enough witnesses convince you? 1 (me)? 2 (I have that see below) 33?

Please note particularly my questions at the end of my original post. I could just have edited the article to insert the assertion that the game was played in East Lansing before it was published. But instead I posted a *question* here. I have no desire to prove anything to you. My memory is my memory. It is clear and distinct. *You* have to demonstrate to me that my memory is wrong. I do not need to demonstrate to you that I am right.

Expectable answers to my testimony would be: (1) no one else corroborates me; or (2) you have contacted other people from Eleutheria and [A] they have no memory of such a game; or (B) there was such a game and it [a] was way different from D&D or [b] was unknown to Gygax and Arneson. My bet is that you (the expert) would find a dozen people from East Lansing of that era (1971) who remember playing that game and can describe it to you. It is likely some of them have documentary evidence.

I spoke to a friend of mine yesterday, 12 hours after the above post. He is a couple of years older than me and also lived in East Lansing ca. 1970. I met him 20 years after we both left East Lansing. I told him about my first post, and without prompting he responded that he too remembers Dungeons and Dragons as a roll playing game *before* it was published by Gygax & Arneson.

He and I agree that the Dungeons and Dragons we remember might *not* have been known to Gygax & Arneson. They were in the east, and the game I remember was in the mid-west. In addition there is no suggestion that their publication was a fraud, illegal or even that they did not invent the game. I just want to know what happened to the D&D I remember, and why it is not acknowledged in the origins section. Nick Beeson (talk • contribs)

The problem is, interviewing a handful of locals counts as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you can find evidence of a game named Dungeons & Dragons which existed prior to Gygax & Arneson's Dungeons & Dragons, by all means add it, but your evidence needs to come from a verifiable and reliable source which has been published elsewhere.
Please also remember to sign your posts. I'm adding a welcome message to your User Talk page which should help you get the hang of things around here. Welcome! Wyatt Riot 12:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the main reasons I love Wikipedia is that most often I can find the true origins of things. My hope in reading the D&D article was to find the real origin of the game. But instead I find the canonical story, based on the autobiography of the person who first codified the rules and published the game. His story may well be completely true, if we make the assumption that the game I remember was unknown to him (them).

I posted here in the discussion section in the hope that someone could produce the evidence you speak of. I have no intention of searching for it or of using Wikipedia to do original research. As I say I was just hoping that one of the D&D experts old enough to remember the late sixties and early seventies would post something. Nick Beeson

Mazes and Monsters in "Further Reading"

Why is Mazes and Monsters listed in "Further Reading"? From what I understand of this book, it gives a false impression of what D&D is about. Isn't "Further Reading" supposed to list items that let you actually learn something about the topic? Maybe I'm just mistaken about the book and/or the purpose of "Further Reading". If so, can someone explain? Thanks. 154.20.208.181 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on Mazes and Monsters and James Dallas Egbert III to the controversy section. I hope it's short. I think Mazes and Monsters is at least as important to the history of the game as the copyright issues. It seems like every players' mom saw that damn movie when it aired. Ratbert42 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

D&D products spell the word "roleplaying"

