Thus far, you've mirrored what I just said. But, you started out by saying you don't agree with me. Which is confusing. Let me say it again: Yes, 4e is the exception.
Tell me which 1e/2e modules could not be converted to 3e, or which 3e modules could not be converted to 1e/2e?
OK, so now we're deep in the land of confusion. If you never played 1e or 2e, and you think 3e and 4e are the same in the respect that they cannot tell the same stories as 1e/2e, then what the heck are you talking about?
How about we try this whole thing again. Read what I wrote - that I think all of 1e/2e/3e/5e (but not 4e) can be used to tell the same stories. What part do you disagree with?
OK, I gotta stop there. Come on now, you didn't play it, but from "reading" it you think you know better?
No.
Tell me which stories you tried to convert from one edition to another (other than 4e) and played them, and you found it did not work "just fine". If the answer is "I didn't really try that" then I don't think you have a good basis for form an opinion one way or the other.
And I disagree. And you didn't even play most of the editions of D&D, I think you're talking from rumor and guesswork here. It's not completely different mechanics. You're always rolling a d20 against a target number that is either a fixed target or a variable one based on the opponent rolling, and all of it is modified by fairly standard things (like armor). Sure, sometimes AC counts down, and sometimes it counts up, and a few things change here and there, but it's not "completely different" mechanical games - they are very similar. You move, you attack, you cast spells, it's all very similar between editions (except for 4e, which I agree did play differently). Certainly they have a heck of a lot more in common with each other than, say, a d6 based game.
No, now I have to put my foot down and call bunk, bunk. You cannot know the "vibe" of a game without playing it. "Vibe" for RPGs is almost exclusively the feeling you get when actually playing the game. It's not something conveyed by reading the text. So if you never really played 1e/2e, do not friggen tell me you fairly understand the "vibe" of how it feels to play those games. You don't, and frankly it's a very presumptuous position to be taking.
Like what? THOUSANDS of people converted 1e/2e modules to 3e and they worked fine. Actual experience differs from your theoretical guessing here, so how can you presume you know better?
Admittedly, I did misread the first part. I had thought you were including 4th as well.
As far as vibe, I do believe style is something which can be gathered from how material is presented. I don't presume I know better, but I do presume my opinion is just as valid as yours. In spite of the fact I've never played 2nd, I do find that I enjoy reading a lot of the 2nd Edition material more than much of the newer stuff. I have little experience with 1st, but I do have some experience.
As for adventures which I feel converted to other games better? I feel that way about pretty much any adventure which didn't assume a path which is as strictly linear as 3rd and 4th. I feel that way because I believe 3rd and 4th both too heavily assume items and certain numbers at certain levels and things of that nature. In adventures where a string of encounters were not the assumed method of play, I believe other rpgs which I have in my library suited those adventures better than modern D&D has thus far. Likewise, it is my opinion that something like the Birthright setting works oddly with 3rd Edition because of the power gap between levels. What use is an army if one high level character can easily eliminate all of them with nary a thought? Though, on a side note, I will say that I find the concept of E6 to work pretty well. One of the things I dislike about the two editions of D&D I'm most familiar with (3rd and 4th) is the idea of the 'magic item Christmas tree.'
So, to sum up... yes, I mistakenly read your post. However, I still believe there are differences among the editions which are significant. Yes, converting things are possible; heck, I alluded to the fact that I've converted things into an entirely different game with my previous posts. Though, I am saying that certain story ideas require more adjustment to fit into some of the editions than other; the mentality behind things like encounter design, what levels mean, and various other things are small details, but contribute to the feel of each edition. I'm not saying conversion is impossible; I am saying that -in some cases- I think it's better to embrace what a particular edition is good at doing rather than trying to force an adventure which is built upon different assumptions and design theories to conform to it.
You know, there are a lot of other rpgs I haven't played either, but, from reading them, I can still get an idea about the style they're going for. Certainly, there have been times when I've been wrong, but there have also been times when I've been right. Even if I have been wrong in the case of 1st and 2nd edition, that still doesn't invalidate my opinion that I've run some of the adventures designed for those editions with different games and (again, in my opinion) got far better results from completely different games than I did from either D&D 3rd or 4th. In particular, and adventure I tried to run has been
Ghost Tower of Inverness because I highly enjoyed it as a player (see below), and felt that I had rather poor results trying to convert it to 3rd Edition (but results which were ok enough that I think the players still enjoyed it) and even worse results trying to convert it to 4th Edition.
More importantly, I've been a player in games where a DM used different games to run older adventures, and -as a player- had a better experience. In particular, adventures I've played in different games as a player and had a better time with different games systems include the following:
Against The Slave Lords; Scourge of The Slave Lords, and
Ghost Tower of Inverness. Those are the three I know by name that the DM of an Rpol game which I'm in right now has run; I cannot name the others by name because we haven't finished them, and don't know what they are yet. To be fair, I'll also credit the DM in question as being one of the best DMs I feel I've had run a game for me, so it may be that he's just so good that system wouldn't really matter with him at the helm. For reference; here's a link to the game I'm thinking of as I type this:
http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=24532&date=1395172757
At this point in time, I'm not quite sure what to think of 5th Edition yet or what kind of 'vibe' I get from it. There are some things I like about it, but there are also some things I don't like. Though, until there's a final finished product available, there's no way for me to tell how valid my current impressions of the game are. So far, my opinion toward 5th is that it's ok on occasion, but I have some questions about spending money on it, and am unsure if I'd consider it for a long term campaign. That's a topic which is covered elsewhere though.
