Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 7

Update to 4th Edition

Much of this article pertains specifically to 3rd edition, especially the sections on gameplay. Given the fact that now, and for a little while at least, two versions of the game will be in regular use, I think that these sections should be made general enough to apply to both 3rd and 4th Editions. For example, instead of saying "First, a player rolls dice to determine his or her character's ability scores, which are strength, dexterity... etc." say "First, a player generates his or her ability scores, which are strength, dexterity... etc." Rolling dice is not the default way to determine ability scores in 4th Edition, but the second sentence is general enough to apply to both editions, while still conveying the core role that ability score generation plays in character creation. Similar replacements can be made throughout the article; I think this would reflect the way that D&D is changing without discounting the game that is still being played by many thousands of people.

71.237.247.104 (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

-Why limit the updating to bring in line with 3.x and 4e? Many people play 1st edition, 2nd edition, and BECMI. ---Mr. Nexx (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better that the bulk of the article describes only elements common to all versions. A History section can detail the evolution of various mechanics if needed (e.g. random characteristics to standard array, THAC0 to AC/Fort/Ref/Will). However, I doubt an in depth discussion of the mechanics adds much to the article. --Surturz (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Would recommend that the focus be on common elements, with a section for each edition in the "History" section. Otherwise, it becomes a more literary article as opposed to a useful reference to most people.Garykempen (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

External Links

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

• I'd support its removal. Not a very useful external link at all. android79 21:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of bias, but I'm not terribly sold on either wiki providing much of particular value above and beyond what we can provide in the article proper. Any reason we shouldn't pull both? — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that any WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided can be purged. — RJH (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm late to state my opinon: I can understand the deletion because both wikis do not as yet provide much information beyond wikipedia. On the other hand a number of D&D articles have been given a box that questions their notability. I think the notability guidelines are quite harsh, but a great many subjects from D&D detailed in wikipedia do not satisfy the it. E.g. any number of monsters, NPC, etc. have never been covered by secondary sources. The official guideline from wikipedia says, that if this is not the case, the article should be moved to an appropriate wiki - if available. There is a wiki for Dungeons and Dragons, even if not yet a good one, and I fear a great many articles would have to be move there from wikipedia, if wikipedia guidelines were strictly applied. That's why I included the link and why I'm for reintroducing it.
Ideally the Dungeons and Dragons wiki should become better first and the link should be introduced then, but I don't know if this works, because the wiki is not known to most authors working on D&D at wikipedia. Daranios 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't really the right place to advertise any web site, including a wiki of topics that might be considered non-notable here. You could mention the site on the WikiProject pages, however, as a place to put material that might be deleted from here. Also, you're always free to mirror existing material there under the GNU Free Document License. — RJH (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jep, those seem to be the things to do. Daranios 17:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Although we removed the link from here, personally I would like to see a successful D&D wiki. So I hope it works out. In fact we could almost use an entertainment wiki (to include all of gaming and media), since those are the types of topics that most often seem to irk the WP deletionist mob. No offense intended to individual mob-ettes, of course. ;-) — RJH (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)
  • The DND already redirects to Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, and has dones so since March. It looks like an editor added a "Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces" link to the target of the DND (disambiguation) redirect on the 21st. So I'm unclear what the concern is. — RJH (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Link to "Roleplaying Game Introduction & RPG history"

What is the reasoning behind including ""Roleplaying Game Introduction & RPG history". roleplay.org. 2004. Retrieved 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Classic is not the same as OD&D. Original D&D rules are closer in most ways to AD&D than what became Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Imortals (much later known as Classic). REL 4 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.151.194 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

