D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[Thomas Shey]

Makes sense though.

Late 2E had good modules though. Proto modern adventures turned up then.

Even so, its going to bake in assumptions because of the AD&D2e mechanics that had changed, possibly radically by the 3e period.

An easy place to see this is mega-dungeons. AD&D2 and earlier could build these big sprawling dungeons aimed at a certain range of power and expect it to work because characters advanced so slowly in those games. Drop the same mega-dungeon in D&D3e and you'll have a problem with it because chances are by the time someone works their way through it they'll have climbed multiple levels and much of the dungeon will now be a pushover.

But some of the people designing adventures for 3e--even some who helped design the game--seemed oblivious to the changes and were still setting up things they would for a 2e adventure, and in many cases it just didn't work.

 

[Zardnaar]

Even so, its going to bake in assumptions because of the AD&D2e mechanics that had changed, possibly radically by the 3e period.

An easy place to see this is mega-dungeons. AD&D2 and earlier could build these big sprawling dungeons aimed at a certain range of power and expect it to work because characters advanced so slowly in those games. Drop the same mega-dungeon in D&D3e and you'll have a problem with it because chances are by the time someone works their way through it they'll have climbed multiple levels and much of the dungeon will now be a pushover.

But some of the people designing adventures for 3e--even some who helped design the game--seemed oblivious to the changes and were still setting up things they would for a 2e adventure, and in many cases it just didn't work.

Yup. Big ones like that were spell dcs vs saves scaling and they basically nerfed the fighter.

They also removed spell restrictions but didn't really change the spell. Eg harm.

 

[Nightfly]

Its considered a module designed in older style adventuring and a poor mismatch for 4e. It is considered poor for 4e as it is not designed for a lot of the strengths and pacing of 4e with grand set piece battles but more for an OSR style dungeon crawl by someone who did a lot of 3e back to the dungeon style adventures who grew up on AD&D.

All that is true, but that's not the only knock against it. Popular D&D blogger The Alexandrian, in his popular series on making good dungeon maps, literally uses Keep on the Shadowfell as his all-time example of bad dungeon layout. It had editing errors and contradictions. Overall it wasn't generally well-received. (Although I really enjoyed playing through it, to be fair). All of that makes me curious why someone would choose it to convert to another ruleset. Not important or anything, just wondering.

 

[Zardnaar]

All that is true, but that's not the only knock against it. Popular D&D blogger The Alexandrian, in his popular series on making good dungeon maps, literally uses Keep on the Shadowfell as his all-time example of bad dungeon layout. It had editing errors and contradictions. Overall it wasn't generally well-received. (Although I really enjoyed playing through it, to be fair). All of that makes me curious why someone would choose it to convert to another ruleset. Not important or anything, just wondering.

Some adventures work better different edition. A lot of 3E obes are in that category.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's time you learned to really cast spells. You have the personality for it, now.
( Why yes I do intend to flog this joke to death)

Well, I've done my time in the Wiccan squadron IRL; does that count?

Out of curiosity, converted it to what? And why? Keep on the Shadowfell is widely regarded as mediocre at best, so I'm surprised someone would want to run it in a format other than 4e.

Converted to our 1e-adjacent system. On first (and even second) reading it looked like a decent enough low-level dungeon-crawl-y adventure with a couple of cool-looking set piece battles. Also, this was in 2008 so it hadn't had time to gain/lose its reputation yet. I reskinned is as "Shadowhaunt Temple" but ran it pretty much stock (and having run Keep on the Borderlands just a few months prior for the same group I couldn't exactly use that one again).

It wasn't until I actually ran it that I found problems, some with the adventure-writing itself (the final encounter write-up really is a masterclass in how not to do final encounter write-ups) and some with the system (as in, how do I convert this significant little detail I only just now noticed?).

