In the PDF age all adventures should be compatible with all editions

[Stormonu]

TSR converted the first edition Dragonlance modules (DL series) to second edition (DLC series). This should have been a easy job; one conversion instead of many, between two very close systems.

They failed, from what I've read. DL1 ended in a challenging encounter with an ancient black dragon. The corresponding 2e module ended in a fight with an ancient black dragon--but now, since 2e powered up dragons significantly, the same ancient black dragon would wipe out a party of level 4-6. Do the same sort of naive conversion to 3.5, and you'll end that adventure with a CR 19 encounter.

This does bring up a point; Dragonlance is perhaps the only module series I know of that has had a conversion for each of the major editions, with the exception of 4E. It started as 1E, has a version (as mentioned above) for 2E and SAGA, and likewise has a version for 3.5. While it does span some 15 modules, the amount of rewrite to balance it for each edition is extensive. It's not just replacing a stat block here or there; in some cases the entire encounter has been heavily rewritten - as prosfileas mentioned above.

As a side note, for my last campaign 2-3 years ago, I did a conversion of the 1E C1 - Shrine of Tamoachan to 3.5E. I don't remember how long it took to convert, but it sure felt like more than 8 hours. Plus, the issue of the poison gas filling the lower levels almost made it impossible in play to feasibly complete, with 3.5E's assumed "4 encounters per day". Once again, a seemingly innocuous detail turned out to be a bear in actual play.

 

[racoffin]

A few other points to toss into all of this:

1. You're going to have people that aren't going to want their PDF "bloated" (the word they will use, mind) with 4 or so pages per edition of extra material, be it hyperlinked or referenced in any way.

2. There are going to be those that don't want X edition to touch their copy of their module because they dislike it or feel it will give their edition cooties. So, you'll likely need a "clean" version for the edition of your choice, which could lead into having to have multiple copies of the same file to satisfy that subset of buyers.

I'd toss my hat in for seeing fan-made products before asking Paizo, WOTC or any of the third-party producers to add additional man-hours and effort into a product in order to have encounters (and indeed the entire feel of some adventures) be instantly available to any addition. I've converted a few of the older TSR modules for 3.5 and Pathfinder and it doesn't always go as neatly and smoothly as one may hope.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'd toss my hat in for seeing fan-made products before asking Paizo, WOTC or any of the third-party producers to add additional man-hours and effort into a product in order to have encounters (and indeed the entire feel of some adventures) be instantly available to any addition. I've converted a few of the older TSR modules for 3.5 and Pathfinder and it doesn't always go as neatly and smoothly as one may hope.

One nice thing about the plan I have for Narrative Adventures is that through use of the limited IP licensing, smaller producers of retroclones and other systems can do conversions to their systems and sell them as micro-PDFs for a buck or two. That essentially winds up supporting most editions of the most popular game. I think other ePublishers should be pleased by this idea and may adopt it themselves. They will have a larger pool of adventures for their system (and drive sales of the adventures they sell conversions of) while at the same time, for any adventures they create and add a limited IP license, have others working to drive sales of their adventures. It's like the down-scaled version of the philosophy behind creating the OGL for 3E to drive core book sales. Companies could easily add links at points of sale to other companies' conversions. Knowing how long such conversions can take on your own, who would pay a buck or two for having that work done by the company who makes your system of choice?

 

[racoffin]

One nice thing about the plan I have for Narrative Adventures is that through use of the limited IP licensing, smaller producers of retroclones and other systems can do conversions to their systems and sell them as micro-PDFs for a buck or two. That essentially winds up supporting most editions of the most popular game. I think other ePublishers should be pleased by this idea and may adopt it themselves. They will have a larger pool of adventures for their system (and drive sales of the adventures they sell conversions of) while at the same time, for any adventures they create and add a limited IP license, have others working to drive sales of their adventures. It's like the down-scaled version of the philosophy behind creating the OGL for 3E to drive core book sales. Companies could easily add links at points of sale to other companies' conversions. Knowing how long such conversions can take on your own, who would pay a buck or two for having that work done by the company who makes your system of choice?

I would find it a much better solution, yes, than trying to convince WOTC or Paizo, for example, to adopt the practice.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I don't believe you. That simply isn't possible.

Could you explain what you mean by that? If it's isn't possible, then what did I link to???

 

[Pentius]

Could you explain what you mean by that? If it's isn't possible, then what did I link to???

A paradox? An unexplained mystery? A Hoax? We may never know.

 

[Mark CMG]

I expanded on and somewhat codified what I am now calling a Limited IP Licensing Agreement (LILA) in a blog post here.

 

[Barastrondo]

Hm. So we know that what makes a good 1e adventure doesn't necessarily make a good 3e or 4e adventure, and vice versa. (I'd cite Ravenloft vs. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft as Exhibit A for why it's more than "change out stat blocks.") So is there value in flooding the market with adventures that aren't particularly good in most of the editions they've got stats for? Do people want compatible stat blocks so badly that they're better served with unwieldy things that don't play to the strengths of their favorite system?

It's arguable, maybe. I don't think it's successfully arguable that there's enough value in it to pay people enough money to do it.

 

[was]

it's unlikely the company is going to spend the time and effort on the multiple conversions and not get paid for it.

 

[gamerprinter]

Hm. So we know that what makes a good 1e adventure doesn't necessarily make a good 3e or 4e adventure, and vice versa. (I'd cite Ravenloft vs. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft as Exhibit A for why it's more than "change out stat blocks.") So is there value in flooding the market with adventures that aren't particularly good in most of the editions they've got stats for? Do people want compatible stat blocks so badly that they're better served with unwieldy things that don't play to the strengths of their favorite system?

It's arguable, maybe. I don't think it's successfully arguable that there's enough value in it to pay people enough money to do it.

Personally I love game prep, but looking at these boards, I see that far more GMs do not, and its part of their argument for preferring 4e. If game prep wasn't some kind of big problem, then converting adventures from one edition to another wouldn't be a big deal - anybody could do it (actually anybody can, but...)

So is changing statblocks a big deal - for me, no, but for the majority, it wouldn't be brought up again and again regarding 3e. Apparently its a big problem.