FYI, Wizards of the Coast uses the spelling "roleplaying" on its D&D products. For example, see "What is D&D?" on the WotC official D&D website. Likewise, in the references section, the proper spelling for the book is The Fantasy Role-Playing Gamer's Bible. Spell corrected the document (except for category changes) Dugwiki 16:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the non-hyphenated spelling, too, but Wikipedia is not obligated to follow another publisher's style guide. (You're entirely right about matching the spelling in a book title, of course.) In fact, "role-playing" seems to be the implied default at Wikipedia. Maybe some discussion of spelling is in order first? This is could be a potentionally contentious issue, considering the number of articles that would need to be "corrected". Michael Bauser 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a discussion on the topic. In fact, the spelling isn't just Wizards of the Coast. For example, the City of Heroes Roleplaying Game uses the non-hyphenated spelling as well. It appears that most gaming companies are currently using the "roleplaying" spelling in their products instead of the hyphenated version. The Wikipedia articles on roleplaying games therefore should probably standardize the spelling to match the industry. Other quick recent examples are the Star Wars Roleplaying Game, Continuum: Roleplaying in the Yet, and World of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game.
So it's not just a single publisher - it's most of the current publishers. That's why Wikipedia articles on roleplaying games that use the hyphen probably ought to drop it. Dugwiki 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is there discussion of this topic on Wikipedia? Unless there's some consenus statement I can't find, changing the word (outside of a proper title) just because you don't like it is exactly the kind of thing WP:MOS advises against in "Disputes over style issues". [1] Michael Bauser 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, (the most relevant part of) what it says is "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." I think Dugwiki is arguing that there is "substantial reason" for the change, namely that the product the article is about consistently spells it without the hyphen. PurplePlatypus 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I disagree that the subject's style preferences constitute a "substantial reason". It's a bad precedent to set. Wikipedia does not exist to serve the point of view of subjects described by Wikipedia. If that's the only rationale you can provide, it's inadequate.
That's not even to mention how complicated it's going to make covering games that have more than one article. Some TSR products use the hypenated "role-playing", some don't. Do you really want to deal with this on a product-by-product basis?
This is not a trivial style change. There are hundreds of articles that link to role-playing game. This needs to be discussed in a wider venue. Michael Bauser 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
To me it's not a big deal either way (I have a slight preference for the unhyphenated version, and think that in the context of current D&D WotC's preferences deserve some weight if only to keep any confusion the article might cause to a minimum), but I have to point out that this seems to be a bit of a straw man. I don't think there needs to be a Wiki-wide standard (I see nothing in the MOS that suggests there does and much that suggests there doesn't), and all the arguments against changing it that I've seen here seem to presuppose that there needs to be. Changing it in one article does not require changing it in other articles.
But like I say, not a big deal. Certainly not something I'm going to edit war over either way. PurplePlatypus 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to post a link to one of the discussions on the topic. Probably the main place to start is at the Wiki RPG portal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games#Changing_Role-playing_to_roleplaying.3F. It's also being discussed as a category move at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12#Category:Role-playing_games_to_Category:Roleplaying_games.
And just to clear up some concerns and confusion above:
1) The number of articles that use the spelling "role-playing" isn't relevant to whether or not the spelling is correct. Just because a word is commonly mispelled doesn't mean it is correct. It just means that the process of correcting the mispellings will take longer than normal.
2) This isn't a case of a single game or a single game publisher using the spelling. The majority of major gaming publishers, who are presumably the objective references these articles are using in their citations, spell the word without the hyphen. Changing the spelling from the original citations and referred companies and articles obviously wouldn't be accurate.
3) Regardless of how individual authors might prefer to spell the word, obviously at a minimum the title of the product should match. So you wouldn't spell Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game with a hyphen, because that's not the proper name of the game's products.
So what I think it boils down to is that, if it is simply a choice between Wikipedia author's variant spelling and the spelling of most of the gaming companies, Wikipedia's default standard spelling should match the industry's to be as accurate as possible to its sources. It's not a point of view issue; it's a technical accuracy issue to match the cited material. Dugwiki 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You're using an absurd definition of "mispelled" -- "role-playing" isn't a mispelling, it's the original adjectival form. You did insufficient research on the subject.
I'm not the one advancing straw man arguments here -- you're the one who keeps basing his argument on the unwarranted assumption that "role-playing" must be an error because you don't use it. I've already agreed with you (twice) that's publisher's spelling need to be honored in quotes and citations. Please stop misrepresenting that. In fact, I've twice said I would support the change overall, if there was a reasonable consensus process. Instead, you keep trying to dismiss the idea of consensus by insisting people who ask for consensus decisions can't spell. Michael Bauser 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoa there, calm down! No need to start calling things "absurd" or whatever.  :) Just to quickly reply to the response above...
1) I'm basing my argument on how outside industry sources appear to spell the word, not how I personally spell the word. If it was just how I spell something, I wouldn't have bothered bringing it up.
2) You mentioned that I haven't done enough research. It's certainly possible I'm misreading things, but I did do some research and did post specific links to multiple sources that currently using the unhyphenated spelling. Of course, I'm not perfect, so if you have some external citations to make that indicate I'm incorrect about the current industry preference, feel free to post them. The best way to handle resolving the question is to demonstrate who is spelling the word which way by citing your references. So please, feel free to post games that currently use the "role-playing" spelling in their books and official text. I didn't see any off-hand, but I definitely could have overlooked them.
3) It's definitely possible that the preferred spelling has changed over time. I wouldn't be that surprised if, for example, the gaming industry used the spelling "role-playing" or "role playing" 20 or 30 years ago, for example, but nowadays prefers the spelling "roleplaying". If that is the case, I would suggest the Wikipedia preferred spelling should match the more current standards. (eg. They used to spell "shop" as "shoppe", but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should stick to the old standard.)
Another possibility is that the spelling varies by country: for example, maybe companies in England prefer "role-playing", while companies in America prefer "roleplaying". In that case, you would have two standards, both of pretty equal weight, and it wouldn't be worthwhile changing things like category names, etc. It would be like the difference between American "armor" and British "armour"; either one is ok in an international resource. I haven't researched the British spellings, though, so I don't know one way or another how they spell it (have to look at Games Workshop roleplaying games, for example).
I should also mention that I haven't disregarded consensus. In fact, I specifically pointed out where the main discussions are taking place to reach consensus on the category moves and such. Currently I'm trying to focus mainly on articles where the game being discussed is using the non-hyphenated spelling. I'm trying to steer clear of categories and topics outside tabletop gaming where the spelling could well differ (like theatrical role-playing, etc).
Anyway, hope that clears up some confusion. Dugwiki 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

