Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 2

message: I restored the section on the campaign settings, as they are just as an importent part of D&D as the mini's and adventure modules are.  If this section was removed to save room, I would reccomend the the computer game & controversy be trimed down into their own articles, but the idea of completly removing somthing as big as the campaign setting just to save room is downright ridicules.  Avador 19:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree and have re-removed that section -- this was hashed out in detail on this very talk page.  I did make sure there was a seealso tag pointing to the campaign settings article, though.  I would not be opposed to refactoring and trimming the computer game and controversy sections also. Nandesuka 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that is a better idea, but if your going to combine the two, why not rename the section Adventures & Campaigns?  In addition you could breifly mention what a published setting is, and mention 1-2 well known ones like FR & Eberron.  Avador 01:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign Settings

message: I'd like to see this article nominated as a Feature Article, again. The content has always been meritorious, and I think with the work that's been done since the original nomination, the article is now near a condition that it will reflect Wikipedia's values. I'm wondering what other people think the article still needs in terms of polishing, and I've got two specific concerns I'd like to get some feedback on:
* I feel comfortable that all the images fall under fair use, given their context in the article. And I've done my best to notate the images appropriately. Anyone disagree?
* The size of the article is beginning to bloat back up again. We had it under 32KB for a bit, but the constant groth of the pop culture section has pushed it back up again. I've questioned the need for the pop culture section before (see below) -- it seems unmaintainable and prone to exactly the type of bloat that we've been seeing. The way I see it, there are a couple of different options:
# Eliminate the section entirely. I don't really endorse this course of action.
# Prune the list back to only the most notable pop culture references. The article on Monopoly, for example, doesn't list every single movie, television show, and song that has ever mentioned Monopoly in passing. The problem with this approach is that, given past history, I suspect that it would be a constant battle to keep the list pruned to reasonable length.
# Include a short section in the article on pop culture references to D&D, discussing them in general. Work a couple of notable examples into the discussion, without resorting to an impossibly exhausting list. (In the absence of any comment, this is the course I'll take in a few days. I just don't want to act unilaterally here.)
Justin Bacon 03:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also spin it off into say List of Dungeons & Dragons pop culture references. But I agree it definately needs to be pruned in the main article.  ALKIVAR™ 23:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, good idea! Prune the section in the main article back to my #3, above, and then dump the current contents of the section into List of Dungeons & Dragons pop culture references. Justin Bacon 00:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What Still Needs Doing?

message: Well I just added a few board games to the list that weren't on there, and also added a new wiki page for one of them.  I know there are some others, can anyone think of any? Eirek 11:36, 11/09/05
:The Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Adventure Boardgame is not a board game. See talk page for details. --Jamdav86 19:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dungeon and Dragons Board Games

message: Hi.  Please make sure that if you add to this article, you use one of these two italicized forms for the name of the game (modified appropriately for version):
Good:
* Dungeons & Dragons
* D&D
Bad:
* Dungeons and Dragons
* D'n'D
* D and D
* Dung3onz AnD DrAgoNZZZZZZomgwtf!!1!11!!one
Maintaining a consistent style throughout the article will help its quality.  Thanks, Nandesuka 15:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of Title 

message: I agree with the sections we have in the article at the moment, bu tthink they should be re arranged. The intro (before table of contents) should be a sumary mini article and I think does a good job of this at the moment. People who want a quick answer can read just the first section (or even more briefly just the first paragraph) to get an definition of D&D and an idea what the rest of the article is about.
Here is how I propose the rest of the article be re-arranged and my reasoning:
# Play Overview - D&D is a game, and this is about how the game works and what you need to play. It is fundamental to what D&D is
# Criticism and Controversies - This is a large part of what D&D is known for amoungst the general public
#Game History - Of great interest to those that have played D&D in the past but have not kept up with what happened between then and now.
#Related products - BTW needs to have a comics subsection added if someone knows about these.
#Links merge See also (which needs to be reduced anyway) and External Links
:- Waza 06:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Structure

message: I remember getting the Dungeons and Dragons game for Christmas years ago.  All copyrights on the year 1976 and before is due to expire in the year 2006.  That is the nature of copyright, make your money and move on where after over twenty years of not making your money, then it is worthless.
:I think the pithiest response to this is a simple, "WTF?" Justin Bacon 04:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be nice if that was true.  However, due to Disney and others' strong efforts to expand copyright far beyond the life of the actual creator of the work, U.S. copyrights now last over 100 years past the life of the artist, and that's always increasing, because, after all, Mickey Mouse can never become public domain.  It just wouldn't be right. 16:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Expires 

