Talk:In Search of the Unknown

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, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

D&D to-do:

view

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge : Various articles
Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More...
Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

B series

Are B1-3 in anyway linked? Other than being the first 3 modules for Basic Dungeons and Dragons? I think it would be better to use linked module section only where the modules are designed to form a series to be played one after the other (eg I3-5 or A1-4) - Waza 01:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were repackaged as a single package, B1-9. And I can say that as a teen, I and my friends certainly played them as if they were linked. I think we can use a commonsense approach about this. Certainly modules in a given code space were marketed as if they were linked, and I remember treating them that way (although "it should be this way because I remember it" is original research. Maybe we can find a reference to how other people treated them? Nandesuka 01:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see, e.g., [1]. Here's a random guy who intends to play B2 and then B3, seeming to think they are linked: [2]. Here are a bunch of people arguing vehemently about the issue: [3]. My personal opinion is that TSR's "revamping" of the product into B1-9 was a post-facto recognition that the players were treating these modules as linked. But I could be convinced that I'm wrong. Nandesuka 01:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My belief (memory) is that they were not at all linked. The B series tied together in the sense that they were fot use with the basic set, not that the modules tied together in a coherent plot that were designed to be played in a particular order. The only exception being B11 and B12 which are a linked pair. - Waza 02:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Waza. There wasn't a continuous plot arc like with the Slaver, Temple of Elemental Evil, Smuggler, Giants, Drow, etc., series. The first release of B1 implied it was set in Greyhawk, but B2 carried no such implication, and was later said to be set in Mystara. Thematically, the B series is like the L series: the modules are only related thematically (B modules are for beginners, L modules were written by Len Lakofka), they don't make a continuous story or campaign. Trivia: there is a module for the Bioware game Neverwinter Nights based on Keep on the Borderlands (B2) in which you might find a hidden area called Quasqueton, an underground stronghold overrun by monsters. Certainly many people thought the B series was an "actual" series, and there's nothing wrong with a DM running them that way. Canonblack 13:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Tag

Added some reviews. This is the first Basic adventure, I think it's notable. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]