Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons modules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Indexes
WikiProject icon This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.
 
WikiProject Lists  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 



Time to Split?[edit]

This article is fairly large and is probably time to split it. There has been some debate earlier about splitting/renaming. There previously was a general concesus this should only be for "official" TSR/WOTC modules because the list would get too long and complicated and difficult to define otherwise (Someone can start other lists of modules for these if they want in seperate articles) Now that 3rd edition modules/adventures have been added I think these need to be split off into new article for a number of reasons:

1) With 3rd edition the game significantly changed and there was a distinct break in publications (Where 1st/2nd was much more of a transisiton with some module series crossing over that transition)

2) By 3rd edition I don't think the term modules was used anymore (though admittedly this was a general transition out through out 2nd edition)

3) 3rd edition modules continue to be published so these will be an growing list where previous will remain fairly static.

My suggestion is we seperate these 3rd edition listings into seperate article "List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures" Comments Please

Waza 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense to keep the non-TSR / WotC material out of this article. This should be for official, TSR and WotC modules (adventures) only. Other articles can be used for non-TSR stuff. I'm fine with splitting the current article into more than one, and if it is split, I agree that the 3rd Edition stuff makes the most sense to split off. But I am worried that having a "List of Dungeons & Dragons modules" and a "List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures" articles with different content would be really confusing. A lot of people use the terms interchangably, and as you said, TSR started using the term "adventures" before 3rd edition, so it wouldn't be a clean split by any means. Maybe if the article does get split up, "List of Dungeons & Dragons modules (previous editions)" and "List of dungeons & dragons modules (3rd edition)" -- or something like that -- instead? Fairsing 03:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up?[edit]

As there has ben no discussion or no replacement of the generic clean up tag for over 4 months I propose it is removed. I am not saying this article will not benefit from some more work but I can't see the point of this tag and it looks like no one else can either - Waza 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Two weeks latter still no reason why clean up tag is needed. I am removing, please put back on with an explaination as to why. Waza 02:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List[edit]

I generated this list from an online resource and heavily modified it. There may be some errors or omissions. If you see any, please fix 'em. But most of all, please write an article on your favorite module! :^D. The link at the bottom has tons of information on most of the modules. —Frecklefoot 21:40, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Images[edit]

I added a slew of module cover scans. I got permission from the source web site ("The Acaeum": http://www.acaeum.com/). I tried to add one per table section, but that left some disappointing gaps, noticably at the end of "D" and the "E" sections. I didn't know how to get the images to format one underneath another, so unless someone else does, I guess we'll have to live with them. I'm not married to the format—if you have some better ideas, please implement them. —Frecklefoot 03:21, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have a bunch of these, guess I should write 'em up.... Stan 05:03, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First article[edit]

Alright, I wrote up the first article, S3! Okay, the first one, FRC2, was already written when I made this list... but this is the first one since! Now it's your turn (Stan). How long do you think it'll be before we have articles on all of them? I can't wait to find out! —Frecklefoot 20:50, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


Module covers[edit]

I'm big on graphics for Wikipedia, what do you think about trying to add scans of the covers of modules you make entries for? I think it'd add a lot, but my experience in trying to add images to the 'pedia have been--er--painful. Hopefully it won't be for this. Any scan will be covered under fair use, so it shouldn't be a problem. I already added one for S3! I know where to get all the scans if need be, but I'd rather not overuse the source if possible. —Frecklefoot 21:10, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)


Module Article resources[edit]

Alright! Thank you Ausir for writing the article on T1-4! I hope it is the first of many more to come. :-) I wanted to list two resources I've found which have been very helpful for this module work. When you create an article on a module, you may want to include extern links to these sites for further information for the reader. I've already added the links to the T1 article and the links are also located on my S3 article:

  • RPGNowsells and has lots of information on individual modules, usually including cover scans
  • Pen & Paper, an RPG web site with entries for many modules including full credits
  • The Acaeum is an auction history site which also has many historical cover scans and information on various printings of D&D materials

I hope you find the sites useful. :-) —Frecklefoot 18:53, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


Move images within tables?[edit]

I moved a couple of the module images within the tables -- let me know whether you like it; if so, I'll move the rest. (These should probably all be within one table so they don't vary in width.....)

Catherine 19:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like 'em better in the tables. :-) Perhaps we could even fit more in with the tables (for example, look at the "D" section with the long, barren bottom half). —Frecklefoot 14:41, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Should we go ahead and move them in? I'm willing to do the work myself if anyone likes them better that way. Frecklefoot | Talk 14:42, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
Done -- sorry I forgot to get back to it earlier. If you'd like to add more images, just replace the "nbsp" (non-breaking space code) with the [[Image:]] syntak. The images take up 13 rows, so I broke it up into "rowspan" groups of 13, adding blank lines where necessary (to L and S) to make it large enough to hold the images. Cheers! Catherine | talk 07:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Alphabetic table structure ???[edit]

Is Alpabetic table structure really best of this page? I think not. Some letter have several unrealted series in the one table. For examples D, DA and DL are 3 unrelated series.