Most of it worked out OK in play, though I quickly had to throw out the idea of the adventure being on any sort of deadline for two reasons: ahead of time I knew they'd have to rest up far more than 4e-as-designed would expect, and in play they kept making multi-week trips back to town (the nearest useful town was two-plus weeks walk from the dungeon site) to resupply, recruit replacements for the fallen, get curses removed, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

You may or may not be surprised to learn that Keep on the Shadowfell is considered one of the worst adventures ever written for 4e--and, indeed, among the worst adventures ever written for D&D in general--by those who do actually play 4e.

Curious - what do you think of Marauders of the Dune Sea? That's the only other 4e module I've actually converted and run, though I own several more.

You may or may not also be surprised to learn that both Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows, which are both considered highly execrable by fans of 4e, were the primary contributions to early 4e by a certain Mr. Mearls. They're the only early-4e books that have his name on the front cover, IIRC. No few 4e fans blame Mearls for a small part of the hatred 4e got at its launch specifically because the adventures bearing his name were SO bad.

Not familiar with Pyramid of Shadows...in fact, never heard of it before now.

I'm quite well aware that your preference is only a few levels per year of weekly adventures. That gap will never be bridged; it's simply not how most people do play, and what minimal evidence we have suggests that most players find your preferred pace of growth glacially slow and thus lose interest in playing at such a pace.

If that's the case then how is it my campaigns have thus far run 10, 12, and 17+ years?

And, again, you're talking about the absolute lowest levels of the game, which I specifically said always have this kind of problem. Every edition--including whichever is your favorite--has issues with throwing 1st-level characters at higher-level stuff. Because 1st level is the lowest possible low, there isn't any lower you can go (though I personally would like there to be so, as I have said elsewhere). It's extremely likely that 1st-level characters in B/X are going to get utterly shredded by an adventure intended for 3rd+ level characters.

I once ran a group of almost-raw 1st-level types through L1 Bone Hill (suggested level range 2-4) and though they lost 3 out of 7 they didn't TPK. I don't remember whether I scaled back any of the encounters but if I did it was minimal; quite possible I ran it stock (this was 1996, so a while ago).

some fights should be easy and some should be rough, beyond just the chance that the dice go awry.

On this we fully agree.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Curious - what do you think of Marauders of the Dune Sea? That's the only other 4e module I've actually converted and run, though I own several more.

I'm not sure I played it. I did play a Dark Sun adventure, but I don't know if it was this one--but I can say that the way the adventure I played used skill challenges was particularly tedious. From what I've heard, it is also considered a somewhat controversial one (among 4e players, I should say) because it was published midway through the shift in monster math, and used skill challenges particularly badly. It was also disliked by a good portion of fans of Dark Sun because it conflicts with the setting in a number of ways, e.g. too much treasure, there's a relatively pure fresh water source, there's a written note when most people in Athas can't read, cover shows metallic weapons which should be INSANELY valuable on Athas, an Urikite templar in the city of Tyr, etc.

Having looked up some reviews of it, it is also ranked among the worst adventures for 4e by several people whom I have interacted with in the past and whose preferences I found reasonable. Frequently-cited issues include: extreme linearity/borderline-to-outright railroading, near-zero opportunity for roleplay outside of intra-party interaction, and encounters which almost exclusively trend "stupidly, overwhelmingly difficult" but which you're required to slog through in order to get anywhere. In other words, it...isn't really using any of 4th edition's strengths, and is actively front-and-centering worst practices for 4e.

Not familiar with Pyramid of Shadows...in fact, never heard of it before now.

It was sometimes called the Pyramid of Sh%t, because of how poorly-received it was. Not surprised you haven't heard of it. It was meant as the conclusion of the adventure begun in Keep on the Shadowfell, and as an homage to old-school ways of doing things...but playing through it comes across as a meaningless assemblage of random stuff inside the titular Pyramid. There are reasons for things to be there, but noen of them really cohere with any others.

