Rumors of a World of Warcraft x Dungeon & Dungeons crossover planned to be announced next week have supposedly leaked and been quickly removed ⁠72%

By Alexander Cope⁠77%

7/24/2026, 8:55:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 1,309 faulty-reasoning hits from 511 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (6,310 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.20% of the article peer group.

The gaming rumor mill has recently spun one of the biggest yarns in gaming and tabletop history, if it's to be believed, for a supposed leak has been spotted for an upcoming crossover between the popular MMORPG World of Warcraft and the historic tabletop RPG Dungeons & Dragons. 
According to tabletop RPG news fansite ENWorld , this 'leak' comes from a post on Roll20, an online virtual tabletop website that is a partner of Dungeons & Dragons. 
It reveals that Dungeons & Dragons is making a tabletop RPG version of World of Warcraft titled 'D&D World of Warcraft', which was planned to be announced at a tabletop gaming convention called Gen Con next week on July 30, 2026. 
The post was quickly removed, but ENWorld managed to save a preview image and images related to the announcement via its web page, including the title post saying "Pre-order D&D World of Warcraft!". 
ENWorld has reached out to Dungeons & Dragons' publisher, Wizards of the Coast, for confirmation of this supposed 'leak' of validity and will post an update when they have received word back from them. 
Windows Central's take 
The lead title of the supposed leak of 'D&D World of Warcraft'. 
(Image credit: EDWorld) A good chunk of World of Warcraft's lore, setting, characters, and monsters are very heavily inspired by Dungeons & Dragons, and in turn, World of Warcraft even influenced Dungeons & Dragons, particularly its 4th Edition, where a lot of its game mechanics became very gamified (speaking from experience here when I saved my group countless times as a healing-focused Cleric in D&D:4e). 
Now Wizards of the Coast is no stranger to crossing its franchises over with others, as Dungeons & Dragons' sister game, Magic: The Gathering, has had crossovers with Final Fantasy , Warhammer 40,000 , Stranger Things, Tomb Raider , Ghostbusters, Hatsune Miku of all things, and many more. 
So the idea of a D&D World of Warcraft tabletop RPG would make total sense and would make for one heck of a crossover game, that is, if it turns out to be true. 
I know I would be down for roleplaying sessions where the DM would allow us to enact goofy fanfiction adventures where we could change events of Warcraft's lore in hilarious ways. 
Either way, we will have to wait and see if this supposed leak turns out to be true at Gen Con next week on July 30, 2026, and remember, always take rumors and leaks with a grain of salt. 
Do you think this supposed leak of a Dungeons & Dragons tabletop RPG adaptation of World of Warcraft is true, and if it is, would you be up for it? 
If you have any thoughts on the matter, please let us know in the comments, on Reddit , or in the poll. 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.7%Alexander Cope: 4.0%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias6.7%This article: 8.0%Alexander Cope: 1.3%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias8.0%This article: 6.5%Alexander Cope: 6.8%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 9.4%Alexander Cope: 1.3%Windows Central: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 1.8%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 3.5%Windows Central: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Alexander Cope: 4.9%Windows Central: 5.0%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 1.7%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.7%Windows Central: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.4%Alexander Cope: 12.2%Windows Central: 8.0%Optimism Bias19.4%This article: 7.6%Alexander Cope: 4.0%Windows Central: 3.0%Pessimism Bias7.6%This article: 4.7%Alexander Cope: 12.9%Windows Central: 8.6%Negativity Bias4.7%This article: 12.7%Alexander Cope: 2.9%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 1.6%Windows Central: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.6%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Alexander Cope: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.2%In-Group Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 6.6%Windows Central: 4.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Alexander Cope: 2.4%Windows Central: 2.2%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Alexander Cope: 5.6%Windows Central: 3.7%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 5.9%Alexander Cope: 2.1%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 1.6%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.7%Alexander Cope: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning6.7%This article: 15.9%Alexander Cope: 11.5%Windows Central: 8.5%Hasty Generalization15.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.9%Alexander Cope: 2.3%Windows Central: 1.1%Bandwagon5.9%This article: 10.8%Alexander Cope: 7.1%Windows Central: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion10.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 1.6%Windows Central: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 3.0%Windows Central: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.7%Alexander Cope: 1.3%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof12.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.1%Alexander Cope: 5.4%Windows Central: 4.0%Anecdotal22.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 2.8%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%Alexander Cope: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground6.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 8.0%Alexander Cope: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy8.0%This article: 5.7%Alexander Cope: 2.7%Windows Central: 3.0%Unattributed Quote5.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 1.9%Windows Central: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.8%Alexander Cope: 19.0%Windows Central: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice26.8%This article: 6.1%Alexander Cope: 4.5%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination6.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Cope: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.4%Alexander Cope: 15.3%Windows Central: 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…20.4%

511 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech448writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageENWorld • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWizards of the Coast • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 65 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wizards of the Coast

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words54% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +84.4 ptsWriter: 15.6%Wizards of the Coast: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-30.6 ptsWriter: 30.6%Wizards of the Coast: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%Wizards of the Coast: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.