Talk:Editions of Dungeons & Dragons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Better version of the timeline at the beginning?

Way back in 2010, I thought that the timeline right under the ToC was confusing, and began working on what was IMO a better one. It lives at User:LukeShu/D&D. I sort of lost interest, and never finalized it and moved it into the article.

There was little-to-no additional research or citations for it, it is just a raw adaptation of what the existing timeline says.

I just now noticed that the Immortals set came out in 1986, not 1985 (I've just now corrected it in my version). This mistake is still in the timeline in the article, 6 years later! I'm afraid to correct it in the article, as it shares a line with Unearthed Arcana, and editing that can get real nasty real quick.

I could just copy/paste my version into the article. But I was thinking about it, and I wonder if one of the fancy timelines that band pages use for the timeline of band members would work better?

~ LukeShu (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think the current version looks better and should remain. I like the way color is used to highlight the differing versions (especially for Basic D&D) without relying entirely on it. oknazevad (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Out of the Abyss (adventure)

This article fails notability on its own, and it is also unnecessary for a stand-alone in the first place. United States Man (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - this isn't an appropriate target for a merge, as modules are not the same as editions. There are a handful of editions, but hundreds modules, with more introduced regularly. If there are no reliable, independent sources for the module article, it should just be deleted. Grayfell (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

My bad, this subject isn't my area of expertise. If this is something you are familiar with, you can come up with a better solution. This was just an idea as I find myself being too "deletionist" sometimes. United States Man (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I've prodded it. It's a relatively long, full-color, hardcover module, so it might have sources independent reviews or similar, but there are too many unsourced or poorly sourced article about these modules to accept that on faith. Grayfell (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference and Citation Needed tags

User:Oknazevad and User:86.155.155.251 (and anyone else who's interested), please discuss any issues with the tags here. Thanks and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

From personal experience, I know you can't ping an IP user; you will have to notify them on their talk page of this discussion. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was the case, yeah. I also left a note at User talk:86.155.155.251#Editions of Dungeons & Dragons (and did the same with Oknazevad), but still mentioned them here for transparency. Woodroar (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we're all good at this point. The anon didn't realize that it's perfectly valid to have a general bibliography, especially when the subject is the contents of printed books. That is to say, the topic of the article is the books themselves, which this article is in part. The background production material needs other cites, which are pretty well covered, but summarizing the rules content doesn't need a citation after every sentence. oknazevad (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

While not about tags, I have found plenty of problems with the referencing. I do find that this article is way too self sourced or incorrectly sourced. There are 24 out of 41 sources (58.5%) from Games Workshop/White Dwarf (UK publisher of D&D for a while early on), Wizard of the Coast, TSR, Dragon Magazine (WotC & TSR mag.) and Pelgrane Press (for their own OGL game). Bibliography is a supplementary section to References (as in research article like this, it is a source list), where as the reference could list source book and page then link to the book in the bib. So, it is incorrectly called a "bibliography", plus mostly listed in Timeline thus can be removed. Several of the Applecline sources are as if he wrote the book instead of writing a history about the book. (example: 13. Applecline, Shannon. "Player's Handbook, Revised (2e)". Retrieved February 12, 2017.) Rule summaries still need sourcing while a citation after each paragraph is sufficient if from a single source, sentences if they come from different sources so it easier for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Spshu (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If Applecline wrote the books, the titles would be in italics. What the quote marks tell us is that it is an article about the book that is named for he book. I can see citing specific page numbers for specific rules if needed, but since almost if the writing is more general contents, not rules mechanics (the bullet lists of individual changes from each edition were removed as unencyclopedic), I don't know how much it's needed. oknazevad (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration in regard to the Table: including Unearthed Arcana and Player's Options. And *not* including the 13th printing of 2E. Also clarifying that the "tan box" was paired with RC D&D.

I request arbitration - User: 73.168.15.161 and Oknazevad keep reverting totally legitimate edits in the table entitled: "Dungeons & Dragons Version History noting key rule publications." I put referenced explanations in my edits, but they were ignored.

Here's what I'm frustrated about:

1) Unearthed Arcana keeps getting deleted. It wasn't just a splat book which added optional classes. It actually re-arranged the core class framework, with the Paladin becoming a subclass of the Cavalier. Furthermore, when 1E was converted to 2E, the official conversion guide in the Forgotten Realms Adventures hardcover assumed that you were using the Unearthed Arcana class framework, which suggests that UA was considered core, since FR was the "core" setting of 2E. For this reason, I prefer that users stop deleting UA. It really was "1.5E" if there ever was one! UA is a key component of "D&D Version History" and is a "key rule publication." (Plus, there's plenty of room on the table for slipping UA into the 1985 AD&D row, which is otherwise blank.)

