Problems with older edition adventures in 3.5E?

[Crothian]

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.

With a good DM you wouldn't know it was railroading. A players shouldn't realize that his actions will not help unless he's trying to truely do something beyoynd his abilities. I think recent adventure guides say that because too many bad DMs mess up rail roading by making it unfun and the writers are unwilling to take a chance by saying otherwise.

 

[kamosa]

The biggest problem I have in running the old modules is converting the monster stat blocks to 3.5 stat blocks. It takes quite a bit of time to figure out all the saves, stats, and misc extra info that every monster has picked up since 2e. On top of that you have to be aware of how the monsters have changed in power since their 1e and 2e days. IE: The Against the Giants series isn't really at the power levels listed on the front cover anymore

So, basically I just take the plot and the maps and the types of monsters and remake the module from there.

On a seperate note, I always felt that the opening scene from Veccna Lives was nothing more than a cut scene to start the adventure. If you have to railroad it or even pass it along as a dream, to get the adventure started no big deal.

 

[Arnwyn]

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.

What instances have you noticed where updating an old product causes problems like this? How did you handle them?

I change the tactics (and update the NPC to match). I have yet to encounter any old module in which the tactics are so integral to the adventure that they can't be easily changed - and I've updated a ton of older (A)D&D modules for my campaign.

If I had to, though, I would not be above creating a variant spell for the NPC that led to the results of the previous version of the spell.

 

[Psion]

I find the single biggest rules related problem is change in character abilities and creature potency. This causes assumed level of encounters to be wrong, and may make assumed challenges and obsticles trivial. For example, I recently ran Isle of dread. Dire wolves are significantly more challenging for the given level in 3e, and using allosauruses would doom the party. Assuming that non-thieves can't climb is another mismatch between editions that afforded my group an alternate route past some challenges.

More significant to me, however, is not this, but other less rulesy things that you can typically find in modern modules that you wouldn't back then. NPC motives were often sparse or entirely absent, for example.

And there's nothing wrong with that to promote the story.

I certainly don't think it was a good way to go about it. If you want PCs to look on helplessly, put them in a situation where they have to look on helplessly -- like scrying. Putting them in a situation where they could reasonably act but then stacking the deck is asking for either derailment of the plot or sour feelings on the players' part.