|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 11:30AM
#11
|
|
|
Then demonstrate it don't just make a proclamation. What ToEE encounter after being converted from 1e to 3e was over powered?
I can't remember specifics from a game I played briefly 9 years ago. I do recall correctly that most of the complaints on the Troika message boards revolved around the fact that Troika apparently had no idea how much the game had changed between 1e/2e and 3e/3.5e.
Why don't you provide an example encounter that was "too hard" for you to translate and we'll see how long it takes me to make it into a level appropriate 4e encounter?
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 12:46PM
#12
|
|
|
Why did you have to redesign every encounter? Why did you HAVE to create skill challenges? Why can't you give your 4E party a Wand of Wonder that works just like it did in the past?
Well unless you haven't noticed 4e encounters are very different than previous editions. As far as the 4e design paradigm goes encounters need terrain, minons, hazards, etc. 3 skeletons in a room doesn't cut it anymore. You also can't just pull out the Derro and use them as is without whiping out your party (the levels have changed).
Now, you are correct I can ignore the 4e rules and pull out my 2e PHB and use the flesh to stone spell from the wand on the party, but would I be playing 4e if I did that?
What about the symbol of death on the wall in room 27? Should I just follow the 2e rules and make everyone save for die? Would I be playing 4e if I did that?
I don't entirely disagree with this, but a LOT of them will work, and heck how hard is it to add a few pieces of furniture or similar kinds of stuff to an encounter? It generally makes things more fun in ANY edition. Things will sometimes work better if parts of the adventure are restructured some, but IMHO less to some extent than people think.
Who cares if you are "playing 4e" or not? I mean I run the same setting and materials in my current campaign (all homebrew stuff) that I used all the way back to the early 80's in my AD&D campaigns. Sure, I do adopt new descriptions of a lot of items and whatever, but stuff that drives the plot forward really doesn't have to have official rules attached to it. If some mysterious NPC can turn everyone to stone in one shot and that's cool, great! Chances are you CAN restate that in 4e terms though (IE make it like the medusa's gaze or something). I'm not sure what I'd do with the symbol of death, but frankly I thought it was kind of a boner encounter anyway. Someone just ends up dead and out of play. I think I'd much rather do something like make it a slow death that there is an antidote for and come up with a fun way to get that. Of course now you ARE beyond the original module, but I think that brings up a big point. Old style adventures really were kinda terribly limited in a lot of ways. I rather like how the 4e rules encourage me to find more interesting stories for those things.
Mainly though, I'm just not sure why I need 5e to be AD&D redux. I HAVE AD&D. I can run those rules. Heck, I've got 50 books and modules at a conservative guess. I can run AD&D for another 100 years if it strikes my fancy. I don't need to be able to run the same exact stuff again in 5e. I'm not violently opposed to the possibility existing to do that, but to echo your own sentiments I don't see a reason for that to be such a high priority goal that it undermines the aspects of the game that I DO enjoy. If it can be added on, fine. If some things I want are also add-ons, fine. As long as its easy for me to run my style of games.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 2:09PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
Would I be playing 4e if I did that?
No, you'd be playing D&D, which I thought was the whole point, but maybe I'm wrong on that one.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 3:47PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
I do think it is fairly easy to convert between 1e,2e,3e,PF. It still requires a conversion and in some cases it can be a challenge. In most it is fairly simple.
4e is an order of magnitude harder if you want to keep the same exact flavor. If you lighten up though and just pick some monsters that are close then it's not too hard either. Traps of course are problematic and if it is a trap heavy module I can't imagine why you'd want it in 4e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 3:52PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Just dropping 3e monsters write-ups into an existing 1e module doesn't work either if you've tried it.
I have tied it. In fact I do it all the time & quite successfully when I DM.
All you need to do it look at the Temple of Elemental Evil computer game. They tried to use 3e mechanics and monsters, but even some of the earliest encounters were way too overpowered because what was an easy to fight 1e monster became a much higher level moster in 3e.
Sure, cite a PC game with limited options, that my system won't even read anymore (my systems just too good to read some old games), as your proof vrs how the Pen&Paper versions works in real life.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 4:21PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
How important is backwards compatibility for you?
Pretty darn important. I want the classic spells, magic items, and monsters to be relatively similar to what they were when I picked up the hobby in the late 80's.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 4:29PM
#17
|
|
|
I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 4:41PM
#18
|
|
|
I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
You do know that you don't have to use the stats from the same monsters listed, don't you? As long as you describe it as a Fomorian, and try to pick a lower level monster that is mechanically close, description should carry most of the weight.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 4:51PM
#19
|
|
|
I look at modules as meat to cut and size to whatever story I'm trying to tell, and as brainstorming pools to drink from.
I don't care about backwards compatibility, I care about concept support: I want every possible character concept to be represented in the system. Impossible? 4E was pretty darn close.
I agree with everything this post entails. Well said.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 4:53PM
#20
|
|
|
I considered running Caverns of Tsojcanth in 4e, but the Lv6 players would be creamed by the now Lv17-9 Fomorians if they ran afoul of them. In my experience, elaborate statblocks in 3e, different hp and damage scales in 4e, and dramatic tiering of defenses, modifiers, and attacks in both were the main contentions in using them with other editions. Note that I have never yet played D&D above level 12.
5e monster math is currently being flattened; I expect any shifts in power to be not so forbidding. Despite small differences, I may be able to stop at "Dragon's Breath = Dexterity, etc" and "20 - descending AC = ascending AC," but who knows at this point?
You do know that you don't have to use the stats from the same monsters listed, don't you? As long as you describe it as a Fomorian, and try to pick a lower level monster that is mechanically close, description should carry most of the weight.
Or just lower the levels of the 4E-equivalent creatures, which is fully supported. Automated if you have DDI.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