If you would like examples of highly-regarded 4e adventures, consider checking out Cairn of the Winter King, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and The Slaying Stone. Madness at Gardmore Abbey (the adventure connected to the Deck of Many Things) is also consistently rated among the best adventures published for 4e--and possibly among the best adventures for D&D generally. I am also partial to a somewhat-forgotten but really interesting (in principle) adventure called Remains of the Empire, which features a damaged floating citadel once used by the ancient dragonborn empire of Arkhosia. (If the PCs do particularly well on certain segments, they can acquire flying drake mount buddies!)

If that's the case then how is it my campaigns have thus far run 10, 12, and 17+ years?

"Most people do not want X" =/= "no one wants X". It shouldn't be surprising that you've built a group that shares your preferences and thus can stick around for that long. What I am saying is: systems today are not designed to support such a slow levelling pace because...a lot of people, certainly a majority of current users, see such a pace as too slow. Taking multiple months to ever make mechanical progress does not feel, to most folks, like well-earned reward; to most folks, it feels like "so...nothing actually gets better? And when it does, it's just a +1 here, 3 HP there? Really?"

This is a huge part of why I want to see novice levels and "incremental advance" rules in my hypothetical 6e. Such things would directly support your preferences. You would no longer be "left out" of the design of current-era D&D. Folks like you, who want a very slow, measured, methodical advancement over very very long periods of time would have rules that actually make that WORK, indeed, ways that make it work and which would give even some non-OSR-fan players reason to think "hey, this is actually alright, not my usual cup of tea but it works." So long as such rules are placed clearly where both DMs and players can see them in the first core books, not ungraciously hidden in a late supplement covered with caution tape, they would level the playing field--the majority can get the snappier pace of once-every-month-ish, and folks who want levels to take three to six months are just as supported as the previous group. Nobody gets left out--except the people who demand that their way be the only way, and I'm not interested in giving them an inch, so I'm fine with that.

I once ran a group of almost-raw 1st-level types through L1 Bone Hill (suggested level range 2-4) and though they lost 3 out of 7 they didn't TPK. I don't remember whether I scaled back any of the encounters but if I did it was minimal; quite possible I ran it stock (this was 1996, so a while ago).

Having only ~50% retention out of the very first adventure is precisely what I would call extremely high lethality. If this is meant as an average/typical result, then merely slightly bad luck produces a TPK on an almost-raw player's very first experience. I know you don't think it should, but it is a demonstrable fact that many prospective players will have that experience and say, 'Oh. D&D is a game where you just die a lot and never make progress. Okay. Not really interested in that. Bye." If, instead, we focus on getting someone hooked to start with, and then allow them to explore higher difficulties if that interests them (or if they have a DM that persuades them to roll with it), then they're much, MUCH more likely to actually stick around--to WANT that difficulty, rather than merely enduring it in the (often vain...) hope that something else, something actually engaging, might eventually happen.

And yes, I know you're going to take umbrage with my phrasing there. The emotional response from the typical prospective player remains, whether or not you like it. Character death is not considered engaging by most people. It is considered disengaging--especially when it feels like there's nothing you could have done about it...which OSR games are supremely good at inflicting that exact feeling. I would know. I have played some.

On this we fully agree.

If the system gives you no useful information about whether a particular fight is rough or not, how can you make some fights that "should" be rough, and others that "should" be easy? My experience with OSR-type content is that even fights intended to be easy and where chance isn't conspiring against the players can still be EXTREMELY tough, while the reverse is also true (fights intended to be rough, dice are not unfavorable to the players, fight is still a breeze). When you have so little understanding, AND the dice can swing it even further, how can there even be a "should be rough(/easy)" about anything?

 

[Nightfly]

If that's the case then how is it my campaigns have thus far run 10, 12, and 17+ years?

Because you're a god among men??

I'm only kidding a little. How? How did you do that in this day and age? I was really proud that I held a group together long enough to run all of the Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path, which took about two years. I'm still proud, but 2 is a lot less than 17. Or 10 or 12. I'm deeply impressed.