2) Player's Option/DM Option keeps getting deleted. Yet the Player's Options series, particularly Skill & Powers, was truly a "2.5E" if there ever was one. Skills & Powers presented the entire range of core classes in a totally new way, with every single class ability turned into a point-buy system. Futhermore, the DM Option: High Level Campaigns system was used in Forgotten Realms Faiths & Avatars, and so, in this regard, served as a component for the core 2E campaign setting. You who keep reverting it - do you even own Player's Options books? I realize they are billed as 2E "Options" but how is this different than 4E "Essentials", which are included in this table? Player's/DM Option is a key component of "D&D Version History" and is a "key rule publication."

Oknazevad says he deletes Player's Options because "one cannot use the entirety of the Player's Options books at once, as there's outright contradictory material." What are you talking about? The Player's Option included a complete and coherent point-buy version of the entire 2E core class system. It wasn't just a random bunch of options. One cannot use the entirety of the options presented in the 3E DMG or 5E DMG either, but that doesn't invalidate their relevance to a chart which shows the iterative development of D&D.

3) On the other hand, the same editors keep adding in the 1995 2E PHB and DMG "Revised" printings as if they were a distinct iteration. But these were literally just the 13th printing of the same old 2E PHB and DMG, with just some fixed errata, an additional foreword, and different cover and interior art. (See: see: http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/dnd/dnd_phb2eR.html ) The books even kept the same ISBN. They're the same book. We're not listing the dozens of different printings within the other editions, so why is the 1995 13th printing given special treatment? The 13th Printing is *not* a key component of "D&D Version History" and is *not* a "key rule publication."

I mean, we're not counting the Revised 1983 1E PHB/DMG/MM with the new Easley art as distinct iteration, nor are we counting the renaming of the Mentzer Red Box (from "Basic Rules Set 1" in the 12th Printing to "Set 1: Basic Rules" in the 13th Printing) as different iterations, so why is the 1995 13th printing of the 2E core books included in this table? To mollify those users, I left it in, but with a succinct explanatory comment on the table ("(13th printing with errata, new forewords, and different art")...but those users just deleted my explanation anyway. Have these users actually compared the 12th and 13th printings of the 2E PHB? It's the same book, with different art! I'm willing to whittle down the explanation even more, but really the 1995 13th printing shouldn't be on this table in the first place.

4) This last one is not as big a deal, but the user deleted my clarifying comment that the "tan box" Classic D&D game was still paired with the Rules Cyclopedia, which, as far as I know, remained in print. Because, without that clarifying comment, the table implies that the "tan box" somehow superseded the Rules Cyclopedia.

I'm feeling frustrated and squelched. Traversetravis (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I guess the essential question is: is this a table of *just* the main editions and nothing more? In that case, there ought to just be seven rows: Original D&D, Classic D&D, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E. In that case, even 3.5E and 4E Essentials should be left off the table.

Or is this a table which includes the "half-editions"? I see that the 4E Essentials are included here, presumably because the previous editors of this table view the Essentials line to be sort of 4.5E (even if they weren't called "4.5", and even though the hardcover 4E core books were still in print, so it's not exactly parallel with the 3.0/3.5 situation.) Okay great. Yet, if we're including the 4E Essentials, then we ought to also include similar transitional texts from the other editions: namely 1E Unearthed Arcana (which was essentially "1.5E") and Player's Options (which was essentially "2.5E").

Oknazevad deleted 1E UA becasuse "UA wasn't widely adopted in the day despite's TSR's best efforts to push it." What is the source for this assertion? So Oknazevad doesn't like UA - fine. Yet whether the user likes UA or not, UA presented itself as a "non-optional" recasting of the core class framework (with the Paladin switching from a Fighter subclass to a Cavalier subclass), and the adoption of the UA class framework was assumed in the official conversion guide from 1E to 2E (FR Adventures). BTW, UA 1E was a different concept than the similarly named 3E UA book; where as 1E UA was presented by TSR as a sort of "1.5E", the 3E Unearthed Arcana truly was a hodgepodge of contradictory optional rules, and wasn't presented as anything more than that. Traversetravis (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Although you mentioned me above, I'll defer to Oknazevad on this. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Item by item.

