Talk:Expedition to the Barrier Peaks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Expedition to the Barrier Peaks is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 6, 2010.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 25, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
August 12, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Not linked[edit]

Modules S1 thru S4 were not related modules, even though there was a "super module" reprint of S1 thru S4. The only thing they have in common is a module code that starts with S. See Talk:Tomb_of_Horrors#Not_linked for discussion. Wendell 02:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The Greatest/Worst Module Ever[edit]

In those days before the internet it was easier to avoid spoilers. Most of us had no idea what was going to happen in ETTBP. It was a huge surprise and very cool. Of course carrying blasters etc. into the next module proved very irritating for all concerned.

Hmmm, I wish I could say the same. As I recall, most of the people in my D&D circle knew a lot about all of the modules. Once they'd been out for a day or two, everyone read them and everyone talked. And S3 was probably talked about more than any other. Druff 21:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the only module I have a clear recollection of playing. We played tons of others, but none stick out in my mind like this one. Played it several times, but was always surprised by something new each time I played it. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The starship Warden[edit]

The ship in S3 is not the Warden, according to an interview with Gygax in Oerth Journal #12 (pages 8-9) [1]. I'm therefore removing the "Trivia" section.--Robbstrd 13:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You beat me by two hours -- I just finished tracking down a messageboard thread where Jim Ward says the same thing. [2] I guess that's settled, then! Michael Bauser 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that message boards like this spend time complaining how inacurate wikipedia is but no one takes a few seconds to remove the inacuracy or at least hit it with a Template:Verify source - Waza 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Gamma World[edit]

My recollection of this module, from its original publication, is that the "high-tech" elements were crossover imports from Gamma World. I don't have access to the material any longer; can anyone verify this connection and note on it? (I will if I can.) Gnoitall 16:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I owned both this module and Gamma World. I don't recall the weapons being crossovers at all. The weapons were fairly unique. But Gamma World was so open-ended, it's possible someone created a scenario with S3 weapons in it and then the S3 developers incorporated them. But I know the weapons were not included in the core Gamma World rules. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was long ago and far away. But I could have sworn the tech elements in this module (in its original 1980 incarnation) were borrowings from 1st Edition Gamma World. I was playing both at the time. That tears it; I have got to track down my copies of both of those and verify (or disprove) it for myself. — Gnoitall 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was based not on Gamma World but Metamorphosis Alpha, which in turn developed into Gamma World. Gary Gygax' foreword to the module indicates this.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to out-nerd you all by pointing out the sci-fi elements were actually from Star Frontiers. The one with the flying monkey wookies (Yazarians) and the intelligent slimemolds (the Dralasites). brain (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I suspect might be the other way round, since Star Frontiers was quite a late TSR game. (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm not going to start an edit war here, but Robbstrd just re-added all the extra spacing I took out. I really don't see the point. As a coder, I'm a big fan of whitespace. But I don't see a need for it in HTML lists, where everything is clearly discernible. Look at most of the articles on Wikipedia: most extern links and references lists are single spaced. The extra spacing isn't necessary, requires more HTML (not wikimarkup however) and just plain hurts my eyes. Can't we stick to the standards here? — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this in the MOS?--Robbstrd 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I couldn't find anything on it in the MoS (this doesn't mean it isn't in there, it just means I can't find it), however every list in the MoS uses the single-space style I advocate. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, after several revertions and unrevertions, I think it's time we discuss this again. Several other editors hate the extra spaces, Robbstrd is the only one who seems to like them. With his last reversion, he cited the Manual of Style, with this comment:
"I was the 1st to add multiple refs (see 20:42, 20 July 2006), & there were spaces--see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English: "Follow the variety established by the first c".
Actually, it was one other editor, not "several"--User:Armedtrader, who seems more interested in being a dick[3] than in making useful contributions.--Robbstrd 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
While it was nice of him to provide a reference, that rule only applies to spelling, not to spacing. Unless someone can provide overwhelming evidence as to why we shouldn't, I vote we just revert the spaces. No one likes them but Robbstrd. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
That's rather disingenuous, as I don't recall anyone taking a poll. I think the proper place to discuss this would be the Wikiproject talk pages.--Robbstrd 23:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, just prepare to be disappointed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Armedtrader (talkcontribs)
Okay, which WikiProject? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Extra Sources[edit]