Wouldn't it be better to have by name with opening comments on what ties each series together (Wether thematic like S or MSOL or a series like A or G), what version(s) they were for (Advanced, Basic, Expert, 1st/2nd/3rd Ed) and whether they lead into another series. Brief comments on some individiual modules may be appropriate. --Waza

First off, I like your additon of the "Levels" column to the A table. I added it to the other tables, but they are mostly unpopulated right now.
However, I still favor the alphabetical approach to listing the modules. Even if they have unrelated scenarios in the table, listing them alphabetically makes the most sense. Otherwise, we'd have to list them by "campaign" and that would get unweildly. Plus, alphabetically makes them easier to find by number. I'd agree to a "related adventures" column, but don't really think it's necessary. Once the modules have articles, any related adventures can be mentioned therein. I'd really like to limit the number of columns because too many will make the tables difficult to display for some users. But we can wait and see what other editors think.
Lastly, I added your signature above, but please sign your posts. You can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred since it also adds a timestamp. Peace. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 16:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Glad you like the levels. I think it is probably the most useful addition I made on my edit too.
Maybe the into I wrote was a bit wordy but I still think most series need some sort of intro. Particularly it needs to be noted which game they belong to, maybe a general note at the top that all were "plain" AD&D unless noted, and then notes for Basic/Expert/etc.
The approach I think needs to be to list like this is adding as much quick reference info without making the page too complex, a difficult balance.
With above in mind I when I proposed spliting into series I did not mean moving series out of alphabetic order. Just for example split the U and UK series into seperate tables (still in order) as they are distinct series. The way they are laid out now gives the impression they are related. If you don't think such a split is a good idea then the alternative is to combine all into one big table (but I like my split option better).
For Campaigns that continue through different series that (like T-A-G-D-Q) I think keep them in alpha order but a brief note at begining and end of series as to what was last/next may be appropriate. This would alow someone to trace a campaingn without going off this page.
Waza 23:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Breaking the tables up is fine with me, if we keep them in alpha order. I didn't get that from your first post.
An intro for each series of modules would be great, but I couldn't figure out how to do it without making them look really crappy. How about posting the A series table here with what you have in mind and we can bandy it about until we come up with something we all like? That way we won't have to waste time making a lot of changes on the main page until we come to a consensus.
But it's fine with me if you want to go ahead and break up the tables into sub-tables, as long as they stay in alpha order. Cheers. Frecklefoot | Talk 02:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK, normally I like editing straight onto a page, but to stop editing back and forth here is a sample. I think we need to keep asking the question "What will people be looking for when they look up a list of D&D modules in Wikipedia?" With this in mind I have added arthor and date info. Allows people to find more modules by arthors they like like, and also identify those that were around at the time they were playing.

The generic notes column seemed esential for a whole pile of misc info. In this series I noted revised comilation, some modules in other series are striaght compilation or abbreviated compilations. It can also be used to note other required supplements to play module (like Battle system for H1, or Dragonwquests for DQ1) or anything else unusual about the module.

If size of table is a concern I think it would be better to remove the sameple covers from the table. It seems to me it would be more beneficial to have one example of each style of module than one of each letter. Waza 23:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


A - Aerie of the Slave Lords, a linked campaign of four AD&D (1st Ed) modules created for GenCon XIII. Can also form an extended campaign following T, and followed by G
Code Title Levels Author(s) Published Sample Cover Notes
A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity 4 - 7 Dave Cook 1980  
A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade 4 - 7 Harold Johnson
Tom Moldvay
1981
A3 Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords 4 - 7 Allen Hammack 1981
A4 In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords 4 - 7 Lawrence Schick 1981
A1-4 Scrouge of the Slave Lords 7 - 11 Various ?? Revised Compilation

I decided that this lookks good so am putting something similar in article. If someone don't like it make it better,

I'm okay with removing the sample covers column, but I'd still like them included somewhere in the article. Illustrations make for a much more interesting article. :-)
From my experience with other projects, I've got to oppose the Notes column. We had similar sections in other projects, and though they seem like a good idea in the beginning, they always end up being used for hordes of POV comments. Levels, authors, names are all factual, but Notes always end up being used for POV rants. POV statements such as Best module ever, Considered hardest adventure by most players, Worst premise of the series and Last dungeon by Bobby Dinglehopper.
There is tons of information we could include in the table, but I'm not sure that, in this case, more is better. I sure wish more people would weigh in on this. Maybe we should entice users from the main Dungeons & Dragons article... Frecklefoot | Talk 14:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I totally aggree with illustrating a few example modules, I just don't see any particlular benefit in one sample cover per letter. Lets come up with a more logical way of sampling. I think one per cover style is more illustrative of what a module is.
I hear your concerns on the notes column and the dangers involved, but there are just too many examples of modules in the list that vary from the more traditonal "module" is that need to be noted somewhere. The DL series is a classic example where some are actually source books with no actual game play and one is a stand alone board game. I think things like this and most of the stuff I have noted in the A, X series has a place on a page like this. Can you can come up with a better column name or even a better way to note this? (Footnotes?) - Waza 22:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
First off, please stop adding the new columns to tables in the article until we resolve what we actually want. That way, I hope, not fistfights will break out. :-)
Okay, let's back up a little bit. You asked "What will people be looking for when they look up a list of D&D modules in Wikipedia?" I answer that with "I'm not completely sure." Hopefully they are looking for a definition of what a D&D module is, and that we can provide. Luckily, we can also provide some overviews of each module and series. However, it is not our responisibility to build a complete cross-reference and index of all modules. And I'm afraid that's what this article is turning into. Let's back up on some of the information we're providing on the main page. The number of columns is already exceeding what my browser can display attractively horizontally. We need to nix some of the columns in the tables.
Now, as I said before, detailed information can go in each module's article. Therefore, I think we should nix the "Notes" column. The only thing that column will attract is POV comments. For example, should the Notes for S3 say "the most lavishly illustrated D&D module" or "the first module with sci-fi elements"? Deciding what goes in there is totally the opinion of the editor—POV. Both those details can go in the article.
As for the pulication date column, I think we can easily get rid of that without losing any information. Let's try putting the publication date after the title in parentheses, like this:
Slave Pits of the Undercity (1980)
I'd like to try something similar with the levels and authors, but I can't think of an elegant way to do it. If you can, please chime in.
As for the module covers, my attempt was not to give a feeling for the "letter," but just some samples of what some module covers look like. You said "one per cover style is more illustrative of what a module is." I'm not sure what you mean by this. What do you mean by "style"? Artist? Publisher (TSR vs. Wizards of the Coast)? Please explain.
With my two proposed changes, we'd be down to 5 columns, vs. the current 7. In my opinion, that is much more reasonable and within scope of Wikipedia's charter. I'd like to get it down to even fewer, but like I said, I can't think of an elegant way to do it. Please bear in mind that my proposed changes won't delete any existing information, just change it's location. Below is a row of what my proposed new table would look like:
Code Title Levels Author(s) Sample Cover
A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity (1980) 4 - 7 Dave Cook  
Boy, a D&D WikiProject sounds even better now. These types of issues are perfect for a project! The WikiProjects are how we came up with the infoboxes templates for arcade games and video games. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your feedback. :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 20:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


  • I was following the conversation and here are my comments.
    • I agree it is important to get the table structure as "correct" as possible, before the page gets too large to maintain.
    • In my opinion, Timeline_of_CGI_in_films contains an awkward multi-line table format, BUT really benefits from the included pictures. Not sure if this page's "List of D&D modules" really needs in-line cover pictures. They are just cover pages, and eye candy for those of us who remember the modules first hand. On the whole, I would remove the picture from the table. It makes the table awkward, hard/impossible to have a picture for each module or wastes lots of white space.
    • By definition, Timeline_of_CGI_in_films needs to have a date for each entry since the intent is to showcase improved CGI over the years. Why does a list of D&D modules need a publishing date? It could serve as a proxy for D&D editions, but still a weak proxy. Suggest removing as absolutely not needed (on this page).
    • Character levels are optional, but worthy of keeping.
    • Author is a must keep.
    • Anything else can be added later, if it is absolutely necessary.
    • One addition to consider is "plot". The modules are 5 to 25 years old, there is no concern about spoilers
  • With these recommendations, the above table becomes
Code Title Levels Author(s) Plot
A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity 4 - 7 Dave Cook Adventures are hired to shut down evil slavers; but end up confronting the ultimate power, Beholders;
  • Simple and to the point. Wendell 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


These comments I put in and got an edit conflict with Wendells posting so they do not contain any reponse to Wendells post, just to Frecklefoots post before that:
I agree, no fist fights. I quite happy to extremely disagree with someone (and I don't think this is the case here) and can still respect them more than someone who refuses to have an opinion. The reason I started changing is to twofold. The Be Bold exhortation in Wiki Help. Secondly person experience shows trying things actually leads to actually progress in the articles. I have seen too many articles with endless debate. Remember the warning at the bottom of the edit page If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly
I totally agree that detailed info needs to go in a seperate article on the module. The problem is that there is some basic info that I strongly believe does need to be included in this article. Many of the "modules" TSR released did not fit into any definition of modules that could be put in the header. If something is not noted people will assume these are standard type modules, and I do not believe they should have to go into each individual article to be able to pick the major variations.
Will a notes column attract some POV comments? Probably yes. But POV is against the policy of Wikipedia, so then need to be edit out. Whether there should be a notes column or not I don't think attracts POV comments is an argument either way. Wether they are aware of them or not all people who are reading this (or any other) article are reading it with certain questions in mind. What neds to be done in writting this article is to provide some basic common info and to allow people to identicy the module(s) they want to read more on.
You comment "However, it is not our responisibility to build a complete cross-reference and index of all modules" I only partially agree. There is no reponsibility and a full index is definately not required. However what could be more encyclopedic than a cross reference of major features. To my mind Wikipedia is about providing information in an accessable form. I can understand that too much info can cause "noise" and be a problem. What a table does however is allows an easy method of filtering out the information one needs because you can ignore the columns you are not interested in and follow only those that are relevant to you.
Your concerns about width of table are valid. To my mind the best way to resolve this would be to put the sample covers above or below the tables. They are generally the widest column and one that can't be wrapped by a browser onto 2 or more lines. I also do believe that including them in the table implies some comminality in covers between modules within a series and this is not always the case. I turned my PC back to 800x600 screen resolution and I could see all columns in reasonable form except the smaple cover which was cut off by varying amounts on the right hand side of the screen.
With regard to putting date in brackets after the name I do not violently object (that is a metaphoric comment), but cannot see any benefit in this and it does seem to have a few minor disadvantages. While it does reduce the number of columns, it does not reduce the total width of table. What is the benefit in reducing columns if not to reduce table width? Also it would mean peple scanning the info by date would harder time picking out the info.
The other option is of course to drop the table totally and make it a list as the title says. I had been feeling the title is not quite appropriate to the artile anymore anyway. One of the big questions I guess is does that mean we need to change the artilce or the title? Do we actually evently need two or more articles. Possibly eventually a D&D Modules and a List of D&D Modules purely an alphabetic list with links and a Comparison of D&D Modules with a complete reference table? - Waza 00:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments on Wendells points:
  • I think spoilers are a concern, age is irrelevant. They still may be used by DM's as basis for adventures
  • The date is to help people identify era they were available in. While in some ways it is weak proxy for edition in other ways it is stronger than edition because even within editions new suplements were issuesd over time.
  • The use I had in mind when I though of including date is for people to think "I used to play D&D around 1985, I want to look for modules that were (or were not) out at that time."
  • Hoping I'm starting to get simpler and to the point quicker, Waza 02:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


Page Content? Plot vs Module Description vs Spoilers[edit]

I think the page needs additional information about the module as a STORY or Adventure. I would prefer a Story summary over a scan of the module cover. I understand that spoilers might be a concern, but I think that could be worked around. Several options:

  • Where they exist, how about using the "hook-line" presented on the module cover itself? In general no spoilers, just background
    • Example from A2 The battle against the slavers continues! You and your fellow adventures have defeated the Slavers of Highport, but you have learned of the existance of another Slaver stronghold........"
    • Corny, I know but that is what makes them great, as in true pulp fiction (not the movie)
  • Us wikipedians should be able to write a Story/Plot line could/should focus on the early adventure and setup, not against the "big boss". In general that is what the module covers give.
  • Besides even if they are spoilers, a decent DM will dream up a way to not advertise they are doing module Z4 on Tuesday.
  • Also note that the classic A, G, D series advertise the main enemy in the Title itself (Slavers, Giants, UnderDark, Drow)
  • With these recommendations, a suggested table row becomes:
Code Title Levels Author(s) Published Backstory
A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity 4 - 7 Dave Cook 198x Adventures are hired to shut down evil slavers; but end up doing their own investigations.......;

Wendell 04:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like my preferences are getting trampled underfoot, so I think I'll bow out of this discussion. I'm more about aesthetics than, well, information overload. Like I said before, I think all that information can is better suited to the individual articles, but of course it has some utility on the main article page too.
Graphics, to me, make articles much more pleasing and approachable. But with all the content you two want, there won't be any place for them. That's okay, since Wikipedia is a collective effort. But my bias would only taint the continuing discussion of the table format.
Yes, this article should probably be moved when the table format has been decided upon. It started out as a list, but has/will evolved into something much more. Frecklefoot | Talk 18:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Frecklefoot, I don't think anyone wants you to feel trampled. Yes you started this envisaging a list, but you did put it in a table form and a table invites adding more info. Also is a list really needed? It may be a helpful starting point to building a comparison table and/or individual articles. But once the individual articles are all/mostly written then the caegory function of wikipedia is actually a better way of generating a "list" rather than a "list of" article. List articles are appropriate where items on the list will now be articles, but redundant to categoryies where every item will have it's own article.
  • I agree graphics are good and I would like to continue to see some included in this article. I don't think they are required in the table. We all agree you can't have the tables too wide and removing them seems a sensible solution.
  • Wendell, I am still not convince that we need a plot/back story - thats one to mee that seems to belong in the module article. Your correct, the title often hints at the plot, I think the title is enough of a hint in many cases. If there is something of a plot then it definately needs to contain NO SPOILER info.
  • I think probably a lot of discussion on what will finally be on this page needs to be delayed until a number of individual module pages are created. In my mind what this page is really all about is summary info that directs people to the relevant module page if they are interested - Waza 00:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Waza on that last point. What about a mention of the actual game world? Plus, from what I can see, you're missing a good number of modules here...at least another couple dozen in the "others" section alone, hundreds more if you include the accessories like you all have in the AC and FR section. I like it, I want to help, but I almost think it needs to be broken down into groupings first. (Generic, Greyhawk, Lankhmar, Conan, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Birthright). If you do that, you can include accessories on each page as wel. As it stands, most of the AC entries aren't modules, and none of the FR ones are, for example. --RYard 02:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Info Box Proposal[edit]

Infobox template is now created. See Template_talk:DnDmodule for details on how to use.

Original discussion moved to Template:DnDmodule/Original-Creation-Talk Wendell 04:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete R and RPGA Series modules?[edit]

I question whether these modules should be included in this list are they were not generally available modules published by TSR. The R and RPGA modules were only available at conventions or as magazine inserts (some only to DM's at conventions) and most have been repackaged and rebulished as other modules already in the list. All other modules on the list were widely available official modules, but these are not.