• 1. UA's changes to the paladin didn't carry over into 2e. 2e adopted an entirely different framework for class groupings, which placed the paladin in the warrior group with the fighter and ranger. Cavaliers (and barbarians) were relegated to class kits in the Complete Fighter's Handbook. So I dispute its relevance to the 2e framework.
     There's also the history of its production issues hampering adoption. The original release had copious typos and layout errors, which were not corrected in subsequent printings until the 2013 re-release as part of the Gygax memorial series, and it was very poorly bound, leading to covers just plain falling off. As such, it wasn't actually widely used at the time, despite selling well, which Shannon Applecline discusses in his history of the edition (a brief version of which is on the product page for UA at the DM's Guild website). In short, it may have been intended to be a significant change in the game, but in practice it's impact was limited and little of it carried forward. Most importantly, few other accessories did assume its use.
  2. The Player's Option series are most certainly optional, as even after their release other products relied on core only, and the Options were not made part of the core. Indeed, few items them gained wide use, and only a small smattering made it to 3e. It wasn't an assumed 2.5.
     This so in contrast to Essentials, where material released after that line not only followed altered assumptions (especially in how the monster math worked), but were specifically intended to be used with the books from the Essentials line. Books like Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Feywild specifically mentioned the Essentials books on their back covers, and were even originally supposed to be released in the same digest format as the Essentials line. In many ways, that's the major criteria: did subsequent releases depend on the interim release as default. Essentials was, essentially (pardon the pun), if only because the severe errata issues with 4e meant the rules were patched over many times, and the Essentials line's Rules Compendium was considered the definitive version of the 4e rules. In both the 1e UA and 2e Player's Option cases, while the supplements did have some influence on later editions, they themselves were not required to play the existing edition.
  3. There's a major difference with the 1995 re-releases of the 2e core books and the 1983 1e cover changes. The interiors of the latter were identical, whereas the 2e revisions were entirely following layouts with entirely different page numbers; indeed the revised PHB is, as it notes in its foreword, 25% larger in page count. They may have had the same ISBN numbers, but following the standards for those they shouldn't have. I've been one to repeatedly always over the years there is no "2.5" edition, as the core rules are identical outside some small errata. The purpose of the new trade dress was just to freshen up their look. Their inclusion in the chart here is more a courtesy to readers to avoid that confusion, as its clearer that they are the same edition of the rules, even if the books look different.
  4. The note, while accurate, just looks awkwardly placed. Funnily enough, the Rules Cyclopedia was actually not a big seller when current. While the black box was a popular product, by the early 90s the sales of the classic line (as it was already known internally, long before it was actually put on the box with the tan box revision) were pretty down. Turns out the intended clarifications of 2e worked well enough that it surpassed the classic line entirely. That said, the RC was still considered the full core rules of the line after the tan box was released, so I'll work in a note. oknazevad (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Item by item:

1. I didn't realize that a criterion for inclusion in this table was whether a particular iteration's features were carried over into subsequent editions. I didn't say that UA's class framework was adopted by 2E. I'm not disputing UA's impact on 2E at all. What I am saying is that UA was intended by TSR to be a "1.5E", since it reworked the core class/subclass framework. And, like I said, the official 1E-to-2E conversion guide (FR Adventures, from 1990) assumed that everyone had been using the UA classes and revised 1.5E class framework. Granted, that class framework was totally abandoned for 2E, yet that's not my point - the point is that FR Adventures "proves" that TSR considered UA to be a "core" framework for 1E for the years 1985-1989. If we're including Essentials (as a sort of "4.5E"), then the "1.5E" (which spanned from 1985-1989) ought to be included too. Yes, there was a big reformation from "1.5E" to 2E, but that doesn't mean that that 1985-1989 iteration of D&D didn't exist! And just because oknazevad (and perhaps a lot of other players in their day) didn't like that iteration of AD&D it doesn't mean it doesn't exist either. You reference Shannon Appelcline, yet he himself states: "Unearthed Arcana is now used to mark the beginning of AD&D 1.5e." (See: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/170096/Unearthed-Arcana-1e)

But even if we *are* applying the criterion that oknazevad asserts, then UA meets that criterion too! Though the new UA classes were not continued in 2E, the Barbarian made a big enough impact on the psyche of the D&D community to be included in all subsequent editions! It just skipped over the 2E core. That (along with cantrips) sounds like more than a "little carried forward" to me! (As for the typos and printing problems with UA, while interesting as D&D history, I assert that that is mostly irrelevant to the question at hand.)

