Talk:Dungeons & Dragons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Dungeons & Dragons is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 14, 2007.
Archive
Archives
  1. Jan 2005 - Jul 2005
  2. Nov 2005 - Mar 2006
  3. Oct 2006 - Nov 2006
  4. Nov 2006 - Mar 2007
  5. Sep 2007 -
  6. Sep 2007 - Oct 2007


Contents

[edit] External Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dnd Wiki is an excellent source of home brew material as well as a copy of the official SRD in a wiki format which allows linking between articles and sections making it much easier to find information than the wizards version of the SRD. It has been running two years now has excellent admin staff which patrol the site for vandals etc so therefore I believe that implies that it is a well established and stable wiki which as of August last year was averaging 57000 hits a day (I do not know the current number) most articles are in a consistent format which mimics the official wizards creature entries etc articles that are not formatted correctly are marked with the wikify tag and will be dealt with. What I'm trying to say is the site is an invaluable resource for actual player's (homebrew and SRD material) as well as those interested in getting into the hobby (The SRD is a good place to start). I am a user on that site you can look me up if you like [1]. I believe the link should be re added. The only arguments here seem to be that the site doesn't have enough valuable information and no history of stability both points are now invalid although I can see how we could have different definitions of valuable information. Hawk the druid (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Soon as no one has replied I'll take that as no one has problem with re introducing dnd wiki into the external links. Hawk the druid (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't. Instead of interpreting silence as assent, I'd like to see editors on this page affirmatively approve the dnd wiki. So far that hasn't happened. Nandesuka (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my bluntness it's just that site is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in D&D and anyone who wants to know more. I waited a week and got no reply, I'm not good at waiting never was so I did it myself knowing that should someone finally come and disagree the change could be reverted Hawk the druid (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DND (redirects)

  • Can someone with sufficient knowledge perhaps add a link to a disambiguation page for DND? When typed all caps, I believe it should redirect directly to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces article, seeing as this is a very common abbreviation in the media and amongst the Canadian Public. At the very least, there should be a direct link at the top of the page. Benwedge (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Board game discussion history

For the User:TheJudge310-archived discussion about whether D&D is a board game, see here. Proper guidelines for editing comments on an article talk page are listed at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments.— RJH (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest modules summary

The article in the Nov 2004 (116) edition of 'Dungeon' was a rating of "greatest modules ever" by what seems to be (from an outsider viewpoint) a very credible panel.

It probably merits at least 2 sentences in this article, one explaining "modules" and one noting that a review by a panel assembled by the magazine, which included reputable game authors, influential reviewers and designers, and presidents and chief editors of D&D publishing companies, produced an independent list of the top 30 adventures of this kind in 2004, and maybe noting the top 3 entries.

FT2 (Talk | email) 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The information is already present in List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. The link there (the word "modules" in "Adventures and campaigns") is easy to overlook. Perhaps that link should be emphasized somehow. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've used that to try and clarify the section - thanks. Hopefully nothing too problematic!
I also think that it might help to 1/ merge List of Dungeons & Dragons modules and List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures under one title, with two sections "issued as modules (1978-2000)" and "issued as adventures (2000-)". And 2/ copy the info of "greatest modules" to the article Adventure (Dungeons & Dragons). Thoughts? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I had forgotten the adventure/module split. That seems crazy to me. I'm in favor of the merge. However, not everyone might agree, so I'd suggest running up a merge proposal on the two pages first (also, to sort out which name to use). As for adding the greatest modules article to Adventure (Dungeons & Dragons), I don't think that the greatest modules article is in and of itself worth mentioning. However, I think adding a section highlighting notable adventures would be a interesting addition, and the article would be a great citation to support any adventures added. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulk revert of User:Sticky Light's edits to external links

I've reverted User:Sticky Light's edits to the external links. I believe they were in good faith, just a bit overly bold for a featured article. I wanted to be clear why I did it.

  • The big comment warning about not turning Wikipedia into a link farm is understandable, but this article is heavily watched and has shown no signs of there being problems.
  • The Wikia link addition didn't appear to add anything of real value. If it wasn't Wikia, I don't think it would have survived review on its own.
  • The MySpace page doesn't seem especially useful. Sure, it's official, but it looks like official filler.
  • Yes, using the citation templates for external links is odd. However, the article passed Featured Article status with that format, so I'm very hesitant to muck with it without discussion first.
  • The product catalog and old D&D info pages may appear like random links, but they've been considered. They provide useful further information that's not something we can directly include into the article.

— Alan De Smet | Talk 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If featured articles were "perfect", we wouldn't be allowed to edit them. The idea behind Wikipedia involves constant improvement, not assuming something is already perfect and ignoring problems. If featured articles were perfect, that status would never need to be revoked. Really, the argument that something was present during a promotion to featured article shouldn't even be a major argument. The MySpace and Wikia links were merely included because they were EL templates (see Template:MySpace and Template:Wikia) and I don't see why they would exist if we weren't supposed to use them. Most or all of the other sites were in the Open Directory Project link, which links to all the information we don't include, so I see their inclusion is superfluous. Linking to community-oriented sites like Dragonsfoot seems to be close to violating rule 11 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, though it does have content, so I see why there would be reason to keep it. Finally, the "big comment warning", Template:NoMoreLinks, is for articles which have enough links, not just ones with too many. Especially since it is commented out, I see no problem with including it if the article's links are fine. If none are needed, they won't be added (or will be reverted). Any whose inclusion is justifiable will be discussed on the talk page and added, so I don't see what the qualms against this one are. Sticky Light (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
External links: I didn't mean to suggest that because the article is featured that it should never be editted. However, it is grouds to be more conservative in one's editting. For the specific issue: making the external links look like citations, the more I think about it, the more I think it was the right decision. External links are really a form of "Further reading", and a full citation is more clear about where you are going and what you'll find. Wikia and MySpace: The existance of a template doesn't replace consideration of the value of a given link. They're not terrible valuable resources, not something I would recommend as "further reading", so I don't think they're worth linking. Of course they can be valuable; some of the Wikia's I'm sure are, and the MySpace page of, say, a musical artist usually have music available and is quite valuable. But I'm not seeing it here. Dragonsfoot: Keep in mind that it's not a "rule", but a guideline, and one to be "normally" followed. If they're especially valuable (and I believe Dragonsfoot and the others were), they should stay. Link warning: It's not a big deal, but since it was addressing a problem the article doesn't have, it was just deadweight. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to "Roleplaying Game Introduction & RPG history"

What is the reasoning behind including "Roleplaying Game Introduction & RPG history. roleplay.org (2004). Retrieved on 2007-03-15." in the external links? It's just a short introduction. If there is anything particularly good there, we should include it in this article and cite it. Otherwise I'm prone to removing it. Perhaps there is a good reason I'm not seeing, please let me know. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nethack

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning Nethack in the article somewhere? I believe it's based on the second edition of AD&D, though I'm not entirely sure. ۩ Dracion (Level 86 Rs Player) ۩ 16:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It's not a direct derivative, just one of many, many games that took lots of inspiration from D&D. (I'm also quite sure it's not based on 2e. Nethack dates to 1987. 2e was released in 1989.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of good sources on D&D's influence

This Google News search has lots of good articles that deal with Gary Gygax's, and hence D&D's, cultural influence. There's lots of material here to be mined that could be used in this article. It's not my area, but I offer the suggestion for the regular editors here. Good luck! — Dulcem (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth edition release date

The lead states that "Wizards of the Coast has announced that the fourth edition of the game will be released in May 2008." In the edition history section, "The initial core three books are scheduled for a June 6, 2008 release." What's the deal with that? I remember reading somewhere that some taster books (even a module) are being released before the core books, is that what this refers to? I can't view one of the sources, but at the moment, the article appears to contradict itself. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

that is ok. currently WotC continue to contradict themselves with the information they give peopel as well. supposedly June is the release month as of current. but they may change this like they have changed many things regarding the release of 4th edition over the past few months. 4E itself causes quite a stir and WotC has been changing thiings in order to save face since Aug 2007 at GenCon. sadly until the actual release nobody mayeb not even WotC personnel knows when this thing will be released. i think the May date was referring to a previous staggared release of the books while now they core books will all be released at one month. again things have changed so much in the course its hard to tell what they said in the past versus what they claim to be true today or even tomorrow. technically the game has already been release in limited format during the recent D&DXP convention at the end of February, and some intro to 4th edition adventure/supplement is supposed to come out prior to the full release. shadzar-talk 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Both citations were correct. WotC did originally announce a May release date (actually, the PHB in May, DMG in June, and MM in July). They changed it to releasing all three in June. The first entry hadn't been updated. I've fixed it. (Arguably it was still correct, since WotC did, at one point, announce that. However, that's not really going to be interesting in a few years. At best it warrants a note in Editions of Dungeons & Dragons, but not here.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, cool, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As of March 19, the books are off to the printers. Wizards is committed to June 6 as a hard release date because the following day, June 7, is Worldwide Dungeons & Dragons Game Day. Iceberg3k | Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.40.68 (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I never thought 4e was coming out in March, but the Wizards of the Coast D&D homepage now says that March-May 2008 is the period for "4th edition demos". Maybe that is what caused the confusion about March. I also see a "55 days to go" countdown on the top of the page. Last time they did a countdown (to the 4th edition announcement) the entire website fell over from the demand.Big Mac (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single player D&D?

I don't mean the tiny one player miniquest that comes with the Player's Kit.

I don't know anyone who plays D&D so are there any full-length D&D v3.5 adventures designed specifically for solo play? Or at most a party of 3 characters?--Auspx (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

while it maybe should be mentioned in the article, if it isn't; D&D is primary a group activity. several single player modules were made for AD&D with either a DM and player, or the player as a DM. i am not sure about for 3.x. you would probably get better results asking this on a D&D forum specifically for 3.x. if the information comes available it may end up on wikipedia if it doesn't already exist somewhere about these SOLO adventures as i remember a few being called years ago. shadzar-talk 23:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope this isn't off topic. However this page doesn't explain the fact that solo play is a real possibility. There's nothing in D&D that prevents one player from using multiple characters. Of course being a player and a DM at the same time presents a conflict of interest but it can be done. It may even be a good way to learn how to be a good DM.--Auspx 04:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I DM and play characters in three-man campaigns, but I have not heard of Solo modules for 3.x (though, admittedly, I use custom material almost exclusively and thus don't know jack about modules). The closest I know to "single-player D&D" is the assortment of D&D computer games (Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate...) -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've heard of single player D&D adventures, but have never met anyone who did one. I'm pretty sure there are 3e single player adventures, but older editions still count as sources, so here is Paizo's page for downloading Dungeons & Dragons: Rage of the Rakasta PDF. It is Classic D&D (aka OD&D). You should be able to grab any information you need from there and cite Paizo's page as a source.Big Mac (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new associated press article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23903817/ "Dungeons & Dragons" fights for its future. Can anything of this be used in the article? are any of the bits of informaiton enough to use or are even the sales figures and survey comments to vague? shadzar-talk 14:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Egad, that is a frightenly bad article. Reading that article, one might easily come to believe that 4e has entirely hitched its wagon to online play, ignoring that they are very clearly focusing on table-play being the dominant mode of play. "D&D had about six million players worldwide last year, according to a survey by Wizards, though Rouse said the figure may be somewhat inflated." does seem solid enough to report, provided we clarify that it's from WotC's own survey. It would be nice to know more about the survey in question, but I'm not finding any press releases or anything else on their web site. The sales figure doesn't seem especially helpful since it only talks about the overall market, not WotC in particular. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
the emphasis placed on their new Gleemax and DDI initiatives are solely around online play. i think that is what the article writer also may think so too. all the advetisizng and hype about 4th has ben pushing the online gimmick built into 4th. for someone not in the know then it would be easy to misunderstand this, and amny on the WotC forums themselves feel it true as well. whether the WotC forums could be used as any sorted of source because of editorial moderation, it at least does give an idea of how people feel about the new eidtion in regards to the changes and well as the enphasis placed on the online portion. even WotC at the announcement placed 4th edition as a 4 part game. physical product, organized play, community, digital offerings. of course the last 2 are online components making it seem that half of D&D is now online. as well as removing the magainze from the market and making them ezines it further focuses on the online lements which apparently more than one person sees a strong emphasis on the online aspect as being a real part of 4th edition. and only having access to those mags online means that is correct as well as WotC itself defines 4E as having the 4 parts of which two are online only.... i will dig around and see if i can find that survey, but i think due to some controversies all evidence of it was removed formt he WotC...Gleemax forums. maybe The Rouse has info about that survey posted somewhere on enworld or something. to be quite clear 4th has hitched its wagon to online play as they have directed so much personnel to it and even reduced the personnel they had for D&D which means less people for physical product, or at least less time for those people to devote to physical product. shadzar-talk 13:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
i can find nothing on the survey so it must have been expunged form the internet or is jsut hiding form me very well. shadzar-talk 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alignment

I believe the alignment sentence should properly read good/neutral/evil and lawful/neutral/chaotic. I'm going to revert the current revert to fix this. Does anyone know why this would be the incorrect way to phrase it? It's a two axis system and the way it's currently stated doesn't properly reflect the two axis. If someone thinks I'm incorrect, let's discuss it here. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My appologies, I undid the wrong revision, g-n-e and l-n-c are the correct groupings. IanCheesman (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries! I've done that before myself Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Gygax

This is something that's always confused me, and I was hoping the article would address it: If D&D was created by both Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, why is Gygax the one who is more closely associated with it? Google 'em both, and you'll see what I mean. Minaker (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gygax continued to be involved, writing further supplements, modules, and editing Dragon (magazine). He was part of TSR through the mid-80s while Arneson wasn't. Some of the later games credited Gygax only. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alan! Now I know one more fact -- one small step closer to omniscience, baby!! Minaker (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)