  • R1-4 were combined to make I12
  • RPGA1-2 were combined to make B7
  • RPGA3-8 were combined to make C4 & C5
  • R4 & 5 were inserts in RPGA Mag
  • R7-10 were tornament modules only and only one copy has ever been known to be available for sale to the public --Waza
I'm fine with it, as long as they were available in other forms. The articles on them should probably mention that they are a repackaged version of the scarce modules. Just my $.02... Frecklefoot | Talk 18:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I think that's why it's important they ARE placed in here. It's not a list of commercially available modules, it's a list of published modules, right? If they're not listed here, it's an incomplete list...--RYard 02:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong about the availability of the modules --- they were available to all RPGA members by mail order. Anyway, RYard is right: the scarity of those modules probably makes them more notable, not less. Collectors, especially, talk about them more than most of the modules Wikipedia does list. Michael Bauser 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

B10[edit]

Someone put in the notes it's also called B/X1. My copy doesn't have that. Are we sure?--RYard 03:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

From Acaeum B Series Page:
B10 Night's Dark Terror has a UK version, which is identical in all respects to the US version except it has a "B/X1" sticker over the "B10" code on the front cover. TSR UK, who developed the module, originally intended it to bear the B/X1 code (since the module is a bridge between the Basic and Expert sets), but were overruled by TSR USA. The "B/X1" version is substantially rarer than the "B10" version. (Thanks to Graeme Morris and Bill Wilkerson for this info).
- Waza 05:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

TSR Only?[edit]

Hey everyone. This is a great resource page and I hope we can all continue to make it better.

My question is are we limited to TSR modules only? The title of the page is Dungeons & Dragons modules and there is a plethora of material coming up since Wizards of the Coast opened up the D20 License for anyone to create games. Monte Cook at Malhavoc, Gary Gygax at Necromancer and many others are creating fanastic modules and accessories. Should we find a place for them here or redirect or what?

Tom Tomlib 22:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, no. As of now, this list is focusing on pre-3rd edition D&D modules only, so D20 additions are out of the scope. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a new category. That leads into what I asked before..I'd still like some confirmation on what we're calling modules...the FR series, for example, and the good portion of the AC series...the GAZ for that matter, not to mention there's a plethora of coded Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, and Forgotten Realms modules not on this list yet...and probably another hundred or so non-coded modules that could be added from TSR alone. My gut would be to make this a clearinghouse, because this list is going to get OBSCENE if we really start including all the accessories like people have been doing.--RYard 22:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
There are lots of great points in both above comments, this article is in a state of development and it has been raise earlier that the name will probably change at some point. I think at this stage people who have been working have been aware of some of these issue but just been pushing them aside for now to work on the article as it exists
Some of the issues to be considered include:
  • There is an incredibly huge amount of unofficial D&D
  • Early on just about everything by TSR was clearly a module or a suplement, as time went by the line as to what items were began to blur more and more.
  • I was the one who added in the term TSR, and probably should have specific stated that I see WotC as a continuation of TSR as they purchased the company (and continued to use the name for some time)
    • The intention of this comment was to discourage people ading items from all sorts of other publishers and making the list too large.
  • There is a huge amount of "liscenced" and "unofficial" modules. Though TSR was somewhat sucessful in suppressing such material in the 90's, there is a hugge amount before and after and if some restrictions are not placed on the list then it will quickly become too big.
  • The starting point for this article started out as just a list of coded modules. (based on the module list at Arceam?)
  • There has been no suggestion that this list is complete yet. Extra coded modules are added all the time. The only ones added then removed were CN ones, which were for a non D&D game.
  • Most of the people working on this article so far only have knowledge of older modules, so that is what is being worked on so far.


Now that the issue has been raised here is my gut feel for what articles are needed:
  • Module (D&D) or Adventure (D&D) about the modules in general, history and publishers and explaining the coding system.
    • Module would be the term I am familar with as common usage in the 80's and early 90's, but adventure seems to be the term prefered by WotC. TSR was never consistent with naming and there is a wide variety of terms.
    • Should link to Adventure (role-playing games) but this new article would have info more specific to D&D like in the intro of the current List of Dungeons & Dragons modules article.
  • A "Comparison of" article for official (ie TSR published) pre 3rd Ed modules. I prefer the term comparison as it better explains a table with levels, authors etc than "List of".
  • Most of these modules were similar enough that they could and were easily converted between early D&D versions.
  • A "Comparison of" article for official 3rd Ed modules. I am not familar with these so not sure how to split if any (WotC only,Officialy liscenced only, Publisher, official campains, etc?).
  • A "Comparison of" article for "liscenced" or "unofficial". This could be organised buy publisher and split if too large. For example Judges Guild in the 70's/80's was officially liscenced by TSR and I think printed more modules than them.
Enough of my 2 cents for now (or with that lenght I guess that should be $2) - Waza 22:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Waza and RYard saw right through to the point I was attempting to subtly make. This isn't really a good category name. Fantasy Role-playing versus D&D, Superhero Games, Horror Games, Modules versus Accessory versus a little of both. Yikes!!
It is too much for this feeble brain. Role-playing Accessories; by game type? By publisher? By accessory type? By genre? and on and on. I think some splitting of pages is in order but I suppose it doesn't hurt to continue putting in description while all this gets sorted out.
I'm a newbie (well, to writing articles at least) to Wikipedia as well so I'm open to any suggestions!
Tomlib 00:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


