Conversions.

[Obryn]

If you feel I'm "edition bashing" by saying "this is what could be done to make an edition more appealing to me" then by all means, whatever gets your coffee percolating in the morning, sir.

The thing is, what you're looking for - asking them to leave existing things without new versions - isn't realistic, IMO.

Please understand, I get what you're saying. When I wanted to run Temple of Elemental Evil for my group two years ago, I pulled out my AD&D books (and pointed them at OSRIC) and ran the adventure in the original system. I did that because 1e ToEE is well-suited to its original edition. Ditto, the other classic AD&D adventures - and classic Paranoia adventures, classic Call of Cthulhu adventures, and so on. I agree absolutely that they were written to fit their system, and when I want to run them, I run them in those systems. I absolutely get that.

HOWEVER. A 4e version of Hommlett and the Moathouse is just a 4e version of it - not the original. It's a reinterpretation, like playing Mozart on a moog synthesizer. If I were running a 4e version of them - I'm running a version of it that's rewritten to fit a new rules set, while keeping familiar elements.

I don't want to put the classic adventures under glass in a museum. I want to play them - but I also want to see new stuff using those classic themes, ideas, and settings. They're getting converted to other systems because they are incredible and the designers want to pay homage to them, not because they were flawed.

With 4e, the system has been changed around quite a lot. The Moathouse as written in 1e would be a poor dungeon if converted strictly to 4e. The 4e version isn't better, it isn't a criticism, and it isn't an update - it's just a riff on a legendary dungeon. And when stuff was changed around for 4e, it's not disrespectful - any more than converting it to Burning Wheel or Fantasy Craft would have been.

It's kind of ironic - one of the main criticisms I've seen of 4e has been that it ignores D&D's history too much. FR, the Great Wheel, etc. I think it's great that the designers are paying some homage to D&D's history, and as a fan of 4e who's been playing every edition of D&D since those days, I personally hope to see a lot more of it.

-O

 

[thedungeondelver]

See, I don't really know what you're getting at here- are there conversions of T1 and S4 to 4e that I haven't seen that sin against the classic modules in some way? Maybe I'm missing some key information here or something.

No, not at all. On the contrary, I bring up MAURE CASTLE as featured in DUNGEON Magazine as a shining example of a good conversion. That's what I'm after here - good conversions.

Not ill thought out ones that, for example, reduce a dungeon (be it relatively complex in my hypothesis about S4) or even relatively simple ones as shown in T1 to a fight in a tiny space in the name of "The Encounter".

Let the old modules be what they are. Will certain things require updating? Sure. But the scale should remain, as should a great many other elements. This is what I'm after.

 

[mach1.9pants]

For those of us that don't remember MAURE CASTLE from the mag, what is needed in a good conversion? IYO?

 

[MerricB]

For those of us that don't remember MAURE CASTLE from the mag, what is needed in a good conversion? IYO?

Better maps than the conversion of Maure Castle got in Dungeon magazine, surely. (The only letters of mine published in Dungeon were because of the woeful maps for that issue).

However, I quite understand the point: it is no good converting a module that involves more than just combat and making into something that is purely combat (and possibly a skill challenge or two). Maure Castle was an adventure full of the strange and wondrous (something I feel RJK does better than EGG). The conversion kept this strange and wondrous; it didn't devalue it.

Personally, I don't mind things changing. They have to - otherwise why not just have the original module? The way the various modules play differs from edition to edition. (Try playing Against the Giants with 2E stats for giants...) Monster levels vary, as do the proper opposition for them. More than that, there are different options available - spells, skills, etc. A remake of a module needs to keep the new edition in mind.

Like a movie remake, the new version is unlikely to be superior in the minds of those who know the original. It can happen, though...

So far, we have one 4e conversion to look at The Village of Hommlet, by Andy Collins. What changed? Well, the character level required went up to 4th, a major change from the original...

...the moathouse shrunk...
...various village people gained quests they could give the PCs...
...and a lot of text about who was in the militia or which god they worshipped vanished.

My basic complaint about the new version is that a lot of the richness of the Village is gone. Against that is balanced the fact that it's a lot more readable and easy to find information in - and the quests for the NPCs are very well done. Did I say balanced? Not quite. Still, the presentation of the new version was nicer, IMO.

Any complaint about this conversion being just combat after combat is badly founded.

Cheers!

 

[malraux]

Revenge of the Giants is clearly a 4e conversion of Against the Giants. Lots of substantive additions.

 

[thedungeondelver]

For those of us that don't remember MAURE CASTLE from the mag, what is needed in a good conversion? IYO?

Good use of the font

With that said, this is a good question and may I get to it tomorrow as it is pretty late here?

I will preface it by saying that MAURE CASTLE was perhaps a bad example on my part as it is less conversion of MORDENKAINEN'S FANTASTIC ADVENTURE and more sequel to.

But...I still think it definitely merits some thought and I will get back with you tomorrow (my time...erm, later today, I guess I should say as we have passed the midnight mark).

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I do wish 4e come up with something iconic. How many times will Temple of Elemental Evil be converted? Sure it's one of the quintessential D&D adventure, but each edition should have something distinct about them that people will remember. In 20 years from now, people look back at 4e and what will they remember? Game mechanics? I bet people still remember Temple of Elemental Evil.

You make an excellent point about each previous edition having its iconic elements and strong points; it's been discussed many times in here what each of those are. 4e is still searching for what it will add to the pantheon, but keep in mind it also took each of the previous editions a few years or more to produce its icons. I'll give it some time yet.

Lan-"anyone got a lockpick?"-efan

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hey, thedungeondelver, I think that there may be an interesting discussable point in this thread, but it is obscured by the way you've phrased your opening post, which reads pretty edition-warry.

I'm going to close this thread, but I'd be happy with you restarting a thread which was more generically about the pros, cons and preferences for fidelity in module conversion, and without digs at current editions.

Thanks