There are a number of tags that describe specific published books, mostly adventure modules for D&D 5e, for example there is one for , there is one for , and one for (in addition to the one).

In many cases (like in all the cited ones here), these books represent re-imaginations or compilations of much older adventures (here, of "Ravenloft", "Tomb of Horrors and "Dwellers of the Forbidden City", or of a number of explicitly referenced modules from first or second edition, like the venerable "Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan" or "Against the Giants").

When are these module name tags to be used?

Some questions are about specific 5e monster rules that appear only in those modules, like Does a Duergar Spy's Enlarge action double its damage dice from its Sneak Attack trait?, others are explicitly about that published book, like How "deadly" are the adventures in Tales from the Yawning Portal?. In these cases it seems pretty clear cut to be book-specific and warrant the tag.

Others however, like this one What are all the hints in Acererak's message? ask about features of the module (here a riddle), that are not specific to that 5e book, in a way that differs from : they are about that adventure in general, not about that specific book in which it appears. Still this question is tagged with the 5e book.

In the origial modules there often were idisyncratic rules interactions because back when then, the game rules did not cover these aspects in detail, and so writers made up ad-hoc solutions to things like difficult terrain. And in some cases, these aspects survive even in the current version of these modules, which may cause some more specific rules questions, like Does difficult terrain stack? where an alternate resulution instead of standard difficult terrain is used, in this case the question is not tagged.

Then there are questions are about some rule interaction that occurs in these modules, but it may be just a general rules question, triggered by running into it in the module. For example When is Passive Investigation used? askes about passive investigation, and only mentions the TotYP module in the introduction.

I have been rather liberal in adding the tag if a question mentions the book represented by the tag and there is unused tag space, even if the question is not explicitly about the book, because it seems to me that there actually would be exceedingly few questions that would hold up to scrutiny if one were to apply a strict measure and only tag questions that are about that specific adventure book given the history of many of these adventures, but maybe that is not the right approach. What would be good criteria on where to draw the line, what to tag and what to not tag?

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think overall, there's only a need to create a tag if there are multiple questions about it, and/or if there are questions that require familiarity with the adventure to meaningfully answer it. (For example, you don't really need to create a tag for the adventure or add it to a question if it's just a question about a generic monster that happens to appear in the adventure – but it might make sense to do so on questions about some part of the adventure itself, or about a specific monster/NPC that's unique or central to that adventure.) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Commented Oct 11, 2023 at 18:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related question on sourcebooks but not 'adventure modules'. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 3:27

1 Answer 1


There's not really a meta about it, but historically we started tagging adventure source books in particular, and the reasons we started tagging individual adventures included at the very least:

  • It draws the attention of people who are familiar with that adventure to answer it.
  • It lets people currently running that adventure find answers about bits they are stuck with.
  • It lets people who don't want spoilers about that adventure hide the tag and thus reduce their chance of spoilers. (Tag descriptions for e.g. even talk about reducing spoilers.)

There's no general imperative I'm personally aware of to tag source books beside adventures.

If you're asking about a D&D 4e monster that isn't specifically from an adventure, you just tag and mention which monster manual or source book the monster's from. If you're asking about a mechanic, you just ask about the mechanic and reference what you read where. Tagging the book doesn't do much to help the question in cases like that because you're not looking for experts on the book, you're looking for experts on monsters or on the mechanic, and we don't tend to be concerned about spoilers for general game material.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Related, in this answer I outline how we have tagged a couple of campaign settings. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Oct 10, 2023 at 11:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ There are a few cases where a sourcebook that’s dedicated to particular mechanics is used as the more-convenient name for questions about those mechanics; cf. tome-of-battle, where Tome of Battle is a 3.5e sourcebook dedicated to a unique series of combat maneuvers (similar to the 5e battlemaster) that only appear in that book; tome-of-battle is more convenient than anything using “maneuver” since that word is used for so many other things (including within 3.5e). \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Commented Oct 18, 2023 at 15:55

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .