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

[GregoryOatmeal]

This is such a great idea. You should put up your money, time, and research and then sell itto WOTC.
And while you at it please do conversions for the Monopoly 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, editions. Don't forget to include the option of converting Monopoly to East Money game.
No. On second thought, this is no way realistic due how different some editions are.

You know there's actually a lot of discussion about that in another thread, but ultimately Monopoly players aren't divided by changes in the game, hence their isn't really demand.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Now you've shifted the goalposts. Earlier it was bringing stuff forward, now it's only multi-statting things backward

So I guess I didn't make myself clear on some things.

going forwardall WOTC adventures should be compatible with all editions. I should be able to play a new 5E adventure in 2E without any difficulties

I'm not sure how you got that goalpost

We all know you can't convert a 1E edition to 4E directly since monsters and roles and spatial issues are so different. No one contests this. It's also unrealistic to retroactively convert existing modules to new systems. Lets stop talking about it.

A big enough market exists for 3.5 products based on the Paizo crowd. WOTC has a home-court advantage due to existing IPs. They can knock this one out of the park.

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.

That's the point. Producing extra copies of the PDF doesn't incur printing and distribution costs.

Again you don't need to thoroughly test these things and account for every nuance of the specific system you're working with. You don't need to rewrite and reanimate the module entirely like the Ravenloft edition. I'm talking about switching out stat blocks and adding a few appropriate stat checks and saving throws.

Due to popular demand I'll work on a PF conversion of The Slaying Stone soon. I'll have to ask some friends about creating 3.5 NPCs since I've never done it formally. I don't see myself being able to write it in the next month or playtest it in the next two due to life getting in the way.

If anyone has any insights on how Slaying Stone as a 4E module wouldn't translate into 3.5 or any edition I'd like to hear from them. I just don't see any of the ideas being tied to the mechanics or being incompatible with any version of D&D I've ever played.

Also obviously I can't publish an authentic WOTC-style document since I don't have the template or any publishing software. I've made products with Adobe InDesign and once you have the template it really isn't rocket science.

 

[prosfilaes]

This is a well-reasoned post, I'm not sure why you chose to end it in such an unconstructive way with such a petty and condescending tone.

I'm not sure why you post such unconstructive posts complaining about tones that the moderators apparently feel is acceptable around here.

 

[Hussar]

Well, GregoryO, seeing as how you are tackling things, let us know how it goes. Remember to keep track of the time it takes you to do it and how well it actually translates.

If going from one edition to another was simply a matter of swapping out stat blocks, there would be a WHOLE lot less acrimony between edition warriors. Unfortunately, since every edition is based on different design philosophies, some of which are actually contradictory to the philosophies of other editions, I'm thinking you have your work seriously cut out for you.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Unfortunately, since every edition is based on different design philosophies, some of which are actually contradictory to the philosophies of other editions, I'm thinking you have your work seriously cut out for you.

This is interesting. Can you point to an example of design philosophy in a 4E module that simply would not translate backwards? We've discussed a bit how spells and equipment work slightly different across editions but I'm not entirely convinced game designers carefully keep track of such things when designing modules.

The most obvious example of 4E design is the increased emphasis on usable/interactive/dangerous terrain, as opposed to the "here's an empty room, fight in it". This seems like it would both translate into older editions and greatly benefit them. Also by reducing the lethality and unpredictability of traps you could argue a 4E module may be better-designed for 1E than many 1E modules.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I believe I'll chime in here.

What's being suggested is, for any large company (WotC, etc.) financially impossible. Not difficult. Not tricky. Impossible.

These are the facts on the ground.

1) The fact that a book is electronic does not mean it can be increased in size without cost. Writers still have to write the extra words. Layout takes longer. Editors and developers still have to go over the extra words, and check the new mechanics. (Even if they're not tested "to perfection," even a bare minimum of testing takes substantial time.) And yes, you'll need more writers and more developers, because nobody is an expert in all systems. You're talking about substantially--not slightly--increasing the price point.

2) You're increasing the price point, but adding material that's only going to be useful to a fraction of the audience. Yes, there's a large population of gamers who play older editions. It is not a large enough population to make up for the added costs. You will not--not might not, will not--attract enough new buyers to account for A) the extra costs of production, and B) the sales lost from players of the current edition (whatever edition that is at the time) who choose not to buy the adventure because it costs so much for material they aren't going to use.

And honestly, you're not going to get even a small fraction of the old edition players, either, because many of them are quite happy with what they have, or have other companies to buy from, and they aren't going to want to shell out big bucks for an adventure that's half useless to them anymore than current edition players will want to.

3) You are vastly underestimating the amount of work it takes to modify an adventure from one edition to another. It's not as simple as saying "Replace monster X with monster Y." Some monsters are of such different power levels, or have changed in such dramatic ways thematically, that they're simply not comparable between editions. Same with magic items. Same with the assumptions about PCs.

3a) The games are built around different assumptions as far as monster difficulty. 3E is built around CR--how dangerous is this creature to a party of five. 4E is built around monster level--how dangerous is this creature as one-fifth the opposition faced by a party of five. And that's just 4E to 3E. You start going back even further, and the mechanics become even further apart. It can, in some cases, take almost as long to convert an adventure (if you're doing it to professional standards) as it can to write a whole new one.

No, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest. I've done it for WotC.

On occasion, WotC publishers a conversion, where someone has taken a 1E or 3E adventure and made it 4E. And each of those is contracted as a new assignment, because it involves mostly rewriting, not the tweaking of a few numbers.

And this isn't even touching on the fact that, for major companies like WotC, adventures are among the least profitable of a line that's already running on razor-thin profit margins.

As an occasional gesture? Sure, the occasional adventure can be made for multiple editions. And of course, the closer the editions are to each other, the easier it is to do this.

But as a regular policy? It would cost WotC far more in extra contracts and lost sales than it would gain them in new sales.

 

[Pentius]

Due to popular demand I'll work on a PF conversion of The Slaying Stone soon. I'll have to ask some friends about creating 3.5 NPCs since I've never done it formally. I don't see myself being able to write it in the next month or playtest it in the next two due to life getting in the way.

If anyone has any insights on how Slaying Stone as a 4E module wouldn't translate into 3.5 or any edition I'd like to hear from them. I just don't see any of the ideas being tied to the mechanics or being incompatible with any version of D&D I've ever played.

Also obviously I can't publish an authentic WOTC-style document since I don't have the template or any publishing software. I've made products with Adobe InDesign and once you have the template it really isn't rocket science.

Slaying Stone is probably a nice, relatively easy place to start, due to it being a low level adventure. The capabilities of a 1st level PF party and a 1st level 4e party are much more similar than, say, the same parties at level 10 or 15.

That said, I'd be careful with the tuning on the bigger encounters, namely the Ankheg and Hu-Jat. 1st level 3.5 characters were a lot more fragile than 4e ones, I assume PF isn't too far off in that respect. Getting the right class levels on Krayd for her to be a threat to a 1st level party without just wiping them out might be tricky, too.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I haven't read Slaying Stone.

Getting the right class levels on Krayd for her to be a threat to a 1st level party without just wiping them out might be tricky, too.

Make her a solo? Or make her no more than 3rd-level and give her some backup.

This is interesting. Can you point to an example of design philosophy in a 4E module that simply would not translate backwards?

Comparing 4e to 3e, a typical rival adventuring party's EL might equal that of the PCs. So, if the PCs are 6th-level they'd be facing a quartet of lower level opponents (whose EL would be 6). In 4e, you either ignore the levels, in which case the rivals are chumps, or you increase the NPC levels to match that of the PCs, in which case redesigning gets even harder for spellcasters.

(When converting spellcasters, I usually only convert their highest level spells or whatever spells they use most based on personality and tactics. A weird example -- I converted Knellict, a villain from the 1e Bloodstone adventures and a couple of Artemis Entreri books. He's 21st-level (according to the FR wiki, and I wanted the novel version) but only has 4 encounter/recharge abilities. Needless to say, most of his spells in the Bloodstone adventure were not converted.

 

[Barastrondo]

You know there's actually a lot of discussion about that in another thread, but ultimately Monopoly players aren't divided by changes in the game, hence their isn't really demand.

It's kind of disingenuous to imply that Monopoly players aren't divided by changes to the same extent because there are not changes to the same extent, without even addressing the idea that there are also fundamental differences between the play experience of a board game and a highly personalized RPG that plays out over years of a campaign. If Monopoly started out as a game where players named their own properties, and were able to carry their money and hotels from session to session, it would be a more relevant comparison. And I somewhat suspect that players would be divided by changes in the game that didn't let them carry their hard-earned hotels and railroads from one session to the next.

 

[Hussar]

This is interesting. Can you point to an example of design philosophy in a 4E module that simply would not translate backwards? We've discussed a bit how spells and equipment work slightly different across editions but I'm not entirely convinced game designers carefully keep track of such things when designing modules.

The most obvious example of 4E design is the increased emphasis on usable/interactive/dangerous terrain, as opposed to the "here's an empty room, fight in it". This seems like it would both translate into older editions and greatly benefit them. Also by reducing the lethality and unpredictability of traps you could argue a 4E module may be better-designed for 1E than many 1E modules.

Smarter people than me have already named a couple, but, I like lists, so, I'll see how many things I can point to, repeating a ones that have already been mentioned:

1. Base party assumptions. 4 PC's for 3e, 5 for 4e and 6-8 for AD&D. This makes for huge variation in the power of groups. Yes, a 1e character is arguably weaker than his 4e counterpart, but, there's significantly more PC's in the group, with the very real possibility of henchmen and the like adding still more.

2. Power level differences. The creatures do not scale linearly with the PC's between editions. 1e versions of PC's again, might be weaker than their 4e equivalent, but the monsters are significantly weaker relative to the PC's. There's a reason you could throw fifteen orcs at a low level 1e party and expect them to win through whereas that same encounter in 3e would be an instant death sentence.

3. Available options. 4e characters don't have access to some things like travel magic (3e) or long term invisibility (AD&D) which can radically change how an adventure runs. Sneaking through an orc camp is a skill challenge for a 4e party, it's a single Invisibility 10' Radius spell for a 1e party.

4. Differing goals. The goal of the PC's in various editions is different. In 4e, the encounter is the base unit of the adventure. Everything is about the encounter and PC's can generally regain most of their resources between encounters relatively easily. 1e character's lack the magical resources of a 3e party (no healing sticks and clerics are severely limited with healing) and have no realistic way of regaining resources without retreating and resting. Time based adventures have to take these things into account. A one or two day time limit might be enough for a 4e or 3e party with magical healing, but the 1e party is seriously handicapped.

That's 4 off the top of my head.