4ed

Ok, fourth edition was released officially (although I didn't by a copy myself) and I think the infobox should put it and the authors, with a mention on the article. Anyone with access to the books tehre to do it?Samuel Sol (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the new edition's authors to the infobox... maybe we should update the rest of the article (mechanics, setting, etc) with the changes of the new edition? --148.240.253.118 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Than what with the old version? Tetra HUN (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a way to describe the current game, and as an addition, mention some mechanics (like Vancian Casting) that, while not in the game anymore, are iconic and sufficently notable --148.240.253.118 (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the commercial decision by WoTC to release a new version of the game should invalidate anything an encyclopedia would say about previous versions. For instance, I expect that, presuming 4ed has a good reception, that 3ed will still be played by more people for some amount of time. In any case, 3ed (and earlier versions for that matter) don't lose notability quickly just because of a new release. So, how to deal with that? I'd say that little or no material should be removed. If it needs to be removed for clarity (to avoid confusing people about which version is being talked about), then an older version should become its own article. Cretog8 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

class/role matrix

Added as a wikitable for easy expansion once PHB2 etc comes out.

And before you say anything: yes, I agree this belongs better on the D&D mechanics page. :-) Feel free to move it there once it has been updated to 4E! Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Only now did I see the Character Class sub-page, see next talk section

Forgot to sign the above, CapnZapp (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I see the matrix on the subpage, which one to keep? I'll assume having both is fine for now. Possibly they should be switched, seeing mine gives off the most information (but taking up the most space). What do you think? CapnZapp (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Matrices switched (i.e the small one using roles as main category is here; the other one at the Character Class subpage). Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to gut your work. It was well written and formatted, but it was out of place. This article is erring toward a more general coverage of D&D as a topic. The role/power source/class details are very 4e specific, and more importantly almost entirely irrelevant to actual play. We don't mention classes at all, except for a very brief mention of Fighter and Wizard as examples, so fleshing it out with a concrete list is a heck of a change. Ultimately the information is a much better fit on Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#4th_edition, and indeed the information is already there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I only read your comments here (and on my talk page) I would be dejected. Now that I have seen your edit, however, I can't say I'm overly concerned. After all, I myself said above this stuff belonged on the sub-page :-) (not the one I mentioned above, but the Character Classes one)... That said, I will bring up the philosophical question of what this the main D&D page should be about. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Character Classes

It is my opinion the link to the Dungeons & Dragons character classes page is not given nearly enough visibility buried among the See Alsos (where I didn't notice it until today!). Therefore, I moved it up and gave it equal rank to the mechanics page. I believe classes (and in 4E, roles) are an integral part of the mechanics, and should be explained right away.

I'll work on summarizing the gist of the 4E information on the subpage on the main page, probably the bare minimum required to understand the class/role matrix.

CapnZapp (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What should the focus of this page be?

Currently, it is D&D in all its incarnations. However, I would have expected the main page to detail the latest version of the game, with historical tidbits relegated to a History section (or probably more likely a History sub-page).

Check out other rpgs (or MMO's for that matter, or most any subject with a currently live version) and the focus is strongly on the here and now (unless there's a particular reason for the past to overshadow the present).

So, instead of having the main D&D page be about the game in general, with 4E information scattered all over the place, I propose we discuss two alternatives:

1) keeping this page general, but collecting edition-specific information on individual pages (most importantly, one page for D&D 4E. Then similar pages can be added for old editions later on if you wish) 2) refocusing this page onto the current edition (which is 4E right now), and moving the general background stuff to a "History of D&D" page.

