Converting gaming systems or rules

[Splart]

A while ago, our DM suggested converting our old D&D 2nd Edition characters over to 3rd Edition. We had long angry e-mails back and forth for several weeks while we debated whether we would follow the 3rd Edition rules strictly in converting our old characters (DM's opinion) or whether the old characters would get special benefits and exceptions (my opinion). This essay I wrote finally settled the issue --
http://www.c-loomis.com/conversionpains.htm

Take a look at it, and let me know what you think!

--Splart

 

[Drawmack]

That's why my gaming group never converts although your statement of them always being weaker is flawed.

My 12th level shawshbuckler elf in 2e was and 18th level fighter rogue in 3e and was far more powerful. He could actually partake in battle.

 

[Mordane76]

Our group is just about to convert from a house-ruled 3E to a house-ruled 3.5E, so this sort of idea is important to me.

As a DM (which is what I primarily do), I don't agree with you.
Even from a PC standpoint, I don't agree with you.


If rule sets are balanced, then there needn't be any incentives for the PCs; they should be as powerful in the new rules as they were in the old. In some instances, some "primary" abilities will be toned down, and originally "secondary" abilities will receive a boost. In some instances, there will be only cosmetic changes. But I don't think PCs deserve "carrots" to come into a new rule-set.

Usually, a revision or update is meant to rebalance the game to make it more equal in powers between different types of PCs, and as well as rebalance PC power versus NPC/Monster challenge. As a DM, if I gave incentive power to the PCs to entice them into the conversion, then why am I converting at all? My intent was to rebalance the game, not increase PC power -- or perhaps the revision will actually already increase PC power, because I feel that there are balance issues in the PC vs NPC/Monster axis.

As a player, I would feel badly if I even asked my DM for what basically equates to a bribe to convert. I understand the sometimes harsh realities of retooling the rule-set in mid-game, and I understand that some people will lose some power in certain areas, while other areas will grow to balance the loss.


If you've already sent this to your DM, and he took it, I'd say that you were lucky, or that he simply caved in because he didn't want to upset the players. Having played in 2E, I know some of the power issues, and I wouldn't let half the things from 2E into my 3E game, even with massive re-tooling.

If you haven't sent this to your DM, then I would suggest you really rethink WHY revisions occur. Revisions do not inherently "suck" for players, and asking your DM for power so you'll convert is bordering on offensive.

 

[MarauderX]

Interesting 'rules', hopefully they were well applied. I battled (as the DM) about converting old old old original D&D to 1st edition, then 2nd, then just let it go and stayed with OD&D until I faded from the picture for a while.

What I would have great difficulty with is PrCs and multiclassing. I came up with a system that worked pretty well for multiclassing, and now it would be similiar but the PCs would be much more powerful. Eh, we'll see what happens if we get that far.

 

[ShadowX]

Who really cares if you lose a little power? Your DM will compensate. A DM will not send enemies that are impossible for you to take on. Your relatively the same power level no matter what. Take the most munchtastic players in existence and a DM will most likely still find a way to challenge them.

Anyway if your going to convert characters you might as well just convert the "feel" of the character, after all that is the reason your converting. If you wanted to make the most powerful character, you would make a new character "in tune" with the new system.

 

[Voadam]

In converting my 2e character to 3e I found I made a character who had much better stats than I was ever going to be able to generate under straight 3e methods. Even toning the official conversion document 18 (84) strength down to 18 instead of 21, I came out way ahead, and I was able to take somewhat munchkin class combos to get the same general mechanical feel of the old character. I was a human 3rd level two weapon specialized fighter who learned OA martial arts and then switched to wizard. After a time space accident and level draining I got to play him in a new 3e campaign which was a lot of fun. I turned into a human rgr1, mnk1, wiz 5. The monk was not optimal in 3e with his 9 wisdom and ending alignment of NG, and multiclassing wizard is not optimal either but it captured most of the mechanics he had before and he was an effective warrior wizard in the 2 PC game.

PS he also had way more magical equipment than a standard wealth character would have had.

 

[Zappo]

Naturally, any rule system can only be an approximation of the world (or theme/style) it tries to represent. There are cracks and holes, some big and some small, in any system. They are discrepancies between the game world reality and its mechanical representation. They are things such as only having 5 possible amounts of an attribute in the Storyteller system (when in fact Strength is much more variable), or having even stat numbers being more significant than odd stat numbers in D&D.

Min/maxers often exploit these little cracks in the walls to give their characters an edge. Naturally, it's a small edge - otherwise, we'd be talking about serious problems with the system - but it's an edge nonetheless. More notably, it's an edge which isn't justified in the game world.

The switching of systems, and conversion, naturally means a whole new and different set of cracks and holes. The same character, straightly converted, can't take advantage of them. Therefore, he is generally somewhat weaker.

In my opinion, the use of game-world approximation to make a character more powerful is metagaming and a bad thing, something to be avoided, something that doesn't fit my style of play; and if a side-effect of conversion is preventing the player from exploiting it, it's fine for me.

Then there is another, different problem. In 2E elven fighter/mages ruled. In 3E (barring PrCs) they mostly suck, managing to stay useful only with some very clever planning. Or consider two weapons fighting, or haste.

Unlike the previous issue, this is a real paradigm shift. The universe has changed, and being a mage and a combatant now doesn't work as well. Conversion, naturally, makes the character obey to the new universe. Which may make him substantially less effective, even if the player did everything as honestly and accurately as possible. This is because the character concept itself has been weakened, at a higher level than rules.

In these cases, the DM must decide how to operate the paradigm shift. Maybe a global catastrophe alters some magical/metaphysical laws, and certain people around the world get screwed as a result. Not good for the PC, naturally, but logical for the world.

More likely, the DM will just assume that everything has always been "new system style". Easier, faster, less messy. In this case, it would be fair to allow the player to alter the PC's concept during the conversion. After all, if the PC knew that being a fighter/mage would have never worked, he probably would have studied something different, or aimed for a PrC.

Even in this case though, I'm against giving the PCs arbitrary boons to allow their concept to work. If the DM and PC feel that the character absolutely must stay able to fight like a fighter and cast like a mage, they should realize that it's not just a matter of rules; it's a difference between the standard D&D world and their world. As such, it should be codified as a setting-specific rule and applied to PCs and NPCs alike.