message: I have removed the entirety of the content added by 70.146.118.249 regarding sexual content in D&D illustrations and parental concerns of "self-gratfication" (a euphemism for masturbation). The content is clearly POV, but that's not the reason I'm removing it. I'm widely read in the anti-D&D literature of the mid-'80s, having studied the topic extensively in the early '90s for an article published in a defunct gaming magazine. The issue of "sexual content" never cropped up in any of that reading. When TSR dropped the age of their target audience with 2nd Edition, they also eliminated the nude females from their art -- but this was proactive, not reactive to any sort of publicized or widespread complaint. Unless some sort of citation can be provided for this anonymous contribution, I don't believe it should be restored to the article. Justin Bacon 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: There is an article for Dungeons & Dragons 2: Wrath of the Dragon God, but it's currently terrible. I have not seen it and am thus in no position to edit it into something usable. Could someone...? PurplePlatypus 07:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be watching the movie sometime this weekend, I think. I'll see what I can do about cleaning it up after that. (Unless someone else has beaten me to it.) Justin Bacon 21:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  D&D2 Movie 

message: I think that all the various D&D computer and video games deserve thier own section, especially the SSI Gold Box games.  Taking this section out of this article and giving it its own home would better explain those games and shorten this article some since it is very long (it is very comprehensive which is good).
:Well, List of Dungeons & Dragons computer and video games already exists. If you want to do a longer article on them in addition to or as a replacement for that, it doesn't seem like a terrible idea; I'm sure there is interest. Clearly there should also be mention of them here, but cutting it down to a couple of paragraphs seems reasonable if there is a seperate article on the topic. PurplePlatypus 07:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't support the idea of cutting this section of the article down. Right now this section gives a pretty solid beginning-middle-end summary of the history of D&D in computer games. IOW, a basic summary of D&D computer games (which this article needs) would include: (a) the first D&D computer game; (b) SSI's gold box and post-gold box games; (c) Bioware's success with the license; (d) Neverwinter Nights and the transition to 3rd Edition rules; (e) future plans for the license; and (f) a mention that most CRPGs are directly or indirectly based on D&D. And this section of the article pretty much does that and doesn't do much else besides. As PurplePlatypus says, though, there's plenty of room for an article dedicated to D&D computer games. Justin Bacon 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate D&D Computer Game Section 

message: I do not play D&D, so I'm not familiar with the reasons why there seems to be an (unexplained) obsession with hexoganal maps, as opposed to square grids.  How does this impact gameplay?  Is there a substantive reason for this departure from "typical" gaming systems, or is this just an arbitrary preference?  This is one of those things that seems to give "character" to D&D, but as of now, I don't understand how this departure characterizes the D&D community.
:Well, the current version uses square grids for combat, square grids for small-scale maps, and quite often no grid at all for large-scale maps (just a scale in the corner, as you typically see for real-world maps); hexes are rarely seen at the moment. But having said that, hexes came into D&D by way of various wargames, which use them because they are in some respects more flexible and easier to work with when dealing with combat movement. Without them your movement rules either need an awkward special case for diagonal movement (such as current D&D, which counts them as alternately one square and two) or you end up with movement rules that just plain don't make sense (like forcing you to count the squares on a non-diagonal path when you move diagonally, making such movement quite expensive and implying a world with truly bizarre physics). PurplePlatypus 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good explanation, PurplePlatypus. I also found that hex maps were more realistic for natural landscapes. They encourage the map-maker to avoid straight lines. --Tysto 01:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hex maps?

message: Sorry, my last edit summary got cut off because I hit Enter prematurely. It was meant to say "Note that 'Includes' does not imply a complete list." PurplePlatypus 22:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor oops

message: Baldur's Gate wasn't developed by Black Isle, as the article stated.  It was developed by Bioware and published by Interplay (home to Black Isle), as was its sequel, whereas IWD, IWDII and PS:T were developed (in house) by Black Isle and published by Interplay using the Infinity Engine originally developed by Bioware.  I attempted to clarify this. --Yst 17:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: I don't believe the image of the first page of a D&D character sheet should be used here, due to copyright.  The user who uploaded it didn't, IMO, give a strong enough reason why it isn't copyright infringement.  The fact that the page states that the image is for personal use only doesn't give a site like Wikipedia permission to use it, as Wikipedia is not using it for personal use. 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Character Sheet Image Use Appropriate?