First lesson, don't try and be subtle.
Yes these are legitimate issues you raised and we expanded on. As I said basically every one has been aware of but ignoring the issue so far as there was so much else to work on. This article started out as one thing but is evolving ont o something else. As more actual module articles are written the category "Dungeons & Dragons modules" is actually taking over the function of the straight list.
So here is my concrete proposal what to do now:
  • Start a new article Adventure (D&D) based on the "About Modules" section of this article. with extra matrerial to be added particularly about currently available 3rd Ed modules.
  • Rename this article to List of D&D Modules (TSR) - The TSR modules article will be a table covering all the modules for AD&D and pre 3rd Ed D&D and has a high correlation to what is already in this article.
  • Redirect the current title List of Dungeons & Dragons modules to the new Adventure (D&D) this will be most relevant to most articles already linked here and new article will contain links to new lists.
  • When someone wants to start a list of older "liscenced" of "unofficial" new pages can be started eg D&D Modules (liscenced)
  • For third edition modules someone else can decide how to split. I would suggest publisher or campaign, maybe with smaller publishers/campaigns sharing an article, but I am no expert and not about to start writing these articles.
- Waza 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm with Waza. Yesss....hmm. Although your proposal has one flaw, and that's the fact that there are many, many (uncoded) modules between the purchase of TSR and the advent of 3rd edition. About two or three years worth. I would say something along the lines of List of 1st & 2nd Edition D&D Modules (TSR) but that seems unwieldly. TSR D&D Modules 197x-1999 perhaps?
I'd still like to hear some proposals on what to do about, say, accessories if anyone's got an idea, because I sure don't. My leaning now, especially since, say, DL5 is an accessory right in the middle of a series of 16 DL modules, we keep them in if they're thematically relevant (I still say the FR and GAZ ones don't belong). Suggestions?--RYard 03:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought theat WotC continued to use TSR as a brand name for D&D products until they produced 3rd Edition. If so that would make my original name valid.
  • As for what is a module, that is always going to be a grey line and I don't know how to define it. My gut says if several in a series contain adventures and/or are given character levels keep the whole series. But series like FR and GAZ should be listed somewhere under the relevant campaign setting. Problem is I don't like deleting info, so am inclined to let it sit here until we have somewhere else to put it. - Waza 04:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
They did. I think I just misunderstood your intent. I thought you meant "published by TSR" which isn't the same as "branded TSR," which is what you were trying to say, in which case I agree with you 100%. I also agree with you on the second part...I don't want to delete it before we know where to put it, and I honestly can't wrap my head around it right now. So the FR and GAZ stay, and might as well get filled out as best as possible.

Page Scheme[edit]

I've been ruminating on how we can make order of the chaos and here are my thoughts.

Start from the Main Role-playing Games Page. This page already links to all the Publishers (Chaosium, TSR, WOTC etc). From the Publishers Page we create a link to an as yet uncreated Accessories Page. The Accessory Page lists Accessory Types (Adventure, Guide, Gazette, Core-rules, etc) which links to a Detail Page. On that Detail Page (essentially this page with only Adventures) we list every book that partially matches that Accessory Type (overlap for Adventure/Guide books is not a problem as they eventually link to the same article). These should be broken down into Genre and Setting. Fantasy, Horror, Sci-Fi etc. and then the Campaign Setting within each. These lists the Accessories with links to actual Article about the specific product.

So, what does everyone think?

Tomlib 14:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but it sounds like it'd be a nightmare to navigate. Frecklefoot | Talk 16:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
In what way is it a nightmare? It is one more level than the current system
RPG Games - Publisher - Accessory Type (this is new) - Accessories (Current Page) - Details. As opposed to the current system.
RPG Games - Publisher - All Types and Genres (Current Page) - Details
This way each Publisher and Accessory has a separate page rather than the mash we have on this page. But, please make a better suggestion. Anything that works is fine.
Tomlib 22:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines[edit]

I started this page several months ago, but dropped out a few weeks ago. But I've been noticing something in the great new articles that are being created. There seems to be an inconsistent manner for marking up the titles of modules; sometimes they are italicized, sometimes they "are quoted" and sometimes they are given no markup at all. My opinion—and the way I marked up the few module articles I wrote—is to quote module names. This is consistent with TV series, for example. Friends is italicized, but the titles of individual episodes are in quotes. Dungeons & Dragons is italicized, it makes sense to quote modules.

Also, the linked modules in the infoboxes should be given wikilinks for easy access to linked modules, even if no article exists yet. Just MHO... :-) Frecklefoot | Talk 16:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing Sample covers[edit]

There are missing sample covers in the following tables:

  • CA - City of Adventure
  • CB - Conan the Barbarian
  • CM - CoMpanion
  • DLC - DragonLance Classics
  • DS(Q/E) - Dark Sun (Quest/Epic)
  • FA - Forgotten Realms Adventure
  • FM - Forgotten Realms Maztica
  • FRA - Forgotten Realms Adventure
  • FRC - Forgotten Realms Companion
  • FRE - Forgotten Realms Epic
  • FRM - Forgotten Realms Mission
  • FROA - Forgotten Realms Oriental Adventures
  • FRQ - Forgotten Realms Quest
  • FRS - Forgotten Realms Sourcebook
  • G - Giants
  • GA
  • GAZ - GAZetteer
  • IM - Immortal
  • N
  • O - One on one
  • OA, OP
  • T
  • U
  • X - eXpert series

That is a lot of blank cells and makes a lot of the table in this article look strange. I noticed that someone has deleted this column and added a separate image on the following tables:

  • DA - Dave Arneson
  • H - The Bloodstone Pass Saga
  • L - Lendore Isles

I think that this way of doing things looks much better than the first way and would suggest that all those empty image columns are removed and series of modules with pictures are done the second way.

