Talk:Magic in Dungeons & Dragons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirects for discussion (January 12, 2020)[edit]

"Chomatic Orb" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chomatic Orb. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Chromatic Orb" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chromatic Orb. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Faerie fire" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Faerie fire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Finger of Death" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Finger of Death. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Finger of death" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Finger of death. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Dungeons & Dragons Spells" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Dungeons & Dragons Spells. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Dungeons and Dragons Spells" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Dungeons and Dragons Spells. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Magic discipline" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Magic discipline. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ray Of Frost" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ray Of Frost. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Spell Contingency" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spell Contingency. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tanglefoot bags" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tanglefoot bags. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) here, as magic items are just a special case of magic in the genre overall. Both articles are somewhat lacking in organization and sources now, but would present a stronger single article if combined. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking personally that since Magic of Dungeons & Dragons is written mostly about magic spells, and that Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) is both a separate enough topic from that, and it has survived AFD twice, that it would not be necessary to merge them at this time. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge I've been working on editing the Magic in Dungeons & Dragons to fix multiple issues and I really think that that merging the Magic item article will massively bloat the Magic in Dungeons & Dragons article. With the sources I've added to the Magic in Dungeons & Dragons article, I think it is strong enough to stand on its own. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful, then, if the Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) were improved to be less susceptible to challenges to its own quality of sourcing and contents. BD2412 T 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge. A lot of the source of the bloat is information that's basically a re-hash of game guides, which has issues with WP:PRIMARY sources, not to mention WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Even the development section isn't really a development section -- at one point is describes the number of pages and the dates the books were published, and at another point it's sourced to a statement by the editor. Once you remove the improperly sourced information and the game guide, I'm not sure there'd be much left to merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to a merge, mostly for the reasons BOZ and Sariel Xilo have mentioned. In my words, the way the two subjects are demarcated now they have very little overlap. If the articles were merged, it would be necessary to explain how the subjects differ and have two introductory sections. I think this would make understanding for the reader more difficult than have the separate articles as it is now, with no great benefit to balance that. Daranios (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Developing Creative Content for Games seems to have quite a bit of meta-info about use of magic items in D&D (RPGs in general?). Maybe someone can/want's to use that to further improve the article?
At the moment there's a slight tendency not to merge, and little input in the discussion. When and how should it be closed? Daranios (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looting the Dungeon: The Quest for the Genre Fantasy Mega-Text (on pages 93-95, and possibly elsewhere) is another secondary source which has a bit to say about the concept in general. So I will go ahead und remove the merge proposal for the time being, based on the slight majority who does not support a merge, and the lack of recent new input. If someone disagrees, please propose another way how to go forward from here. Daranios (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources go into the exhaustive detail needed to support 99% of the GAMEGUIDE content at Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Developing Creative Content for Games does touch on magic items from a game theory perspective along with some evolution of the concept in D&D. The author and publisher are reputable, though not necessarily specialists in the area, but they're fine. Looting the Dungeon: The Quest for the Genre Fantasy Mega-Text devotes only one sentence to specific magic items. And beyond that, it's a doctoral thesis that doesn't appear to be widely cited, meaning it doesn't meet the requirements at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I also support this merge, but culling the vast amount of unsourced game guide content. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the sentence about individual items, Looting the Dungeon has a few more sentences about magic items as a goal in D&D, and their ubiquitousness in contrast to the seminal Lord of the Rings. Does anyone know how extensive Shared Fantasy: Role-playing Games as Social Worlds and Dicing with Dragons, already in the article, are? But be that as it may, I think Developing Creative Content for Games counts as one secondary source with significant coverage. Shouldn't the increasing number of secondary sources which treat either the topic as a whole or individual items in a shorter fashion together be sufficient to support the subject as a stand-alone article? (The disadvantages of merging with regard to clarity and usefullness have already been discussed). Daranios (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 06:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic of Dungeons & Dragons → Magic in Dungeons & Dragons – The more common convention in Wikipedia is to refer to elements in media rather than of media; see, e.g., Magic in Harry Potter, Magic in Artemis Fowl, Magic in the Greco-Roman world. BD2412 T 03:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looking for Dweomer sources (2020)[edit]

I can't find any sources on dweomer including for this bit that's in the article: "Gary Gygax encountered the Middle English word dweomercræft in Susan Kelz Sperling's book Poplollies & Bellibones: A Celebration of Lost Words (1977), where it is defined as "the art of magic or juggling." Gygax invented such derivations as dweomered, dweomercræfter, and dweomercræfting".

Doing a keyword search, I've found it used (but not defined) in Dragon #67 (1982) and Tome of Magic (1991). I didn't have luck finding it in other 1e/2e products. A 2012 WoTC article refers to it being used in AD&D and says "Gary Gygax's sesquipedalian writing style elevated their texts above mere game books, in the process sending a whole generation of gamers scurrying to their dictionaries to look up words such as "milieu," "dweomer," and "puissant,"not to mention Latin abbreviations, such as e.g., i.e, and q.v.to cite just a few examples I still remember to this day".

If you can find a source, please add it. Thanks Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Wictionary entry about dweomer/dwimmer be of any help to you? Daranios (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I misunderstood the question. Daranios (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal of Weave (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Weave (Forgotten Realms) into Magic in Dungeons & Dragons#Forgotten Realms. I think that the content in the Weave article can easily be added to the section on campaign setting specifics and that the Weave article itself fails WP:GNG since it currently has 1 secondary source. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • But why not propose a merge to Mystra (Forgotten Realms) instead, since the concept of magic and the Weave in the Forgotten Realms setting (along with the Spellplague event) is intimately tied to the lore and mythology behind this particular deity? I don't think the Weave needs any more then a single large paragraph in Magic in Dungeons & Dragons since it would be WP:Undue, and the current paragraph there summarizes it succinctly. Merging it into Mystra also makes a stronger case for WP:N with that particular article, since Magic in Dungeons & Dragons is unlikely to be targeted for AfD or PROD as it is currently quite well sourced. Haleth (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the merge and target. The Weave doesn't look like it would meet the WP:GNG on its own, and here it's already covered and on topic. Jontesta (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Valid concern for independent notability, and not only an appropriate merge target, but the best choice. oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Per Haleth's idea, I would suggest merging the Weave fictional history section to the Mystra article. The Weave description section has already been added to this article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magic_in_Dungeons_%26_Dragons&oldid=1212476911"