Problems with older edition adventures in 3.5E?

[Crothian]

I disagree. If I want a story where I have no influence over the outcome, I'll go read a book or watch a movie.

That's not what railroading does. Railroading will get you to a point in the story and the players take it from there. Players have influence on some things in a railraod, just not everything. And that';s a good things, DMs hold the power not the players.

 

[Thanee]

It's just the beginning of the adventure... no problem there, besides being totally silly, of course.

Anyways, when I use an old adventure, I simply convert it on the fly, using what seems appropriate for the situation. I don't convert everything beforehand, just what is needed in that moment.

So basically, I just use the plot and the basic ideas and make up the rest.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dark Jezter]

That's not what railroading does. Railroading will get you to a point in the story and the players take it from there. Players have influence on some things in a railraod, just not everything. And that';s a good things, DMs hold the power not the players.

Your definition of railroading is different than most I've seen, and even then I don't agree with your idea that it's a good thing. Bad adventures are ones that mandate restricting PC actions or are based on events that occur no matter what the PCs do. The DMG calls this "Leading the PCs by the Nose" and considers it to be bad adventure structure. Most gamers just call it railroading for short.

 

[Crothian]

Your definition of railroading is different than most I've seen, and even then I don't agree with your idea that it's a good thing. Bad adventures are ones that mandate restricting PC actions or are based on events that occur no matter what the PCs do. The DMG calls this "Leading the PCs by the Nose" and considers it to be bad adventure structure. Most gamers just call it railroading for short.

Well, some things should be outside the PCs control. They can't do everything and shouldn't be able to do everything. The DMG is wrong in it being bad adventure structure; its just different. Sometimes certain things need to happen, it can go for or against the PCs. Too much railroading can be bad just like too much freedom can be bad for the players.

 

[johnsemlak]

I found this post in the Conversions forum very useful on this topic:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=85909#post1511233

 

[Numion]

That's not what railroading does. Railroading will get you to a point in the story and the players take it from there. Players have influence on some things in a railraod, just not everything. And that';s a good things, DMs hold the power not the players.

All the more recent adventure writing guides tell to avoid railroading. If something needs to happen for the plot to advance, so that PCs shouldn't be able to stop it, there's an easier and more satisfying way: have it happen in a place and time the PCs are not in.

As a player I'd feel a bit useless if my actions had no effect on the outcome. I get my kicks in prevailing with good tactics (and luck) in D&D. To sense or know that my tactics make zero difference, except when nothing really is at stake, would be a bit boring.

 

[Drow Jones]

I was looking through some of my older (A)D&D stuff, and idly pondering how easy or hard it would be to convert and run some of these in 3.5E. As I did so, I noticed that several of the old adventures contained tactics by NPCs that wouldn't work in the new edition of the game; some of these being integral tactics to the adventure.

I usually covert 3.0 adventures on the fly, but sometimes it creates odd results.

For example, there is a 20'x20' room in RtToEE with five ogres in it. When combat started they were all immediately squeesing and only one could fight in the doorway. I should have made the room bigger, never mind the map...

Another example is City of Spider Queen, which uses 3.0 Forbiddance spell as a pretty major plot device. This does not work in 3.5 as written and you need to plan for another explanation.

Watch out for Demons and Devils as well. They got a power boost in 3.5 and they could wipe your party away. Cornugon is a good example for comparison. This advice is applicaple for AD&D conversions as well. 3.5 Pit Fiends will tear a new one to most adventuring parties.

I wouldn't convert AD&D adventures on the fly. There's too much to handle from different skill use DCs to magic items and monsters. The link in Johnsemlak's post leads to some good advice especially for AD&D conversions.

On the whole the conversion work is not that difficult even from the older editions.

- DJ

 

[Kweezil]

The intro to Vecna Lives! is hardly a railroad. The PCs are given special characters

Spoiler

The Circle of Eight, minus Mordenkainen

and there's a very specific series of events that have to happen to set up the proper adventure. In that way, it's more like the intro to the module, or to a movie, except that the PCs got to play through it. It makes for higher drama and a better link to the story than just telling the Players what happened.

 

[johnsemlak]

I agree with a comment above about not converting AD&D-->3/3.5e on the fly, unless you're really familiar with the rules and monsters for both editions, particularly 3e.

Spend time looking at the monsters and NPCs. Watch CRs/ELs carefully.

I actually enjoy taking old AD&D NPCs and working out how best to represent them in 3e. I often assign PrCs.

However, traps and similar encounters are actually more difficult to convert actually. Most mosnters can simply be substituted, but wiht Traps you must come up with the save DCs and some other stuff. With magical traps study carefully how PCs can avoid them or cure any bad results. Note that a number of key spells, such as remove curse and dispel evil, work a little differently in 3rd edition. Read carefully what options the PCs have in the original module and think how to render similar options in 3rd Ed.

For an example of what I"m talking about, see this thread I started on how to convert the 'Malakaz' encounter in X4: Master of hte Desert Nomads.
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=77746&highlight=malakaz

 

[Liolel]

There are a multitude of problems in converting although usually not all of them will show their ugly faces.

Problem 1 would be general changes in the rules. This means converting all the traps to saving throws or attack roles, dealing with any tactics that no longer work and other assorted things.

The next problem is changes in monsters. This is easy or hard depending on what monsters are in the module. The problem could come from monsters dramraticly changing difficulty (dragons for example) or no longer having the certain abilitys the module relies on. Also I would lump converting monsters that aren't already converted in here. One note is that under the current conversion rules from Wotc, you can not post a monster using converted stats that aren't open gameing content, or changing a monster that is in the core rules but the wrong difficulty. This means that you can't always take a conversion of a adventure from the conversion library and run it straight away.

The last major problem I see is converting npcs. Mostly this should be easy, but Multiclass npcs are difficult due to the changes from first or second edition to 3.x. The conversion document that came out at the begining of 3rd editon for converting from second to third edition gives guidelines on what levels multiclass characters should be but as they no longer have all the levels in all the classes they had this can invalidate tatatics and make certain multiclasses (cleric/wizard) much weaker. Also you have to deal with changing class abilitys invalidiating some tactics, and from first edition modules assasin is not longer a base class.

That all the issues that pop to mind imediaditly.