In the PDF age all adventures should be compatible with all editions

[IronWolf]

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.

Considering the number of orcs, couldn't many of them be minions?

You are both right that there is enough framework here to allow a DM that wants to put the time in to tweak the encounter to their particular edition. We can do that now with nearly any module out there if the DM wants to put enough time into it. If I want to run the old Temple of Elemental Module in Pathfinder I can grab my old copy and get to work. Because I run sort of on the fly when it comes to encounter strength it wouldn't be all that bad.

But we are talking a published module that is expected to be run for any version. With that expectation I think you have to cater to the DM that just wants to grab the module and run it. No on the fly conversions or mechanic tweaks needed to make it work for their edition of choice.

If the DM needs to work out basic stats then the module has failed at catering to each edition.

 

[Pentius]

Considering the number of orcs, couldn't many of them be minions?

Yes, you definitely could, and it did occur to me. But making them minions is just one more(albeit tiny) step of conversion, and really, anything with 3-8 HP is probably going down in one hit anyway.

But we are talking a published module that is expected to be run for any version. With that expectation I think you have to cater to the DM that just wants to grab the module and run it. No on the fly conversions or mechanic tweaks needed to make it work for their edition of choice.

If the DM needs to work out basic stats then the module has failed at catering to each edition.

Slight correction, this thread is about modules expected to run for any edition. This tangent is just about G1, its ease of conversion and guessing which edition it was made for.

 

[Hussar]

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?

MerricB's point about level expectations is spot on. If you run that encounter in 3rd edition, for example, that's an ECL 4 encounter. By expectation, that should mop the floor with a 1st level party. Conversely, in Basic D&D, this is a pretty standard encounter for a 1st level party and the party shouldn't suffer any casualties. Ditto for 1e.

I mean, in 1e, for example, the fighter types and cleric should be running around a 2-3 AC (banded and shield is certainly plausible at 1st level). The orcs are using longswords, so, against that AC, they have a -1 to their attacks and a 19 (I think) THAC0, meaning they only hit about 10% of the time. You'd probably expect 1 orc to hit per round. Meanwhile, the much larger party expectations of 1e (6-8 characters) means that they are likely hitting about 4 times per round, likely killing 2 or 3 orcs every round.

Compare to the 3e group where you have only 1 fighter and cleric (expected). At best, they're killing 1 or 2 orcs every round, at best, and the orcs are hitting about twice as often and twice as hard with each hit (2d4+4 damage/orc with a +4 attack vs 1-8 damage/orc with no attack bonus)

So, when people talk about being able to run these kinds of adventures on the fly with no adjustment, I really just can't see how. The monsters in 3e are so much more powerful than their 1e counterparts and the characters actually aren't that much more powerful at least in the single digit level ranges).

In 4e, depending on the level of the encounter, I'd say that would be 8 minions, or possibly the 9hp orc would be some kind of brute with 7 minions. Now it's a 1st level encounter with no problem.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I dunno...my very, very first foray into DMing was this:

I ran a 3e intro adventure with 6 players (4 were slaves in a slave caravan...no weapons, armor, etc, and 2 were woodland avengers freeing slaves). There were 15 orcs (standard 3e orcs).

Between a single spell, a distraction, and impromptu weapons for the immediately freed slaves....

It was a ROUT.
That is, the players wasted the orcs.



While I was new to DMing, I'd been playing for 4 years (ish) and wasn't pulling punches...I was shocked that they could do that.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno...my very, very first foray into DMing was this:

I ran a 3e intro adventure with 6 players (4 were slaves in a slave caravan...no weapons, armor, etc, and 2 were woodland avengers freeing slaves). There were 15 orcs (standard 3e orcs).

Between a single spell, a distraction, and impromptu weapons for the immediately freed slaves....

It was a ROUT.
That is, the players wasted the orcs.



While I was new to DMing, I'd been playing for 4 years (ish) and wasn't pulling punches...I was shocked that they could do that.

Yup, everyone can have hot dice. But, that's not the point. Let's see you run this exact same encounter ten times and watch what happens. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this group dies half the time.

Basically, what people are saying is that the 3e designers were completely and utterly wrong when they made 3e. I'm not the one saying that this should be a TPK. The game designers are saying this.

So, a few questions.

A) Did you roll the dice in the open?
B) What was the point buy value of the PC's?
C) What spell? And, if the PC's were slaves, why did they have spells and spell components?