What do you say? My main concern is that this page is great if you're just asking "what is this D&D stuff", much less so if you want current and updated information without the clutter of old references. CapnZapp (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say to focus the main page on 4e, and move the rest to one or multiple other pages, as per the general Wikipedia preference of the quickest info to get to being the most current. 3-sphere (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this main page should focus on the current (4th) edition of D&D. After the overview/introduction/etc. of the current edition, a section on the history (including links to new main pages of previous editions) would make sense. The following pages do not exist yet: "History of Dungeons & Dragons", "1st Edition Dungeons & Dragons", "2nd Edition Dungeons & Dragons", "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons", "3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons", "4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons" (note: you can replace "Dungeons & Dragons with D&D or Dungeons and Dragons for any of the above). The only similarly titled page that currently exists is Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. - IanCheesman (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If we constantly have to completely overhaul an article as time goes on, we did something wrong. This article should remain general. This article should remain a general overview and history. Deepy edition specific content belongs in different articles. In particular I suggest fleshing out Editions of Dungeons & Dragons first, and fragmenting that into sub pages as appropriate. Also remember whenever tempted to fragment a page: will the resulting smaller pages survive a deletion challenge? I've seen good content get split out of an high quality article, only to be deleted as "not notable" by the more deletion minded editors. Make sure you've got the third party, reliable, non-review citations you'll need first! — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we should keep everything here, just so it doesn't get ninja-deleted from sub-pages, I do not agree. It can equally well be deleted from this page. Watch all the pages, not just this one. I believe moving stuff to edition-specific pages is good for the article. CapnZapp (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem is expectations. If this article was made more succinct, it would be more clear it is discussing the general topic. Also, I believe it would be very helpful if we added a note at the top "this is the general page. for latest edition info, go here". Let me see what I can do. CapnZapp (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally though, the main issue is that all editions are jumbled together. It would be MUCH more clear if each main edition got its own page (all 3E content collected by its own page). Instead of having to visit several sub-pages just to get the overall picture of a certain edition, like it is now. This is a medium- to long-term project though... CapnZapp (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hello! :)

This article has been selected for possible inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 DVD release. If there is anything you can do to help this article (fact check for sources and citations, check grammar and spelling, providing creator commentaries, finding useful quotes in interviews and product reviews, detailing publication history, rewriting in-universe text to out-of-universe text, and general cleanup here and there) now would be the time!

Also, if you'd like to nominate more articles to be selected for this project, or just wish to discuss the release in general, please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this article has undergone some decline in quality since it was FA'd. The "International editions" section in particular is sub-standard and the "Edition history" may need to be substantially trimmed. There are also stubby paragraphs and at least one Fact tag. If this continues the article may need to be run through FAR and possibly delisted.—RJH (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Edition history appears highly similar to its state when it was selected as a Featured Article. Here is a diff between when the article was protected for it's front page time as a Feature Article to now. Mayhap it needs some cleanup, but I'm not seeing a need for substantial trimming. Did you have something in particular in mind? I'm looking into the other suggestions for improvement, although I make no promises of being fast and welcome other editors to beat me to it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've got something in mind, I think the 0.7 deadline is Oct 20... :) BOZ (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps the "Edition history" now seems a little bloated to me because of the low number of sub-sections? In particular, per Wikipedia:Layout#Headings_and_paragraphs, "Very short or very long sections and subsections will make an article look cluttered and will inhibit the flow." Perhaps it could be sub-divided into three parts: the original editions, AD&D, and the newer editions under WotC's stewardship? Perhaps also, if substantial parts of the "Edition history" text have been moved to the Editions of Dungeons & Dragons article, as is implied by the {{Duplication}} template, it might make some sense to trim a few of the the less-essential (i.e. trivial) Edition history facts on this page, per Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines. Also, if the "International editions" section can't be cited, perhaps it should be moved to the "Edition history" article? Just suggestions really.—RJH (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted claims needing citations

We've got some claims that need citations that have crept in. In the interest in keeping the article Featured Article quality, some are going to have to be pulled. I'm putting some of them here because I genuinely believe they are true, I simply can't find a citation. Hopefully other editors can find citations, in which case we can re-add them. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• D&D has also inspired many Japanese anime & manga, such as Record of Lodoss War, Ruin Explorers, the Slayers & Dragon Half.

• When I can't find a source for material I usually move it to the talk page and leave a request for a reference there. Sometimes a source will show up at a later date. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

protect

should D&D be protected? like; from vandals like i used to be... --80.44.254.170 (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't always productive to protect a page because sometimes anonymous editors make useful additions or corrections. Long-term protection is generally for pages that have overwhelming vandalism. Otherwise, bots and editors can usually deal with lower levels of vandalism. The logic is that it takes more effort to vandalize an article than it does to revert.—RJH (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Edition history rewrite

In an attempt to address the Duplication template, I re-wrote the 'Edition history' section here. Some redundant information has been combined, material has been re-arranged, and I tried to tighten it up. Is this acceptible, unacceptible, or is more work needed? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody object if I replace the current text with this rewrite? A bot removed the images, but they can be restored after a merge.—RJH (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the changes... anyone watching the D&D watchlist will notice and have a look. :) BOZ (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I haven't taken a good look at your idea, but go ahead BE BOLD by just actually putting it in the article. I've been checking the D&D public watchlist a few times a day, so if I there's a bad edit I'll probably notice it; I'll give your idea a more thorough look once it's actually up (I find things much easier to read when they're in context). -Drilnoth (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I asked here first because I prefer to be a little more cautious about making significant revisions to an FA article. The re-write has been inserted. If the editor who inserted the Duplication template still finds that section objectionable, then I think the specifics should be discussed here. Otherwise the template is unhelpful.—RJH (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to WoW, &c.

I think that more of the information mentioned on this new story needs to be included in the article. Any thoughts? I think the current trend toward online play in WoW versus the old in person play needs to be noted, as does Wizard's efforts toward introducing online D&D gaming.—RJH (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having had too many links die on me: backup link. (Link does not yet work; it can take WebCite some time to get to it. If it fails to archive, I'll come back and strike it out while cursing the short sightedness of buffalonews.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article on Dungeons and Dragons. I'm a big time MMORPG player, with multiple level 80 toons (some with PvP titles as high as Knight-Lieutenant), but including a section comparing D&D to World of Warcraft is like going to the article on the Beatles and having a section comparing them to Hannah Montana. It just doesn't apply. 75.72.208.202 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, if we have information from a reliable source to use which makes the comparison. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to compare the two, do it over on the World of Warcraft article. D&D came out in 1974, WoW came out more than thirty years later. WoW wouldn't exist without D&D. If you tried to add sections here about every game that was created because of D&D (Car Wars, Star Frontiers, GURPS, Wizardry, Final Fantasy, Bard's Tale, Legend of Zelda, ad nauseum...), this would be a very sloppy article.12.104.244.6 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If we have the sources, we could write about any or all of that, and not in a sloppy fashion. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you could, but why would you? This is an article on Dungeons and Dragons. If you want to write about something else, either create an article for it or edit the existing one. I could find multiple sources talking about the similarities between the Kennedy and Lincoln administrations and assassinations, so I COULD put that information in. SHOULD I? Probably not. I have to agree with the above and say it just doesn't apply here.Rapier1 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree, then. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the similarities to World of Warcraft immediately. I think it's interesting that the most popular pen and paper RPG is becoming similar in many ways to the most popular computer RPG, and at least one source agrees. I don't see any harm in including such material, as long as it's referenced. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• chuckle* You prove my point. D&D is not similar to WoW, WoW is similar to D&D. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, merely that one begat the other. There would be no WoW (or many other things) without D&D. Comparing decendents to the original isn't space effective (Why include information on the 1977 Pontiac TransAm Firebird in space dedicated to describing the 1953 Chevy Corvette?) and certainly doesn't improve the article. If you want to talk about the Screaming Eagle from Smoky & the Bandit (or World of Warcraft), make an article or edit the existing one.Rapier1 (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite what we're talking about. You're absolutely right that WoW borrowed liberally from D&D, just as D&D borrowed liberally from fantasy fiction and mythology, but the AP article is specifically about how D&D is moving forward technologically in ways that are similar to WoW. There are even strong similarities in 4th edition mechanics to WoW (and other MMOs), like niche class roles (tank/heals/dps), revised attack/spellcasting system that mimics cooldowns in some ways, disenchanting of magic items, taunting, trash mobs, etc. (Hell, my group often uses WoW/MMO terms instead of 4th edition terms, like "tank" instead of "defender".) I'm not saying that D&D outright copied WoW, but I think they must have looked at the popularity of WoW (and yes, other MMOs, because those elements aren't unique to WoW) and attempted to capitalize on that. I know I've read other articles about this besides the AP article that RJH mentioned, but I can't find them now. If we can find adequate references, like I said, I don't see any harm in including them. There's already a section on sources and influences, after all. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Wyatt. The designers have talked about taking ideas from MMOGs. Many people have comments how much 4e feels like WoW, not because WoW took from D&D, but because D&D took from WoW. Now that we have at least one reputable, third-party source, some level of coverage seems appropriate. All that said, I think we should put either nothing here, or only a brief mention. This article works best as a broad survey of D&D that doesn't focus too much on specific editions. Any sort of detailed discussion would best belong in Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say maybe a couple of sentences total (and then more in the editions article). The MMO-like game mechanics overhaul and online component possibly warrant in-depth coverage, but there aren't an overwhelming number of sources and it's probably not a huge thing considering the long history of the game. So yeah, per WP:UNDUE and all, I'd say a couple of sentences should do it. Maybe something along the lines of "More recently, Dungeons & Dragons has adopted elements and technology from massively multiplayer online role-playing games, such as X, Y, and Z. (And then a sentence about the importance or effect of this.)" Again, just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems appropriate enough - I mean, we're not talking about an essay here or anything. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) If it can be cited, having a sentence or two (at the most) in this article would make sense, with more in "editions of" and "sources and influences on the development of" (BTW, can anyone think of a more succinct name for the latter? :) ). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Game System License