Big Mac 12:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I second Big Mac on images out of the table. The big advantage to me is we don't need a sample cover for every series as this would cause the small series to take up too much space. We can then also make sure the cover samples display the range of cover styles that have been produced rather than forcing one to just each series. Waza 00:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Empty table cells in this article[edit]

There are a lot of empty table cells in this article that are not displaying the boarders properly. This is down to the way browsers work - cells need to have something in them. The normal way to avoid the cell looking strange is to add a non-breaking-space character. I've been going through the article and adding these myself (where they are missing) but if anyone else adds a table, please can they add them to empty cells at the same time.

The way to get a non-breaking-space is to type an ampersand '&' then type 'nbsp' then type a semi-colon ';' do not put any spaces between them. This will then give the browser something to fill the empty cells with. Big Mac 12:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Image placement[edit]

I started this article long ago, but I have since left it in the hands of the more capable and knowledgable. Stumbling across it again today, I noticed some glaring image alignment problems that made the page look really--"icky." I experimented with a fix by placing the image within the table. To my surprise, I really liked the way it looked (if someone reverts it, see what it looked like here, scroll down to AC1). I suggest we embed all the images we have within the tables. It would fix any further alignment problems and would give cover illustrations inline with the list. Just a suggestion... — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know there is going to be any best way to do this. Yes your suggestion does "tidy" thins up a little in terms of look, its big disadvantage is that it spreads the article vastly vertically. This I feel is a big diadvantage making it harder to scroll down through the article. It also even speads the individual code sections making it harder to compare those in the same section. Also if you have a very small screen, the current layout brings the pictures in above the text and narrows the table so it all can be view, but your suggestion forces the table to be wider meaning a horizontal scroll needs to be done to see the whole table. I have no understanding of what you mean by making the page look "icky". I won't say the current solution is perfect but I feel it has vast advantages over what you are proposing - Waza 00:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't navigate[edit]

This page is not navigable. Neither of the two types of table of contents available works. The normal one has like 60 entries. The current compact toc lists them by their code's first letter, which isn't the way a user is going to be looking for them: is Vault of the Drow under V or under D? I'm going to fix this problem, but I want to know what other people think.

My latest idea is to model this page on on Template:Episode list. Probably like its used in List of Sliders episodes, with images for each module (or an empty spot if the image doesn't exist). This form can handle the 60+ entries we have. It could also be done like List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, with an image for each sequence. Either way, I'm thinking a seperate page will have to be made to organize the modules by A-Z.

An example of how it could look:

Cover Title Authors Published code
"Slave Pits of the Undercity" Dave Cook 1980 A1
The first in a series of four modules presented at Gencon XIII at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside in August of 1980.
"Secret of the Slavers Stockade" Harold Johnson, Tom Moldvay 1980 A2
The second in a series of four modules presented at Gencon XIII at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside in August of 1980.
"Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords" Allen Hammack 1981 A2
The third in a series of four modules presented at Gencon XIII at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside in August of 1980.
"In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords" Lawrence Schick 1981 A3
The fourth in a series of four modules presented at Gencon XIII at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside in August of 1980.
"Scourge of the Slave Lords" 1981 A4
The fifth in a series of four modules presented at Gencon XIII at the University of Wisconsin, Parkside in August of 1980.

I've included this table so we have something to talk about. What else is on our wish list? Please help me decide how this page should look and function - Peregrinefisher 05:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The current TOC lists them by the codes first letter because this is the way this list is organised, by module code. This opens up another area of debate which is seperate from layout - by module code or by name, both type of lists have there merits, but this article has thus far been arranged by module code which keeps series together. I also think more users would be looking them up by module code than you seem to think, they were at the times they were in print often refered to simply by the code.
On to you suggested layout. While as I said before the current layout is far from perfect so I am glad you are making practical suggestions I see some problems with your suggested layout too. If we are still going to use the module code ordering (which I am all for) then I think we need to emphasis the code by putting it up before the title. One reads from the left, putting code in the far left column allows one to skim that quickly. As the codes are also very short one can easily visually skip these and skim the second column (titles)
Most modules codes represent a series that is either sequentially or themeatically linked. The current layout allows for comments to be placed at the code header level and not have to be repeated in each section as appears in your example table where the info in the white section is bassically the same for each title. Perhaps some kind of "sub-header" row that runs across the table could be used to contain information that applies to the entire series.
Part of the issues come from the underlying model, these are more like books than TV episodes. I think the covers while nice to see at least some are not of the primary importance as unlike TV this is not topic about a visual medium. Therefore I would suggest if a scheme as you suggest is adopted the covers be moved to the far right rather than the far left. Whatever way a standard size would need to be decided. My only concern about adding a cover for every title is the amount it stretches the table vertically, meaning harder tonavigate as you have to scroll further. Remember that unlike the TV screenshots in the sliders example, book covers are taller rather than wider. Also consider a few modules had more than one cover at different times. - Waza 00:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
How about making this page be an alphabetical listing with Modules titles and module codes both listed? Like this under the letter D
D - Drow would link to the table in the big list and the others would either link to their individual pages if they have one or to their table if they don't? I'm also thinking the big page should be broken up something like: A-G, H-Z, Other. - Peregrinefisher 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples of the best Module Articles[edit]