I'm glad Keep on the Shadowfell worked out for you. What's maybe unfortunate is that the best part of the adventure, as I remember, was the epic fight with the boss at the very end -- and I'm not sure that battle would be nearly as good outside of 4e. It made great use of terrain in the way that was uniquely exploitable in 4e. I still remember that fight almost two decades later, so that was a doozy. Hope it was as good for you!

 

[MichaelSomething]

If that's the case then how is it my campaigns have thus far run 10, 12, and 17+ years?

Because you're an Enworlder, who are the elite of the Dungeons and Dragons community. Like any who post on Enworld, you have skill, cunning, and judgement far beyond the average Dungeon Master.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure I played it. I did play a Dark Sun adventure, but I don't know if it was this one--but I can say that the way the adventure I played used skill challenges was particularly tedious. From what I've heard, it is also considered a somewhat controversial one (among 4e players, I should say) because it was published midway through the shift in monster math, and used skill challenges particularly badly. It was also disliked by a good portion of fans of Dark Sun because it conflicts with the setting in a number of ways, e.g. too much treasure, there's a relatively pure fresh water source, there's a written note when most people in Athas can't read, cover shows metallic weapons which should be INSANELY valuable on Athas, an Urikite templar in the city of Tyr, etc.

Though I could be wrong on this, I don't think it's supposed to be specifically a Dark Sun adventure - I didn't get that vibe from it anyway and I'm pretty sure it doesn't say Dark Sun on the cover - which might explain some or all of the not-Dark-Sun-suitable bits you found. I thought it was intended as stock 4e.

Having looked up some reviews of it, it is also ranked among the worst adventures for 4e by several people whom I have interacted with in the past and whose preferences I found reasonable. Frequently-cited issues include: extreme linearity/borderline-to-outright railroading, near-zero opportunity for roleplay outside of intra-party interaction, and encounters which almost exclusively trend "stupidly, overwhelmingly difficult" but which you're required to slog through in order to get anywhere. In other words, it...isn't really using any of 4th edition's strengths, and is actively front-and-centering worst practices for 4e.

Some of that agrees with what I found when running it. There's the bash-around-in-the-desert bit and the dungeon-y bit. The desert bit could be a decent sandbox if you introduce unrelated elements and let the PCs find the breadcrumbs as and when they will, but running it stock could require some leading by the nose, for sure.

There's a permanent sandstorm the PCs have to get through to get to the core dungeon bit. The module wants to handle this with a single skill challenge, which seems a mighty waste of a good set-up to me. I took that sandstorm and ran with it, not that they ever found any of the extra bits I put in there, lucky them.

The dungeon's design is awful. I put in a few extra connecting passages just to make it non-linear and that helped a lot.

The encounters are nasty but I don't mind that. I didn't get a true read on just how nasty, though, as the squabbling PCs were also busy killing each other at the time and doing some other crazy stuff - the high body count wasn't entirely the adventure's fault.

If you would like examples of highly-regarded 4e adventures, consider checking out Cairn of the Winter King, Orcs of Stonefang Pass, and The Slaying Stone. Madness at Gardmore Abbey (the adventure connected to the Deck of Many Things) is also consistently rated among the best adventures published for 4e--and possibly among the best adventures for D&D generally.

Of those I have two: Orcs, and Gardmore (and that plus KotS and Dune Sea is about it for my 4e module collection). I was actually going to run Orcs (converted) and had laid down some in-campaign plot pieces to set it up, but the PCs in-fiction turned their noses up at the whole idea and went and did something else instead. Oh well. Now they're far too high-level for it; and if I've got to convert it and beef it up I might as well write my own.

I haven't even tried to run Gardmore. It's a while since I looked at it but my recollection is that conversion would be....let's just say daunting, and stop there.