- A mention in the D&D movie "Wrath of the Dragon God" and a detailed review and companion article in White Dwarf #26. Web Warlock (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible refs.[4][5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed then restored ref[edit]

I don't really care, it just doesn't have any info that helps. I guess it does make the reflist look a bit fuller. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


According to RPGnet, there is a review of the module in The Space Gamer #36 (1981), if anyone is able to get a copy of that. (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. There are several magazines from the old days that I've never heard of that do reviews. I don't think anyone has them, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible refs[edit]

Not sure if I got all these.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One more ref?[edit]

[16] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that one was in there? In fact, I think I used it to reference a few other articles. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

re. "Fact" notes added to history[edit]

Rather than make multiple edits to a FA article, I'll add notes here in the first instance. Feedback welcome, thanks.

  • Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was not an "introduction" to Metamorphosis Alpha since the original tourney version of S3 was not MA (and contains no mention of MA), nor was MA released at Origins II (n.b. lack of mention of any such release in Dragon #3). Original players (e.g. ddt58 on ) back up that assertion. At most, the tourney was an introduction to science fantasy concepts in roleplaying and/or (O.R.) to test the market; albeit those were pre-existing in other campaigns already rather than something "no-one had tried before".
  • By the time MA was released (delayed), it was closer to late-1976 (articles/advertising in later Dragons); somewhat after Starfaring had been published (counter to Wiki) and 2 1/2 years after the original idea of a SF/Science Fantasy RPG had been floated by EGG from the Blackmoor team then conveniently "killed" and re-started "in-house". The July 1976 date in MA's introduction is almost certainly a false lead for research here since it was usual for TSR intros in the 1973/6 period to be considerably in advance of the actual release date.
  • Counter to Schick's claim, the 1980 public release has no Gamma World content or any such ref. other than a casual "people like GW" comment in the intro.

Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, fact tags are usually for stuff that doesn't have a citation, which isn't the case with this article. Anyways, looking at the fact tags in the body (the one in the lead just summarizes the info in the body).
I don't have Heroic Worlds on hand, can you check what it says about Gamma World with Amazon's search inside the book feature?
For the next two, here's what it says in the intro: "Jim Ward had already shown us some rough notes on METAMORPHOSIS ALPHA; I thought it would be a splendid idea to introduce Jim’s game at Origins II, and introduce the concept to D&D players by means of the tournament scenario. I laid out the tournament from old “Greyhawk Castle” campaign material involving a spaceship, and Rob Kuntz helped me to populate the ruined vessel. Both this scenario and METAMORPHOSIS ALPHA proved successful, but while the latter has been continually available since mid-1976 only a few copies of the tournament dungeon used for Origins II have been around."
That Acaeum forum seems to say the same thing as this article. ddt58 says "Origins II was better. The tournament was a combination of The Barrier Peaks and a prototype of Metamorphosis Alpha."
I guess it was introducing people to the game, not letting people play a finished version of the game. Is that your issue with this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
No; not so much that rather than that there is no actual link to Metamorphosis Alpha at all, either in the 1976 tourney version or the module as eventually published... i.e. the module uses the /concepts/ (as EGG states) of a science fantasy game rather than the derived assertion here that the tourney version was a deliberate "introduction" to the actual MA game. There is no lead-on to playing (a completed version of) MA either at the convention or later.
If S3 was /originally/ meant to be an "introduction to MA (the game)", as Gygax has been deemed to be asserting here, that's not what was actually played at the convention.
(Hopefully the "fact" tag doesn't only mean "citation required", but also "prove this is factual using citations").
The Heroic Worlds link is from the S3 entry where Schick states that the module combines aspects of Gamma World with AD&D. Personal opinions can still be cited if stated to be personal opinions, of course...
If the idea was originally to release MA at the same time as the tourney (Origins II), there is no actual source provided to confirm that actually happened other than EGG's statement that it would have been good to release that at the same time. Hence "citation required" on that. Thanks, David. Harami2000 (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following you. Are you saying Gygax is wrong, or I have summarized him incorrectly?
Same thing with Schick, is he wrong, or is this article wrong.
Maybe you could tell me what you think the article should say? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
OK; suggested edits. Please let me know if those are fine, or if further discussion/digging-around is required.
- Lifting Schick would be wrong if he was claiming S3 was somehow based on Gamma World (as currently stated in the article here) rather than the module merely having Gamma World-like aspects as a hindsight comparison. It is not possible for S3 to "introduce elements specifically" from a game that did not exist until years later. Best solution; ditch the (confusing) Gamma World ref. totally.
- "introduce Dungeons & Dragons players to the science fiction game Metamorphosis Alpha" => "expand game play beyond a strict fantasy setting to a milieu including science fiction/science fantasy elements" (", as presented in Jim Ward's Metamorphosis Alpha", perhaps... difficult to add "which was under development at this time" as that also requires a definitive release date citation).
- " Gary Gygax thought it would be a good idea to introduce Ward's game to D&D players..." => "... introduce science fiction/science fantasy concepts..." (EGG's own word is "concepts")
- "Although Metamorphosis Alpha was available to the general public from mid-1976 on...". Still "citation required" if asserting release date is prior to late-1976 per the actual references in The Dragon.
How does that sound? Harami2000 (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Aside; to point out the care required in lifting a single statement as a sum-total fact above-and-beyond the contextual issues/interpretations noted in the above snag list. It just happens to be in the same S3 preface, so...

