Talk:Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 February 2019 and 6 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brinmckinney.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability

Ranking of module by a rather large review panel (Dungeon Design Panel]). It's a book with a very strong review from the primary publication in it's area. How is it not notable? Hobit (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not significant coverage in a reliable third-party source; See WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:V — re-tagging and I expect you to address these issues earnestly before you consider removing this clean-up tag again. Regards, Jack Merridew 10:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain if you feel it isn't 3rd party or isn't reliable and why? Hobit (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll note that it's now a redlink; see the AfD where it was deemed non-notable. --Jack Merridew 13:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but still a valid secondary source. Please see the various module AfDs you've been involved with. Hobit (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a huge group of reviews. Notability template removed. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable secondary sources to provide evidence of notability of this module. The article does not provide any real-world context nor sourced analysis, nor does it offer detail on the module's development, impact or historical significance, but features solely a one sentence summary of its publication history. Please restore the notability template until the article meets the notability criteria set out in WP:BK.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reviews generally meet the requirements of WP:BK. So the sourcing is just fine IMO. Hobit (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please identify which elements of WP:BK this article satisfies, as I dispute your POV.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This module is Open Game License (OGL)

Hi. The external link to this module is dead. Everything D&D up until D&D 3e (ie. 3rd edition D&D) - which also includes all things AD&D -, is Open Game License (OGL). This means that RttToEE is freely available for non-profit use, so linking to the module is ok. Until a proper link is found to replace the dead TSR link, a few pages of this module can be reviewed here: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/28447/Return-to-the-Temple-of-Elemental-Evil-3e?it=1. RhinoMind (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. Only the SRD is OGL. Not the core books. Not modules. Not prior editions. Not beholders, mind flayers, or any other monster named as "product identity". Not anything that is not specifically and explicitly placed under the OGL, a copy of which is required to be included in the book. Any link to a pirate copy of this module violates the Wikipedia terms of use. It will be removed. oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a source to what exactly the OGL of D&D comprise would be in order. Can you provide? RhinoMind (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The only source needed is the fact that the SRD bears the OGL, and the core game books themselves do not. The actual D&D books are not open gaming content, only the SRD. oknazevad (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you should take a closer look at the OGL rules and how they work. Yes, they cover the SRD, because everything else is derivative work (including this module). And all derivative work must also be Open Source and not-for-profit. Read the Open Game License page for a first look into this. RhinoMind (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No, this game module is not derivative of the SRD. Nor is it under the OGL. The module does not contain the OGL text, which is an absolute requirement of works that use prior published OGL material as a basis.

Also, where did you get the completely incorrect idea that OGL material must be not-for-profit?!? Do you think Pathfinder is not published for profit? There is no such restriction. Nor is there any requirement that all parts of derived works are open content; the OGL is like the BSD license, not the GNU Public License in that regard. I think you just proved that you don't know what you are taking about. oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you start by reading about the OGL on the OGL wikipedia page, you will see that what I wrote about OGL, open source and not-for-profit is right there. So take your complaints to the OGL page and the OGL authors and don't blame me. There are more than one Game Licenses out there and I think you might be confusing them. (Extra: Here is a link to the Open Gaming Foundation where they describe what an OGL should contain to be considered an OGL. Read point 1 specifically.)

And a question: If modules using OGL material are not derivative works in your mind, then how do you define derivative works? If possible please provide a reliable source. RhinoMind (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Modules can be derivative works of OGL-licensed content, but if and only if they explicitly cite the OGL in the module. This one does not, because unlike other publishers, WotC doesn't need to use the OGL to make D&D-compatible material as they own the game outright. As for the OGL article, it does not in any way mention a not-for-profit requirement. Perhaps you are confused by the use of "share alike", which simply means that works derived from OGL content must themselves allow for that open game content to be used by others. There's no requirement that derived works be not-for-profit nor that additional material added also be open game content; such additional material can be deemed product identity, such as the Seige Engine mechanic that replaces skill ranks in Castles & Crusades. Also not all material licensed under the OGL is d20 System material. While the 5th edition SRD can be considered a variant on the system, the Mongoose Publishing editions of Runequest, which also had an OGL-licensed SRD are not d20 System at all (like the game from which they were derived, they use the d100-based Basic Roleplaying system). oknazevad (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see that I misunderstood the word "free" as not-for-profit. I discovered that after I posted my comment above and its good to have that one cleared off. But that however is a minor detail in this issue. The issue is about how to interpret what a OGL really is. Have you read my "Extra"-link? How could you have an OGL that does not comply with the defintions from the Open Gaming Foundation? RhinoMind (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, firstly, because, as the authors of the OGL, WOTC really created the open gaming movement, and are under no obligation to the later created definitions of a on advocacy group. Secondly, because the OGL really does fit those definitions. But thirdly, and most importantly, only products released under the OGL are under the OGL. That may be a tautology, but it's an important fact that not everything WOTC released for 3e was under the OGL. In fact, the only 3.x OGL material is the SRD, not the actual core books, other add-ons or modules. That's why there's no Pathfinder version of the Warlock, as the 3.5 version from Complete Arcane was never added to the SRD, so Paizo couldn't use it. If you really want to get technical, WOTC never actually released D&D as open gaming content, just a reference document. Well, three documents, as the original version was revised for 3.5, and now the 5e SRD has been released. oknazevad (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Resources

This Wiki-page might be useful to understand the timeline of the two game systems of d20 and D&D: Editions of Dungeons & Dragons#Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition RhinoMind (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is useful. That's why I've been editing it for years and have it on my watchlist. oknazevad (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

d20

Hi. There has been some quarreling recently with unsigned editors unable to recognize that RttToEE is d20. For anyone interested in this issue, follow the review link above and turn to page 1; d20 logo is at the bottom of this page.

So what is d20? Read the article here on WP on the d20 System. The article is not very well written, so perhaps a small summary of points crucial to this page on RttToEE would be helpful. When D&D 3e was decided to go OGL, the entire game system of D&D 3e also became known as the d20 System. Later, the d20 System evolved by its own path and further editions of the D&D system were also issued, so the two game systems split. Therefore the original d20 System is now referred to as d20 3.0, to discern it from later developments. All-in-all D&D 3e = d20 3.0. RhinoMind (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions here about what terminology should be used. Are you prepared to go through every D&D article and change all the ones that mention "3rd edition" to say "d20 system" or is there a particular reason you're focusing on this one? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As a third opinion, the statement that the module is for the d20 System is plainly incorrect. It is explicitly and specifically for D&D 3rd edition, as stated on both the front (via the logo) and back covers, as well as the interior text.

3e was the source of the d20 System, yes, but there's no single game of that name, and modules were written for specific games, not the generic system. It is also factually incorrect to state that "d20 System" equals "D&D 3rd edition", as there were other games using the system published by WOTC, notably D20 Modern and licensed games such as Star Wars Roleplaying Game and the Wheel of Time roleplaying game. None of which are D&D but all of which are d20 System games.

Also of note is that the Open Gaming License, which is irrevocable, is separate from the d20 System Trademark License, which has been discontinued and is no longer valid. Also, most importantly, D&D 3e is not under the OGL, only the System Reference Document, which specifically omits anything that can be considered a major intellectual property, and many 3.x supplements.

But regardless of hat, the module was published for D&D 3e, period, and there is absolutely no legitimate reason to change the phrasing of that. oknazevad (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you should use this to improve the d20 System article. And please provide proper sources. RhinoMind (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, there's a difference between the system and the game. You seem to be the only one that doesn't understand that. oknazevad (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

So you are trying to patronize me, because you are unable to explain yourself? Now that is pretty low don't you think? RhinoMind (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For the xth time, I urge all editors to gaze intensively at the bottom of page 1 of this module. There, yes, right there is the very d20 logo. I have provided proper links for everybody to click on and review this very page. It takes as much as 10 seconds. Please report your observations below and the main part of this silly issue could probably be settled. RhinoMind (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

And on the top is the 3rd edition-era D&D logo. Again, for the third time, there's a difference between the game and the underlying game mechanics system. Basic Roleplaying is a system, Runequest is the game from which it derived. Same deal here. The D20 system is derived from D&D 3e, but it is not the name of a game. oknazevad (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

So you saw the d20 logo on page 1? I take that as your observation then. RhinoMind (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And what you are basically saying is that because d20 is not a "a game" but "a system" we shouldn't mention it in this article. Not even if it has the d20 logo? Where are you coming from? It makes no sense. RhinoMind (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because the module is for the specific game D&D, not the generic system. Details of what system the game uses belong on the game article, not here. oknazevad (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Digital Rhetorics

User:Brinmckinney, cool, what is involved in your course? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

User:8.37.179.254, hi, my course is all about how rhetoric (persuasive writing techniques and methods of effective communication) plays out in the digital sphere. We're editing Wikipedia articles to work on writing in certain styles. I've been running this module for a while so I thought it'd be a good topic :) Brinmckinney (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds exciting! Good luck! 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

thank you! :) Brinmckinney (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Brinmckinney, I know you are focusing on this article right now, but if you have time later when you are done there are many more RPG articles which could use expansions in the "Reception" sections in particular! Obvsiouly I am not asking you to look at hundreds of articles, but anything you want to work on would be a blessing to Wikipedia readers. :) 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Review

I have reviewed this article's quality assessment and upgraded it to start class. It has been significantly lengthened but is still lacking with regards to sources in some sections. I would want to see sources added even if they are primary sources. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the feedback from Oknazevad I have upgraded it to a C as the main issue I could see was the lack of citations for the Plot summary. El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)