2. Yes the Player's Option series were most certainly optional. So were the Essentials series - they were most certainly optional too. Yet Essentials have a whole dedicated row in this table, whereas Player's/DM's Option keeps getting deleted. The Player's/DM Option series should have the same weight of bold-face italic header as Essentials. Shannon Appelcline himself refers to Player's Option as "AD&D 2.5e" (See: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/16863/Players-Option--Skills--Power-2e?it=1 ). Of DM's Option: High-Level Campaigns, Appelcline flatly states: "Dungeon Master Option: High-Level Campaigns (1995), by Skip Williams, is a core AD&D 2.5e rulebook." (See: https://www.dmsguild.com/product/16866/Dungeon-Masters-Options-HighLevel-Campaigns?it=1) Appelcline is an official historian for WotC. And he himself calls Player's/DM Option series "core AD&D 2.5e." What higher standard of inclusion is there on Wikipedia?

3. Look, I'm "okay" with including the 2E Revised 13th Printing. It just irks me that you include this but delete UA and Player's/DM Option. I acknowledge that the 1995 13th Printing was a bigger cosmetic change than the 1983 cover change. Yet it was still essentially a cosmetic change. But look: this cosmetic change was all part of making what Appelcline calls a "core AD&D 2.5e" set of rulebooks...and there were two aspects of this "core AD&D 2.5e" edition: 1) the revised aesthetic for the three main books (black covers, new font, new art) and 2) the Player's/DM Option, which were fully tied into the new aesthetic. These two aspects together comprise the "core AD&D 2.5 rulebooks". Not just one or the other.

4. Thank you. Traversetravis (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I would basically state that my arguement boils down to "can you play the game with just these books?" UA (which, by the way, I have no personal opinion on, as I was only 6 years old when it was released and didn't really start gaming until college, well into the late 2e era) is not self-contained, and still requires the 1e PHB, DMG and MM to use. Same with the Players Options. Essentials, on the other hand, does not need the 4e PHB, DMG or MM at all, in fact they're a complete substitute for the core, as the Essentials line was a soft reboot of 4e. That to me is the difference. oknazevad (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That could be one valid criterion for the table. Yet you can play the game with just the Mentzer Red Box, but that's not how the BECMI product line was experienced or presented. Similarly "1.5e" and "2.5e" eras (which I gamed in) were *experienced* as an iterative evolution of the entire core game, and the entire Player's/DM Option series was presented as such, both aesthetically and practically. It is not exactly parallel to the Essentials situation, but each iteration should be looked at on its own merits, trying to sense how it was presented and experienced as a product line its own time, and not retroactively shoehorned by how later iterations were packaged. I feel the inclusion of five rows of Essentials products in the table was myopic in regard to similar (but not exact) parallels in previous editions.

Okay, I went in and gave the table another shot. This incorporates the fruits of my discussion with oknazevad, which helped in clarifying the presentation. Note that the words "Second Edition" were removed from the cover in the 1995 revision. Appelcline's references to "1.5e" and "2.5e" are included. I could use some help in formatting the references. Also fixed the spelling of the DMG (which changed in various editions). Traversetravis (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

...And then oknazevad went and deleted even my brief references to Appelcline (WotC's official historian) referring to "1.5e" and "2.5e." Look, if what Appelcline refers to as the "core 2.5e rulebooks" (Player's Option/DM Option) are going to be collapsed into a single row, then so can Essentials, since throughout the Essentials series, the three core rulebooks remained in print - which "proves" (according to oknazevad's own criteria) that the Essentials were entirely optional, and not core. I'm done with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traversetravis (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the chart just summarizes the article body, where the refs belong.

And you missed my point. It's not that one can run 4e without the Essentials books, it's that one can run 4e with just the Essentials books, which is decidedly not true for UA or the Player's Options. UA for 1e and the Player's Option books for 2e are neither necessary nor sufficient to run those editions. Essentials books are sufficient to play 4e. That's the difference.

Look, it's the art of compromise. I'd just rather leave off UA and Player's Options as they are neither necessary nor sufficient to play the game, but am willing to concede that they had a greater impact than other accessories. But they shouldn't be over-emphasized as they remain accessories, not core books. oknazevad (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

D&D pictures up for deletion

Just thought I'd let you know, some editions of D&D photos are up for deletion and no courtesy notification was presented at the articles they effect. So I'm doing that in lieu of the nominator. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Tables

I'd love to see tables or timelines that show the the evolution of the fame and changes to its rules from edition to addition. Tracking things like character races, classes, abilities and such is key to the content of this article. Thoughts? Morganfitzp (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There used to be detailed bulletpoint lists detailing changes along each section. I removed them because of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Such a level of detail is inappropriate for a general interest encyclopedia. The brief overview covering the broad strokes is fine. oknazevad (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can't find that info in a good format on the web. I thought I might find it here. Compare it to timelines of bands that track member changes and album releases. Could that deletion have been a bit heavy-handed? Morganfitzp (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a very analogous situation. Each edition introduces a plethora of changes which cannot be summarized in a simple chart. And Wikipedia isn't the place for it anyway. That's the point. It's not a game guide, it's not here to detail every bit of the rules mechanics of RPGs. Even the https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_character_races_in_Dungeons_%26_Dragons list of character races] was recently deleted. (Now, I think that deletion was gigantic mistake, personally, but it had consensus.) oknazevad (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What needs to be done?

This article is rated C by WikiProject Dungeons and Dragons but is of Top importance. I'd like to help, but does anyone know what needs to be improved? I'm not a good judge of that sort of thing. RedOak350 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent question, I always love to see quality improvement! 2601:249:8B80:4050:F8C9:225E:2690:A344 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

title changes

Since we're treating edition as descriptive, and not part of the actual name of the system, it stands to reason that we should be spelling out the number. As in, second edition, third edition, etc. per MOS:NUM's guidance. Primergrey (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, where are we failing on that? 2601:243:1C80:6740:2180:D204:E3B:485D (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Except that it is part of the system's name, at least for some editions, as seen in the original logo for AD&D 2nd Ed and the "v3.5" text on that edition's core books' covers. Plus the consistent use of numerals in almost all coverage by the sources of the articles. I would oppose changing them, as it would render at least two of them incorrect, and intra-article consistency is an allowable variation (in the spirit of the comparing like quantities clause at MOS:NUM. oknazevad (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I get that, and given that is the case, what would you say to changing to 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, etc? Primergrey (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Only 2nd Ed strictly includes the word "Edition" in the title along with the numeral (and even there the later black-bordered printings of the core books use a different logo without it), which is why it's the only one whose header is capitalized and italicized. But since it does use the numeral instead of spelling it out as words it needs to be presented that way here as well for accuracy (it's not like an unusual all-caps styling or a strange character, so the MOS:TM caveats don't apply). So with that it makes sense to use numerals for all of them for consistency. But I don't see the need to capitalize all of them. I think we should leave things as they are. The one oddball capital is not nearly as inconsistent as mixing numerals and words for numbers, and yet mixing them would be exactly the result of following all guidelines. It's a bit of a situation where the different parts of the guidelines kinda conflict with each other, but it's not significant or common enough to need them amended. It's just a spot where WP:IAR should be invoked for the sake of making the article better, which is why that policy (which overrides any guideline) exists in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems perfectly fine to go with "2nd Edition", "third edition", etc. I think it would serve to highlight the fact that TSR actually had 2nd Ed. as the title, as opposed to the other editions. Primergrey (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point. But the current formatting is consistent with the near-universal usage in the sources. I think we should stick with it. oknazevad (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's consistent with all the other D&D related articles that break things down by edition, such as articles on the character classes and the notable monsters, where the changes in each edition are discussed. oknazevad (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Tasha's Cauldron

We have Unearthed Arcana listed for 1e, there is a similar event going on now with 5e. While many called UA 1.5, and the revised 2e books 2.5... some are claiming Tasha's Cauldron book for 5e begins the 5.5e series after recent events of 2020. Should Tasha's Cauldron be added to the timeline table as a component of a change like UA and Revised 2e books of 1995? The last time i tried editing the table, i broke it while previewing so dont want to do that again, so if people feel it should be added for 2020 like UA was added for 1985 then i will let those more skilled add it to the timeline. shadzar-talk 12:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Too soon to say, I think. While there's been some talk of it, the book itself boils down to a collection of alternate options for existing mechanics, not wholesale permanent changes. Frankly, I'm still unconvinced that Unearthed Arcana belongs on the chart in the first place, and the inclusion of the "2.5" stuff is more about the new appearance for the core rule books than the Players Option books, which were, well, optional. oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with oknazevad. v3.5 and the 4th Edition Essentials line were designated by the publisher as a formal revision of their respective editions & denoted as a new line of products. With Tasha's, the publisher is referring to it as optional rules that fit into the pre-existing system and not the start of a new publishing line. If we get a 5.5 edition, I'm fairly sure Wizards will be marketing it as such. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

