* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Which system for playing old modules/adventures Started at 06-20-07 05:57 PM by casimps1 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=870818 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : casimps1 Date : 06-20-07 05:57 PM Thread Title : Which system for playing old modules/adventures Hi all! So, I'm thinking about getting back into D&D after a 15+ year hiatus. I'm planning on DMing some players (who know almost nothing about D&D) through various older, official, pre-made adventures that I have from different editions - OD&D, 1st Ed AD&D, and 2nd Ed AD&D. So my question is this... do you think it's better to play all these older adventures using their original rulesets or put each one through some kind of conversion process to update them to 3.5? Or, maybe a sub-question is, do you think that it's not so much a question of "original or conversion" but really a question of which playstyle we like best? I've already read over a lot of discussion about what is the "best edition" and there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer. The greatly simplified conclusion I've been able to come to so far goes like this (note that I'm not sure if these apply to the ruleset as a whole or just the official adventures in each edition): Play OD&D/1st Ed AD&D if you like Gamist-style play (because it's relatively rules-light and story-light) Play 2nd Ed AD&D if you like Narrativist-style play (because story is emphasized over freedom of action) Play 3rd Ed D&D if you like Simulationist-style play (because of all the new rules, emphasis on miniatures, etc) I'm sure those statements will probably upset fans of their particular version for being pigeonholed like that, but I'm really trying to simplify the decision process without poring over hundreds of pages of rules. Are there certain editions that convert more easily to 3.5 than others? For those of you that have played modules in their originally written ruleset and the conversion, have you felt the conversion was pretty seamless? Or did the module really lose a lot in the translation? Any and all comments/opinions are welcome! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : caeruleus Date : 06-20-07 11:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures Welcome back to the game. :) Play OD&D/1st Ed AD&D if you like Gamist-style play (because it's relatively rules-light and story-light) Play 2nd Ed AD&D if you like Narrativist-style play (because story is emphasized over freedom of action) Play 3rd Ed D&D if you like Simulationist-style play (because of all the new rules, emphasis on miniatures, etc) Regarding the first two, I'd say it's more the published adventures than the actual rulesets (although the original Dragonlance modules are the paradigm of emphasizing story over freedom of action, and they're 1e). 3.5 does not need to be simulationist, but it's a good choice if that's what you want. However, I've played it as a pure role-playing game without minatures or any combat even, and only minimal use of dice. I'd recommend using the rules you've got, since they still work the way they always have. But at some point it may be worth browsing through the 3.5 rules to see if it's the sort of thing you might find worth trying. I guess that's nothing concrete, but I'm trying to be honest. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : casimps1 Date : 06-21-07 07:29 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures I guess what I was trying to clarify in my head was whether the different editions were really "improvements" over previous editions, or just catered to different styles of play. From what I've read and the wide range of responses to the "Best Edition" thread, I'd say each edition seems to just cater to different preferred play styles. I was hoping for the former because it would make the ruleset decision easier :D . I didn't explicitly emphasize it before, but part of why I was wondering this was because I am concerned about the learning curve for the others I am introducing to the game. It would definitely be easier, from a new player's perspective, to play all your adventures in a single ruleset. However, if these conversions kill the original design/intent/feel of the modules, maybe that's not the best solution. For example, I know that in older D&D rulesets, you get XP for treasure (much more so than from combat)... but I hear that there is no concept of "XP for treasure" in 3.5. That seems to be a fundamental shift in how players are encouraged to improve their character. That would seem to be problematic in converting older modules to 3.5 so that killing a room full of monsters and getting their treasure nets about the same character advancement in each ruleset. Unless of course, 3.5 XP values have been scaled such that they are, in general, higher than older editions to account for the treasure XP. After quick skimming through the 3.5 handbooks, it does seem that a lot of it is cleaner, better organized, and more explicit (although not necessarily less complicated). My gut tells me that if I pick and choose from the 3.5 rules it might be an easier learning experience, but I'm not well-versed enough in all the editions to know for sure. Hey, maybe that should've been my real question - "What's the easiest edition for new players to learn on?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : MikeR7716 Date : 06-21-07 10:57 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures One question is where are the new players coming from. If they are more experienced with computer/console games, then 3.5 can be a better fit because they are used to optimizing characters. (Not that 1.0 and 2.0 didn't see optimized characters). If they are fantasy fans that want to try a role playing game, I like 2.0 better. If is just the poker guys wanting to try something different, 1.0 is simpler, which is good for a start but can leave some players wanting more. I would strongly recommend using the one that you are the most comfortable with. I think that the DM is more critical than the game system. If you can make the game flow, whether combat heavy or story focused, it should be fun. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Gryllmyre Date : 06-21-07 11:22 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures Upgrading old modules to 3.5 might require some fanagling of the content to bring it more in line with 3.5's intent towards balance. I converted the Adlerweg series (Sentinel/Gauntlet) and ended up with 2 adventures designed for levels 2-6 that would have easily raised the characters into 7th or maybe even 8th level. Old edition low level modules sometimes tend to throw masses of weak creatures at the PC's, and toss in high gp treasures here and there to provide more XP to the levelling pool. 3.5 only levels from fights (mostly), and even masses of weak creatures can wipe a party, given the creatures' 3.5 versions. If the PC's survive, they will get a lot of XP from those same weak creatures. It adds up fast. So, I modified treasure here and there, and lowered the quantity of creatures in some places. One of the encounters in the beginning was almost too much for the PC's as well, so watch those EL numbers that you end up with when/if you convert. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : casimps1 Date : 06-21-07 03:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures Another major thing that I noticed different between the editions is the way death is handled. In the old style, 0 hp means you're dead, period. In the new style, you have that 0 to -10 hp buffer zone of "dying". That "dying" state seems to be much more forgiving for 1st level characters (who can easily and very quickly die from a single hit). Even if I were to run with an old ruleset I would lean towards using the dying buffer as a house rule. It's no fun when you spend an hour or more walking a new player through character creation only to permanently wipe him out in the first battle. What do you guys think? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : MikeR7716 Date : 06-21-07 04:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures The 0 to -10 "dying" zone is very helpful. Used it for years. Almost essential for 1 level characters who have to roll for first level HP. (Our house rule allows for max HP for first level) Another house rule on "dying" (which may be to complicated for newbies) incorporates constitution as follows: 0 = unconscious, any healing spell or skill will revive, naturally revive in a day. -1 to negative half constitution = unconscious and "dying", severe trama, additional loss of 1 hit point per round, anyone spending a round can "stop the bleeding", any healing spell or skill will stop bleeding and revive (if it generates enough hp). Neg. half CON to Neg CON = unconscious and "fading fast", critical trama, additional loss of 1-2 hit points per round, healing magic or skill skill check required to stop bleeding, additional magic/skill check for healing, "recovery" is limited to 0 regardless of HP recovered (high level magic would be an exception), victim held at 0 (bedridden) for days equal to how critical they were Here is how it works: Fighter Bob has a 14 CON. At 0hp, he is unconscious but stable. From -1 to -7, he is "dying" and requires someone to "stop the bleeding". From -8 to -14, he is "quickly fading" and requires a healer. If he reaches -10 before the healer arrives, he will remain unconscious for 3 days (-8, -9, -10) regardless of the attention he receives. If the HP counter reaches -15, he is dead and would require Raise Dead or similiar magic to recover. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-22-07 10:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures For those of you that have played modules in their originally written ruleset and the conversion, have you felt the conversion was pretty seamless? Or did the module really lose a lot in the translation? I've probably played more (A)D&D modules under non-D&D systems than I have under (A)D&D. In my experience, the module loses little in conversion. The key, IMHO, is not to try some mechanical/methodical conversion. Rather, just ignore the game stats/mechanics in the module & find things in the system you're using that best fit the descriptions. Then fudge to cover the seams when they do show. It's not seamless, but I don't know that I'd pick the system based on the module. Hey, maybe that should've been my real question - "What's the easiest edition for new players to learn on?" My opinion is that the c. 1981 D&D Basic Set (edited by Tom Moldvay) is one of the best introductions to the hobby ever. Some people think the c. 1983 Basic Set (edited by Frank Mentzer) is even better. I don't think you can really go wrong with either. (But then, I've had a few people tell me that they find 3e best for newbies.) There are some non-D&D games that may have been just as good or better. e.g. Prince Valiant. But... I think any system can be a good newbie system with an experienced DM or group that knows the system well. (OK, maybe there are some really bad systems that even fail in that case, but you'd probably have to go looking for them. (^_^)) I would strongly recommend using the one that you are the most comfortable with. I think that the DM is more critical than the game system. If you can make the game flow, whether combat heavy or story focused, it should be fun. Yeah! What he said. Another major thing that I noticed different between the editions is the way death is handled. This is the absolute last thing that should factor into your choice of system. This is one of the most portable rules between editions. Plenty of people play classic D&D with a version of the -10 rule. I've know people to sometimes play 3e with 0=dead. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Elendur Date : 06-22-07 11:24 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures I don't think the rules set has much of an impact on the feel of a adventure. In fact many old modules don't have a set 'feel' anyway, they can be played in many different ways. In my current campaign I've run 10 1e modules in the 3/3.5 rules set. It's been a blast and I've never felt like the 3e rules were interfering with the feel of the modules. Although sometimes I struggled with what exactly that feel was, some of those old adventures are very vague in areas. Your players will probably learn best what you can teach best. I'd say 3e is easier to learn, but if you already know a old edition inside and out and have resolved all the rough edges, that's probably better. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : caeruleus Date : 06-22-07 11:30 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures My opinion is that the c. 1981 D&D Basic Set (edited by Tom Moldvay) is one of the best introductions to the hobby ever. Some people think the c. 1983 Basic Set (edited by Frank Mentzer) is even better. I don't think you can really go wrong with either. I agree, especially regarding the Mentzer edition. But I think it's worth tossing out that any game can be learned, and you may be better off just starting with whatever game you want to play longterm. After all, there are enough differences that your players will still have to learn the new system, only they'd also have expectations from the first one they played that might get in the way. It can be done (many people have shifted between various editions), but it's a factor to consider if you want something easy to learn. Either of these Basic sets are good for longterm play (so long as you also have the corresponding Expert set), with the added bonus of not having to convert some of your modules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : sgt_d Date : 06-25-07 12:58 PM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures Here's another thing to think about: since these are new players, the choice of edition could influence their ability to find other players. Here's what I mean: I recently was asked by a friend to teach her and her son D&D. While my group normaly plays 2nd ed. AD&D (with large amounts of 1st ed. shoehorned back into the game), I decided that to teach them, we should play 3.5. My reasoning for this is that if they really enjoy it, and her son wants to find players his own age (high school) he will have an easier time finding players in the current edition. As things progress, I can show him 1st & 2nd (and basic) so he can see the progression of the rules set. But, by using the current edition, I had the ability to bring him into the D&D community of his peer group in the area. This is simply my $0.02, and another slant to the question... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-26-07 08:02 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures My reasoning for this is that if they really enjoy it, and her son wants to find players his own age (high school) he will have an easier time finding players in the current edition. OTOH, for every anecdote about how someone can't find anyone willing to play anything but the latest edition, I've read one anecdote about players of the latest edition not only being willing to try an older edition/different game & liking it better, & one anecdote about how the latest edition failed to capture the interest of kids who'd never played before but an older edition/different game did. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : sgt_d Date : 06-26-07 07:06 PM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures OTOH, for every anecdote about how someone can't find anyone willing to play anything but the latest edition, I've read one anecdote about players of the latest edition not only being willing to try an older edition/different game & liking it better, & one anecdote about how the latest edition failed to capture the interest of kids who'd never played before but an older edition/different game did. Oh, I have every intention of showing him 1st/2nd ed! ;) I just want to get him familiar with gaming in general first. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : casimps1 Date : 07-09-07 07:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures Another interesting question came to mind as I've been thinking about this more. Are the challenge levels pretty consistent across rulesets? What I mean is: Let's say I prefer the Mentzer OD&D ruleset... so I'm playing some OD&D characters through some OD&D modules. Then, for a change of pace, I decide to play them through some 2e modules (although still using OD&D rules). Can I still rely on the recommended character levels for each module? In other words, does a group of 4 5th-level characters in OD&D equate to about the same level of power as 4 5th-level 2e characters? If so, then I would assume I could run the module without having to worry about scaling encounters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : caeruleus Date : 07-10-07 03:25 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures Another interesting question came to mind as I've been thinking about this more. Are the challenge levels pretty consistent across rulesets? What I mean is: Let's say I prefer the Mentzer OD&D ruleset... so I'm playing some OD&D characters through some OD&D modules. Then, for a change of pace, I decide to play them through some 2e modules (although still using OD&D rules). Can I still rely on the recommended character levels for each module? In other words, does a group of 4 5th-level characters in OD&D equate to about the same level of power as 4 5th-level 2e characters? If so, then I would assume I could run the module without having to worry about scaling encounters. It depends. For example, dragons in 2e became much more powerful than they were in 1e. Orcs, however, were about the same. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-11-07 08:47 AM Thread Title : Re: Which system for playing old modules/adventures It depends. For example, dragons in 2e became much more powerful than they were in 1e. Orcs, however, were about the same. Yeah. Things vary some. Though for standard monsters, you can just substitute the stats from the edition you're using. On the other hand, something that's tough for one set of PCs will be a cakewalk for another even without crossing editions. Between the players being smart enough to retreat, regroup, & come at a tough encounter from a different angle (or just avoid it altogether) & the DM fudging a bit when appropriate, you can get by just fine, though. In my experience. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:23 AM.