conversion manual?

Eridanis · Feb 21, 2008

Please keep conversation on the grandma side of polite and respectful, please.

squalie · Feb 21, 2008

I could care less about characters. The whole fun is rolling up new ones.

What I DO want to know is if I can convert Age of Worms into 4E? I have a group that is really pumped to go from 1st to 20th (1st to 30th now?) in a cool campaign. I have literally put the this adventure on hold until I see 4th. I would hate to start this adventure and in a few months decide to scrap it and start 4E. This adventure series seems too good to waste, and I'll stick with 3.5 if that's what it takes to take these guys through AoW.

Speaking of great modules: I just realized that there are FAR too many great series out there to not be converted into 4E. Can't imagine future 4E players not being able to Run Tomb of Horrors, or Temple of Elemental Evil...

The Ubbergeek · Feb 21, 2008

So at any rate, the idea of an RPG character that is fundamentally unrelated and transcends the gaming system itself is not something I can philosophically agree with. Like a bunch of other stuff around 4E. For whatever that's worth.

That's the whole problem.

As much as you claim to be a roleplayer, you seems finaly quite gamist there.

Seriously, you can't imagine a character concept that you couldn't make in many rpg? I have a few that I could make in D&D and other fantasy (or not fantasy!) rpg. Rules are not always so important.

Sad...

The Ubbergeek · Feb 21, 2008

squalie said:
I could care less about characters. The whole fun is rolling up new ones.

What I DO want to know is if I can convert Age of Worms into 4E? I have a group that is really pumped to go from 1st to 20th (1st to 30th now?) in a cool campaign. I have literally put the this adventure on hold until I see 4th. I would hate to start this adventure and in a few months decide to scrap it and start 4E. This adventure series seems too good to waste, and I'll stick with 3.5 if that's what it takes to take these guys through AoW.

Speaking of great modules: I just realized that there are FAR too many great series out there to not be converted into 4E. Can't imagine future 4E players not being able to Run Tomb of Horrors, or Temple of Elemental Evil...

You can bet ENWORLD or other websites will work on that soon after the game is out.

Pinotage · Feb 21, 2008

squalie said:
Can't imagine future 4E players not being able to Run Tomb of Horrors, or Temple of Elemental Evil...

Tomb of Horrors in 4e? Isn't that a paradox?

I mean, given the recent article on 'Fearless' and the doing away with 'Save and Die' effects, Tomb of Horrors should be a cakewalk under 4e.

Pinotage

Delta · Feb 21, 2008

The Ubbergeek said:
As much as you claim to be a roleplayer, you seems finaly quite gamist there...

Sad...

I'm gamist, so I'm sad, because I don't buy into the 4E marketing rationale? Thanks so much.

The Ubbergeek · Feb 21, 2008

Delta said:
I'm gamist, so I'm sad, because I don't buy into the 4E marketing rationale? Thanks so much.

Because you just can't adapt a character idea to rules, creatively weaving a character instead of just making a built.

JohnSnow · Feb 21, 2008

Delta said:
You know, I find this particular notion to be curious, novel, and disagreeable. As an old-time gamer (I guess), I'm used to coming to a ruleset, reading it, seeing what tools can be put together for a character or gameplay experience. I'm used to filling in the character's abilities first, and letting that tell me what his location, history, name, personality should be after that. (For example, see any PHB steplist for creating a character.)

...So at any rate, the idea of an RPG character that is fundamentally unrelated and transcends the gaming system itself is not something I can philosophically agree with. Like a bunch of other stuff around 4E. For whatever that's worth.

Well, it says a lot about your preferences for a game.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying worked like that. You just started rolling and let the dice fall where they may, thus deciding what your character would be like. That's a totally viable way to create a character. And it does have a certain "old school" vibe to it. But it's not how most people want to play, and even in the "old days," most people didn't create characters that way.

Things like Point Buy, placing ability scores in order, and choosing class and race are all about letting the player formulate a concept first, and then attempt to execute that concept using the ruleset. That concept may start out as simple as "I think I want to create a heavy fighter," or as detailed as "my character is a human fighter who learned to fight serving with a mercenary company, and then struck out on his home after the baron betrayed his entire troupe, leaving him as the sole survivor bent on vengeance."

Obviously, that concept is a little cheesy, but it's just what came to me as I was typing. The point is that the rules do allow you to take a character concept and attempt to find the rules-based execution of that character. DMs do this all the time when making NPCs - they have to.

When converting an existing character to a different rules system, you need to back that concept out of the mechanical representation on your character sheet. Usually, if you've actually been roleplaying, that concept has crystallized as you played. So, to "convert" the character to Fourth Edition, all you have to do is take that now-solid concept and execute it using the new ruleset.

Darkwolf71 · Feb 21, 2008

The Ubbergeek said:
That's the whole problem.

As much as you claim to be a roleplayer, you seems finaly quite gamist there.

Seriously, you can't imagine a character concept that you couldn't make in many rpg? I have a few that I could make in D&D and other fantasy (or not fantasy!) rpg. Rules are not always so important.

Sad...

Actually, no. That's quite backwards. It takes far more roleplay skill to bring life to a creation of the dice than it does to 'play' what is basically your same old angsty alter ego yet again in some new only slightly varied form than the last one.

The Ubbergeek · Feb 21, 2008

Darkwolf71 said:
Actually, no. That's quite backwards. It takes far more roleplay skill to bring life to a creation of the dice than it does to 'play' what is basically your same old angsty alter ego yet again in some new only slightly varied form than the last one.

My point is that he seems very tied to specific rules, and can't seems to be able to imagine to make X (not hugely specific to world/rules, of course) character idea to Y (suitable) game/setting.

Like, say, a classic swashbuckling rake.

And also, that he seems to feel forced to rolls as theJohnSnow say, and not be able to create some guy from the ground up.

It can be creative, but it' smuch improvisation and all that. For me, it's perhaps even creative, or allow you control on your creation at least, to have the control on stats and choices and all that.

Not every one want to min max or roleplay oneself. I like to make concepts, characters and all that.