D&D 4E Stephen Radney-MacFarland on Conversions and Adventures in 4e

Shroomy

Adventurer
This post is from the Paizo board and I thought it may be interesting for everyone here to read. It was originally a response to a question posed by DaveMage:

DaveMage said:
I'm confused. If it's so easy to convert then why did WotC suggest that people begin new campaigns?

Also, it would seem that converting NPCs would not be as simple as you are suggesting. Therefore NPC foes in published adventures would be hard, if not impossible, to convert "on the fly".

Finally, there are several thousand monsters available for 3.5, while there will be only a few hundred for 4E for a couple of years. Simply using a 4E version of a 3E monster may not be possible for quite some time.

Am I missing something?

Stephen Radney-MacFarland said:
Trust me I understand the confusion. And, just to create a little more confusion, I submit that both are true. You probably should restart a campaign with the release of 4e and it is easy to convert older adventures and it is possible to convert exiting campaigns.

Okay, before you beat your head in frustration, hear me out.

The game is different enough that it’s a very good idea to start a new campaign upon release. There’re enough differences it behooves any DM or player to start with the basics and work up from level 1. It’s also impossible to take an “X”-level character and rebuild it in 4e terms if your measure for a rebuild would be absolutely equivalent abilities at each level. You can convert rather satisfactorily if you measure is more loose; more about tone than detail.

For instance, my Rise of the Runelords Hellknight is a tank who challenges his foes and layers the smack when needed. He doesn’t have the same exact feats, the same class features, the same equipment, but he does have the rules items in 4e that allow him to do what he is famous (at least in my own gaming group) for doing.

In essence he’s the same character. His mechanics are not identical…just similar enough where I feel like it’s the same character. Keep in mind, he’s not the most complicated character in the world, but the other players have been able to convert their characters with similar results.

On the other side of the fence, I would hate to try to convert Living Greyhawk characters. That would just be an utter charlie foxtrot, as too many people who wouldn’t be happy with the conversion. That campaign is just too rich, deep, and played for a tonal conversion.

On the DM side, when building tools for the DM, Stephen Schubert (the ever-lovable, Shoe) created interesting ways to express game assumptions that grant a tremendous amount of flexibility on the DM’s part for creating and modifying challenges. Those revelations make it easier for DMs to tell stories while still supplying the gamist challenges that the majority of D&D players crave. I find it easier for a DM to create adventures in 4e and it is also easier to convert. As for particulars, I’m afraid you are just going to have to wait for the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

Now, here’s my big caveat to this. If you are a DM who uses or wishes to use the D&D rules for a physics of the world, where monsters and players always live by the same rules and building monsters and NPCs is a rigorous and time consuming as building PCs, the ease may make you feel a little queasy at first. The truth is, it’s just a heck of a lot easier to create monsters and NPCs, because you build them enough for the role they are designed to play in the plot and in the game. And we really latched on to this philosophy in monster, NPC, and adventure design. Like characters in a movie or play, they are fleshed out as much as they need to serve the story—in this case the adventure.

So basically, I think it’s best to restart so that you and your players can get to know the rules and how they work in a holistic way. This doesn’t mean you can’t run Pathfinder, Temple of Elemental Evil, Age of Worms, or Sunless Citadel as part of your first campaign, and supply the same story and challenges that those classics provide. Of course, H1 Keep on the Shadowfell is pretty fun too, so you may just want to start with that one. Anyhow, as a DM, your gaming world in 4e is pretty open.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Developer dude.

The original post is here (its about converting Rise of the Runelords to 4e):

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...onGuideOfRiseOfTheRunelordsTo4E&page=1#411618
 

log in or register to remove this ad

"If you are a DM who uses or wishes to use the D&D rules for a physics of the world, where monsters and players always live by the same rules and building monsters and NPCs is a rigorous and time consuming as building PCs, the ease may make you feel a little queasy at first. "

:´(
 


Yay, no more trying to figure out a cultist's Climb skill ranks if there's nothing to climb in the five minutes he lives before getting stabbed or wondering what a lesser demon's Diplomacy is if all he's going to do is be summoned and set out slaughtering. x.x

And if they live and need those skills later...I can just give them to them then, not before!

-P.C.
 

ainatan said:
:( and raise you a :uhoh:

Stephen Radley-McFarland said:
If you are a DM who uses or wishes to use the D&D rules for a physics of the world, where monsters and players always live by the same rules and building monsters and NPCs is a rigorous and time consuming as building PCs, the ease may make you feel a little queasy at first.
This is one of those major "the game is no longer for you" statements for me. I find the thing about time consuming funny because I used never found NPC or monsters tough or time consuming to create. I'll admit I used some shortcuts but still I stayed with the idea that the rules are the physics of the game and deviating from that is something I don't like.

The truth is, it’s just a heck of a lot easier to create monsters and NPCs, because you build them enough for the role they are designed to play in the plot and in the game...Like characters in a movie or play, they are fleshed out as much as they need to serve the story—in this case the adventure.
And that's the nail in the coffin for me where 4e is concerned. Some of the mechanical adaptations may be backported but I had enough of that technique with the Storyteller system and if it's the core of 4e then I'm no longer their customer.
 


This is practically the same thing we have been told the first time conversion was discussed: you'll have to conceptualize, not straight point for point conversion.

You know, at this point, I think I should stop reading any sort of post from the developers/freelancers. Simply because they all have just a few things to say.

4e runs faster.
4e allows for easier design of (insert).
4e is easier on the DM.
4e is fun.

Apparently that's all the NDA will allow them to say, because that's the essence of everything that has been said.

I get it. I got it the first time. I accept it. But I can't read it any more.
 
Last edited:

HeavenShallBurn said:
And that's the nail in the coffin for me where 4e is concerned. Some of the mechanical adaptations may be backported but I had enough of that technique with the Storyteller system and if it's the core of 4e then I'm no longer their customer.

I LOVE the Storyteller system, so anything that brings it closer to it, is icing on the cake for me :)
 

The truth is, it’s just a heck of a lot easier to create monsters and NPCs, because you build them enough for the role they are designed to play in the plot and in the game. And we really latched on to this philosophy in monster, NPC, and adventure design. Like characters in a movie or play, they are fleshed out as much as they need to serve the story—in this case the adventure.
They've touched on this before and it's definitely one of the big plusses for me in the new edition. I'm hopeful that 4e will have a significant impact on wading through the DMing mire that is 3e HL/EL gaming.
 

HeavenShallBurn said:
This is one of those major "the game is no longer for you" statements for me. I find the thing about time consuming funny because I used never found NPC or monsters tough or time consuming to create. I'll admit I used some shortcuts but still I stayed with the idea that the rules are the physics of the game and deviating from that is something I don't like.
Really?

D&D is horrible at simulating physics or, well, anything. Look at the economy. It's not meant to demonstrate a living breathing world effected by the flow of gold, it's just a mechanic to show how wealth by level works and how to designate the level appropriateness of a magical item. Look at Falling Damage. It's not realistic, it's not related to physics, it's just there.

I mean, a fireball doesn't have any rules that deal with air pressure. It doesn't explain that the damage comes from the concussive force of the explosion, it's just 'fire in area, now fire is gone'. What happens to the oxygen? Donno! Doesn't matter!

Trying to treat the D&D rules like world physics and simulation is trying to use a tuba as a hammer. You can, but it's a hell of a lot more work and just not the tool for the job.

I'm glad the designers are focusing on the part of the system that matters, and not trying to bite off more than they can chew to facilitate how many days Farmer Brown has syphilis.

And that's the nail in the coffin for me where 4e is concerned. Some of the mechanical adaptations may be backported but I had enough of that technique with the Storyteller system and if it's the core of 4e then I'm no longer their customer.

Different strokes, I guess. It's a selling point for me.
 

Remove ads

Top