  • that preface states "Rob Kuntz helped me populate the ruined vessel"
  • this has been lifted for the current Wiki article as (apparently) the sum total of Rob's contributions
  • however, in S3 as published Rob is also credited for "Inspiration" and that he "contributed substantial ideas for the various encounters herein" (as nebulous as the credit to Alan Lucien in Tomb of Horrors not noted in Wiki)
  • the "reality" is that the (original) "concept" for S3 as played in the tourney, and eventually published, is in large part based on Rob Kuntz's "Machine Level" in which EGG himself played (as noted by Allan Grohe on ) rather than anything "totally new" by Jim Ward, directly related to Metamorphosis Alpha.
  • When EGG mentions 'old "Greyhawk Castle" campaign material' in the S3 preface he is actually meaning Greyhawk Castle version 2 which, of course, includes Rob's El Raja Key, along with further expansions such as the "Machine Level" ( )

Harami2000 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your first comment about GW coming years later. Gamma World says it is from 1978, about the same time as Barrier Peaks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - the exact title given to the tourney version - is 1976 and the published module is not "new from scratch": I doubt Schick was unaware of that fact even if his generally /excellent/ reference book is the source of a number of other errors (the Fantasy Supplement not appearing in the first edition of Chainmail being the most infamous of those).
Comparing the tourney with the published versions: for example, the most notable difference on the first page of the tourney, paralleling the background provided at the start of the published version is the all caps "PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A TOURNAMENT GAME. DO NOT TELL ANY OTHERS OF WHAT TAKES PLACE..." etc. warning at the foot of the page, rather than any material difference in content vs. "S3". Rewording, fixing typos and some additional verbiage are points of edition rather than a "new creation". Harami2000 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I fixed the stuff about introducing Ward's game to D&D players per your suggestion.[17]
I'll look in to the dragon mag thing. What page is it on? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying the game didn't come out in mid 76 because Dragon mag didn't mention it, and they did mention it in a later issue, so it must have come out when the later issue came out? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dragon (#2, page 3) mentions Origins II but not a single word about MA having been released there (not to say that's "impossible" but a definitive, positive reference is essential IMO for a key publication date which impacts on a considerable number of other items). The Expedition to the Barrier Peaks tourney is also clearly stated as D&D; "The single largest tournament at ORIGINS II was D&D, with a whopping 240 entrants!!".
Articles referring to MA come a /long/ time later (Dragon 4/December 1976, onwards) and the "neutral" press (e.g. Space Gamer) mention Starfaring in print many months before Metamorphosis Alpha is available to purchase. Harami2000 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The Gygax reference is a positive reference, I think. Are you saying he should have said mid-to-late or late instead? The dragon mag stuff is less positive. How about just saying 1976 and getting rid of the mid?
It sounds like MA and Gamma World are kinda interchangeable in some people's minds.[18][19] Maybe that's what Schick meant? How about "While D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks introduces science fiction elements into the game, and according to author Lawrence Schick, elements specifically from the Gamma World role-playing game." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again.
If mid 1976 is asserted elsewhere (as it must be for MA to be before Starfaring - which it wasn't by all sources, afaik) that really needs a definitive source. Gygax's "mid-1976" for MA in the S3 preface doesn't really stand alone given the apparent lack of primary evidence elsewhere, not least the lack of any mention whatsoever of MA being released in the pages of The Dragon at the time. "I thought it would be a splendid idea to introduce Jim's game at Origins II" (in S3) relating to EGG's thoughts many months before the convention does not actually prove it was released there.
"According to Lawrence Schick" is better, yes, but still potentially misleading IMO as there are no notable - rather than generic - SF elements specifically from GW that have been noted within the pages Expedition to the Barrier Peaks; and certainly those cannot exist in the tourney version (same name, same plot, etc.) from 1976.
