Talk:Expedition to the Barrier Peaks

message: 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)
thread_title: Not linked

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Greatest/Worst Module Ever

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

message: - 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)
thread_title:  Extra Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed then restored ref 

message: 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. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Review 

message: Not sure if I got all these. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible refs 

message: - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One more ref? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: Is this a possible source?  Just wondering what other people's opinions might be.  BOZ (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source, or just another blog? 

message: "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.  83.189.177.179 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We could say "the publisher" instead of WotC? 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

text: We could, but it would mean the same thing since WotC is the publisher. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference would be that this would also cover TSR's role in the publication history. Just an idea though. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One sentence bothers me 

message: How about a pic from the booklet as opposed to GG? 61.68.25.178 (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't, has to be free. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: 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. --168.215.131.150 (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are these references? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150808105905/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fab%2F20060908a to http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fab%2F20060908a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104759/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fd20m%2F20060505a to http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fd20m%2F20060505a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304092707/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fask%2F20060505a to http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fask%2F20060505a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304100958/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fps%2F20020607a to http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fps%2F20020607a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040316155627/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2763 to http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2763
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So it was annouced at GaryCon 2019 that the next adventure in the Original Adventures Reincarnated series that was going to get the full blown reprint plus extra material treatment is Expendition to Barrier Peaks. This should probably be incorporated into the main article somehow. Announcement page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManosFate (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:74B9:35BC:CCDD:8C68 (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodman Games Original Adventures Reincarnated #3