Talk:Dungeons & Dragons

Popular culture

Why is this section "reemergence in pop culture—on the Netflix series Stranger Things, whose main characters play D&D in a basement; on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory; or via the host of celebrities who display their love for the game online". Under Development history and not In poplar culture. Aojrocks (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In Popular Culture sections with lists of pop culture mentions are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Instead, reliably-sourced "trivia" should be incorporated into the rest of the article when relevant. Of course, you'll still find these sections in some articles, but moving trivia has become a growing trend over the past decade or more. You can read more about it at MOS:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. Woodroar (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense thanks Aojrocks (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, that quote from the Los Angeles Times is focused on the contributing factors to the "game's resurgent popularity" so even if this article had an "in popular culture" section, the focus of the quote isn't really on what media the game has appeared in. The focus is on why are more people playing this edition of D&D which fits best as part of the development history. 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

planes (creating/restoring infobox)

Years ago Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) planes were in plane (esoterism) infobox but I didn't think fiction should mix with philosophy/metaphysics/spirituality/religion, so removed D&D section (50% regret).  Is it Wikipedia guideline/rule don't mix fiction with other subjects?  If not, I'd like to restore, but best to create all-editions D&D planes infobox.  They can combine, such as when Advanced D&D (AD&D) second edition (2nd ed, 2e) merely renamed AD&D 1e planes, list together, with newer planes' editions in parentheses, and maybe cosmology sections (earlier standard D&D simpler than AD&D, and though I only asked ChatGPT, it said D&D 4e (2008 not original 1983) added 'world axis' and 5e (2014 not original 1991) used 'great wheel' (see Editions of Dungeons & Dragons about early lack of edition naming resulting in duplicates) but I don't have later/duplicate D&D 3e (2000), 4e (2008), 5e (2014) (just original 3e (1981), 4e (1983), 5e (1991))--I only know earlier standard D&D planes (from 1970s to Wrath of The Immortals) and AD&D 1e, somewhat AD&D 2e/Planescape).--~~~~ dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 07:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

proper encyclopaedic style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates_and_numbers#Ordinals says don't use ordinals (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) through nine, rather than writing out their complete words, which I don't see done right in D&D articles. I know many gamers prefer ordinal or even new abbreviations like 1e, 2e, etc., but it's not proper encyclopaedic style, and neither is capitalizing 'edition' (which I've just had to correct once). I'm not going to go through and change all these, but apparently it should be done. One exception might be if you abbreviate a full name of the game where ordinal is official (e.g. 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd ed.') but presumably not when you talk about an edition without referring to name of a game--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 09:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dchmelik: Please don't go on a campaign to remove all uses of "2nd", "3rd", etc. First of all it's just not true that such forms are not used in formal writing - this is trivial to show. Second of all, that style guide is talking about the normal use of "second", "third" - e.g. "he went back to the cafeteria for a third helping of food", not "he went back to the cafeteria for a 3rd helping of food." The D&D case is closer to a title or a common name. In fact, there's a clear example right there - using "&" rather than "and" is discouraged, but if it's part of a title, it's fine, we don't "fix" it to "Dungeons and Dragons". Maybe one form should be used or maybe the other, but the argument should be on common usage in high-quality sources, not on a MOS guideline intended for normal text rather than titles. Checking say Shannon Appelcline's "Designers & Dragons", I see lots of forms - "third edition", "3E", "2nd Edition" / "3rd Edition" (when quoting a WotC Press Release!), etc. It's not clear published writing agrees with a more absolutist stance here, although I only checked one source. SnowFire (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but won't oppose abbreviation. Formal writing doesn't use ordinals, or only for 10th and above (depending on style). The only case 'edition' was capitalized is in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, despite usage is ungrammatical, it's part of the name... but isn't part of any other official rulebook names. I don't care what press writers say (my ninth year/class/grade English teacher said media is typically on sixth year/class/grade writing level at best) rather than what University of Oxford's style guide, says, etc. (Cambridge would be fine if has one, and possibly a few other UK university style guides, such as in Edinburgh, though Oxford is definitive, and doesn't seem to give the 'above 10th' exception of American technical writing)--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 11:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The brand uses Edition capitalized; lower case would be grammatically correct for multiple editions of the same book rather than different versions of the game. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, it'd have to be shown as part of a name, as in my example (possibly sole such example) and used fully as such. When talking about editions of anything, if 'edition' isn't actually written as part of a name, it's incorrect to capitalize... there would have to usage as a name such as Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (form of proper noun), not just non-name referencing such as '5th edition' (not proper noun), but even in such case, I don't think they've actually done that since AD&D 2e (nevertheless even '2nd edition' when not in the name isn't a proper noun either)--dchmelik (talk|contrib) 01:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what some outside style guides say, because we have our own Manual of Style. MOS:GAMECAPS says the term should be capitalized (and possibly even italicized, depending on whether it's part of the title or simply a related term). In addition, at MOS:PROPER, it says that proper names are typically capitalized. That links to proper names (actually the article proper noun) which has a section on brand names (Proper noun#Brand names): brand names and other commercial terms that are nouns or noun phrases are capitalized whether or not they count as proper names.

I'll also note that the Dungeons & Dragons article has more than a thousand page watchers, and it's a Featured Article (since 2007), which included a compliance check with our MoS. That "Edition" hasn't been de-capitalized in the past 17 years strongly suggests the status quo version is favored by the community.

dchmelik, as an aside: something in your signature is breaking the normal Reply functions on Talk pages. You'll definitely want to look at that. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

dchmelik, looking closer, it's because your signature doesn't include a time/date-stamp, which is required. So not only is it breaking the Reply function, but probably also archiving of Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

'Sign your contributions to a Talk page by using four tildes (\~\~\~\~), which produces your username and a time/date stamp'--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing#Talk_pages (I 'escaped' tildes in the quotation to prevent them being converted there). I've always done that, which you can see above unless your web browser isn't working (odd, now I see in most previous case it wasn't produced right)--dchmelik (talk|contrib) 01:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Dungeons and Dragons not in pre-release in 1973 nor appearing at any UK cons that year

Recently, there was a good faith addition to the article from a 2010 book saying that D&D showed up at EasterCon and was circulating in pre-release in late 1973. The source is The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games, a 2010 book by one Michael Tresca, who at the time was an editor at the fansite ENWorld. This assertion is cited to a chapter by Greg Costikyan in the anthology Second Person: Role-Playing and Story in Games and Playable Media, in which Costikyan claims in a footnote that "some pre-release copies were in circulation towards the end of 1973" without further elaboration or citation. EasterCon is not mentioned at all.

This is all contradicted by the actual historical record, which has been thoroughly mined by actual D&D expert and scholar Jon Peterson, who has published multiple works with the MIT Press, most notably Playing at the World, The Elusive Shift, and Game Wizards, which between them thoroughly document the creation and early years of D&D and TSR through copious primary documentary sources. As we see in the New Edition of Playing at the World Vol. 1 the game was not even produced yet at the end of 1973. According to Peterson:

"As late as December 27, 1973, Gygax wrote to Arneson that “all three fantasy booklets are done on my end of things,” and they were readying the product for proofing and printing. But he could not resist chiding Arneson for never quite fixing the naval system: “I had to alter both the air and sea rules considerably, Dave, in order to make them homogenous with the balance of the old rules.”

Peterson, Jon. Playing at the World, 2E, Volume 1: The Invention of Dungeons & Dragons (Game Histories) (pp. 135-136). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

Peterson further follows the chain of letters a few pages later:

On December 30, Gygax wrote to Arneson that the first order for one thousand sets of the booklets “should be printed in three to four weeks,” and as they had separately ordered the boxes, “we’ll start slapping labels on them and send out some flyers” once the rules returned. But the schedule lagged on a bit. As of a January 13 letter, the second volume had been proofed and sent to the printers for a photo offset shooting the following week. Expenses began to run over budget: “this is going to cost us closer to three than two thousand, I believe, when boxes, separate charts, box labels and advertising flyers are run.” On February 7, Gygax reported on a postcard to Arneson, “Printer has D&D nearly done, so your copy should be in the mail by next week.”

Peterson, Jon. Playing at the World, 2E, Volume 1: The Invention of Dungeons & Dragons (Game Histories) (p. 142). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

And then he provides a further helpful footnote:

Dating the release of Dungeons & Dragons is a complicated and hazardous endeavor. Beforehand, Gygax consistently predicted a January release date for the game and would later affirm its availability as of late January. It is certainly very possible that TSR had already received one or more orders for the game before the end of January. But the direct correspondence of Gygax and Arneson seems to rule out any possibility that the game was available prior to February 11, 1974.

Peterson, Jon. Playing at the World, 2E, Volume 1: The Invention of Dungeons & Dragons (Game Histories) (p. 148). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

So no, there were no "pre-release copies" circulating in late 1973. And no, it was not at EasterCon in 1973, which seems to have been invented by Tresca since the claim is not even in the cited source. And honestly, why would anyone even find that last bit plausible? We are supposed to believe that a game created by two American Midwesterners and published by a company that was so poor it could not cover the publication costs of the game until it brought in an investor at the end of 1973 somehow made the trek or caused someone else to make the trek all the way to the UK to present the game at a con? It does not pass the smell test and is also not reliably documented in any authoritative source.

So yeah, that addition had to go. I just wish people would stop cherry-picking material from single sources to add to articles, making those of us who actually study this stuff in detail having to then waste time refuting spurious claims by digging through authoritative sources. Indrian (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)