Per the following:

With the release of the fourth edition, Wizards of the Coast has introduced its Game System License, which represents a significant restriction compared with the very open policies embodied by the OGL. In part as a response to this, some publishers (such as Paizo Publishing, with its Pathfinder RPG) who previously produced materials in support of Wizards of the Coast D&D books have made the decision to pursue a directly competitive path instead.

This news story has them still supporting 4e, at least via Necromancer. I did find this story about Green Ronin sticking with the 3.5e:

Pramas, Chris (2008-07-14). "Green Ronin and Fourth Edition D&D". Green Ronin. Retrieved 2008-11-20.

But I'm not clear that continued use of the old OGL represents a new trend in being "directly competitive"; weren't they already? I think this paragraph may need revision or clarification. There is also this news which has Wizards revising the GSL.—RJH (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Necromancer Games is not a division of Paizo Publishing, so I am not seeing what you are saying. ??? shadzar-talk 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Piazo announcement said, "Paizo hopes to support 4th Edition with fan-created online conversions of its Pathfinder products and a complete line from its partner company, Necromancer Games, a trend-setter in the original Open Gaming movement."—RJH (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Then it is boiling down to legal definitions. Paizo is not supporting the GSL because to do so would require them to forgo their own Pathfinder game under the terms of the license as you give up the right to use the OGL when you accept the GSL. What they are supporting is the fans of 4th edition by publishing freelance articles and materials online, but not producing them themselves, so are not bound by the GSL. This of course is if my understanding of the GSL and OGL are correct. So Necromancer being a separate business entity than Paizo has accepted the GSL and will be selling or offering this content freely through Paizo publshing and their online resources without Paizo needing to adhere to the terms of the GSL. Paizo was like other not in competition with WotC during the OGL because the intent was that everyone was granted a free license to use certain material. Now that Paizo is working under the OGL to keep a version of the discarded 3rd edition rules going under their Pathfinder product line, then they are competing directly with 4th edition and WotC with their version of D&D under the name Pathfinder. shadzar-talk 22:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So rather than stating, "...Wizards of the Coast D&D books have made the decision to pursue a directly competitive path instead", would it be clearer to say "...D&D product line, have made the decision to continue supporting the obsolete 3rd edition rules, thereby competing directly with Wizards of the Coast"?—RJH (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

EGG or GG

Ok let us bring this to the talk page rather than an edit war on the article itself. Each person please start by stating your reasoning of why you think the way the name should be presented in the article is. shadzar-talk 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't recall having ever seen his name in a gamebook, and I've practically never heard it in discussion. Besides, the "Gary Gygax" article doesn't have his first name on it, presumably because that was the name he most commonly went by. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would normally expect to see the initialized first or middle name in cases where ambiguity can arise. But I've seen both forms of Gygax's name used and I don't have a particular preference.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

References

There are currently two different styles of references being used in this article interchangeably. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to merge all of the books in the "references" section into the accurate locations for the references (e.g. replacing "(Tweet 2003:59) Multiclass Characters" with "Tweet, Jonathan; Monte Cook, Skip Williams (2003). Player’s Handbook v.3.5, Wizards of the Coast. ISBN 0-7869-2886-7.", and then merging all of the other "Tweet (2003)" references into that same one). It's mostly just a matter of style, but I think that the current mix-and-match system is kind of weird. I'll get to work on this probably tomorrow or the day after unless there are objections. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got through quiet a bit of the reference standardization. I'll get to the rest of it over the next few days; it's taking a little more time than I'd expected. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations, where is says, "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change an article to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." Personally I don't have an issue with changing styles, but it's usually good practice to gain consensus first for this type of mass revision.—RJH (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. I wouldn't have done anything except that some of the referenced books used one style, while some used the other, so it was kind of mixed-and-matched. I thought it would be easier to read if all of the refs used the same style, so I thought I'd change them. I can revert it back to the version before I started, or I can finish it up. My bad; I'll definitely keep that in mind. Thanks for pointing it out. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've been slammed (and reverted) for doing the same thing in the past, so I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about that (I think I'd seen it before, but there's so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines that they can be hard to keep track of). Should I finish the format conversion or should I remove the changes? It probably shouldn't be kept at a "halfway point" like this. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I vote for "please finish", I think you have done a great job so far, and would like to say thank-you! - IanCheesman (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll try and finish it up later today. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! So that's what the "in use" template is for - LOL  :) BOZ (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. Since your edits were pretty minor, it was pretty easy to combine them. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a mistake. Now if I delete a claim, need to get the original source to determine which of the page numbers I need to delete from the citation. For example, if "or add additional character classes.[14]" is deemed to be unnecessary, which page do I remove from the citation? 4–5, 58–59, 62, 114, 136, or 145? If I want to check a citation, I need to check a bunch of pages for the relevant bit. One citation per page, in a larger work, is more clear for both of these reasons. Of course, it's bulky and redundant, so instead of using the full citation, we use the abbreviated "(Lastname Year)" form and just use the full citation once. Now the existing form was mixed, but the rule as I understood it was: Use a citation once? Use the full inline form. Use it twice or more? Use the abbreviated form. This roughly matches academic books where the first footnote will be the full citation and later footnotes will be abbreviated. Unfortunately doing the first footnote only case is a pain in the but on Wikipedia, so a collected References section accomplishes the same thing. If the mixed form is a big deal, I could see going to using short form universally, with the attendant expansion of the References section. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds logical. I'll revert the changes; I do think that the reference styles need work. Some of short descriptions aren't linked to lower references, for example, and in places a listed reference is only being used once. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I can work on the more minor improvements I mentioned above over the next few days. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the sort cite to long cite links, but now that I notice them, I think they're great. I'm going to start working on them. Now, I know the general rule is to only link on the fist mention, but in this case I think linking every time is a good idea, so that's my current plan. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's my initial notes on stuff that needs consideration. Feel free to add to it and to strike out things as they're resolved. I'm guessing the "No reference" entries are just typos, we just need to track down the sources and confirm this. "Used once," we need to decide: do we always use references, only use references when a reference is used more than once (possibly adding in long/complex citations). I don't have a real opinion, but we should pick one and stick with it. "Unused" just seem unnecessary, I'll delete them momentarily. Thanks, Drilnoth, for drawing attention to this! — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No reference

• Mentzer 1985 - Maybe Gygax & Mentzer 1985, Maybe Mentzer 1986, or Mentzer 1984
• Gygax 1979a - Maybe Gygax 1979

