10-18-2011 Legends and Lore - Preserving the Past

[Mark CMG]

Well, as far as the +x weapons go, if it was just "sometimes" then it probably wouldn't be an issue. The thing is, +X is the base standard. The "sometimes" is all the actually interesting magical weapons. Personally, I do think that's a bit backwards. A magical item should be interesting. It should not be something that you need to hit entire classes of monsters with.

"Sokath, his eyes uncovered!"

 

[Jhaelen]

Your typical O/B/A D&D party was also assumed to have anywhere from 6-8, maybe as many as 10 PCs, and henchmen/retainers.

Uh, really? That doesn't mesh with my memories of playing D&D or AD&D. How did they manage to put all of those pcs and monstrous armies into tinyish dungeon corridors and rooms?

 

[JeffB]

Uh, really? That doesn't mesh with my memories of playing D&D or AD&D. How did they manage to put all of those pcs and monstrous armies into tinyish dungeon corridors and rooms?

Go back and read your modules then. I was just looking at X3 last night- 6-8 PCs (In particular the module recco'ed 2 Thieves along with Spellcasters, and several fighters). B1/B2 give similar numbers along with the recommendation of hiring retainers- OD&D (pre basic) was ALL about henchmen and retainers. AD&D modules regularly recommend 6-8 PCs.

You may not remember it, or have played it that way, but that is the way the game was designed.

Edit- here are just a few MCM modules on my shelf
X2 reccos 6-10 PCs.
B2- 6-9 1st level PCs (plus reccos later in the text of henchmen available in the keep)
B4- 6-10 PCs
B3- 6-10 PCs

 

[D'karr]

Uh, really? That doesn't mesh with my memories of playing D&D or AD&D. How did they manage to put all of those pcs and monstrous armies into tinyish dungeon corridors and rooms?

Each square was 10' and you could fit 3 people to a square width.

 

[JeffB]

Here's a few AD&D modules

A1: 6-8 PCs
C2: 5-10 PCs
G1/2/3 : "Optimum mix is 9 characters of various classes"
S4: 6-8
U1: 5-10

 

[Dire Bare]

Like I explained, most of the time and resources are up front in programming the Designers system to convert things to different versions of the game. I don't see that as a financial disaster as the R&D will pay off long-term with a system that can continue to support multiple versions for many many years.

As others have already tackled, there is no simple system to translate one edition of D&D to another. Even the "conversion guides" released during various edition changeovers were not all that great. If it were that easy, why isn't WotC . . . and Paizo . . . already doing this?

Creating a product that supports your current game and audience costs money. It would cost more money (and time) to have the designers and developers convert that product to even one older edition of the game, much less all of them. That's time and money spent on an audience that really isn't with WotC anymore, not in significant numbers. That's time and money that could be spent on creating more products for their existing audience. Which is why it would be a waste of time and money for them.

Garage-publishers have done it, with Green Ronin being perhaps the best example. I've seen smaller publishers put out rule conversions for two to three different rule sets . . . but the ballgame is different for several guys hobby company than it is for a profit-driven corporation like WotC. And I'm not sure that doing this sort of thing was even that great of an idea for the smaller publishers that tried it.

 

[Hussar]

I've often found it weird that people question the AD&D group assumptions. It's pretty well established. Granted, my personal group didn't follow that, but, then again, while the AD&D books might have been on the table, I don't think that's the game we were playing.

 

[Jhaelen]

Granted, my personal group didn't follow that, but, then again, while the AD&D books might have been on the table, I don't think that's the game we were playing.

See?

Since none of the groups I ever played with played it like that, I've simply been wondering if _anyone_ actually played it like that. I remember the occasional post here on ENWorld, but I've never seen it in actual play.

The AD&D I know was mostly defined by the houserules of every individual DM. _Every_ DM used house-rules; no one actually played the game as written!

(yeah, I know, this will probably lead to a flood of posts telling me that this isn't true either, and their groups always played strictly by RAW, but _I_ have never met anyone who did, and that what matters to _me_).

 

[Mark CMG]

See?

Since none of the groups I ever played with played it like that, I've simply been wondering if _anyone_ actually played it like that. I remember the occasional post here on ENWorld, but I've never seen it in actual play.

The AD&D I know was mostly defined by the houserules of every individual DM. _Every_ DM used house-rules; no one actually played the game as written!

(yeah, I know, this will probably lead to a flood of posts telling me that this isn't true either, and their groups always played strictly by RAW, but _I_ have never met anyone who did, and that what matters to _me_).

My main group of gamers in the late Seventies and early/mid Eighties played (first (O)D&D then) AD&D 1E (and later AD&D2E) using mainly one character each with 4-5 players, sometimes three, and rarely one or two of the PCs would have a henchman or hireling. Most games I saw played at game clubs or at conventions also kept the numbers down to six or less, though occasionally there were very large groups of PCs because lots of players could be rallied. grodog likes to run his games at Gary Con with 10 or 12 players. Tavis often runs games where PCs have henchmen, two or three each. However, my own experience and knowledge of other games back in the day suggests that smaller groups were more prevalent.

 

[Mistwell]

As others have already tackled, there is no simple system to translate one edition of D&D to another.

Correct. It's not a simple system. It's a complex and difficult one.

Even the "conversion guides" released during various edition changeovers were not all that great. If it were that easy, why isn't WotC . . . and Paizo . . . already doing this?

Because almost no effort, resources, or time have ever been put into these things, as there was little money to be made from them. What I am proposing has, as far as I know, never been attempted (though some folks mentioned on another board that something vaguely similar was tried with Thieves World, and it was successful but too expensive for such a small product line).

Creating a product that supports your current game and audience costs money. It would cost more money (and time) to have the designers and developers convert that product to even one older edition of the game, much less all of them. That's time and money spent on an audience that really isn't with WotC anymore, not in significant numbers. That's time and money that could be spent on creating more products for their existing audience. Which is why it would be a waste of time and money for them.

It's not a waste of time and money because it brings in people back to being customers. Sometimes people who have not been customers for decades, when talking about a virtual tabletop for 1e.

Garage-publishers have done it, with Green Ronin being perhaps the best example. I've seen smaller publishers put out rule conversions for two to three different rule sets . . . but the ballgame is different for several guys hobby company than it is for a profit-driven corporation like WotC. And I'm not sure that doing this sort of thing was even that great of an idea for the smaller publishers that tried it.

You're talking about guides for players and DMs to convert existing old stuff...that's not what I am talking about.