Are you D&D edition agnostic when looking for pre-published adventures?

[catsclaw227]

A couple of people bring up an intersting point. With regards to my existing library of adventures, well, most are from older editions. I was a 3PP adventure addict when it came to Goodman, Malhavoc, Necromancer, Paradigm Concepts, Atlas, AEG, Bastion, etc... So I have a ton of them to pull from and most of them are really good, or good enough to draw cool ideas from. I guess this is why edition bias never has been an issue with me with regards to adventures.

I also don't have the time to sandbox and do my own adventures, so I almost exclusively pull from existing material.

When buying new stuff, I tend towards 4e and Pathfinder stuff, but I haven't really bought many adventures in the past 2 years.

I started 4e in a trial by fire after it was released, converting an existing Age of Worms campaign and the PCs ended up being Paragon at the start of the conversion. I became good at finding equivalant and appropriate monsters and modifying the encounters to fit in with the 4e design space. (and this was before the DDI Monster Tools - that thing would have saved me hours and hours back then!)

Paizo does good adventures, so do the KQ patron projects, so they are always considered when seeking a good adventure.

I should look at some of the recent retro clone adventures.

I'm kind of like the TNT network: "Story Matters Here!" System, mechanics, etc., have no impact on my decision to buy.

 

[Cor_Malek]

The only two pre-published adventures I have are for Pathfinder, and while I like the system... One I played in two systems so far (MERP and Witcher), the other is waiting for it's turn. What system the adventure is for would matter only if I was given a booklet and told I have to DM in 2 hours.
Well, it wouldn't, if I intended to play 3.x or MERP, as I'm acquainted with those systems enough to re-calibrate other adventures to them on the fly.
But if I wasn't forced to do it as a quick stunt, what system it's for really wouldn't matter. I like to interpret the adventure my own way, which is also main reason why I don't use pre-published stuff. The Paizo adventures took me by heart - but it's not because of stat-blocks or magical items introduced, but because of the amount of ideas to be harvested, great background on NPC's, and rich descriptions of setting. None of which is system-dependant. I did use the stat-blocks in some fashion, but I can't remember how. I didn't spend a lot of time on it though, and it worked very well (some stuff I had to change during battles, because adding one category to crit for having bull-rush: oooh boy. That one I'll remember ;-)).


Just to get it out of my system: you've brought up interpretations instead of meanings. In this context it'd be something like: "I'm a 3.x DnD fan, I didn't play 4e and Pathfinder so I don't know which is better, hence I cannot (and will not) judge", or ". The interpretation you cited come rather from point of view that agnostic is a more shiny word for atheist, which is completely different (theological) context, and arguably rather incorrect (as in an actual agnostic, especially a religious one could be offended by this, but it could be correct statistically, most "agnostics" I've met were straight-atheists with love for buzz-words (yay bio-food. What other f**** kind is there?).

 

[karlindel]

Mostly, but not quite. I am definitely more interested in pre-published adventures for the edition I am running (4e), as that saves me the most time.

That said, I do pick up the Pathfinder APs and have adventures from 1e,2e, and 3e to mine ideas from. Given the current size of my RPG library, I am unlikely to pick up random adventures for other editions of the game, although I might grab one if the price is right and it gets really good reviews or seems particularly interesting or in line with what I am doing in my campaign.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I generally consider modules in the three broad categories mentioned up-thread: TSR D&D, 3e (including 3e variants and Pathfinder), and 4e. While there are exceptions, I'm uninterested in buying/reading/converting modules created for 3e and 4e. It's not that I couldn't convert them, it's that it's too much of a bother, and I tend to dislike the approach and style of the 3e and 4e modules, without even considering the stats. In fact, I think the approach and style issue is a bigger problem for me than the stats.

These days, I'm mostly doing my own thing, in any case. I'm just not using modules as much as I did, back in the day.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yep, pretty much. Good adventures transcend editions and even game systems. I'd adapted Call of Cthulhu adventures to D&D (especially easy with CoC d20).

 

[Aus_Snow]

Are you adventure edition agnostic?

Most definitely. . .

With the exception of one edition. And no, it's not because I won't buy from a certain company (which I won't, nowadays) or because I dislike the system in question (also true), but simply because, even if I found an adventure that I liked from, say, a current third party publisher. . . it's just too radically different a system - and implied setting - for me to bother.

So yeah, it just comes down to practical issues. Otherwise, I've been known to be pretty much omnivorous when it comes to adventures and sourcebooks.

 

[Diamond Cross]

I'm a fondamentalist.

I'm fond of being mental.

 

[Almacov]

Hypothetically, if I were in the market for an adventure, I would be edition agnostic.
I've used flavour material from sourcebooks of other editions in my games.

However, I've never actually run a published adventure, and the only ones I own were either free, gifts, or came with something else I wanted.
I may pillage them for ideas sometime, but I haven't felt the urge to do so yet.

 

[Khairn]

Totally system and edition agnostic when it comes pre-published adventures. I've long used adventures from different editions and systems to provide not just a great game for my players, but for campaign inspiration as well.

That said, I find "delve" style adventures to be significantly less easy for me as a GM to use /convert. And these days, after repeated attempts to use them, I now ignore them altogether. Its not the edition of an adventure I stay away from, its the poor "delve" presentation that is an epic fail at my gaming table.