Talk:Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 4

message: This sounds like there's a general rule that when something is a commercial success, lawsuits will follow. I don't think that is necessarily the case. I know what is meant, but it could be expressed more clearly. Unfortunately I can't think of a better way to express it right now. Perhaps you can. --Nczempin 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawsuits about royalties require some level of income, but a prerequisite is not the same as a cause. Better to simply date the various lawsuits and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Tussock 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The game's commercial success led to lawsuits" 

message: Since the amount of information legally reproducible greatly varies, I suggest that we split the article into this and "Older Versions." This would also make the article more accessible to a wider audience, who are looking for current information as opposed to a grand, detailed, legally questionable history. Piuro 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but can you explain in greater detain your concerns? /wangi 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not see the the problem (consider at least WP:NOT along with other guidelines), specifically make do you think warrants a split? Thanks/wangi 00:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically the article is concered with the latest edition and not gerenalizing about the game. Some of the specifics are directed at the d20 system allowed by the SRD/OGL. The game being 30 years old includes more than jsut the specifics of the last 6 years worth and its edition. This goes for more than jsut the main article, but any other articles such as the game mechanics one that specifiy for only the newest edition instead of being neutral and generalizing about the game itself. the "Editions" articles tells the differences, but the main article should be more general and not edition specific since it is not legal, nor appropriate to include all editions information within the main articles they should be in their own articles whatever is allowed them by copyright. shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what he's trying to say is that this article is more concerned about 3rd edition/3.5 and nothing earlier, so 1st and 2nd editions should be split into their own article. -Jeske (Complaints Hotline) 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article shoukd be a summary/overview of all editions. Thanks/wangi 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. But there is where the SRD/OGL comes into play. It only allows for the 3rd/d20 system edition to be reproduced under it guidliens or something. So the question would be then what specific information about other editions can/shoudl be included as a generalization of the game. OR what should be removed that represents only the 3rd/d20 system edition itself? shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not read into the situation, are you saying that because they have the CR on the 1st edition we cannot include the generic meaning under this term? Thanks/wangi 01:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The OGL and d20 license are irrelevant.  They are licenses; you, I, and other Wikipedians have not agreed to them (generally speaking, I'm sure some Wikipedians have).  You only need to agree to it if you want to publish our own derivative works and don't have a fair use claim.  Players and other "users" don't need to agree to it or even read it.  Wikipedia needs no such license; it reproduces information under fair use.  Ignore the OGL and maintain the article as though it was any other topic. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We could probably manage two articles of equal size, one for the current ruleset, and one for the previous two. Piuro 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps what we need is a discussion of the commonalities between all of the rulesets, followed by a summary of the key differences. For the average reader, all of the rulesets describe essentially the same game, and certainly the "essence" of D&D is independent of what ruleset you are using. I think it would be most helpful for the reader if the differences between different versions of the game could be explained in relation to their practical function. In other words, why were these changes made in subsequent editions of the rules? Perhaps some were more oriented toward players with different styles of play and some were more oriented toward increasing profitability of the enterprise, etc. Gsmagassy 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, I switched the template, saddly, there isnt a better one. Piuro 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is, PurplePlatypus, it isnt just this article, but ALL articles on (A)D&D are mostly specific to 3rd and later editions, forsaking the fact that earlier editions do not function the same way. So again the way to rectify it is what? Does fair use allow for the comparisions of the editions on their individual article pages like, game mechanics etc. And for those that are specific to only 3rd shouldn't the be noted as 3rd edition only and not true to previous editions? With so many articles how do we remove the systemic bias? I think I made the main article edition neutral by removing specifics held true only to 3rd+. But that doesn't help all the other articles. Supposed a 4th edition does come out and changes things greatly. Then people will have to go through and edit the specifics from 3rd to the new 4th. That is where I see the problem with any related article to being specific to any edition over the others. Why I suggest being as general as possible. Another concern made on RPG wikiproject was that D&D has so many pages while other games have but one main page to describe the game in general without going into specifics. Which might be the best route for D&D as well, rather than what appears to be someone or many people just throwing the entire SRD for 3rd onto Wikipedia as individual articles. Maybe a split isn't needed as much as removing related articles with excess details. shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, wait a minute.  Just because other RPGs have less coverage does not mean we should be deleting D&D-related articles.  The solution there, if you are concerned with balance, is to expand the articles on other RPGs.  But I wouldn't be too worried about this issue in any case, because D&D is by far the most popular RPG, so it is natural that the coverage in Wikipedia of D&D would be more extensive than other RPGs.  Put simply, D&D is a more notable subject for an encyclopedia, so deserves a more detailed treatment.  Fairsing 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I too think it is close to right size as well from a reading point of view. At 33 KB the page is slightly longer than the Wikipedia recommended maximum of 32 KB. Maybe a a little more trimming of the edition history (which already has it's own article) would bring it down to 32KB. The only part that looks too large relative to the rest of the article is the Influence subsection, maybe it could be expanded into it's own article and sumarised in the section here. - Waza 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most are in agreement that splitting the article into edition based articles is not the way to go, and no other obvious opportunities are apparent. While the article is still on the longish side it has now streamlined to 31KB just under the Wikpedia recommended maximum. While a bit more streamline and moving some info to linked articles may be approriate I can see no need for a split and think it is probably time to remove the split tag unless lots of people object. The split tag has been in place for 4 months and it has been almost a month since anyone commented on it. - Waza 03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article 

message: Am I right D&D was the first RPG to offer random character skill values?  Trekphiler 01:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it was the first RPG in the modern sense period, that would stand to reason. (Depending, of course, on what you mean by "skill values". If you're using that phrase broadly enough to encompass ability scores, yes; if you're using it in the sense that D&D and many other RPGs currently define "skill", then no, on the grounds that D&D has never assigned such things randomly, and in fact I can only think of one RPG system that does off the top of my head.) PurplePlatypus 18:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: By the numbers

message: i think theres need for such an article. i find it strange there isnt one--Lygophile 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need, each creature/significant race has its own article. -Jeske (Mail goes here) 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It would have to be a hell of a long article to contain every species listed in the various Monster Manuals and other source books in a meaningful way. BreathingMeat 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so then they only need a template no?. I have spoken 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're discussing that on the Wikiproject D&D page.  Discuss it there, not here. Regards, Jeske (Complaints Dept.) 05:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of species in D&D 

message: I have many freinds who think D&D is "satanic". I have asked "How?", but they can't give me a good argument. I just don't see were these petifile preists and deranged old geezers get off calling my favorite passtime "satanic". If anyone can find me a reason that they could even point or associate D&D to the religion of Satanism, then I will be obliged to listen to what Lavey has in common with Gygax. Thank you.
:This is not a forum for general discussion on the subject, sorry.  Try looking up some Dungeons and Dragons forums, and I believe there is a website specifically for Christian role-players. -Jeske (Mail goes here) 17:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see the subarticle Dungeons & Dragons controversies, which discusses religious complaints about the game in a little more detail. Dugwiki 17:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is D and D Satanic? 

message: Why are all these anons (and single-purpose accounts) trying to shorten the (already-small) section on Controversy and Notoriety by removing the Chick Tract pic?  My guess is that they're trying to censor it out to keep parents from throwing slack at their kids (based off of one edit summary from someone who removed the image), despite Wikipedia not being censored for the purpose of minors. -Jeske (Complaints Dept.) 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is especially odd, since most of the D&D players I know have seen this tract, and laugh at it because it is so obsurd.   I can't imagine why a player of the game would want to remove it.   Trysha (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a D&D player doing it; the edit summary suggested he was trying to keep parents who could possibly have religious objections to the game from seeing it, implying that these people are either would-be players or just copycatting the original removal of the tract pic. -Jeske (Complaints Dept.) 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What gives? 

message: I added a subsection of the different DnD campaign settings, please add/ develop it some more —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.249.230 (talk • contribs).
:I would strongly suggest that any expansion should occur in the Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings article instead. Cheers --Pak21 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign settings 

message: Reading through this for the first time, I can't see any value in the cartoon frame towards the end. There is not really any reference to this particular item in the text, nor any real detail on links to satanism anyway - and it depicts a fictional event, not any real event. I propose that it be removed as it really seems to be there just as "a nice picture" at this point (and a handy plug for the book). If it has any great significance (I'm no expert after all) then it should be referred to in the text in some way.--Alecr 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it can be removed here - since it's in the article for criticism of D&D.  Read through the Dungeons & Dragons controversies article for the context, then judge it. -Jeske (v^_^v) 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Looking at the other article it is relevant there, but if there is an article for controversies, why is the entire criticism section present in the main article? Any reason why this can't replaced with a link to the Dungeons & Dragons controversies instead? This would reduce the length of this main article and get it a bit more specific. Any objections please let me know and I'll probably do this around this time tomorrow if there are none. Cheers --Alecr 14:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Criticism" section already links to it and is an overview of the article it's linked to.  You really can't remove all but the link and hope someone can put two-and-two together - "criticism" is different from "Controversy" to the layman. -Jeske (v^_^v) 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I will remove the picture only from this article, for the above reasons. In addition I feel that the use here does not really come under fair use of copyrighted material as it does not depict the subject of the article--ALECR 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Chick Cartoon - To Remove? 

message: Some of my recent deletions to the "see also" section were readded. As there is only limited space in comments I have started this section to explain why I believe they should be deleted (and also deleting them one at if I believe I have a very strong justification). I have not been able to find a lot of information about how see also is ment to be used, but it seems to me it is not to have a long list of somewhat related topics. I believe it should be a brief list of topics of related interest to whole article with no otherwise appropriate place to link available in the article. 
Justification for readding links was that they were on the disambiguation page was not sufficient grounds to remove them. While I still believe that being different games and other things with the same name being on the disambig page is grounds, I also believe all these deletes can be justified on other grounds. Think about people reading the article if you are looking for something that is not a "fantasy tabletop role-playing game" as described in the first scentence of the article, are you going to scroll down to the "see also" section or follow the link to the disambig page from the top of the article. Which is more appropriate to contain the information. Having a long see also section simply adds unnecessary length to the article when the information is already easily available - Waza 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing deleteing the "See Also" section 

message: Very strange! Everytime I am on the actual Dungeon and Dragons page, but not including this it's talk page I am not signed into wikipedia. Every time I click off it I am signed in. No matter what I try I not signed in on the actual page. Never seen anything like this before, very weird. - Waza 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Dungeons and Dragons page keeps signing me out of Wikipedia

message: The three references for Origins Awards currently link to invalid web pages. And the official site does not appear to have a listing of old awards at present. I found a web archive of the 2000 Award reference  on the Internet Archive. I am not sure what is the correct procedure to do when you have a previously refenced item, which was correct on date show as time accessed, but no currently available reference can be found. It seems pointless to have a dead link there, but if removed will people say to cite a reference of remove the information? - Waza 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a page in the Wikipedia: section about bad links.  If I find it, I'll leave it here. -Jeske (v^_^v) 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the Wayback Machine is on the Internet Archive I refered to above to find an alternative to one of the dead links, the use page will help me use it correctly. Unfortuneately it did not contain pages on the other two awards, anyone with any idea on how to deal with them? - Waza 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely while not found when searching for the  1977 and 1989 pages I was able to browse to them on the wayback machine from the 200 page, so have now linked the pages I browsed to. - Waza 05:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I tracked down the new pages and linked them up. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References Dead Links

message: I'm a bit confused. The d3...it's used often, but it can't even exist! --Das654 20:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 1d3 is equal to 1d6/2 (i.e. the result of a d6 roll divided by 2).  Likewise, 1d2 is 1d4/2. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does exist in two possible versions, see Dice#Rarer_variations. But is very rare and is most often simulated as Jeske says. - Waza 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that when simulating it, you must round up, not down as you do in all other cases in D&D. As for a d2, you don't need a d4 for that; you can use any die with an even number of sides, or even simply a coin flip. PurplePlatypus 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see now. --Das654 20:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The d3? 

message: I do not have access to most of the material in this section, but it appears from the titles it may be more appropriate to move some to the more Generic Role-playing game article if they are not D&D specific. Would anyone with these books care to move them and/or comment. - Waza 11:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of them are no-brainers (Such as "Studies about Fantasy Role-Playing Games") just from the title, but the ones by Gygax need to be seriously examined (I say the above not out of owning the material, but by reading their titles). -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually say Studies about Fantasy Role-Playing Games should be one kept, because despite the title if you actually follow the link you will see a large proportion of the studies refered to are specifically about D&D. It is because of this link I did not "judge a book by it's cover (title)" and just move the books I do not have. This is why I am asking those that do have them, or have read them in the past, to comment. - Waza 21:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading

message: I have come across an article List of sources and inspirations for elements in Dungeons & Dragons which is an orphaned article. The article needs work and references, the title seems clunky and it probably needs moving, but keeping this in mind is could this possibly be a main article linked off 
Dungeons_%26_Dragons#Sources_and_Influences_on_the_Development_of_D.26D section of this article? - Waza 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has its flaws, but it seems like a valuable article.  Tracing the inspirations for D&D definately seems encyclopedic.  I'm going to Be Bold and link it over. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that it's linked, further discussion probably belongs at Talk:List of sources and inspirations for elements in Dungeons & Dragons.  (By the way, thanks Waza for all the great work on this article.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences seperate article?

message: Dungeons & Dragons has twice before been nominated for consideration as a Featured Article. I believe now it is getting very close to an article that should qualify for this honour. I would not like to think that it would be rushed to nomination and fail a third time so feel it is time to start a discussion of how those who are interested should move forward to this point, here is what I feel we need to do:
#Consider the previous nominations and responses at the time:* Approximately this article was nominated on 05 January 2005 to this response.* Approximately this article was nominated on 19 October 2005 to this response. A Peer Review was also done before this nomination on 13 October 2005.Make sure that the concerns raised at these times have actually been addressed, and not reintroducted into the article.
#Carefully examine the Featured article criteria, discuss them on this pages as refering to the article and change the article so it complies with these criteria.
#Only after steps (1) and (2) request a new peer review
#After allowing allowing time for review to occur and apply info from the peer review, if there is a concesus of those making positive contributions to this article, nominate as a Featured Article Candidate.
- Waza 10:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Forward towards a Featured Article

message: Currently List of sources and inspirations for elements in Dungeons & Dragons is the main article for the section here entitled "Sources and Influences on the Development of D&D."  I'm planning on renaming "List of..." because it's not really a list, but a proper (if immature) article.  In the interests of symmetry I plan on renaming it to match the section title here ("Sources and...").  So my real point: is that section title "Sources and Influences on the Development of D&D" reasonably solid?  Now would be a good time to consider a new name if one would be an improvement so that the section title and main article are nicely parallel.  The current section title seems overly long and redundant to me. Perhaps the more terse "Sources and Influences"?  Or even the extremely aggressive "Influences"?  My preference is probably for simply "Influences," but ultimately I don't have a strong opinion, I would just like to know that the name was reasonably stable.  — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could definately leave "the development of" out, but it is difficult to word something concise as sources and influence seem to need a different verb, "on" and "of" respectively. It needs to distinguish from the existing "Influences" section (which is an influences of D&D on other things). Maybe the two sub-sections of "Game History" with influences in the title could be changed to "Influences on D&D" and "Influences of D&D" respectively. But I am very open to better ideas as I am concerned such similar titles could generate confusion. - Waza 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The title Sources and Influences on the Development of Dungeons and Dragons came about because the section was initially named Influences, which was deemed to be too similar to the title of the Influence section, which documents the effects that D&D has had on subsequent popular culture. The longish title was selected because it seemed to unambiguously reflect the content. Having said this, I think Sources and Influence is appropriate enough. BreathingMeat 00:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename "Sources and Influences on the Development of D&D" section? 

message: I'm don't really know how to play D&D, but i'm willing to learn. Do any of you know where I can find a game and rulebook? Ya know, with the dice, the board, those little guys and a character sheet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vivi Leonhart (talk • contribs).
:Not the place, but I'd suggest looking through Amazon or secondhand bookstores.  Minis aren't necessary, and what the hell is a board? -Jeske (v^_^v) 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you play? 

message: The article has a few mid-article links to external sites.  At the very least, Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, and OSRIC have links.  Are these appropriate?  If the subject is noteworthy enough to deserve further details, they deserve full Wikipedia articles and the links should go there.  If the purpose of the link is to act as a citation, the link should be moved into a <ref>.  Otherwise, I can't see any reason to include them. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been considering that these links should possibly be moved into the notes section via <ref> - Waza 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed thes to footnotes, except Troll Lord Games which is gone (link is on Castles & Crusades and also subpage in existing footnote here. - Waza 11:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete links to Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, and OSRIC? 

message: I added this to the external links section twice, but Jeske keeps reverting it, giving the bogus reason that webcomics can be looked up in Dragon Magazine:
* DM of the Rings - webcomic spoofing Dungeons & Dragons and Lord of the Rings (the story that inspired D&D). Funny as hell, and informative too.
The fact that Dragon Magazine, or any other publication for that matter, has similar material in it in no way supports non-inclusion in Wikipedia.  If we weren't allowed to include topics or subject matter in Wikipedia that was covered somewhere else, Wikipedia would be empty!
Jeske, your non-sequitur is not a valid reason for reverting the addition of the above link.   The reason you gave has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and therefore reflects your personal opinions and biases, showing an intolerance for others' edits and a tendency toward article ownership.  See WP:OWN.
I've added the link again, because it is particularly relevant as it covers many aspects of D&D roleplay.  It is humorous, yes, but it is on the mark.  Each episode also includes commentary by the author on DM'ing D&D campaigns, which makes the link even more relevant.
The comic highlights many of the pitfalls and mistakes that a DM can make, and is therefore very useful.  And if you ever wanted to run your players through Tolkein's epic adventure, this comic will convince you otherwise, as it points out all the design flaws from a role-playing and D&D standpoint.
An immensely entertaining and informative link.
Chill Factor Five 13:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeske was correct to remove the link, unless there are any reliable sources which note DM of the Rings as being in any way more notable than the vast number of other D&D webcomics out there. Without such references, adding the link (especially with comments such as "funny as hell") is original research, pure and simple. You would also be advised to be more civil in your comments, which could be viewed as a personal attack. --Pak21 14:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  The link is of marginal value and is non-notable in the context of this article.  I have removed it. Fairsing 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a fan of D&D and LOTR movies I found it very funny and would not mind if it is found a place to link to it on Wikipedia, however this article is definately not the place. Firstly other sources in this article show while LOTR, because of the profile it gave fantasy fiction, an indirect source on D&D, it is not one of the prime fantasy influences on D&D. Secondly there is nothing in this external link to specify the game is D&D, while it probably is it could also be one of several other Fantasy Roleplaying games. Maybe ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth to see if anyone there can suggest an appropriate location to link this. - Waza 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it has no place anywhere on Wikipedia until such time as its notability is established? BreathingMeat 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the article or section context it may be suitable for an external link or even a reference for example an article about humour in RPG's or parody's of LOTR or because of explainatory notes on commong RPG refeering mistakes. It all depends on the context of how it is used,and would need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Chill obviously feels strongly about this website, and while it does not fit here I was just trying to offer constructive suggestions for how it might be of use. - Waza 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me?  If I was trying to own articles, I'd be admonished over on Beequeen, Mojanbo, Yukimenoko, and every other 4th-generation Pokémon article, where a firestorm has raged for the past few weeks thanks to a leak, Serebii.net, and debates over WP:NOT, WP:ATT, and WP:RS.  I'm not trying to own any article, but I know when a link is spam and/or when info is unreliable, and the fact you inserted a blatant point-of-view comment on your link only gave me more impetus to revert it.  Don't blame me for doing my job, blame yourself for not realizing that, if not me, than someone else would revert it as spam anyhow. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: Alan Re: Elfish Gene. The book's out right now - available on Amazon.co.uk. It offers a look at the culture of early D&D and shows what it's actually like to play the game - Houndstooth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Houndstoothuk (talk • contribs). (The preceeding was copied by User:Alan De Smet from User talk:Alan De Smet as this is the more appropriate place to discuss it.)
:Indeed, amazon.co.uk does offer it.  I'm impressed that they're offering to deliver it by April 3rd, given that the release date is "6 April 2007."  But I'll believe it.  I'm still not convinced of the utility of the link.  It certainly appears very new; maybe it would be better to give it some time so other people can check it out. It will also be nice to have reviews be written so peple can get a sense of how useful of a book it is.  Out of curiousity, do you have any connection to the author or publisher? — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'm partially put off that it's described as "novelist's laugh-out-loud funny memoir of his nerdish, fantasy addicted youth in 80's Coventry." That doesn't say "useful reference work" to me.  I'm reminded of Wil Wheaton's Dancing Barefoot, which one could similarly argue is a useful reference for Star Trek: The Next Generation. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say give it time and see if the book really is a useful reference, since one person's D&D experience differs from somebody else's. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Has anyone actually read this book? Though the subtitle has D&D in it, it's publishers desription doesn't sound too hopeful that it has a lot to say about D&D itself, but rather it appears to be a comedy about a geeky teenagers even if based on fact. Maybe it will make a good reference for References in popular culture which talks about D&D being presented as a geek stereotype, or possibly it will have broader information, but it looks at this stage no one has read it to find out. Quite likely it would fit in List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references but even then it probably should wait until it is actually released before confirming it has a place there. - Waza 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot use the book as a reference of any kind before it is published. BreathingMeat 03:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't prevent you posting, but it can lead to a conflict-of-interest.  Read Waza's last comment (Dated 2:14 AM March 31). -Jeske (v^_^v) 16:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elfish Gene