Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7717026" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, don't get too lost in the examples.&nbsp; I've seen you talk about running 1e modules in 3e and I have to admit, I've never had any luck doing it.&nbsp; I had to rewrite pretty much the entire module.&nbsp; The monster numbers were always wrong - if you did a 1:1 conversion, the 1e module would obliterate a 3e party.&nbsp; OTOH, the 3e characters just had so many more options outside of combat that 1e never had that it just made the modules very difficult to run for me.I could do more &quot;inspired by&quot; adventures no problem.&nbsp; But, straight up running 1e modules in 3e just never worked for me.But, my basic point still stands.&nbsp; Hand a 1e player a 3e character sheet and he cannot actually play.&nbsp; He cannot read that character sheet.&nbsp; Nothing would make sense.&nbsp; Not that the learning curve is that hard, it isn't.&nbsp; Just that the basic mechanics of the game are all quite different.&nbsp; I have a difficult time with claims of &quot;the game is very close&quot; when you cannot actually play a different version of the game without relearning most of the rules.Isn't the whole OSR movement, which started in 3e, predicated on the idea that no, 3e is NOT the same as older versions of D&amp;D?&nbsp; Thunderfoot is a pretty big forum whose basic premise is that 3e is not the same as 1e.&nbsp; It's not like I'm pulling this out of thin air.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7717026, member: 22779"] Well, don't get too lost in the examples. I've seen you talk about running 1e modules in 3e and I have to admit, I've never had any luck doing it. I had to rewrite pretty much the entire module. The monster numbers were always wrong - if you did a 1:1 conversion, the 1e module would obliterate a 3e party. OTOH, the 3e characters just had so many more options outside of combat that 1e never had that it just made the modules very difficult to run for me. I could do more "inspired by" adventures no problem. But, straight up running 1e modules in 3e just never worked for me. But, my basic point still stands. Hand a 1e player a 3e character sheet and he cannot actually play. He cannot read that character sheet. Nothing would make sense. Not that the learning curve is that hard, it isn't. Just that the basic mechanics of the game are all quite different. I have a difficult time with claims of "the game is very close" when you cannot actually play a different version of the game without relearning most of the rules. Isn't the whole OSR movement, which started in 3e, predicated on the idea that no, 3e is NOT the same as older versions of D&D? Thunderfoot is a pretty big forum whose basic premise is that 3e is not the same as 1e. It's not like I'm pulling this out of thin air. [/QUOTE]

Verification