You are undoubtedly correct about MA & GW being interchangeable in some people's minds even if GW bears little relation to what might've been expected of a new, improved MA as promised in the pages of The Dragon. :) Harami2000 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

One of the wonderful things about this adventure was the mind-twist of finding oneself, equipped for combat versus the Black Knight, in a space ship. I wonder if it might be possible to more clearly outline how startling the unexpected juxtaposition of medieval fantasy and sf must have been to the players--they start an adventure armed, as usual, with swords, magical wands, etc., and find themselves in a space ship--all described in medieval terms, of course.

For instance, in the opening paragraph, would it better to change, "The player characters fight monsters and robots, and gather the futuristic weapons and colored access cards that are necessary for advancing the story" to "The player characters, equipped with swords, armour and the usual accoutrements for a medieval adventure, find themselves transported to a spaceship, where they must fight robots and gather futuristic weapons and colored access cards in order to advance the story."? Guinness323 (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert[edit]

Seems pretty stupid that this should come up twice in an article having nothing whatsoever to do with overrated comedians.

Paragraph 2

The adventure is an old-time favorite of many Dungeons & Dragons fans, including Stephen Colbert.

Final Paragraph

Game designer Daniel Kaufman remembers "the famous backward-firing guns" as one of the adventure's highlights,[21] and Stephen Colbert, who played Dungeons & Dragons as a child, chose this adventure as his personal favorite. (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead section, when written properly, summarizes the contents of the rest of the article. Therefore, everything you see in the lead should be repeated somewhere in the article body. (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, Stephen Colbert is the only significant celebrity who has publicly admitted to playing D&D and this adventure specifically. This places the game and the adventure within a modern context beyond the specialised gaming community. If others of equivalent fame/notoriety have done the same, they can be mentioned as well. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It just seemed more like a name drop than a relevant fact to me. Especially since the "summarized" part was just referring to the half-sentence in the body, that didn't tell any more than the summary had.
I looked at some of the other module entries, and I see that the "famous people who recall them fondly" angle is used, but most of them seem to have more substance than this. I have no intention of changing it, as I think it is clear enough in meaning; it just struck me as sort of awkward or fanboyish. (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I wrote this article. I don't know if you know about WP:NOTE, but DnD articles have trouble passing this guideline, and can be deleted. Because of this, I add every single bit of info I can find in independent reliable sources (read: not published by TSR or Wizards). Colbert is one of the most famous people I've heard comment on a single module, so I thought that part in the body should be summarized in the lead. I wish I'd had a summarized paragraph of Colbert's thoughts to then summarize in one sentence in the lead, but that's all there was. If nothing else, it's very cool to me that people noticed that part, and have an opinion on it. If people in general think it should only be in the body, and not in the lead, that's fine with me. I like it in the lead, because it follows our rules, and is also fun to read. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I thought I was the one who wrote this article! I saw the Stephen Colbert comment, and it didn't bother me seeing it in two places. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Frecklefoot started it, other people added a lot to it, Peregrine Fisher rewrote most of it, and sooner or later other people will add or change enough so that even that version may one day be unrecognizable... in other words, typical Wikipedia article. :) Thanks to everyone who contributed along the way to making this one a featured article, and eventually the main page article for a day! (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I shouldn't have said I wrote it, and I certainly don't WP:OWN it. BOZ and others did a lot of work too.[20] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible source, or just another blog?[edit]

Is this a possible source? Just wondering what other people's opinions might be. [21] BOZ (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's borderline. The author is David J. Williams, who's published, but he's not really an expert. Looking at Tor, I'd say yes, but just barely.[22] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One sentence bothers me[edit]

"Wizards of the Coast periodically alters the rules of Dungeons & Dragons and releases a new version."

This sentence, while strictly true, just seems to be a bit misleading to me. It leaves out that TSR did the same thing, and doesn't even offer that much to the paragraph, because there's no real explanation to it, because it doesn't really cover the changes, so. I don't know if I'm expressing it clearly, but that sentence does feel wrong to me. I'm not sure at all how it could be written better, but if somebody else wants to think on it, it might be worthwhile. And no, I'm not going to edit the page, just offering some feedback. (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and I looked at the sentence in question. It could be removed without destroying the paragraph, but it doesn't actually hurt it by being left in. No, it doesn't mention that TSR changed the rules from time to time as well, but I don't think it really needs to. It's not like the sentence is accusing WotC of anything unseemly. If another editor wants to remove it, along with the ref, I'm okay with it. But as for me, I think it's fine the way it is. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We could say "the publisher" instead of WotC? (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We could, but it would mean the same thing since WotC is the publisher. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The difference would be that this would also cover TSR's role in the publication history. Just an idea though. (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm not the only one who watches this article. Let's let some other editors chime in. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the issue is that we should follow what the source says. I was happy just to find that little bit to help explain the situation to a non DnD reader. Publisher wouldn't be an incorrect way to summarize the source, I guess. I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'd like to keep something of the sort in there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Secret" revealed in artwork[edit]

There has been a mini-edit war over the caption to the cover art mentioning a secret being revealed in the cover art. One editor removed it, then it was reverted. I also removed it, then it was reverted. My reasoning was that there is no further reference in the article to what secret is being revealed. The casual reader who knows nothing about ETTBP is left puzzled over what secret has been revealed. Is it that the characters are carrying ray guns? That there is a monster with tentacles in the garden? I would suggest that if someone wants to add a sentence in the main body of the article further explaining what Erol Otus's cover art reveals, then keep the reference in the caption. Otherwise the reference to the secret is in itself a mystery and should be removed.Guinness323 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the relevant discussion from the FAC. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The last question is a bit harder. Here's the source sentence: "An A4 book of 32 pages describes the environment in detail, with a cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I think the "A4" part is a typo, or introduced by a bad scan. The main cover, File:S3ModuleCover.jpg, shows a party of three adventurers fighting a plant/octopus creature. One of the main creatures in the module is the "cute little bunnyoid on the stump" which turns into a multi-armed creature, although the interior illustration of it is by a different artist and looks quite different. Not sure what to do exactly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The secrets part has been removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I didn't think it was necessary to remove it; I just wondered whether that could be clarified. I would have no heartburn about leaving that quote in place.
I suspect that at least one of the secrets being revealed by the cover is the use of the plasma beam weapon, in contrast to the usual D&D weaponry.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right, but I don't want to commit WP:OR if I can help it. I figured out that the A4 thing is a reference to paper size, thank goodness. Now, the secret of the module is that the creatures coming from the mountains are coming out of a downed spaceship. The review says the module has a "cover that reveals the secret of the creatures." I also believe it's based on the blaster gun and the high tech gas mask that one of the party members is waring (here's a bigger image of the cover). I'll think about how to best word it, or if someone has an idea, I'm all ears. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I came up with. I tried to sidestep the OR issue by putting the relevant info in, and people can put two and two together if they wish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good :) bring on the froghemoth and vegepygmies ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the mention of a secret being revealed, as long as it is made clear in the article WHAT the secret is that's being revealed. (I shouldn't have to go to referenced sources to find out.) If it's the ray guns, how about "Erol Otus' cover art, featuring an medieval knight wielding a high-tech ray gun, revealed the module's surprise: a science fiction setting." If it's the bunnyoid/tentacular monster in the garden, how about "Erol Otus' cover art revealed a hidden monster that lay in wait for the players." If it's both, how about "Erol Otus' cover art revealed secrets of the adventure, including its high-tech science fiction setting, and one of the monsters."Guinness323 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the RS doesn't say which it is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well then, that is a problem! (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I like to include all the interesting info I can find on a module. There isn't a ton of it. We can just remove it if we want, although it's factual (as written), so I'd like to keep it. It won't be on the main page forever, so if it ends up being a smaller less interesting article, I won't fight too hard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


