Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 3

message: Protected page because of vandalism by 86.18.4.5-  N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 T a l k 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I think there is still some potential to shorten this article by forking off sections which relate to Role-playing generally rather than D&D. In particular, I think we could give Powergaming and Religious Objections to Fantasy Roleplaying their own articles. BreathingMeat 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Powergaming definitely. Fairsing 16:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Article is too large for anyone but a very interested reader. Summarise all and move info to new articles. I think the whole Controversy and notoriety section could be reduced to a paragraph with links to more detailed articles. especially as many are general critisims of RPGs and/or Fantasy rather than D&D specifically. -Waza 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forks

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

message: I would support the re-deletion of most of the info under Related Products as it is repeated in the Dungeons & Dragons related products article. BreathingMeat 03:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just re-deleted it. In fact, that's the reason I created the Dungeons & Dragons related products article, using the same information that was in this one, because this article is too long and needs to be shortened. Since related products are technically not D&D itself, it should be on a separate article anyway.154.20.208.181 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Why is Mazes and Monsters listed in "Further Reading"? From what I understand of this book, it gives a false impression of what D&D is about. Isn't "Further Reading" supposed to list items that let you actually learn something about the topic? Maybe I'm just mistaken about the book and/or the purpose of "Further Reading". If so, can someone explain? Thanks. 154.20.208.181 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section on Mazes and Monsters and James Dallas Egbert III to the controversy section.  I hope it's short.  I think Mazes and Monsters is at least as important to the history of the game as the copyright issues.  It seems like every players' mom saw that damn movie when it aired.  Ratbert42 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazes and Monsters in "Further Reading" 

message: This is some kind of custom class (remember that is not official , it's just to make the adventures more detailed).
Class Name: Fighter of Antimagic
  
Basicly , fighters that are experts at stopping magic.Here is an example:
 
Level: 4
STR 19  HP:31 AC:19=10+4+3+2+0
DEX 16  Init: 3 
CON 15   
INT 15  Fortitude:4 Reflex:4 Will:6
WIS 18  
CHA 16  Weapon: Longsword +1
Figther's of Antimagic Abilities:
1st   Resist Magic 1/day
2nd   
3rd   Bonus Feat,Resist Magic 2/day
4th   Magic Resistance 10%
5th   Bonus Feat,Resist Magic 3/day
Resist Magic:  At 1st level and every 2 levels , the hero can get (with a will save of DC 10+ Spell level+caster level) half of a spells damage or to half the duration of a spell.
This is the End. In case you think this class is useless or not very intelligent... please answer.
Written by: Vix on the Road (DnD player of course)
:This is original content and not suitable for an encyclopedia. However, it looks exactly like the sort of thing that they are looking for at the DnD Wiki mentioned above. BreathingMeat 22:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As BreathingMeat said, unencyclopedic. Formatted. -- Ec5618 00:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-official(DnD player made) class upgrades - Fighter of Antimagic 

message: I noticed that the powergaming section has been removed from the article for reasons of "not of interest to D&D" and "completely without references." However, powergaming has always been a point of discussion and arguement among gamers especially in D&D (although it's true that its presence is apparent in other games as well). A brief view of the official community board at Wizard of the Coast website, numerous large D&D community websites, and/or original pre-WotC D&D websites would reveal that the issue of powergaming is indeed an issue of sufficient weight.
The second point of lack of reference is true, but lacks merit. The whole issue of powergaming has always been player driven/derived, and there has never been any statement from an official source that specifically defines or addresses powergaming in a meaningful way. As a result, all sources of "powergaming" would not be official sources, but there would be a general consensus. Thus, the fact is there are lots of references, but none of them are sufficiently suitable and official to be cited in encyclopedia format.
Given these points, I would suggest that the section should be still included in the article. I am unsure about how we should find suitable references, however. Any suggestions? Allan Lee 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to save whatever information that was blanked that people feel is worth preserving in encyclopedia, but put that into the Powergaming article.  Then, put the heading back into the D&D article with just a brief note that "Like many role-playing games, the issue of Powergaming is of some controversy among D&D players" (or something similar), along with a "Main" template link to the Powergaming article.  The issue of sources for Powergaming can then be dealt with in its own article.  Fairsing 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fairsing, see my forks discussion above. The issue of powergaming is not peculiar to D&D, and if we were going to write all about powergaming in every RPG article, that would involve a lot of duplication. Better to have one single, well-written article about powergaming and have all other relevant articles refer to it. BreathingMeat 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Powergaming section 

message: I noticed the different editions are hardly mentioned in the article and none of the editions have articles of their own.  Would it be worth creating a subsection to briefly describe the differences between editions?
:See Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. There is already a link to it from the Edition History section. BreathingMeat 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions? 

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

message: I don't think skill by itself merits an article, but I don't think it should be merged here. I think gameplay needs its own article, with detailed discussions of skills, feats, character creation (though the current one is alright), combat, magic etc. Stilgar135 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the skills need any article at all since they do not represent anything other than the existing game format. If they were to included the varying format of all editions rather than the current edition for sale then maybe they could merit their own unbiased article. Because Feats and a few other things are only 5 years or so old in the entire lifespan of (A)D&D out of nearly 30 years it is but the most recent; and people still play previous editions that do not strictly adhere to the newest systems game mechanics. Probably an article giving general information of RPG game mechanics itself such as how it differes from board games, miniature games, card games, etc. Which could be made for ALL RPGs since they primarily follow the same mechanics or dice rolls (luck) with modifiers to determine the results of situations throughout gameplay. 71.71.79.235 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skill merge 