message: Since this article is so big, why is there such a big section on related products? There should be a separate article on D&D-related products that the main D&D article can link to. After all, related products are not themselves D&D, and should not have as much space in the D&D article as they do.
:I agree this section of the article is too big a proportion of the total. There should be a brief summary of the types of related products then a more comrehensive listing in a seperate article - Waza 06:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related products... separate article? 

message: See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive V#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles.  I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread.  Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Universes not belong in Wikipedia? 

message: There has just ben started a new Wikiproject regarding Role playing Games. If you would like to join, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games and add your self. Angelbo 13:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Role-playing games

message: Since there is a large difference between the different edditions of D&D, I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to construct seperate articles for each eddition of D&D (Basic-Expert, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, I'm not sure about constucting one for the current game, as much of the main article has most of the information on that.  My primary reason for stateing this that there are several fans of the previous games who do not appriciate the current rulesystem as demonstated by Dragonsfoot.org, and if information from this page were taken, and given lenthly expansions, it could easily make exellent individual articles. Avador 05:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to this but no motivation to be involved in it either. So if you want to make an article just make sure you have enough encyclopedic edition specific information tand write it. I think this article is important as a comparison for people interested in the game but only familar with some editions (old or new) to understand the key differences - Waza 06:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual AD&D entrys

message: The article doesn't really address some of the criticisms that D&D commonly face (other than me).  That is, it's kind of the Quake of RPGs.  
The way hit points work is a frequent source of jokes, discussion, and confusion. ( Like in Doom-style shooters, in D&D you keep fighting with no penalties until you get to 0 hit points. )  
I won't go into how the d20 system is messed up in other ways here and now.
Many games of D&D also devolve into powergaming, munchkin-filled "kill it and loot it" sessions.  That fact spawned the card game Munchkin.
Hm. Doesn't seem to mention Hit Points once.
Would this stuff go in some other related article?
And I'll admit, I don't have a very neutral point of view on this subject naturally.  I've had some bad D&D play experiences lately.
(Fanboys: please don't eat me. kthx) 192.154.130.112 19:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're saying. Should we create a 'criticism' section, for pet peeves? Yes, the game mechanics are less than realistic. In my view, realism is up to the DM and the players. A lot of the game is not strictly about rules, you see. As for Hitpoints, one optional rule suggests that characters be penalised for losing more than half their remaining Hitpoints in a single attack, which means that when characters are low on Hitpoints, they are certainly less able to fight effectively. -- Ec5618 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think the article should go into too much detail about rule-critizism, as virtually every rule system can be critizised for either too few, too many, too flawed, too complicated or too stupid rules. But maybe D&D's reputation for powergaming and flaws that are used in many jokes might be worth mentioning. We just have to make sure that a common Wikipedia visitor still can understand you. -- Genesis 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is big enough already and the type of critisms talked about here are only of interest to power games (and only a concern to those interested in total realism - you don't hear of serious chess players complaining of lack of realism in their game). I think that these type of critisms do have a place in Wikipedia but not in the main D&D article, maybe a seperate article on D&D Game Mechanics or maybe more approriately d20 Game Mechanics. This new article could be linked from the play overview section if someone decides to create it. We need to remember this article is the base article for people who want to find out about D&D and are coming at it from a broad variety of directions of intial exposure so have very different base knowledge. it should provide a broad overview with links to other articles for those who want to research specific aspects further. - Waza 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree yet. If you are planning to create such an article, please show more of what you plan to include. I'm not sure this is worthy of a separate article yet, though D&D quirks should perhaps be mentioned more prominently, to avoid this article set becoming an abstracted rulebook. -- Ec5618 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really understand the criticism myself. If a group of players comes together to roleplay, and they all enjoy themselves, that's fine. But if a some powergamers come together and have fun, that's not alright? I suppose it's fine to keep in the article if the criticism is widespread, but I doubt I'll ever understand it. It'd make more sense if regular old DnD was one massive MMORPG, where the players can't change the rules to suit their playstyles. 68.14.76.151 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Is there a better way to break this up?  It lurches from the stuff about religious concerns straight into the controversy about judges guild, which seems to come out of nowhere.  Also, I think this section should at least touch on how Gygax eventually got pushed out / left and the death of TSR and subsequent purchase by WotC.
:I've tried a cut at breaking it up with sub-headings and adding the point on Gygax.  Are we ok there now, or does it still need work?  Fairsing 19:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Wasn't Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor the first D&D computer game to use the 3rd edition rules rather than NWN?
If the list contains notable computer games that used the D&D licenses, why is Everquest and Ultima Online even mentioned? 
Doug McLaren 23:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The computer game section ...