External Linking?

Is it appropriate and/or allowed for me to add a link to a Dungeons and Dragons wiki I run? I'm trying to garner some attention and some contributions.--Vercalos 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You may certainly add a link here, on Talk. Whether the link is encyclopedic can be assessed later. -- Ec5618 07:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's here.--Vercalos 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Initial glance would raise the question of notability. There are hundreds of D&D resources on the web; not sure why this one would be of particular interest. Note that I do not mean to demean the project, which is certainly worthwhile, just don't see any particular reason why it should be linked from Wikipedia. Fairsing 23:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fairsing. It would be nice to see it grow into a notable project, but it isn't there yet by a long way. BreathingMeat 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sort of a catch 22, I guess.

Non-official(DnD player made) class upgrades - Fighter of Antimagic

This is some kind of custom class (remember that is not official , it's just to make the adventures more detailed).

Class Name: Fighter of Antimagic

Basicly , fighters that are experts at stopping magic.Here is an example:

Level: 4

STR 19 HP:31 AC:19=10+4+3+2+0 DEX 16 Init: 3 CON 15 INT 15 Fortitude:4 Reflex:4 Will:6 WIS 18 CHA 16 Weapon: Longsword +1

Figther's of Antimagic Abilities: 1st Resist Magic 1/day 2nd 3rd Bonus Feat,Resist Magic 2/day 4th Magic Resistance 10% 5th Bonus Feat,Resist Magic 3/day

Resist Magic: At 1st level and every 2 levels , the hero can get (with a will save of DC 10+ Spell level+caster level) half of a spells damage or to half the duration of a spell.

This is the End. In case you think this class is useless or not very intelligent... please answer.

Written by: Vix on the Road (DnD player of course)

This is original content and not suitable for an encyclopedia. However, it looks exactly like the sort of thing that they are looking for at the DnD Wiki mentioned above. BreathingMeat 22:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As BreathingMeat said, unencyclopedic. Formatted. -- Ec5618 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Powergaming section

I noticed that the powergaming section has been removed from the article for reasons of "not of interest to D&D" and "completely without references." However, powergaming has always been a point of discussion and arguement among gamers especially in D&D (although it's true that its presence is apparent in other games as well). A brief view of the official community board at Wizard of the Coast website, numerous large D&D community websites, and/or original pre-WotC D&D websites would reveal that the issue of powergaming is indeed an issue of sufficient weight.

The second point of lack of reference is true, but lacks merit. The whole issue of powergaming has always been player driven/derived, and there has never been any statement from an official source that specifically defines or addresses powergaming in a meaningful way. As a result, all sources of "powergaming" would not be official sources, but there would be a general consensus. Thus, the fact is there are lots of references, but none of them are sufficiently suitable and official to be cited in encyclopedia format.