"Most people do not want X" =/= "no one wants X". It shouldn't be surprising that you've built a group that shares your preferences and thus can stick around for that long. What I am saying is: systems today are not designed to support such a slow levelling pace because...a lot of people, certainly a majority of current users, see such a pace as too slow. Taking multiple months to ever make mechanical progress does not feel, to most folks, like well-earned reward; to most folks, it feels like "so...nothing actually gets better? And when it does, it's just a +1 here, 3 HP there? Really?"

It comes down to one's reasons for playing, I think. If one is mostly or entirely playing for the role-play aspect (i.e. taking on the persona of your character) and enjoying the story that's emerging and-or being told, it's possible to go forever without levelling. We're not that extreme, but we do tend to see levelling as more of a pleasant side-effect of play rather than a core reason for playing.

The pleasant side-effect from the DM side of the PCs levelling now and then is it allows me to throw a wider variety of opponents and challenges at 'em.

This is a huge part of why I want to see novice levels and "incremental advance" rules in my hypothetical 6e. Such things would directly support your preferences. You would no longer be "left out" of the design of current-era D&D. Folks like you, who want a very slow, measured, methodical advancement over very very long periods of time would have rules that actually make that WORK, indeed, ways that make it work and which would give even some non-OSR-fan players reason to think "hey, this is actually alright, not my usual cup of tea but it works." So long as such rules are placed clearly where both DMs and players can see them in the first core books, not ungraciously hidden in a late supplement covered with caution tape, they would level the playing field--the majority can get the snappier pace of once-every-month-ish, and folks who want levels to take three to six months are just as supported as the previous group.

A fine sentiment.

Oddly enough, we almost made slow levelling work in 3e. The main (and very early!) casualty was the wealth-by-level guidelines; other than that, our DM was able to spin out a single 3e* campaign for a shade over 10 years of mostly-weekly play (about 40 sessions a year, at a guess). The highest level anyone got to was, I think, 14th; my main character got to 11th over 7 years before I bowed out in order to open time to run my own campaign.

* - converted on the fly to 3.5 halfway through.

Having only ~50% retention out of the very first adventure is precisely what I would call extremely high lethality.

It was their second adventure; they were mostly still 1st level but had somewhat better gear than raw 1sts would have, courtesy of their one prior adventure. Spoiler for L1 follows:

Spoiler

In L1 there's an encounter that, if handled right, can grant the party a wish. They used it to revive all their fallen, except - oops! - in their excitement they forgot they'd buried a couple of them, who of course quickly suffocated and died again.

And at very low level that degree of lethality is more or less par for the course round here.

If this is meant as an average/typical result, then merely slightly bad luck produces a TPK on an almost-raw player's very first experience. I know you don't think it should, but it is a demonstrable fact that many prospective players will have that experience and say, 'Oh. D&D is a game where you just die a lot and never make progress. Okay. Not really interested in that. Bye."

Truth be told, I don't mind weeding out those players. The ones I want to keep are those who smile and say "Gimme that roll-up book, and this one's gonna last longer!".

And yes, I know you're going to take umbrage with my phrasing there. The emotional response from the typical prospective player remains, whether or not you like it. Character death is not considered engaging by most people. It is considered disengaging--especially when it feels like there's nothing you could have done about it...which OSR games are supremely good at inflicting that exact feeling. I would know. I have played some.

You've said in the past you don't like Rogue-likes, which makes your take here not at all surprising.

I do like Rogue-likes, and see low-level D&D as pretty much just that.

If the system gives you no useful information about whether a particular fight is rough or not, how can you make some fights that "should" be rough, and others that "should" be easy? My experience with OSR-type content is that even fights intended to be easy and where chance isn't conspiring against the players can still be EXTREMELY tough, while the reverse is also true (fights intended to be rough, dice are not unfavorable to the players, fight is still a breeze). When you have so little understanding, AND the dice can swing it even further, how can there even be a "should be rough(/easy)" about anything?

Trial and error while consistently using the same system can help immensely here through increased familiarity with a) what various monsters and foes can dish out and b) how resilient (or not) adventuring parties can be. Even then, the dice can throw things for a loop but IMO that's exactly why we use them.