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and say that your group of six PC's (which is worth at least a level right there) probably had randomly rolled stats which resulted in 35-45 point buy value characters (worth probably another level, possibly 2). So, now it's not really 15 orcs vs a 1st level party (which should be a TPK or very close to) but actually an EL par encounter which should be a cakewalk for the party.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

So, a few questions.

A) Did you roll the dice in the open?
B) What was the point buy value of the PC's?
C) What spell? And, if the PC's were slaves, why did they have spells and spell components?

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and say that your group of six PC's (which is worth at least a level right there) probably had randomly rolled stats which resulted in 35-45 point buy value characters (worth probably another level, possibly 2). So, now it's not really 15 orcs vs a 1st level party (which should be a TPK or very close to) but actually an EL par encounter which should be a cakewalk for the party.

I'll try to answer:
A) YES! I'm a big fan of rolling dice in the open, even/especially as DM.
B) We didn't use point buy. I believe we used roll 5d6, keep best three to determine abilities.
C) Honestly, I'm not 100% sure on the spell, but I THINK it was entangle. The spell was cast by one of the two rescuer pcs (not the slaves). The slaves had no spell components; they mostly used their chains or clubs or thrown rocks in the encounter as I recall.

It wasn't hot dice, though...it was tactics that won them the day. I remember the orcs being largely neutralized so that the pcs could deal with them more or less one at a time, and also the pcs were attacking from surprise. I'll disagree that the law of averages would result in more losses.

However, I'd agree with the claim that this wasn't a "standard" encounter of "you see a bunch of orcs and they see you, roll init"....the players were able to control the encounter quite well. As such, it may not compare to prior editions.

I am saying, though, that it wasn't impossible for them, nor was it even particularly challenging when they used good tactics.

 

[Hussar]

I'll try to answer:
A) YES! I'm a big fan of rolling dice in the open, even/especially as DM.
B) We didn't use point buy. I believe we used roll 5d6, keep best three to determine abilities.
C) Honestly, I'm not 100% sure on the spell, but I THINK it was entangle. The spell was cast by one of the two rescuer pcs (not the slaves). The slaves had no spell components; they mostly used their chains or clubs or thrown rocks in the encounter as I recall.

It wasn't hot dice, though...it was tactics that won them the day. I remember the orcs being largely neutralized so that the pcs could deal with them more or less one at a time, and also the pcs were attacking from surprise. I'll disagree that the law of averages would result in more losses.

However, I'd agree with the claim that this wasn't a "standard" encounter of "you see a bunch of orcs and they see you, roll init"....the players were able to control the encounter quite well. As such, it may not compare to prior editions.

I am saying, though, that it wasn't impossible for them, nor was it even particularly challenging when they used good tactics.

Re: Point buy. That's not quite what I'm asking. If you actually calculated the point buy value of the die rolled characters, I'm going to take a stab here and guess they'd probably come out to about 35-40 points given that you're using a pretty generous generation method.

That, right there, bumps the party level about 1-2. 6 PC's is worth at least a level, mostly because of the number of actions per round.

Like I said, if you run this encounter ten times, you should be getting a TPK about half the time. Heck, with that many attacks by the orcs, I should be getting a crit just about every round considering I crit on an 18-20 (presuming standard MM orcs). 4d4+8 damage outright kills 1st level characters.

I'm guessing that the ambush spell managed to catch all the orcs, who happened to all be bunched up in a close enough area, while missing all the PC's. Combine that with some poor saving throws (or lucky saving throws depending on your point of view) and the party comes out smelling like roses.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well a well placed Entangle can win you fights you should have no right to win If those orcs managed to get into melee range in full or even half force it could have turned out very differently.

 

[Hussar]

Granted this is TOTALLY off topic, but, one thing I really liked in 3e was the innovation of CR. I found that it really was an excellent tool. OTOH, the assumptions that go into calculating CR are pretty narrow (4 PC's, certain point buy value, certain wealth level, etc) and there wasn't enough done to show how changing those assumptions interacted with the CR guidelines.

I really think they should have added a page or two in the encounter design section that really drilled down into the nuts and bolts of how CR works.

 

[BenBrown]

I really think they should have added a page or two in the encounter design section that really drilled down into the nuts and bolts of how CR works.

I'm not entirely convinced that they knew. There are enough CRs that seem so totally out of whack, that it looks to me like they were eyeballing it.