Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6079078" data-attributes="member: 336">I think that is too broad a statement.&nbsp; Many people, myself included, have spent long hours creating &quot;world, characters, and monsters&quot;.&nbsp; Many don't want to see that work go to waste.&nbsp; I agree that the &quot;simplest&quot; solution is to start anew.&nbsp; I just don't think that is always an option, or a preferred option for many.&nbsp; They want to move their &quot;worlds&quot; forward to the new shiny, and I don't blame them for it.I think that conversion between editions is always doable.&nbsp; I know that thematically (broad concept) I can convert most any concept from one edition to the next.&nbsp; Not all mechanics will work the same way, so there might be alternate mechanics that are needed or simply ignored.When 3e came around, I tried the mechanical conversion, using the published conversion guide, for some of my 1e characters.&nbsp; It was horrid.&nbsp; That was because the mechanical conversion was not taking the broad concept into consideration.&nbsp; It was simply trying to move numbers around.&nbsp; To a player, and DM, a character is usually much more than mere numbers.However, when I simply went for a thematic conversion I was able to do it with a bit of effort.&nbsp; Converting it to 4e was also done on a thematic basis and it worked quite well.&nbsp; Doing it required that I understand the thematics of each class, something I couldn't easily do when the game first came out.&nbsp; It took time for me to understand a lot of the &quot;ramifications&quot; within the game system.WotC was reticent of providing a mechanical conversion guide from 3.x to 4e, and for good reason IMO.&nbsp; The conversion guide they did for 3.x had been so thoroughly reviled by most that going that route again would have simply added more criticism for very little gain.&nbsp; WotC is always in a position of &quot;damned if you do, damned if you don't.&quot;&nbsp; Providing a thematic conversion guide is a damn hard thing to do in a generalized way.&nbsp; So they chose not to provide one at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 6079078, member: 336"] I think that is too broad a statement. Many people, myself included, have spent long hours creating "world, characters, and monsters". Many don't want to see that work go to waste. I agree that the "simplest" solution is to start anew. I just don't think that is always an option, or a preferred option for many. They want to move their "worlds" forward to the new shiny, and I don't blame them for it. I think that conversion between editions is always doable. I know that thematically (broad concept) I can convert most any concept from one edition to the next. Not all mechanics will work the same way, so there might be alternate mechanics that are needed or simply ignored. When 3e came around, I tried the mechanical conversion, using the published conversion guide, for some of my 1e characters. It was horrid. That was because the mechanical conversion was not taking the broad concept into consideration. It was simply trying to move numbers around. To a player, and DM, a character is usually much more than mere numbers. However, when I simply went for a thematic conversion I was able to do it with a bit of effort. Converting it to 4e was also done on a thematic basis and it worked quite well. Doing it required that I understand the thematics of each class, something I couldn't easily do when the game first came out. It took time for me to understand a lot of the "ramifications" within the game system. WotC was reticent of providing a mechanical conversion guide from 3.x to 4e, and for good reason IMO. The conversion guide they did for 3.x had been so thoroughly reviled by most that going that route again would have simply added more criticism for very little gain. WotC is always in a position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Providing a thematic conversion guide is a damn hard thing to do in a generalized way. So they chose not to provide one at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification