Unlike Fazzlewood & Tsojconth there was not a module published at the cons for Tomb of Horrors or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Should there be a separate section for tournaments that were run at conventions that became modules? Like the master copy of the AD&D open from 1980 that I own that eventually became modules A1-A3?

grodog wrote in ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **">Site Update    ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **:WRT print run estimates, there was some recent data revealed at ENWorld too that is worth archiving and linking too; see The Sales of D&D vs. AD&D vs. AD&D 2nd Edition | Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News and https://www.facebook.com/benjamin.riggs ... 1032275285

If you / someone could summarize the findings on those pages, that would save me a lot of time.  

grodog wrote in ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **">Site Update    ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **:Also:  it might be useful to add the publication year to the main five index pages, and perhaps the ruleset that the content was published for too?:  so I could at-a-glance that C1 was published for AD&D 1e vs. O1 for BECMI, etc.

I can see that might be useful.  Again, if someone is willing to take on that task, it would be a big help!  (year of initial publication / letter for which system its for -- A/B/E/C/M/I ).

grodog wrote in ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **">Site Update    ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **:I don't know if it's already in your planning for the next update

Not really!

grodog wrote in ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **">Site Update    ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **:but it's probably worthwhile to allocate some space to talk to the 1975 Origins I Tomb of Horrors and 1976 Origins II Expedition to the Barrier Peaks tourney versions on the general S page @ Special Series and perhaps as drill-down pages similar to Tsojconth, Fazzlewood, etc..

I'm with Bill on this one.  It's a slippery slope and a whole lot more work to cover tournament modules, which I've previously removed off the valuation indexes.  I don't mind putting a blurb on those pages about the respective tournament versions, though.  

Foul

FoulFoot wrote in ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **">Site Update    ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **:I'm with Bill on this one.  It's a slippery slope and a whole lot more work to cover tournament modules, which I've previously removed off the valuation indexes.  I don't mind putting a blurb on those pages about the respective tournament versions, though.  

I agree on the valuation side----sales of these are few and far-between, much like the R5-10 modules, the prepub R1-4s, other RPGA and non-RGPA tourneys, and the many manuscripts that have surfaced over the years, so tracking them seems problematic at best---"the law of small numbers" and all that.

stratochamp wrote in ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **">Site Update    ** HAPPY 20TH ANNIVERSARY! **:Unlike Fazzlewood & Tsojconth there was not a module published at the cons for Tomb of Horrors or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Should there be a separate section for tournaments that were run at conventions that became modules? Like the master copy of the AD&D open from 1980 that I own that eventually became modules A1-A3?

I agree on the tracking side for these too, FWIW:  I see these types of tourneys as having a qualitative difference from manuscripts and other prepub/authorial process material:  they were produced (perhaps "published" it too strong a term) in quantities sufficient to run the tourneys at the conventions, regardless of their scarcity now.  But, being able to relate these tourney versions to their later published forms is useful and important data that can be helpful for the collector who finds one sometime, for the researcher trying to work through the evolution of the module contents in those earlier tourneys, for helping someone know if they're dealing with a fake, etc.

To me, publishing information about them as a separate page vs. in the main pages for the series seems largely a function of how much data's required to differentiate the various versions of a module, and how much is "too much" to clump them together in a single page.  S1 seems like it may-well have the most known "published" versions, perhaps?:  Lucien prepub (in A&A booklet), 1975 Origins (as tourney copy and in A&A booklet), 1978 monos, 1981 greens, S1-4 supermodule, Return to the Tomb of Horrors 25th Anniversary reprint, 4e DM Reward, and 5e Tomb of Annihilation.  With the latter two obviously being out-of-scope for the site.  Whether all of that fits better onto a single S1 page linked from the S series page, or within the overall S series page @ Special Series is not an information architecture/usability preference that I have strong feelings about.

Allan.

Can you tell me about this:  Lucien prepub (in A&A booklet)

Personally for me the key distinction is published product versus unpublished product. Tournaments that were run at conventions have original product (line feed printouts or hand typed documents) and then photocopies that were made for judges. Then in some cases there were items made for sale (Tsojconth, Fazzlewood, Tamoachan, Inverness). I think a sharp contrast should be drawn between these items. I don't think that interested parties would be unable to find the links for research purposes between these products, but they should not be grouped together for the novice to stumble across. In my opinion. If you do decide to start a tournament file Scott, I have 100+ tourneys to make available to you.

I'm in the eventually fade out the mouse trails camp.  Maybe it's just me, but it's a bit distracting when moving the cursor around.

Perhaps you should add fireworks instead!

FIREWORK DEMO

Happy Anniversary!!!

On the topic of festive sites, I approve of the dicecollector.com mouse trail. You may have to reload the page a few times to get it to show up with proper colors though.

Allan, with Apple devices you can opt to open the link in a new tab.  That works for me on my ancient iPad 2. It's a pain but it works.

-SKA