UA came as a new "core book" so its inclusion makes as much sense as the 4th Essentials line does. 5e is so weird with its "Core +1" rules, that it is hard to tell what is "core" and what isn't, so SCAG or Xanathar's could be seen as many by core. I guess we jsut have to wath Adventure's Leagu and find out what WotC does with it in the end as part of their "initial phase" to the "diversity and inclusion" efforts. shadzar-talk 14:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Core+1", or more accurately "PHB+1" applies only for making characters in Adventurers League and is not a general rule of the edition. It has no bearing on the ".5" discussion about Tasha's. Core in 5e is simple. It's the PHB, DMG, and MM, nothing more. WOTC has specifically said that the "everything not setting-specific is core" approach (and the subsequent withholding of material to save them parts 2 and 3 of the core books) caused more confusion as the names were unclear to the unfamiliar. Indeed, one of the reasons for the Essentials line was to backtrack from that and give new players a specific set of material that was all that was necessary to play (hence the name). oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline legend?

The cells are shaded differently without a legend. How are they being classified? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

By edition, of course. The coloring does have a secondary visual aid purpose, but, per WP:ACCESS is not the sole means of identification. The actual text is, and is self-explanatory, so doesn't need a legend. oknazevad (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Timeline - core vs supplement

@Arctic.gnome: Not entirely sure what sources you're using to distinguish between core and supplemental books. Focusing on just 5th Edition, the marketing for the edition is clear what is considered core & what is considered supplemental. For example, the Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebooks Gift Set includes the PHB, the DMG, & the MM while the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons Rules Expansion Git Set will include Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. The marketing language for Xanathar's & Tasha's is stuff like "expansion" & "rules options". Could you also walk me through why you want to re-structure the timeline table? Because to me, the edit makes the timeline less clear especially as the "advanced" & "basic" tags were only used for the first two editions. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: I'm starting to think that we should entirely drop the lists of books from that table. Most of it is redundant anyway, with each edition having the same three core books. How about we make the table of editions simple and small enough to fit on one screen, and add a mini-infobox in each section listing the core books in that set? We could also add secondary books to each edition's mini-infobox if there are some books that are verifiably more central than other supplements. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No matter what we do, it should be based on how reliable, third-party sources categorize and name everything. Woodroar (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, I like the tables up to the 3rd edition - its redundant and non-informative for the 3rd edition on. Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Especially with the Essentials lineup, being that the five books there don't simply match the traditional three core books one-to-one. And those five books are necessary to list as they constitute a sufficient set of books to play that version (and only one of the Heroes books was all that was needed for a new player, which was kinda their point). Indeed, considering the amount of errata that earlier 4e books dealt with, a couple of them are usually considered necessary to play the edition as a whole, as they account for the changes to insufficiently playtested material that was the subject of said errata. Plus subsequent supplements were written so that players would only need the Essentials books to use the supplement.

Conversely, one can get make a character for (or even run a pretty simple game of) 5e using nothing but the free Basic Rules So I disagree with removing the later lists as each edition has a little bit of its own character. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Top-tier supplements

My attempts to add to the sidebars have been reverted. But I think it enriches the subsections about each expansion to show that even though they all have the same three core books, they each differ in how they present their top-tier expansions. For 5th ed, the fact that three "guide to everything" books are being packaged as a boxed set called "expansion kit" suggests to me that they are the highest tier of supplements. For 3rd and 4th, the highest tier of supplements are PHB2 and DMG2 (and we already list those as top-tier supplements in List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks). For 2nd ed, the top-tier supplements are the Player's Option series. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Improvement on OSR part

The OSR section does not mention recent developments such as the massive success of Old-School Essentials, Lamentations of the Flame Princess or the earlier clones such as Swords & Wizardry.

Nor does it mention the desire to recapture the (since 3e) lost playstyle of a more realistic fantasy world, where you use your wit to survive and your actions have greater impact on the campaign, world and story. Where a player has more freedom to act, is more involved and their decisions have more bearing. Also the DM has greater freedom to shape the game. 86.52.110.159 (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a brief mention as those aren't actual editions of D&D. There is an article on Dungeons & Dragons retro-clones and the general article on the OSR. Anything more than a passing mention is inappropriate for this article as they're outside the scope of this article, whichis about official editions only. oknazevad (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much we should be covering OSR here since it is not an actual edition of D&D as opposed to emulating older editions. BOZ (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)