Used once

• Allston 1992 - Used alongside Mentzer 1986, also used once.
• Cook 1989b
• Heinsoo 2008 (also an unusually long form)
• Williams 1995
• Williams 2000
• Williams 2003 - Although used alongside Tweet 2003 and Cook 2003 in a single note, likely to get very long if all three are inlined.
• Slavicsek & Sernett 2006 - Used alongside Tweet 2004
• Pryor 1993
• Mentzer 1986 - Used alongside Allston, also used once.
• Gygax & Mentzer 1985 - Assuming "Mentzer 1985" should actually be "Gygax & Mentzer 1985", this is used twice.
• Gygax 1985
• Gygax 1977
• Gygax 1983a, but used in a note including three references
• Gygax 1981a, but used in a note including three references
• Gygax 1977, but used in a note including three references
• Gygax 1983b, but used in a note including two references
• Gygax 1981b, but used in a note including two references

Unused

• Cook, David (1989a). Dungeon Master’s Guide. TSR. ISBN 0-88038-729-7.
• Slavicsek, Bill (2006). Dungeon Master For Dummies. Wiley Publishing. ISBN 0-471-78330-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - I double checked the Slavicsek & Baker 2005 citations against the actual books, and they are correct. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• Pulsipher, Lew (1983). "Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons, Parts I-V". The Best of White Dwarf (Articles Volume II). Games Workshop: 10–18.
• Mentzer, Frank (1984). Dungeons & Dragons (Set 3: Companion Rules), TSR. ISBN 0880383402.

Need investigating

• Checking the source, (Cook 1989b) probably refers to Cook 1989b in the References, but it might also refer to Cook 1995 used in the citation for "Although still referred to by TSR...". I'm guessing the former. I believe the fix is: 1. delete "origdate = 1989b" from Cook 1995's citation, 2 delete the "b" from 1989b in the other two entries. However, it would be good to double check.

Thanks for the list! FAs need to be the best articles possible, and I had just noticed that some improvement was needed, although I wasn't sure quite what to do. I'll get to work on some of them tommorrow. If I remember correctly, the Mentzer 1984 reference is used (there's a typo somewhere and its the wrong date), and the White Dwarf and Dungeon Master for Dummies books should probably be put into "Further Reading". -Drilnoth (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted them before seeing your comment. Good idea; I'll re-add them there. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to mess up the system, so I didn't change these things; there are a couple reference tag errors in Game mechanics:

• ...wealth, and may even change alignment[41] or add additional character classes.[42] Multiclass Characters</ref>
• ...which grants the character improved class features, abilities and skills.[44] Experience and Levels</ref>

-70.107.231.195 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for pointing those out! I'll fix them up as I'm reformatting the refs. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be festivus because I feel like airing a grievance

Well, no offense, but the citation scheme used on this page has become very inconsistent. It can't decide whether it is using footnotes or shortened footnotes. The schema is mixing notes with shortened references and full references, then adding a separate references section at the bottom. There are also full references appearing in both the notes and references sections. This was all nice and tidy at one point, but now it is converging on rather a bloody mess, pardon my French. =)

Could we get a protection from chaos effect going here and standardize on one citation scheme? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's on my to-do list, after the lengthy discussion above. I'm still not quite sure what scheme should be used, though; any opinions would be great! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay great. Perhaps the reference section should only be used for general sources that have multiple page references? However, I know there are some editors who are pretty religious about their style preferences, so mostly I would just like to see a consistent style chosen. That would help prevent it from becoming an FAR issue in the future. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Note, however, that being on my to-do list doesn't mean that I'll be fixing the problem within a few days; right now I'm spending a lot of time on the Gary Gygax FAC, but I think that once that's over I'll have the time for this. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be most excellent. Thank you. Something that I would like to mention is the potential use of the {{rp}} template for listing page numbers, such as for notes 39-43. By placing page numbers inline, this would allow for consolidation of many of the notes. (However, see the warning at the bottom of the template page.)—RJH (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I think that universally using shortened footnotes would probably work best; it would be both easier to rewrite and would consolidate all references into a single place in the edit window. I don't want to make such a drastic change without consensus, so, any opinions? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Support—Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay; when I'm not working on FACs or GANs, I'll work on getting the refs here standardized, and I'm also going to do a bit of other cleanup while I'm at it. All help is appreciated, of course! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A question: Should footnotes be linked to the full references? I'm asking because it's quite a bit of work to properly format everything (also expanding the article's size), and it's more likely to fall apart... as users who don't know how the system works edit the article, the ref formatting may deteriorate and need regular maintenance to remain an FA. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

{deindenting} I'm not quite sure what you mean about linking footnotes to full references. Perhaps something like this: "See: F. Baggins (111)"? My experience has been that FA pages always need periodic maintenance and regular watching, if only to keep entropy to a minimum.—RJH (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean the way that refs in the notes (like "Gygax; Player's Handbook") link to the full reference via a wikilink using <cite></cite> tags (the given example links to "Gygax, Gary (1978). Player's Handbook. TSR. ISBN 0-935696-01-6."). I don't really mind either way, but I'm concerned that new users might not know how to use the Cite tags... I didn't until I was looking it up for this article in particular. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm with you now. Those links certainly does make the article look polished, but you're right in that the note-to-reference links may be more trouble than they're worth.

One other thing I noticed is repeated linking of the same author names in the references section. If you have no objection, I'll do a little cleanup once you're done. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll probably remove the direct links and just add in dates where possible for further clarification as to what ref is referred to in each note. I know that there's quite a few problems with formatting in the references section, and am planning to clean them up once the major reformatting is done, but help would certainly be appreciated. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. If you want to do any more cleanup you can, but I think that everything's been reformatted and alphabetized properly. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1993 TSR Master Catalog

quote
The D&D Game became a favorite among the military forces,because it was never the same game twice. The men stationed overseas introduced the game to adventurers around the world and this led to its translation into 14 different languages in 1982.
unquote

cite: TSR9912, 1993 TSR Master Catalog Collector's Edition, p5.

In the Acclaim and influence section the first paragraph can be updated to reflect what led to the translation of the game and also state that at least 14 translations were released in 1982.--LexCorp (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the first, I think that a secondary source might be needed for that opinion about the popularity in the military forces. (I've heard something along those lines, but it might be hard to confirm with a neutral source.) Book translations are usually for profit by the publisher. Is there an unusual reason in this case? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No really. I was going through my D&D stuff and found the Catalog. Thought it was relevant to that part of the article. I guess the for profit is true but also remember that TSR was rescued from bankruptcy twice.--LexCorp (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Game Master?

I am unable to find any reference to a DM as a Game Master or GM....? Someone tell me where this was written, please? Then again, I only play v2, v3, v3.5 and v4. Is this in the original D&D game? 96.49.66.117 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Glacier Hawk

The DM functions precisely as a GM; thus DM=GM. The only difference is that "DM" is specific to Dungeons & Dragons. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't an April Fools joke... :-) I've always suspected that GM was coined by other game developers to avoid copyright issues with D&D and their use of DM.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's a matter of trademark, not copyright. Checking in the US (link may expire, sorry, blame the USPTO), I can find registered trademarks going back to 1992. I'm surprised I didn't find older ones. Maybe they relied on non-registered trademarks. And, of course, as RPGs branched out into other genres, "Dungeon Master" became increasingly silly. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, a DM is not called a GM. GM is just a common term for anyone who is a master of a game, like in WOW. Also, and EM, or Event Manager, is a special rank in RPGA that is kind of like a DM. The Beatles Fan (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the 1974 "Dungeons & Dragons" release, the individual tasked with "running" the game is referred to as the "Dungeon Master". As AD&D developed, the term became common-use and the book containg the rules this individual had to have was called the "Dungeon Master's Guide". After Steve Jackson left TSR and started writing his own games (primarily the G.U.R.P.S. system), he changed the term to "Game Master" to reflect the "generic" nature of his rules system. The "Game Master" term stuck and has become more mainstream over the last 20 years.Rapier1 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All of which is covered in our Game Master and Dungeon Master articles. Powers ^T 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)