-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
In the PDF age all adventures should be compatible with all editions
- Thread starter GregoryOatmeal
- Start date
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Here is a thing:
10. ORC GUARD-ROOM This is a dingy, 20"x30" room with a "table" consisting of two barrels side-by-side with a plank nailed on top of them. Eight orcs (H.P.: 9,8,7,5,5,3,3,3) are lounging here; two at the tables are playing a game of knucklebones. All are wearing chainmail and have short-swords and small shields at hand. Interlopers who do not wear the White Hand sigil will be challenged immediately. Those who do not respond with the proper pass-phrase ("Half-orcs eat shorts.") will be attacked.
In the left-hand barrel is a sack containing 30 c.p., 22 s.p., 8 g.p., and two flawed agates worth 5 g.p. each - the orcs' only treasure, kept there by the strongest (9 H.P.), who also has a key to the door to the east on a chain around his neck.
...
Now, what edition of D&D is that for?
The problem really has to do with the amount of difference among the games, not only in mechanisms but in expectations.
#1: The game with the bigger stat blocks gets served better. Sure, I could use a Goodman Games 3e scenario for old D&D -- but I don't want to pay for all those wasted pages.
#2: The game with more time consuming mechanics gets served better. A 3e or 4e scenario will deliver more hours of play from its pages with that rules set than with old D&D -- in which what would take an hour or more in the WotC game might take only ten minutes.
It seems to me not really much in either publishers' or gamers' interest to try to serve such different markets with a single product. "Old school" publishers serve their market better, and WotC should look to serving its own current edition better.
#1: The game with the bigger stat blocks gets served better. Sure, I could use a Goodman Games 3e scenario for old D&D -- but I don't want to pay for all those wasted pages.
#2: The game with more time consuming mechanics gets served better. A 3e or 4e scenario will deliver more hours of play from its pages with that rules set than with old D&D -- in which what would take an hour or more in the WotC game might take only ten minutes.
It seems to me not really much in either publishers' or gamers' interest to try to serve such different markets with a single product. "Old school" publishers serve their market better, and WotC should look to serving its own current edition better.
Too few HP for 4e?
Pentius
First Post
Hidden treasure and mention of specific gemstones says AD&D to me.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be "how many PCs and of what levels is it for?"
Because that's something that significantly changes over the editions, and creates a big difference in how you write adventures.
Cheers!
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Close but no cigar!
(Honestly, hidden treasure is specific to AD&D? Is it...not...kosher in later editions to have it hidden? And calling the gems by type is a stylistic thing, ultimately.)
The point is that it works with every edition of D&D. Every single one. Except, I'm told, 4e. Apparently they all need stats for powers and 20 or 30 more HP each? Y/N?
G1 STEADING OF THE HILL GIANT CHIEF is playable - as is - in Original D&D, various BASIC D&D editions, AD&D, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition (maybe even PATHFINDER)...why? Because it follows the method I pointed out above. Monsters, hit points. Treasure.
It's how I intend to stat up WGH1 CASTLE DELVE. Primarily because it's easier, but also so hopefully if someone does want to run it with a different ruleset, they can and lastly because if I want to sell printed copies, I can. Listing monster names and hit points is no breaking of the OGL...
Pentius
First Post
Some people prefer not to as it can interfere with treasure by level guidelines/treasure parcels. Ultimately, hidden treasure, like specific gemstones, comes down to stylistic preference, but it's one I associate with older modules. I can't, for example, think of any 3e or 4e module that specifically lists gemstone types(though I see a fair number of individual DMs doing it).
4e needs stats for defenses and attacks, since changes to NPC generation mean that just listing their gear isn't sufficient. It would be maybe 2-3 lines in 4e. AC/Fort/Ref/Will and something as simple as "Short sword: +7 vs AC, 1d6+4 damage". A lot of 4e DMs would add 20ish HP to each orc, to make them look like the orcs listed in the monster manual, but I think this would be a mistake. 8 orcs at 30hp each would be a slog. I'd keep them all at their listed HPs, though I might consider tossing another 10 or 20 HP on the strongest one, along with giving him better stats to make him more apparent as the leader. But now we're well into taste stuff, not required stuff.
It'd work for 4e, too, fairly easily. The DM would have to work out basic stats for the enemies, but it wouldn't be any harder than looking up what AC chain and shields gives in AD&D or 3e.
I'm leaning towards No.
Every edition needs stats:
What damage do the orcs' short swords do?
What's their AC (chain mail + small shields)?
etc.
If all the information that is required to play the orcs in a combat encounter was included in the text you'd have exactly what you have in 4e: a statblock.
If this was a 4e adventure, it wouldn't list the orcs' hit points and equipment, it would list their combat roles and a page reference.
So, you _could_ definitely use that room description in 4e - all you need is to decide which kinds of orcs to use. If it's supposed to be a rather inconsequential combat, just make them all minions, then the combat is even about as quickly over as it would be in AD&D 1e.
Last edited:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Considering the number of orcs, couldn't many of them be minions?
Similar Threads