While thie artile list modules, many of the articles linked to are non existant, stubs, or very poorly written. Currently none of the module articles are good or Featured Articles. As an help to those interested improving articles about modules I thought it would be good to list some of the best module articles here until as such time we have some examples of good and featured articles. Maybe some of those listed will become the first of these. I will list a couple here soon, please add any appropriate ones to my list. - Waza 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Ravenloft (D&D module) - has a lot more material than avaibale for most modules as it has been revised/reprinted several times.
  • Against the Giants - has good references but otherwise needs some work

Fair use rationale for Image:RS1ModuleCover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:RS1ModuleCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the flag. I'm pretty sure BetacommandBot malfunctioned in this case because a fair use rationale is present for the image. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for images[edit]

I see that someone complained about all the cover images used in the article. As far as I know, using them is considered fair use, but I am not an expert. I thought I made that clear when I uploaded them in the first place. I got them from a website by permission, mentioned in the image justification page. I am tired of trying to justify the use of images I upload, and am not going to attempt it anymore. If anyone feels so inclined, please go to the image pages and try to fix whatever is wrong with them. Κaiba seems to have some experience with this type of thing and may be able to assist. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The actual image rationales appear to be fine as far as I can see. The problem is that there are 18 fair-use images in the article, whereas our policies say that fair-use must be kept to a minimum. See WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why no broken wikilink?[edit]

Why doesn't CM9 have a broken wikilink (it has no wikilink at all)? Broken wikilinks are fine—they encourage other editors to create articles for them. I assume there are other modules without articles that have no wikilinks either. Is there some rational for not having them? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I created the article, fixed up everything that should've been pointing to it. The article could use a cover image, however. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up[edit]

A lot of the articles for these modules aren't even proper articles (for example, they contain no lead-in text, contain empty subsections, have no refs, even when plenty are easily available online). I'm going through and fixing up what I can. I'm even changing the format a little, but I don't think anyone should find my changes objectionable. So far I've fixed CM1-CM8 and CB1 & CB2. If you have a problem with what I'm doing, please say so here. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

B2 Setting[edit]

Why is it listed as generic when it set in The Known World (later known as Mystara)? REL 10 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.151.194 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Level of CM5: Mystery of the Snow Pearls[edit]

I've put the level range for CM5: Mystery of the Snow Pearls back to 15-25, based on the cover's description of it being for Companion level adventurers, and the Companion book covering levels 15-25. The adventure comes with a default solo PC, and that PC is a 10th level elf, but I believe it's a 10th level elf with the "it's not a level, but it's something" bonuses that demihumans got instead of proper levels past a certain point. The module suggests that it can be run for a group, in which case it's a companion level game and thus 15-25. I'm sympathetic to the counter argument; it's a shame that demihuman "levels" are weird in old D&D, it complicates something as simple as describing appropriate levels. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's right. I can't get at the module at the moment, so I don't remember the "level" (attack rank) of the elf. Ben Standeven (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ST Series Name[edit]

The ST series (of one) is given the name "Stoke-on-Trent". According to Tomb Of Treasures [1] ST is derived from "Steam Train" (as one is featured in the module). I don't see a Stoke-on-Trent connection (the Convention for which this module was written was held in London). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.31.147 (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Bastion of Faith an adventure module?[edit]

I see Bastion of Faith is listed as an adventure module. Reading the description in its article, it doesn't sound like an adventure module at all, but a detailed rulebook for clerics and such. Should it be removed from this list? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The lists do seem like they need a lot of work. Probably need more pages that detail sourcebooks like we have for the modules. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is this article. It seems like Bastion of Faith could be moved to there. Anyone have more information on this product? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else there is to add, other than the review from Pyramid. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that it isn't really an adventure module at all, but a source book. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it does not seem to be an adventure module, although it may contain some sample scenarios. I think we need more pages like List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks, such as a List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks and a more generic List of Dungeons & Dragons sourcebooks for books like Bastion of Faith. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
We do have List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks. Shouldn't Bastion of Faith be included there, or is it not really a rulebook and just a "source book"? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It's tricky, because "sourcebook" and "rulebook" are not exactly explicitly defined. We can either find a way to define them better, or just have a really bloated page that lumps all supplements and accessories together. Personally, I would say that "rulebooks" are things like Unearthed Arcana, Tome of Magic, etc, which is of more general use and expands upon rules previously provided. I would say that "sourcebooks" expand on specific aspects of role-playing. Maybe these are false distinctions though, and they should all go together. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Because the defs are so murky, I think we should lump "sourcebooks" and "rulebooks" together for now. If concrete defintions ever merge, we can split the two, though this article probably isn't the place to discuss it. I'll start a new topic on the List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks talk page.
But back to Bastion of Faith, I'll move it to the rulebooks page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)