Question: how much extra effort would it really take to write modules supporting multiple systems?

[Campbell]

I don't see how that would be a problem.

The stairs below are trapped. See trap below.
Pathfinder 1E: trap description
Pathfinder 2E: trap description.

The stairs lead to a door opening into room 2A

2A: the room contains a large water basin on the north face. The center of the room is dominated by a crystal chandelier. To the west and east stand 2 large statues. The statues begin to move once the PCs enter the room.

Pathfinder 1E: Page reference for bestiary.
Pathfinder 2e: page reference for bestiary.

What makes for a good scenario in each is decidedly different. Simply creating workable mechanics that function in both is unlikely to create a good play experience for both games. Usually it will be written for idioms that work well under one game and fail to deliver a compelling experience for the other.

 

[aramis erak]

The aggravation wouldn't be less, merely different: you'd be replacing the aggro of wading through the material with the aggro of having to constantly flip pages between the adventure and whichever appendix has the stats for your system.

To the OP: while I applaud your multi-system idea in principle, in practice* I wonder if the end result would bloat the page count beyond usefulness.

I've yet to see it done well, even for multiple D&D flavors. The best has been separate books.
As with Lanefan, the hassles of the presentation are a huge hurdle.
Worse, what's a good fight in one edition/game is often way to easy or way too hard in another.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I have been toying with this idea for a while. I am thinking of writing a setting neutral campaign able to support several different systems. ie: combat encounter x takes place in a volcano. Use these monsters:
5e fire elemental of x size
4e: fire elemental of x size
3.5 fire elemental of x size
Pathfinder fire elemental of x size
Gurps: Fire elemental basic
Etc,

How hard would that be to get published?

It's easy to get anything published. It's much more challenging to get people to actually buy it.

As others have said, a plan such as you describe isn't too uncommon, but there are different ways to approach it. I've backed Kickstarters where a given product is available for multiple systems, and some make a separate product for each system (so you'd buy, say, Crypt of the Science-Wizard for Swords & Wizardry OR Crypt of the Science-Wizard for Dungeon Crawl Classics OR Crypt of the Science-Wizard for 5e, etc). I've also seen where the publisher made a single physical product with the lore and system-neutral information in it and provided the mechanical bits in a separate download.

A big question to answer here is how you plan to support the release. It's far more work to make system-neutral stuff, and some customers may feel left out in the cold if you make more stuff for one system than another. For example, the Primeval Thule Campaign Setting was published in several different versions, including 4e, 5e, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder, and 13th Age, and the initial adventures were available in all of them. But all of the later supplemental material was only available for 5e, which probably didn't make purchasers of the Savage Worlds version too happy.

 

[thirdkingdom]

I've been asked about converting my hexes from Old School Essentials to 5e but haven't been able to do so, due in part to my lack of system mastery with 5e, but also because the two use different assumptions for hexcrawling and exploration. They're both "D&D", but they're very different games. I think it would be easier to dual stat, say, Pathfinder and 5e, though.

 

[Calthropstu]

...

I just had a brilliant idea. At least I think it's brilliant. A website that does pdf assembly publishing. The creator can create statblocks for multiple systems. Assign statblocks and other things to an encounter. The website, when you purchase a module, will then ask you what system(s) you want to purchase a module for from a list of supported systems. It will then do something along the lines of PDFAssemble(Module135678(Pathfinder, 5e)) and within do a foreach(Page in Module.Pages){ Page.Encounter.Statblock.Call(Pathfinder); Page.Encounter.Statblock.Call(5e); ...} Etc. When it was done, you'd have a module that supported the systems you'd selected. Alternatively, you could produce 2 pdfs at the same time using the text the writer had initiated for each system.

You could even write into the website a sort of module creation template.

I do worry such an endeavor would ultimately lead to a lot of truly hot garbage modules being created though.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I have been toying with this idea for a while. I am thinking of writing a setting neutral campaign able to support several different systems. ie: combat encounter x takes place in a volcano. Use these monsters:
5e fire elemental of x size
4e: fire elemental of x size
3.5 fire elemental of x size
Pathfinder fire elemental of x size
Gurps: Fire elemental basic
Etc,

How hard would that be to get published?

If you publish it yourself, go for it. Otherwise...well..."difficult" would be my guess. At least the "publishing" part.

Writing it is significantly easier. I've had adventure ideas that I thought would be cool for multiple game systems. Usually, actually. It's more rare for me to conceive of an adventure that is "specifically" for System ABC or whatever. Anyway, I have often just written down the "Common Language System" info.

Oh, right, I created a multi-page "RPG system" that I call the Common Language System that has a few basic formulas for gauging power levels and whatnot, and I use a Common Language to describe these 'power levels'. I did this a couple decades ago when I was doing a lot of "game system conversion stuff".

Now, when I write an adventure I think might work for, say, Powers & Perils, AD&D 1e, and Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperboria, I can just write down "Monster: Mid-Power Goblinoids" or "Trap: Easy Difficulty w/ Dangerous Outcome [Incapacitating]". Then, if I happen to run it with P&P, I know "Ok, Mid-Power Goblinoids would be about.... 6 Goblins". If I'm running it with 1e AD&D, "Ok, Mid-Power Goblinoids would be about... 3 Hobgoblins". If it's the trap, for P&P "Trap: Paralyzing Gas (Difficult); BL 11; Paralyzed for 1 minute per point failed by)".

When I'm doing a "conversion" on the fly, I almost always just use the "word" and use the systems interpretation of that word. So if I see "8 Kobolds" in a 1e adventure and we're playing 5e, I just sub in "8 kobolds" from the 5e MM. If I see "Poison; Save at -4 or take 2d10 damage" in 1e, I just use "Poison; Con Save, DC 14 or take 2d10 damage" (I just use "10" as the base number for any DC and then adjust as it feels right).

That said, when writing and PRINTING an adventure I write, I make sure to have 'post-it sized blank spaces' under each "entry" (encounter, room number, etc). An adventure called "Tomb of the Iron God" ( Review of Tomb of the Iron God - RPGnet RPG Game Index ) actually did this! There's a nice blank space where the GM can write his own notes; I just used Post-It stickies with my conversion info on it and slapped it down. I ran that adventure using the Dominion Rules system ( Dominion Rules - Home ) and it worked very well!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Staffan]

A big problem is that different games handle various monsters differently. Just to take an example, gnolls are CR 1 in 3e, level 2 for the "regular" gnolls in Pathfinder 2, and level 5-6 in 4e. So even just staying in the D&D family, an encounter with four gnolls would have a very different difficulty level depending on which variant you're playing. A specter is a very different creature in 3e and in 5e. So any cross-system module would have to take things like this into account.

 

[RangerWickett]

I published ZEITGEIST in both 4e and PF, with me writing about 2/3 of the adventures in 4e first (and then it was converted to PF), with the other 1/3 written in PF first (and then converted to 4e).

The conversions always had trouble in tiny ways. First, like, Pathfinder monsters were f'ing boring. It's just how 3.5/PF/5e is built. Monsters suck. They don't do anything interesting. 4e monsters had much more interesting tactics.

Second, PF magic was so much more flexible. If wrote an adventure in 4e, my PF conversion guy would remind me gently that, um, the PF PCs would be using scrying, teleportation, divinations, passwall, etc etc etc. A lot of plots had to be rejiggered to make sure interesting scenarios in 4e didn't get solved trivially by PF spells.

Third, 4e didn't differentiate between magic and non-magic, and there weren't 'spell components.' In one adventure, the PF author wrote that the villains cast silence to sneak up and prevent the PCs from casting spells. Well, that just doesn't matter in 4e.

So yeah, it's not easy. PF2 to 4e might work. 5e to PF1 might work.

 

[pming]

A big problem is that different games handle various monsters differently. Just to take an example, gnolls are CR 1 in 3e, level 2 for the "regular" gnolls in Pathfinder 2, and level 5-6 in 4e. So even just staying in the D&D family, an encounter with four gnolls would have a very different difficulty level depending on which variant you're playing. A specter is a very different creature in 3e and in 5e. So any cross-system module would have to take things like this into account.

True, but...uh... and I mean this with all due respect... so what? CR's are a horrible way to try and judge how 'tough' a monster or encounter will be simply because CR doesn't work for most games. From my experience and reading on these forums, the vast majority of DM's will "adjust" the encounter/monster to fit their desired power/difficulty level.

But I do get your point....monsters are not created equal between editions. That said, again, so what? All that means is some encounters will be easier or harder. To me, this is a GOOD thing as it spices up and changes a pre-conceived notion's of the Players who have played the adventure before, or the DM who may have ran it for the other system.

I know that when I 'sub' a 1e module for use in 5e, it tends to make it more deadly. Which is fine by me and my players. It's easy enough for a DM to read how a fight is going and change it on the fly if they are so inclined (I'm not, I'll let a TPK happen and my players know it). If the PC's are having a bear of a time taking on 7 gnolls, have the last 2 run away to "get reinforcements" or something. If that Ogre is still up with half it's hit points, maybe knock off 20 of them for good measure. Personally...I'd never do the "remove HP" thing anymore (did waaaay back when I was learning the ropes in the early 80's), but if it made sense to the Gnolls to run and get reinforcements, sure. I might do that. Of course, they would be getting reinforcements, and if the PC's take out the Gnolls then proceed to stick around and "loot the place"...well... "Surprise! Those 2 gnolls return...with 8 more and a pair of dire-hyena's".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Calthropstu]

I published ZEITGEIST in both 4e and PF, with me writing about 2/3 of the adventures in 4e first (and then it was converted to PF), with the other 1/3 written in PF first (and then converted to 4e).

The conversions always had trouble in tiny ways. First, like, Pathfinder monsters were f'ing boring. It's just how 3.5/PF/5e is built. Monsters suck. They don't do anything interesting. 4e monsters had much more interesting tactics.

Second, PF magic was so much more flexible. If wrote an adventure in 4e, my PF conversion guy would remind me gently that, um, the PF PCs would be using scrying, teleportation, divinations, passwall, etc etc etc. A lot of plots had to be rejiggered to make sure interesting scenarios in 4e didn't get solved trivially by PF spells.

Third, 4e didn't differentiate between magic and non-magic, and there weren't 'spell components.' In one adventure, the PF author wrote that the villains cast silence to sneak up and prevent the PCs from casting spells. Well, that just doesn't matter in 4e.

So yeah, it's not easy. PF2 to 4e might work. 5e to PF1 might work.

Not sure what you mean pf monsters were boring. I can pull a dozen different monsters and make each a completely different fight. At high levels things can get absurd. I put 4 derghodarmons and 1 phasmadaemon inside a complete illusionary fortress. Completely wrecked a 16th level party. Fear, illusions, mind affecting, shapeshifting, beatsticks, summoning, teleportation... monsters in pf have the widest array of abilities of any d20 system.


So I don't see it. But regardless, I DO see what you are saying about abilities in one system trivializing an encounter that would challenge another system's party. Or conversely overwhelm them.

And I agree such power disparities need addressing. But the systems themselves provide such tools for a good bit of it. For example, I expect a pf/3.5 character to fight a pf/3.5 demon. While a 4e/5e character or gurps character to battle a 5e/4e demon or gurps demon. So the abilities should be comparible vs the creatures. Granted, it takes more system mastery than mere monster conversions or bestiary entries. But I suspect such challenges can be addressed in system.