Given these points, I would suggest that the section should be still included in the article. I am unsure about how we should find suitable references, however. Any suggestions? Allan Lee 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to save whatever information that was blanked that people feel is worth preserving in encyclopedia, but put that into the Powergaming article. Then, put the heading back into the D&D article with just a brief note that "Like many role-playing games, the issue of Powergaming is of some controversy among D&D players" (or something similar), along with a "Main" template link to the Powergaming article. The issue of sources for Powergaming can then be dealt with in its own article. Fairsing 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fairsing, see my forks discussion above. The issue of powergaming is not peculiar to D&D, and if we were going to write all about powergaming in every RPG article, that would involve a lot of duplication. Better to have one single, well-written article about powergaming and have all other relevant articles refer to it. BreathingMeat 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Editions?

I noticed the different editions are hardly mentioned in the article and none of the editions have articles of their own. Would it be worth creating a subsection to briefly describe the differences between editions?

See Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. There is already a link to it from the Edition History section. BreathingMeat 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Editions history... also too long

Given that there's another article on the various editions of D&D, does the section in this article need to be as long as it is? I'm not sure exactly what would be best to keep, but it's something to think about. 154.20.208.181 04:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. This sectioned should be summarised to key points and any material removed moved to Editions of Dungeons & Dragons page (if not already there). The sections of this article should give brief overview refering to fuller articles where the reader may have a particular interest. - Waza 02:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Skill merge

I don't think skill by itself merits an article, but I don't think it should be merged here. I think gameplay needs its own article, with detailed discussions of skills, feats, character creation (though the current one is alright), combat, magic etc. Stilgar135 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Gameplay should have an article; discussion of skills should go there. Skills does not need a separate article. Fairsing 22:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. But still basically same as above. Skills may need to merge somewhere, but this main article is not the place. It should be an overview summary about D&D, the last thing it needs is more minutia merged in. The main article needs more sub topics created and info removed to them. - Waza 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Partially agree. There is already Skill (role-playing games) and Game mechanics (Dungeons & Dragons)#Skills. Put that info in those articles. I don’t think D&D skills are that much different from common RPG skills that an own article is justified. —TowerDragon 07:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes Game mechanics (Dungeons & Dragons)#Skills, which did not exist at the time of my previous comment, is the place to merge to, not main D&D article. - Waza 05:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed with Waza. As far as I know, adding the Skills page to this wouldn't be very useful. -Jeske Couriano 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the skills need any article at all since they do not represent anything other than the existing game format. If they were to included the varying format of all editions rather than the current edition for sale then maybe they could merit their own unbiased article. Because Feats and a few other things are only 5 years or so old in the entire lifespan of (A)D&D out of nearly 30 years it is but the most recent; and people still play previous editions that do not strictly adhere to the newest systems game mechanics. Probably an article giving general information of RPG game mechanics itself such as how it differes from board games, miniature games, card games, etc. Which could be made for ALL RPGs since they primarily follow the same mechanics or dice rolls (luck) with modifiers to determine the results of situations throughout gameplay. 71.71.79.235 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

SRD

This is the main D&D article, and yet it doesn't feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Reference_Document most prominently? I would say the fact that WotC opened up the D&D business to competitors is as important as 3rd edition itself! 213.112.249.111 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See this. -Jeske Couriano 01:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: OGL/Game Copyrights

For those wanting more information on Copyright in respect to game and what may or may be allowed to be displayed on Wikipedia may wish to check the US Copyright Office site http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html.

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

It would seem that details of the exact game and terms used within are protected by copyright, but the concept and principles about the game are not. So like board games use dice to determine how to move around the board may not be registrable, but the board itself would. For RPGs I thikn that would mean describing the basics or gameplay and character creation would be fine as long as you don't give too many details on the specific game. This may mean some articles step over the line with the amounts of information, but I am not a lawyer so I don't fully understand what would be allowed even without the existance of the OGL.

Someone may want to look into it, or go through and try to generalize more than giving specifics about ANY edition of the game.