How about a pic from the booklet as opposed to GG? (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't, has to be free. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


I think it fair some discussion is called for on the changes I made to the text. It was previously something of a jumble with no logical sequence and the language was off. (talk) may have meant well, but has jumped in and made a mass revert that undid the reworking and a link placed in the main box. I think the claim that the edits don't take the proper citation style into account is not true, and speakly plainly given the language that was there previously this was certainly not up to featured article status. That said, I've no objection to anyone moving the links around if possible. I think other improvements are also possible. What I have done is place the info about the booklet - not a plot point after all - in the opening section to clarify exactly what it is and placed an end note at the conclusion of the Plot Summary to help clarify matters.

Can we discuss this, as previous matters have been discussed?

Thank you. (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do think it's necessary to make sure that the text attributed to a source is actually related to the information that comes from the cited source. From your edits, it did not look like you kept that consistency, so I reverted your changes. For just one example, you inserted a link to the Grand Duchy of Geoff in the first sentence of the plot summary section; does the article at the link in the citation following actually mention Geoff? If it doesn't, then you can't claim that it mentions Geoff, and you need to find a source that does mention it. I saw other examples of that, and text moved around in a way that seemed to be careless, so I felt the only thing to do was revert. We have to be careful how we use information from our sources, especially for Featured Articles like this one. It's best to work slowly and carefully, and make sure that what you are doing doesn't mess anything up. (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, but I would argue that some the material was "messed up" to begin with. There are chronology issues and repetition. If someone wrote this then I hope you are not offended, but that's far from FA status. To begin with, I replaced the link in the info box. (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's discuss changes beforehand per WP:BRD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you made the changes again. I've reverted them. Your grammar is not up to FA quality, as well as the ref removal problem. Apparently the Geoff stuff has been there since it was promoted.[23] Looking at some of your edit.
The adventure is set on a crashed spaceship, and although the crew died from a fatal virus some time ago, functioning robots and an assortment of monsters - some never before encountered - still inhabit the ship. The player characters must overcome monsters and other obstalcles, such as being placed in a technology rather than medieval environment, and deduce what has occurred.
"crashed" is unencyclopedic, died/fatal is redundant, "some never before encountered" is WP:OR, "obstalcles" is mispelled, etc. So, why don't you propose your changes here first, and we'll see if we can implement them correctly if they are an improvement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the reverts being made due to the grammatical problems. While there might be some merit to a more chronological account of the adventure, the poor writing definitely brought an FA article down several grades. If the editor has a problem with grammar, suggesting changes on this talk page and having other editors "spruce them up" before making the changes would be helpful in maintaining this article's quality. Guinness323 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Per the chronology suggestion, I feel this is clearer and without some unnecessary extrapolation:

Plot summary[edit]

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks takes place in the Barrier Peaks mountain range of the Grand Duchy of Geoff (a World of Greyhawk campaign setting).[1] A succession of monsters that have been emerging from a cave in the mountains and wreaking havoc, forcing the Duchy to hire the characters, who are tasked with both discovering the origin of the creatures and stopping their incursions.

