Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks

No Link on Dungeons & Dragons

I am just curious as to why this page, which I view would be very important as it lists all the official rulebooks, isn't linked from the Dungeons & Dragons page.Eric42 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

By edition?

It looks like you originally intended to make one list per edition. Are you going to organize this list by edition? I think that might be a better idea than one sprawling list organized only by title. :) BOZ (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That would work too; I had been planning on having One Sprawling List™, but your idea makes more sense. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts regarding separating 3rd edition books from 3.5 edition books? There were enough mechanical changes, it might be worthwhile to separate which ones rely on 3.0 mechanics and which ones use 3.5 mechanics. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.18.35.34 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Seperate list for 4th?

Lists like this are a fantastic resource for collectors (I've relied on many book lists on Wikipedia in the past) and i'm hoping to put some work into this list, perhaps one day getting it to FL status. It's currently marked as incomplete and I'm planning to work towards fixing that.

One idea i'd like to throw out there though, should we consider moving 4th edition out into a separate list? As we get more information we might want to seperate other editions out as well, but 4th edition in particular as it is the current version and books are consistently being released for it, so the list will be in flux. There is no reason why lists of the other editions couldn't be considered complete with a little work, but a 4th edition list will never be complete until we get to fifth edition. FraterNLST (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the 4th edition list is likely to be the shortest (aside from the original 1974 version) so I don't know that it quite merits its own page just yet. Meanwhile, this page needs a ton of work, but don't let that discourage you. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is going to be the shortest, in the near term anyway, but it's also the only one constantly in flux. The guidelines seem to suggest that an incomplete tag should be left on unstable list, and any list of currently-running rpg's is going to be, by definition, unstable. FraterNLST (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The events surrounding the release of the Expert Set in 1981

I'm finding the events of 1981 quite fascinating when TSR decided to separate out D&D from AD&D. This controversy is briefly mentioned in the editions section but uncited, i've included it here briefly with a citation I come across that seems to fit the events reasonably closely. (Ie, has an internal logic).

This logic is basically - initial conception was Basic -> AD&D, some sort of legal problems broke out and Expert was released to prove the two games were completely separated. This theory seems backed up by the removal of the original text (which directed players to progress from Basic to AD&D) from later printings of works.

Unfortunately, my only citation for this is not much more than hearsay, and is completely unreferenced itself. If anyone comes across any secondary sources to this time period, please let me know. (Good or bad, I'm interesting in any references at this point.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterNLST (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that information should probably be moved to a different article, rather than the list; maybe Editions of Dungeons & Dragons? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree, for two main reasons.

1: Utility - When people use lists like this they generally want them for one of several reasons. Collectors use them to build checklists, people use them to see where individual items (or subcollections) fit in the larger scope, and some just out of general curiousity or for research purposes. For all of these it is more useful to have a short summary of why there are two streams then a plain, unexplained list. Context is important and the cost in space is quite low.

2: Goals - As I mentioned earlier, though we're a long way from it at the moment and there is a lot of work ahead of us, my eventual goal in editing this list is to get it to Featured list status. If you browse through the featured lists, you'll see that Context is very much an important factor. A simple list of booknames is barely more than a stub and not anywhere near as useful as it could be.

Please note that i'm not suggesting I write an essay on the legal issues on this page, if I get some good information I will certainly update the editions page as well, however there is a need for a smaller scope of information here. Basically, I think it's important here that we summarise and say "There was a split, and it was due to a legal issue", whilst on the editions page we would write full details about the issues and the circumstances surrounding them. FraterNLST (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New table

I changed the list from Advanced Dungeons& Dragons into a table. I used a sortable table instead of the format used in the other tables because, frankly, it's more useful: readers can sort by name, publication date, number of pages and even authors (which has some shortcomings, but it's still possible). The summary of each book readers can get from the article itself. Having them in long lists is just clutter.

It's just MHO, but I think all the list tables should be converted to sortable tables, except for perhaps the Original Dungeons & Dragons table (because it only contains six books). Just try finding a book in the Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition and v3.5 list. Try to determine the publish order of the books. Try to figure out the longest or the shortest. Not easy, is it? Like I said, it's just my opinion, but I think it's the right way to go. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Great work! I agree with what you are saying. I was just thinking earlier today about how odd this page was, having a table for 3rd edition and OD&D but lists for the other editions. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Source book vs. rulebook

A discussion cropped up on the talk page of the List of Dungeons & Dragons modules about the difference between sourcebooks and rulebooks. What came out is that there isn't a real clear distinction between the two. Therefore, we're wondering if all D&D rulebooks/sourcebooks (with the notable exception of adventure modules) should go in one article, such as this one. Thoughts? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say a rulebook focuses more on game mechanics and character building while a sourcebook deals more with roleplaying and world development. The distinctions aren't always so clear, though, so for now I think we should include both together. 63.140.90.31 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

3rd Edition Table

Before I reformat the table of all the 3rd edition books, does anyone know why it is formatted different from the other editions? I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. EDIT: Also, is there any reason the 4th ed books aren't in a table? I am happy to fix this. Thomaslove92 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably only because it takes a lot of work and time to set up tables like this. If you want to work on it, that would be great. 2601:240:C701:45F0:ACF6:445B:84C4:5443 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Premium Releases -

Would it be worthwhile noting the Premium releases/reprints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.234.125 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but as footnotes rather than separate entries. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Should the modules and adventures be there for 5e?

Should the modules and adventures be there for 5e? They aren't for any other edition and aren't really rulebooks. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• And now I come to think of it should the Unearthed Arcana? We don't after all list the Dragon Magazine issues with rules for other editions. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Good question. There is definitely a lot of repeated info between this article, List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures, and List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks and List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks. UA seems potentially useful to have a list of somewhere, but it is definitely getting a bit long at this point. Not sure of the best solution.

Perhaps the articles could use some dramatic restructuring, into articles for each product by edition. I don't think there's a substantial benefit to the current format which tries to categorize them into "adventures" vs. "rulebooks" across all editions. It seems much easier to have an article that lists all products for each specific edition. (Alternately, rather than just being a list of products for that edition, we could have an article devoted to each edition, and list the products for that edition as part of that article.) @Neonchameleon: Thoughts? V2Blast (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

V2Blast Neonchameleon As of right now, Editions of Dungeons & Dragons groups the editions together. I like the idea of splitting out the D&D editions with rulebooks getting moved to their respective editions. When I added the UA list, I didn't think about how unwieldy it would become due to length so my apologies! My original thought process was that public playtesting has been a huge part of the development of 5E so it would be good to have a list to track it. If we have a separate 5E article, then the UA should be moved there. However, my only concern would be that there has been a push to delete and pare down RPG & tabletop game articles. If I remember correctly, the separated-out Warhammer edition articles got folded into either Warhammer (game) or Warhammer 40,000 in late 2019. So if we want to separate out the editions, we need a reason that each edition needs its own article vs just being included in the larger D&D article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo and Neonchameleon: That is true. I do think each edition has been independently notable (5e most of all, since it's basically outsold all previous editions combined), but I don't know how exactly to establish that. Nor do I really know how I'd get consensus for such a decision from people. Such a dramatic shift feels a bit like fighting an uphill battle... Arguably it might be easier to have the separate articles by edition just be lists of products for that edition (rather than articles devoted to each edition itself), but I don't know if that's just me thinking there'd be a lower bar of notability for lists or something. I don't know what the criteria for standalone lists (as opposed to regular articles) is or where I'd find it. V2Blast (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@V2Blast: I think folding sourcebook lists into individual edition articles will have a better chance at withstanding notability tests than just lists on their own. I think this is because most of the lists are citing primary sources versus Wikipedia's gold standard of secondary sources... (this is mostly my gut feeling based on the amount of AfDs I've seen). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This is mostly for self-reference, but potentially useful to others: The overall Wikipedia guidelines on stand-alone lists are at WP:STANDALONE, the relevant notability guidelines for stand-alone lists are at WP:LISTN, and the Manual of Style page for lists is at MOS:LIST. I'm also bringing this idea/proposal to the wider community at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons; I've posted my proposal on the talk page there. You two should have gotten a notification about it; feel free to weigh in. V2Blast (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note – For anyone looking for it, the discussion (or lack thereof) linked above has since been archived here. V2Blast (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

5e PDF Extra Life releases?

The 5th edition section on PDF/print-on-demand releases lists a number of products, most of which were released to raise funds for Extra Life (all proceeds go towards the Extra Life charity). In fact, all of them so far except the EEPC and WGtE are Extra Life releases. What would be the best way to note which of these products are for Extra Life? Asterisks/daggers, with a footnote below the table? A footnote at the bottom of the page? Just a line of regular unformatted text below the table?

On a related note, is it worth mentioning somehow that the EEPC reprints the spells and one race (genasi) from the Princes of the Apocalypse adventure? Perhaps in a similar footnote or a line below the table? I suppose the same goes for WGtE containing the same content as E:RftLW... Then again, reprinted content isn't listed anywhere for the other releases either, so who knows; maybe it's unnecessary to note. V2Blast (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

JS Snippet for scraping WOTC catalog pages

Run this in browser console on https://dnd.wizards.com/products/catalog and other subpages of that

$('footer').hide();let zzz=setInterval(()=>{var e=$(".action-button");if(e.length)e.click(),setTimeout(()=>{$("html, body").animate({scrollTop:$(document).height()},200)},300);else{clearInterval(zzz);let e="";$.when($(".book-info").each((t,l)=>{var r=$($(l).find(".price-date")[1]).text().replaceAll("Release Date:"," ");var q=$(l).find(".author a").text();var n=$(l).find(".category").text();let o=`${$(l).find("h4").text().trim()};${r.trim()};${q.trim()};${n.trim()}`;console.log(o),e+="\n"+o.replaceAll("\n","").replaceAll("\t","").replaceAll("\r","").replaceAll("  "," ").replaceAll("  "," ").replaceAll("  "," ").replaceAll("  "," ").replaceAll("  "," ")})).then(()=>{$("body").html(`<pre>${e}</pre>`).find("pre").css("font-size","2em");$('html,body').animate({scrollTop:0},500)},null)}},800);

the page will be replaced with a list in the format

Product Name;Release Date;Author;Category

--151.15.212.245 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks? 2601:249:8B80:4050:4CAA:7CEC:3F30:7DB9 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

3rd Ed section MUST be totally redone

The summaries are obvious copyvios of the catalog/cover blurbs from back in the day. The use of second person is the give away. And even if they weren't straight up copyvios, they'd be completely inappropriate per WP:YOU. Frankly, unless it gets fixed, we're going to have to nuke the whole section because of the copyright issues. oknazevad (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

And when I say MUST, I mean MUST. Copyright violations are serious business and can get the whole article deleted. So I don't care what else you have planned for this article, this must be done first. oknazevad (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternate cover books

The 5th edition alternate cover books are missing. Since they have their own ISBN numbers and in at least one case, their own release dates, I'd like to add them for reference. Would it be best to include them in their own table for easy reference or as separate lines in each of the existing 5e tables (since there are a few alternate cover boxed sets which would need the Contents column)? Quasar50 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

3rd edition Forgotten Realms

there were quite a few books for the Forgotten Realms setting in 3rd edition that are omitted from this list. 184.155.176.251 (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

See List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

5th edition

The material listed for 5th edition takes up almost half the page, but the current edition does not have the most material released of all editions! This was supposed to be a list of rulebooks, but we also have digital releases and a long list of playtest material, which bloats that section well beyond that of any other edition. Is there a better place to move that content to? We don't, for example, list all content published in Dragon for the first four editions, or they would be much longer than what we currently have for 5th, and I'm glad we're not doing that. 207.229.139.154 (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We should remove the playtest material, as it's not fully official. And the D&D Beyond bits are, as you note, essentially the same as the old magazine articles, and we don't include all that. They're not books, so they don't belong in a list of rulebooks. I removed those sections, and also trimmed other redundant bits. Trending way too close to a WP:NOTCATALOG violation, to be honest. That leaves this open to being brought up for deletion, which would be a very bad thing. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I moved the UA stuff over to Unearthed Arcana which is probably where it should have been from the start. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

But you restored the Accessories subsection. All of those (in all editions) should be removed as none of them are rulebooks. oknazevad (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the IP account that restored content - I just moved the UA stuff after the IP account restored it. If you want to remove the accessories, that seems fine. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was another IP user who restored it. Thanks for cleaning this up, much appreciated! 207.229.139.154 (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Print on Demand

I like that the extra lives print on demand are included. What's the reasoning for not including Heroes of Baldur's gate but including Chains of Asmodeus and and Minsc and Boo? 104.203.169.140 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Official status as first-party publications. Heroes of Baldur's Gate, as fantastic as it is, was produced outside WotC using the DM's Guild community content license. It's an authorized fan product, even if the fan that lead the project had been the lead writer of the first two Baldur's Gate video games. oknazevad (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)