The Copyright link was found as footnote 8 for the TSR Inc article under the Critisism section

These actions reached their nadir when the company threatened to sue individuals supplying game material on Internet sites (illegitimately, as under special circumstances U.S. copyright law holds that guidelines and rules may not be copyrighted)

Shadzar 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable. I think that covers everything non-SRD pretty well. Piuro 21:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
MAY be registerable....but contradicts the

Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

part. I am only saying that in describing the game specific names and details are probably the copyrighted material, but concepts of play are not. So the term elf is in the public domain and doesn't violate copyright. however, speaking of the Strength table and giving its data would be, as you included in bold, more than likely copyrighted material. So it is best to give the most general information rather than specifics such as feats, specific alignments, etc.
Giving all 9 alignments may violate some copyright, but saying they are based on differences of Good and Evil, Chaos and Order, and Neutrality don't touch closely enough to the intellectual property to be challaging its authority. I very well may be wrong, but feel less specifics safer sicne I am not a lawyer and don't understand their cryptic SRD and OGL. shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Might want to double-check the SRD, both the strength tables and the nine alignments are covered. As for the point build, WotC doesnt stop people from posting stat creation metheods on their forums, which they do for non-SRD content. The rules are clearly unique enough, AND were debated legally during the TSR shakeup, the fact that it turned out the way it did pretty clearly shows that the rules and mechanics are covered by copyrights.
All that said, I go back to the simple fact the basic-variable math (four random numbers, subtract the lowest, add the remainder) probably cant be copyrighted in any context, especially cosidering it clearly states "For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game", which is covered by the SRD (Meaning it can be reproduced). Therefore, we can reasonably assume that the actual mechanics can't be copyrighted, and while the descriptors clarifying them can be copyrighted, but are open under the OGL/SRD, that this descussion is moot. Piuro 05:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
With all that said...a more general approach to the game mechanics themselves may be better, as the current revision of the rules is not the only source of the game. As I included in several entries and many fans of the game know that AD&D is not like either of the D&D versions. Good or bad, no matter the opinion of each individual set of rules; the games are different and not the same and therefore encyclopedic content shouldn't include solely one specific set of rules explanations. This may cause the need for removal of the game mechanics for all specific games and combine a general role-playing game mechanic idea to be better suited. But it will be from a neutral standpoint and not favoring any one edition to another. While the SRD may allow reproduction of the D&D d20 system it does not mean this is edition neutral, but the articles are favoring only the new system. So as i said before since the older editions don't have an OGL/SRD, and are expressly forbidden by them, the articles herein should not contain content based solely on the system allowed by the SRD/OGL. This does nothing but contribute to the idea that was/is considered to be the fans and supporters of previous editions of the game that allowed it to be reborn into whatever it is now were forsaken by the new company. Due partly to the OGL/SRD allowing only their newest form of the game to be produced so that they may sell more product of the Core Rulebooks. I was not aware that Wikipedia was a source for advertisement, and understood it to be a neutral zone for verifiable information. If I am wrong about the copyright then all pages about D&D and AD&D should contain the differences in gameplay and rulesets IF they are allowed by law under the fair use policy. shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it might be worth splitting the article in to two different sections, one for the current rule-set, and one for older versions. It would probably be safer, considering we have much more information that can be made publically available with the new rule set, and with articles like "Dungeons & Dragons controversies" being seperate, they can easily be linked to by both articles. Piuro 20:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you see what I am getting at. Under the OGL/SRD you seem to know what is allowed for the d20 system to be repeated. So that may be a D&D d20 article to allow for all that. then for older editions a single generic article for both D&D and AD&D; or if need be one for each that just give the details about them. This would both show they are independent games following the same similar rules and names; and also comply with the SRD/OGL which only applies to the newest D&D under the d20 system. That is why i said for peple more knowledgable about the OGL/SRD to figure out cause I don't feel being new to Wiki that I should split anything cause I might break it. All i know is pre-3rd/d20 D&D to be able to contribute. But don't want to see an article that misrepresents a game or violate copyright so that it is forced to be remove. All I know is when i called WotC to ask I was informed the OGL/SRD only allow used of the 3rd/d20 system and previous rulesets were off limits. (Probably because K&C has the rights to the AD&D ruleset.) shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Without a doubt the aticle should be about the generic case, with more specific case at other articles. This article should be a general overview with specifics about any one version at dedicated articles. /wangi 02:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this accurate?

