Talk:Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture

Dieselboy Album
Drum and Bass DJ Dieselboy released an album called "The Dungeon Master's Guide." Does that merit mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.28.76 (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Retared Animal Babies
D&D was the topic of its episode Dungeons & Christwagons, the flash cartoon can be found on newgrounds.com Also I think I read somewhere that the anime Record of the Lodoss War and video game Final Fantasy 1 was based on D&D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.109.214 (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Steven Lynch Song
When in Steven Lynch's song "D&D" do they portray Dungeons & Dragons players as "metalheads" and marijuana smokers, as stated in this article? I know he does mention rock music briefly in the line "...and the stereo's a-pumpin' Zeppelin", but he does not imply that the players in question are "headbangers", nor did he ever reference marijuana use. In all earnestness, these remarks do not even fit into the common D&D stereotype. Unless the interpretation of the lyrics shown in this article can be verified, I believe that the statement should be removed. The Bone III (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Slayers
Should it be mentioned that the anime and manga The Slayers was based off of a D&D game? I forgot where I read it, but the article said that the manga was thought up during a D&D campaign between the creators and friends before anyone wrote anything down and eventually spawned the show. Facebookery (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That 70s Show
Also, in tv shows, you should add that Eric Foreman from that 70s shaw plays, as he was once playing dnd with alice cooper(when he was high) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.0.118 (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bully
In the Bully videogame, there a was a game of Grottos and Gremlins, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.96.174 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Shrek3
The nerds are playing D&D when Shrek visits the high school. I think.Annihilatron (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! and Homestar Runner
The Yu-Gi-Oh! manga had several chapters about a game called "Monster World" which used two ten-sided dice for resolution of effects.

In the popular internet cartoon Homestar Runner, there is a character named "D&D Greg".

--75.163.170.120 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

SNL and Nightmare on Elmstreet
Missing two references: "Saturday Night Live" Emilio Estevez Hosts/Pearl Jam (1994) Season 19, Episode 18: Skit "Geek, Dweeb, or Spaz" Nightmare on Elmstreet Part 3: One kid in the mental hospital thinks he is a wizard.

Also link to "Steam Tunnel Incidents" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.135.216 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dream Warriors
The debut album by rap band the Dream Warriors, "And Now the Legacy Begins" features the song "Twelve Sided Dice" which alludes to Dungeons and Dragons. This includes reference to himself as a cleric, and the lines "What's the answer / Dungeon Master" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.183.12 (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So... add it? 67.175.176.178 (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Elfish Gene
I added this book and created a section for books. Here we have a very successful autobiographical attempt at conveying the gaming world in the late 70's, from a writer noted for other works than fantasy, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No cite
I could not find a reliable cite that the rap group Insane Clown Posse ever played D&D. There was only a mention of the game in their lyrics, which doesn't confirm that they ever played, and a note in a blog discussion (which is not considered reliable). At most, they could be added to the music section.&mdash;RJH (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Trivial entries
It is difficult to see how to reconcile the current content of this article with the tag at the top without performing wholesale removal of many entries. A good number of the bullets contain unsourced mentions of D&D in a single episode of a show. How can these be regarded as anything but trivial? It might be time to take a backhoe to this page and toss out all of the trivial entries.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have added a lot of properly sourced information to an article which had very little sourcing at one point. You will probably eventually want to remove some of the not likely to be sourced information to this talk page. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully the section tags will prompt those who are interested into finding suitable sources. If not, then they can be migrated here, or to a trivia sub-page.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I created a trivia sub-page and moved the unreferenced entries there. If this causes undue pain, please discuss. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Community
If there isn't a WP:RS for this already, there will be soon. I've seen several blogs/reviews for the episode "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" which aired last night. Unfortunately, I missed it myself, but the concept is supposed to be that the characters spend the whole episode playing D&D. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." To be relevant, this article needs to focus more on the higher-level impact of D&D on popular culture. Adding in trivia just trivializes the content.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it's not trivia at the moment, what I'm saying is that this seems significant enough to the popular culture impact of D&D as a whole that eventually reliable sources will emerge, and at that point we should definitely be saying something about that. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, most of what you'll find on a Google search for "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" and "Community" is blogs so far, but this is from The Onion's "A.V. Club" segment: and there may be more out there. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if and when it has a significant cultural impact, I'm sure it will be documented in a reliable source. At that point we can certainly add it in. Per WP:USERG, Blogs are considered suitable only if the information is from a professional writer or journalist. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's currently included in the article, with two sources. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of which appear to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Mazes & Monsters
Not sure if the Ronna Jaffe book/movie Mazes and Monsters should be in this article. Apparently the "working title" for the movie was "Dungeons and Dragons" but was dropped to avoid trademark infringement. 75.80.20.99 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, since they don't specifically mention D&D in the book and movie. It's already well-covered at Dungeons & Dragons controversies. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Players
Cited or not, how is this information truly relevant, informative, or in anyway expands the understanding of the subject at all? If these people were famous because they played D&D perhaps, but famous people have hobbies, it's true. We might detail it on their article if it's something that is often written about them, but creating a section here for it is trivial.--Crossmr (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, these people are prominent cultural figures and the fact that they play the game helps to demonstrates the acceptance in society and the role it plays, particularly in the entertainment business. For those who have attempted to demonize or otherwise stigmatize the game, it shows that creative and successful individuals can play the game and not become social pariahs. To me, it also helps counter misinformed opinions about who plays the game and the impact it may have. These factors all have to do with culture, so the list seems relevant. Besides, it's interesting and properly cited. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That all sounds like things which fall under WP:SOAPBOX and have nothing to do with being an encyclopedia. It isn't the place of the encyclopedia to be pushing those kinds of issues. It being "interesting" is irrelevant. As is being cited. We can cite all kinds of things in all kinds of articles but it doesn't mean the information belongs there. You haven't actually provided any sources which make the connections you're claiming and trying to do so is original research. In fact your reply here as pretty much cemented the case that they shouldn't be here at all.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC or WP:3O perhaps? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No it's not unrelated trivia because the listed people are popular cultural figures who made a point of declaring publically that play D&D. This is quite clearly linked to the subject matter and it's more distinct than simply stating they have a hobby because of past controversy with the game. I also assert that the list satisfies WP:SALAT, particularly WP:LISTPEOPLE. Whether I have additional opinions on the matter is my own business; we are just holding a discussion here and I am just stating my own opinion. The list is valid and placed in an appropriate location, but I believe it would stand just as well on its own. Ergo, it's fine. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If these users have publicly stated that they played the game, that it had a verifiable impact on them (whether positive or negative), and this statement is not simply a throwaway, trivial item in a puff piece about that person, their participation in the game becomes an interesting cultural signpost that adds to the acceptance or rejection of the game in popular culture and as such is relevant to the article. Snuppy 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly Snuppy. Simply being able to say Celeb X plays D&D is trivial. You're making assumptions by calling it distinct because of past controversies. That's original research. You're using your opinion to make a justification for keeping this list, but the basis of your opinion is contrary to various policies. Per be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. The reasons you're giving run afoul of WP:OR. Unless the sources you're citing draw the same conclusions you are. Just because we can create a list doesn't mean we have to create a list. Currently Saying Celeb A, B and C play D&D really gives zero additional information about the hobby or even the cultural impact of the game. It barely belongs on the celeb's article let alone here. To be honest this kind of section seems to be against WP:ADVERT because it seems the list is only present to promote the topic. "Hey look all these famous people partake of it, it's a real thing!"--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. The list is fine. It's relevant to the topic, informative, and satisfies the requirements for a list; everything you'd want an encyclopedic entry to be. Hence I'm satisfied with the entry. If you want to take this further, then do so and we'll see where it goes. Otherwise, you don't have a consensus for the removal. RJH (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Like all of WP, reliable sources decide. Basically what RJH says, without the word "Rubbish". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except the reliable sources don't support anything he's claimed. Other than Celeb X plays D&D. All the soapbox claims and other things he's claiming this list means aren't supported by the reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet no where in there did you answer the question on the guideline you cited. How does the list contribute to the state of human knowledge, leaving out all the original research and soapbox reasons that are entirely uncited. The information it provides is nothing beyond trivial, which is not really "informative". Your being satisfied is not the criteria for keeping it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How many times have we seen this sort of thing on Wikipedia? "I know THA RULEZ and I am right and you are wrong. I am a consensus of one and you must do what I say!" You need a few more people to agree with you, and then your viewpoint will have more weight in this discussion. I agree with what the others have said so far, that this list is perfectly fine in this context. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Snuppy already agreed with me. I am not a consensus of one. What they've said is entirely without citation and merit. It is neither in line with policy nor guideline, and they've provided zero evidence to support their assertion. Local consensus cannot override project wide consensus and the policies and guidelines that exist outweigh what a couple of editors could try and agree to here.--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get the impression that Snuppy was agreeing with you: "their participation in the game becomes an interesting cultural signpost that adds to the acceptance or rejection of the game in popular culture and as such is relevant to the article" (emphasis mine). 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Intentionally trying to quote someone out of context is a violation of our policies. Snuppy qualified that statement very clearly If these users have publicly stated that they played the game, that it had a verifiable impact on them (whether positive or negative), and this statement is not simply a throwaway, trivial item in a puff piece about that person... He clearly stated that unless there was something more to the citation than simply "Celeb X plays D&D" it wasn't worth being here. Exactly as I did.--Crossmr (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe I was fairly clear. If cited articles just say, "Oh, by the way, John Lancie played D&D once," that's trivial and irrelevant. However, Stephen Colbert has said multiple times that D&D was a guiding influence in his life. So has Vin Diesel. So has Felicia Day. These are not throwaway facts like "adores puppies," but rather formative and defining experiences. Sorry, Crossmr: I'm voting to keep the list, but each person on that list should have a citation pointing to (at least) a one-time deep involvement in the game.Snuppy 02:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC)I just agreed with that, however, the list currently does not do that. It simply states "Celeb X, Job, citation" there is absolutely no information about whether or not their case is something special nor does it explain why it's special in the article itself. As the list is currently written and cited it is nothing more than trivial. If the list is edited, rewritten and entries are checked I have no problem with truly good information staying.--Crossmr (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Snuppy – Mmm, no I don't think that's right. For an entry to be added, all we need to do is satisfy WP:LISTPEOPLE. There's nothing in the list criteria that says the players must have had a deep and moving experience while playing D&D. However, I do think we need to exclude entries where the person clearly didn't play it as hobby, such as for a commercial purpose or as part of a team-building exercise for a movie cast (as may have happened with Judy Densch). Regards, RJH (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(redent) Good reasoning on both sides. But, if we have a section on people who play DnD, then we should include those for which we have an RS. And since there's so many sources, we should have that section. We can't try and judge how important it was to them, or how important they thought it was, or who to include or exclude. It doen't matter if we think it was important, or completely trivial. Reliable sources reported it, and therefore so should we. That said, the section isn't very well written, and should be in paragraph form summarizing their level of involvement if mentioned in the sources, but that sounds like to much work for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't judge that, the reliable sources judge that. If the reliable source contains an interview with a celeb and they talk about D&D and they go into detail about it as colbert has for example, then we give it coverage. If the reliable source simply says "Bob once played D&D" we don't include it. With that logic we could start adding lists to car articles of the thousands of celeb who have ever owned a model of car. What exactly would that prove or convey? Nothing. Just as it does it. SO what if Celeb X played D&D before? Is there anything of value we can actually take from that, from conclusions drawn by reliable sources that means anything? The only conclusions put forth so far in this discussion are soapxbox and original research. Just because it's mentioned in an RS doesn't mean it gets added to an article here. That's why we have WP:TRIVIA. Trivial mentions rarely warrant much, if any, space here.--Crossmr (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:TRIVIA. Trivia are lists of miscellanea. This is a list of related information that satisfies a criteria and falls quite appropriately under the subject matter. It's no more trivial than, say, List of Arizona State University alumni or List of people born at sea. Now I'm sure you'll persist in thinking it's trivia because you clearly like to argue. But you'll note that even the WP:TRIVIA guideline doesn't recommend deleting the material. Read it and you'll see. In this case, the content of the list is not readily integrated into the remainder of the article. The list stands by itself and meets the criteria necessary for a list of people. Ergo it's fine the way it is. RJH (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you of WP:AGF, and WP:NPA since you seem to have trouble remembering our policies. List people refers to stand-alone lists, but it also doesn't exist in a bubble. As you already know, per the same guideline you're trying to use to support this, you need to be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. You've failed to do that. You haven't provided a single piece of cited information to do so. You've spun all kinds of theories above, but they have no basis in reality or reliable sources. This list doesn't match your typical trivia section in an article, since it's focused to a single fact, but it is the same style as most Trivia sections which is the main problem with those sections. There may be useful information in there somewhere, but the way its presented gives us nothing. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the list in this article has to stand on its own.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Peregrine – in this case I think a list form serves the purpose better. We could possibly put it in a table form with names and interests, but I'm not sure that would be an improvement. I'm not clear what you find objectionable about the wording, so perhaps you could clarify? Regards, RJH (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A list serves no purpose. I get absolutely nothing about D&D in popular culture from that list. It tells me absolutely nothing about that subject at all. All I see is celeb X played D&D. That's it. So what? Is that supposed to encourage me to play D&D? Is that supposed to tell me "Hey D&D is a serious hobby?" none of these POVs are cited or relevant.--Crossmr (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Crossmr, I think you have made your point, whether or not you feel that anyone else is hearing it. Right now it looks like you've got four editiors - as I'm including myself - who feel that the information is valid and belongs in the article (although they may not agree on how it should be implemented), whereas you feel that it should be removed pending sources that would satisfy you. This sounds like, at best, a stalemate. Continuing to argue your point does not appear to be accomplishing anything. I strongly recommend starting an RFC to gather outside input, or some other method, and if you don't do so, then I will. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The list is fine. If this article was at FAC, I might ask for paras that go something like:
 * Several comedians have aknowledged playing DnD. Stephen Colbert felt being a dungeon master helped him hone his comedic timing.[1]  Other comedians who played are John Doe[2] and Sally Smith[3].
 * I completely made all that up, but hopefully you get the idea. At this stage in the articles history, all that really matters is that we record the reliable sources, so someone can fix it up later if they want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only issues I take with that is that "several" is a weasel word and the tacking on of the other comedians is trivial. The only truly valuable information that is conveyed there is about Colbert, but how does that contribute to "Dungeons and Dragons in Popular Culture"? The subject of the article is Dungeons and Dragons and IT in popular culture. If Colbert is using Dungeons and Dragons as references in his bits, and he's stated that he was a player, then you have something to build some actual content on.--Crossmr (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be a useful addition to focus on several key figures and expand on their interest. Perhaps that could be inserted underneath the list as an added commentary? Regards, RJH (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not what I said at all. You can see what I said above. I stated that any entry which amounts to nothing more than "Celeb X plays D&D" is nothing more than trivial and shouldn't be here. I did say that the section should be checked and rewritten to only include information that is beyond trivial which Snuppy seems to agree with. So no, I don't really accept your attempt to draw some imaginary lines which relies on misrepresentation.--Crossmr (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We get it, Crossmr. You don't like the list. There's information on wikipedia for everybody to dislike. RJH (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I don't feel it complies with policy and guidelines and you've utterly failed to provide any justification otherwise. You can't even fully satisfy the guidelines you were citing as a defence for it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources mention it, then we can include it. That's all the policies and guidelines have to say about it.  Whether to include it or not is editorial discretion, and more people like it than don't.  That's really all there is to it.  You could almost post my first two sentences as the reply to any of your posts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lacking a reference
The following are lacking a reliable reference: Regards, RJH (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In The Dresden Files, a fantasy detective series by Jim Butcher, the protagonist Harry Dresden along with Billy Borden and his werewolf gang, The Alphas, indulge in frequent games of Arcanos, similar to Dungeons and Dragons.
 * The comic strip FoxTrot has featured Dungeons and Dragons numerous times.
 * The comic FoxTrot uses Dungeons and Dragons. Several arcs are based on Jason's love of D&D.
 * There's a few odd mentions of this on the web and a page from the comic, but I couldn't find a reliable, independent source that definitively confirms either of the above in their entirety. RJH (talk)
 * Code Monkeys - in the episode "Todd loses his Mind", Todd, a zealous D&D player, goes temporarily insane after his fantasy game is canceled and (in a parody of D&D controversy such as Mazes and Monsters) he adopts the identity of his D&D character, kidnaps actress Molly Ringwald, harasses Gygax (voiced again by himself), and tries to destroy the game developer he works at.
 * Dayglo Abortions' song 'the Spawn of Yog-Sothoth' directly references the statistics listed in the origonal Deities and Demi-Gods, prior to the Lovecraftian and Melnibonean methology being removed from the printing due to copywrite issues.

Magnum PI
On the recently removed addition about his playing D&D, I found a clip from "Little Games" of Magnum playing some generic fantasy computer game, but there's nothing to indicate it has anything to do with D&D. I haven't found anything about the other episode. —Torchiest talkedits 17:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Spoof of D & D
See Foxtrot comic Feb 19, 2017 http://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2017/02/19