The cave itself is actually the entrance to a downed spacecraft, with the crew succumbed to have a fatal virus. The adventurers must travel through the spacecraft and locate sufficient clues to determine the nature of the disaster. The adventure is divided into six sections: crew quarters, the lounge area, gardens and menagerie, activity deck and loading dock. Futuristic tools such as colored access cards and weapons such as blaster rifles and suits of powered armor can also be found and used. Access cards are vital to story progression as entering restricted areas, commanding robots, and other actions are all dependent on the cards.[2]

Encounters are occasionally against "non-typical" creatures such as vegepygmys (short humanoid plant creatures), a repair robot that will assist the characters, a "boxing and wrestling trainer" and a "karate master",[3]:18 and a medical robot still attempting to find a cure for the virus that killed the vessel's crew. Monsters are often alien in nature, including a meeting with the "cute little bunnyoid on the stump" in the gardens (actually a creature using camouflage to attract prey)[3]:15 and a "froghemoth", a large frog-like creature with three eyes and tentacles.

The adventure has no overall climax, although the adventurers should be able to both deduce what has happened and stop the monster incursions.


Now the links - as I suggested - can be moved around to accommodate. That's not a great feat and would have been preferable to a revert to some clumsy text. This version has a logical flow and doesn't jump around between mentions of robots, monsters, level etc.

Also, the information about the module itself - x no. of pages etc - doesn't belong in the Plot Summary. It is needed in the opening paragraph, when the mention of it being published in 1980 happens.

As to the sentence in dispute, that is easily fixed. How about: "The adventure is set in a spaceship that has crashed landed in the Barrier Peaks. Although the crew expired from a lethal virus some time ago, functioning robots and an assortment of monsters still inhabit the ship. The player characters must overcome monsters and other obstacles, such as being placed in a technology rather than medieval environment, and deduce what has occurred."

I think it important to note the adventure takes places in the spaceship, and downed in rather cumbersome. The repetition is fixed and the spelling mistake (something that like the other wording someone could have actually fixed) is corrected. (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank posting here first. There are still some serious deficiencies in both content and grammar. (Italics in following examples are mine, meant to highlight problems.)
For instance, in the case of grammar:
"A succession of monsters that have been emerging from a cave in the mountains and wreaking havoc, forcing the Duchy to hire..." Either drop the word "that" ("A succession of monsters have been emerging...") or keep "that" and change the next clause to "have forced the Duchy..."
"The cave itself is actually the entrance to a downed spacecraft, with the crew succumbed to have a fatal virus." Obviously this clause needs to be rewritten. ("with the crew having succumbed to a fatal virus" works but is clumsy. I would suggest a complete rewrite of the sentence: "The cave is actually the entrance to an alien spacecraft that crashed when the crew succumbed to a fatal but now inactive virus."
And in the case of content:
"Expedition to the Barrier Peaks takes place in the Barrier Peaks mountain range of the Grand Duchy of Geoff (a World of Greyhawk campaign setting)." Technically, the entire World of Greyhawk is the campaign setting, the Duchy of Geoff is a region within that setting.
Those examples were taken from the first two sentences. I suggest much work needs to done on the proposed content to bring it up to GA quality. I have my hands full with another article at the moment, but others may be able to help with a rewrite. Guinness323 (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


It's mentioned that this module was made into a novel for part of the Greyhawk classics series but many references on the net state that the novel was never actually published. -- (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are these references? (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ La Farge, Paul (2006). "Destroy All Monsters" Check |archiveurl= value (help). The Believer Magazine. Archived from the original on October 4, 2008.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Baur, Wolfgang (September 8, 2006). "Copper Bits and Gleaming Hoards". Wizards of the Coast. Retrieved February 14, 2009. 
  3. ^ a b Gygax, Gary (1980). Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. TSR. ISBN 0-935696-14-8.