"The only items required to play the game are the rulebooks, a character sheet for each player, and a number of polyhedral dice, although there are many optional items which can be used to supplement or enhance the gaming experience, such as pre-designed adventures and campaign settings. Special gameboards or cloth mats are sometimes used to visually depict the situations in the game, and miniature figures can be used to provide a three-dimensional representation of the characters."

Isn't a map of the dungeon/city/etc necessary for any D&D game? How do you regulate the players movements without a map?--Auspx 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically yes, but you do not need to buy any of these things for any edition of the game. Just the core 3 books are needed/suggested (PHB, DMG, MM) and something to determine random numbers. You can record things on normal paper without a preprinted character sheet. For maps you really only need concepts of where the characters are. Miniatures are optional and just help to show relative sizes and differences in battle. You could always use other forms that described in the books to carry out battles in larger areas than halways. Hallways themselves present little need for a map to fight in as they may be so small as to only allow contact by the persons...in contact with each other. For dungeon layout you can create simple maps with graph paper. i think this is the point being made in the article that you are not required to buy specially made maps and such to play but the minimal things you SHOULD buy are those core 3 books and unless you like chips or drawing numebrs from a hat dice are very usefull. Also when responding to an article please use the + at the top of the page to place your new section in the proper area on the talk page rather than placing it by hand with the edit function. When answering already existing concerns then use the edit function with the section you are responding to. shadzar|Talk|contribs 04:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't use either maps or miniatures, unless the dungeon is complicated, and I haven't faced any problems regarding character position. I would say that truthfully it all depends on how one DMs.
I would agree, I run a game where weve done it both ways, each have their strong and weak points. AidanPryde 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It is correct, however, seeing as there is money to be made off the Miniatures market, Wizards has been trying to move further away from that aspect of the game. (Forgot to add it in, datestamp is way off) Piuro 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article is getting hit by vandals every day, it might warrant some level of protection, at least against unregistered users. Piuro 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. I'm barely gone for six hours and I see either an edit summary that has the letters "rv" in it or an anon edit that's pure vandalism.-Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 03:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, especially against unregistered.Ethan a dawe 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan a. DaweEthan a dawe 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Most articles are vandalized fairly frequently. The vandalism here is very easy to spot and not 'sustained' or 'massive', so it's very unlikely this will be semiprotected. I know I would decline a request. --InShaneee 14:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The vandalism here has been pretty consistant for as long as the article has existed. It's always some different jock who finds the page and damages it. Semiprotection would mean that it would stop for a few days, as long as the semiprotection was in place, then it would continue again at the same rate. It would achieve nothing in the medium term, so I do not recommend that we seek semiprotection for this page. I'd like to say thanks to all the watchers here who revert the vandalism so quickly. BreathingMeat 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If people are listed users, there is a greater incentive to not vandalize articles. Piuro 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
See WP:SPP: we cannot expect semiprotection on a continuous basis on this page, because it's nothing like the vandalism target of say, George W Bush. Often several days will go by with no vandalism at all. And, as I have opined before, there is no advantage to putting a temporary semiprotect on this article. BreathingMeat 01:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

We need one badly. Who can spearhead it? shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, i'll do it! Piuro 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If one started up, I would join, though I don't know how much good I'll be without memorizing books ;). -Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 19:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have the memorizing of the books covered, and it certainly warrants being seperate from Wikiproject RPGs, seeing as most people who would be looking up Dungeons and Dragons don't know and probably dont care about other RPGs. Piuro 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, my main expertise is in user-created material (involving Pokémon and Neopets), but I have access to 3.0 and 3.5 books, which I would have memorized by now if not for forums, Microsoft Word, and the flakiness of the person I loan them from. I can certainly help with monster and class articles, as well as, if need be, races. -Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to be careful to explain D&D, not the individual rules. I will work on an article from where it draws its sources (such as in mythology). Piuro 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll set up a subpage where we can work on completely re-asembling the article. Piuro 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to use ideas I made here as a starting point, User:Shadzar/D&D. Just don't think I would be good for starting the project since I don't know my way around WP yet. Thanks much we need some order in the chaos and will give less work to the RPG project. shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know when this project gets rolling. I would love to contribute where I can.--Everchanging02 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll all need to keep in mind WP:FICT. This could easily get out of hand. --InShaneee 05:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How much can that help since D&D is not a work of fiction in the sense of a story? the game itself doesn't really have major/minor characters, plots, etc. shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If he's referring to what I work with, I'm not going to bring it up. If he's referring to the actual game, it would only apply to campaign settings and published adventures, as well as people within those settings. Anything else we'd cover is unaffected by Notability of Fiction, unless we're going into the Dragonlance books.