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

message: This article is getting hit by vandals every day, it might warrant some level of protection, at least against unregistered users. Piuro 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree.  I'm barely gone for six hours and I see either an edit summary that has the letters "rv" in it or an anon edit that's pure vandalism.-Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 03:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, especially against unregistered.Ethan a dawe 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles are vandalized fairly frequently. The vandalism here is very easy to spot and not 'sustained' or 'massive', so it's very unlikely this will be semiprotected. I know I would decline a request. --InShaneee 14:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The vandalism here has been pretty consistant for as long as the article has existed. It's always some different jock who finds the page and damages it. Semiprotection would mean that it would stop for a few days, as long as the semiprotection was in place, then it would continue again at the same rate. It would achieve nothing in the medium term, so I do not recommend that we seek semiprotection for this page. I'd like to say thanks to all the watchers here who revert the vandalism so quickly. BreathingMeat 19:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If people are listed users, there is a greater incentive to not vandalize articles. Piuro 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SPP: we cannot expect semiprotection on a continuous basis on this page, because it's nothing like the vandalism target of say, George W Bush. Often several days will go by with no vandalism at all. And, as I have opined before, there is no advantage to putting a temporary semiprotect on this article. BreathingMeat 01:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: We need one badly. Who can spearhead it? shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, i'll do it! Piuro 19:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one started up, I would join, though I don't know how much good I'll be without memorizing books ;). -Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 19:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the memorizing of the books covered, and it certainly warrants being seperate from Wikiproject RPGs, seeing as most people who would be looking up Dungeons and Dragons don't know and probably dont care about other RPGs. Piuro 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my main expertise is in user-created material (involving Pokémon and Neopets), but I have access to 3.0 and 3.5 books, which I would have memorized by now if not for forums, Microsoft Word, and the flakiness of the person I loan them from.  I can certainly help with monster and class articles, as well as, if need be, races. -Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 19:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We need to be careful to explain D&D, not the individual rules. I will work on an article from where it draws its sources (such as in mythology). Piuro 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll set up a subpage where we can work on completely re-asembling the article. Piuro 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: How much can that help since D&D is not a work of fiction in the sense of a story? the game itself doesn't really have major/minor characters, plots, etc. shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's referring to what I work with, I'm not going to bring it up.  If he's referring to the actual game, it would only apply to campaign settings and published adventures, as well as people within those settings.  Anything else we'd cover is unaffected by Notability of Fiction, unless we're going into the Dragonlance books.
And, to point out what I mean, remember Drizzt Do'Urden?  He's pretty much unique to a campaign setting (Forgotten Realms).-Jeske (v^_^v) 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know many of the novel and module characters, but that is not what I am talking about. the game material itself. I have been trying to curb the idea of an article per idea in D&D because not all of them are like Raistlin, Elminster, Drizzt, Lord Soth, etc. shadzar|Talk|contribs 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All right, we have the Project Page here and space to re-work the main D&D page here. Lets get a list down of what we want on the main page first. Piuro 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the main page should have links to the most important articles: Dungeons & Dragons, the base classes, and the articles on the game mechanics (if plausible for the reasons outlined above in "RE: OGC/Copyright Issues"). -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games has been informed that it has a new child. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I was going to try and pester someone to do that... Piuro 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons]] 

message: Should this be included anywhere in the D&D articles to say about the contradition of views about the rules as concrete vs being guidelines? I provided sources for both quotes in case someone wants to properly format it and included it into an apropriate article.
Gary Gygax often contradicted himself when referring to AD&D as to whether people should or should not change the rules. One occurence of each is presented below:
Eric, you seem to have D&D confused with AD&D. The former promotes alteration and free-wheeling adaptation. The latter absolutely decries it, for the obvious reason that Advanced D&D is a structured and complete game system aimed at uniformity of play world-wide. Either you play AD&D, or you play something else! — E. Gary Gygax, The Dragon, Issue 43, p. 61, Nov. 1980,  Vol V. No. 5
even the most important material herein can be altered and bent to suit the needs of individual campaigns. — AD&D Player's Handbook, p. 6, 1978
shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rules or guidelines? 

message: Though I was born in 1986, and have been an avid gamer since freshman year in high school, I have noticed a change in what I have called the culture of gamers. From what research I could find, mostly statistics and graphs, the types of gamers have actually began to go into more of the "cliches" of society than just the anti-social intellectuals, or 'nerds', if you will. In my own gaming group, there are several people that no one would ever expect to play, like those who can actually bench press four of the 'old-school' gamers at once. Role-playing games are gaining popularity in the multiple factions of society that guide the world, and while this can be seen as good, it has a few setbacks that, unfortunately, have managed to rock back all the way to little Renton, Wa. where the WoTC Headquarters resides.
Fewer people, it seems, are willing to brave challenges.
A few months ago, I received a newsletter that had a discussion on the dread rust monster, a classic creature that has the ability to turn weapons and armor made of metals into the useless material rust. This creature has been known, in D&D legends, to make the greatest fighter wants to take on an army of orcs before facing just one of these horrible creatures. In the discussion, there was talk of finding ways to make the creature more harmless, almost taking its rusting ability away.
Now, while this is just one example, there has been an increase in 'streamline' rules that make the game easier, or 'softer' as my local players call it.
This could be something for a debate. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter, or maybe help in the research?
Even if it is, this isn't the place to debate it.  This talk page is not for fan/DM discussion; there are forums on other sites for that.  In short, Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, a indiscriminate collection of information, or a publisher of original research. -Jeske (v^_^v) 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cultural Evolution of Gamers