And, to point out what I mean, remember Drizzt Do'Urden? He's pretty much unique to a campaign setting (Forgotten Realms).-Jeske (v^_^v) 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know many of the novel and module characters, but that is not what I am talking about. the game material itself. I have been trying to curb the idea of an article per idea in D&D because not all of them are like Raistlin, Elminster, Drizzt, Lord Soth, etc. shadzar|Talk|contribs 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple, We leave out any mention of Drizz't. Hate that elf anyway. Piuro 19:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, we have the Project Page here and space to re-work the main D&D page here. Lets get a list down of what we want on the main page first. Piuro 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the main page should have links to the most important articles: Dungeons & Dragons, the base classes, and the articles on the game mechanics (if plausible for the reasons outlined above in "RE: OGC/Copyright Issues"). -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games has been informed that it has a new child. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I was going to try and pester someone to do that... Piuro 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

rules or guidelines?

Should this be included anywhere in the D&D articles to say about the contradition of views about the rules as concrete vs being guidelines? I provided sources for both quotes in case someone wants to properly format it and included it into an apropriate article.

Gary Gygax often contradicted himself when referring to AD&D as to whether people should or should not change the rules. One occurence of each is presented below:

Eric, you seem to have D&D confused with AD&D. The former promotes alteration and free-wheeling adaptation. The latter absolutely decries it, for the obvious reason that Advanced D&D is a structured and complete game system aimed at uniformity of play world-wide. Either you play AD&D, or you play something else! — E. Gary Gygax, The Dragon, Issue 43, p. 61, Nov. 1980, Vol V. No. 5

even the most important material herein can be altered and bent to suit the needs of individual campaigns. — AD&D Player's Handbook, p. 6, 1978

shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cultural Evolution of Gamers

Though I was born in 1986, and have been an avid gamer since freshman year in high school, I have noticed a change in what I have called the culture of gamers. From what research I could find, mostly statistics and graphs, the types of gamers have actually began to go into more of the "cliches" of society than just the anti-social intellectuals, or 'nerds', if you will. In my own gaming group, there are several people that no one would ever expect to play, like those who can actually bench press four of the 'old-school' gamers at once. Role-playing games are gaining popularity in the multiple factions of society that guide the world, and while this can be seen as good, it has a few setbacks that, unfortunately, have managed to rock back all the way to little Renton, Wa. where the WoTC Headquarters resides. Fewer people, it seems, are willing to brave challenges. A few months ago, I received a newsletter that had a discussion on the dread rust monster, a classic creature that has the ability to turn weapons and armor made of metals into the useless material rust. This creature has been known, in D&D legends, to make the greatest fighter wants to take on an army of orcs before facing just one of these horrible creatures. In the discussion, there was talk of finding ways to make the creature more harmless, almost taking its rusting ability away. Now, while this is just one example, there has been an increase in 'streamline' rules that make the game easier, or 'softer' as my local players call it.

This could be something for a debate. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter, or maybe help in the research?

Even if it is, this isn't the place to debate it. This talk page is not for fan/DM discussion; there are forums on other sites for that. In short, Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, a indiscriminate collection of information, or a publisher of original research. -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are on to something here, but Jeske is right, this is not the place to discuss it, though a good place might be the D&D forums at Wizards of the Coast Website, here: [2]. The specific forum is here: [3]. I hope this helps. AidanPryde 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/n/Talk%7EDungeons_%26_Dragons_Archive_3_cb02.html"