Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GregoryOatmeal" data-source="post: 5695953" data-attributes="member: 6667661">You would need to spend additional time, but I think this is overestimating the difficulty of translation. If you play-test and fine-tune each version to perfection, well, that would exponentially add cost. But you would also be adding value to the product so it appeals to more demographics, increasing sales. It's about hitting that balance.And 1E and 2E seemed pretty unbalanced and poorly thought out at times, so why not continue that tradition? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />4E is where this gets tricky. It's pretty obvious you can't turn a plot-thin, layer cake dungeon like Keep on the Borderlands into a fun 4E module without seriously reworking it. Your assumption is that adventures are tailor-made for their editions, which I suspect isn't true in every case. For example Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows may have looked good as mindless 3.5 dungeon crawls. However they're such slogs in 4E that I found them to be unplayable. I suspect the designers were still trying to design for an old edition and didn't really understand the beast they were working with. As 3.5 modules with faster combats I can see them being more enjoyable. I don't think most modules were tailor-made for editions. Besides the writing, art style, and combat mechanics I can't see anything about the original Ravenloft that was innately 1E and couldn't be directly translated into anything besides 4E.Generally speaking translation from 1E to 2E to 3.5 to PF and C&amp;C should be pretty minimal. Going from pre-4E to 4E is extremely problematic. Going from 4E backwards requires redesign but is certainly doable (but also open up sales potential to new demographics)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GregoryOatmeal, post: 5695953, member: 6667661"] You would need to spend additional time, but I think this is overestimating the difficulty of translation. If you play-test and fine-tune each version to perfection, well, that would exponentially add cost. But you would also be adding value to the product so it appeals to more demographics, increasing sales. It's about hitting that balance. And 1E and 2E seemed pretty unbalanced and poorly thought out at times, so why not continue that tradition? :) 4E is where this gets tricky. It's pretty obvious you can't turn a plot-thin, layer cake dungeon like Keep on the Borderlands into a fun 4E module without seriously reworking it. Your assumption is that adventures are tailor-made for their editions, which I suspect isn't true in every case. For example Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows may have looked good as mindless 3.5 dungeon crawls. However they're such slogs in 4E that I found them to be unplayable. I suspect the designers were still trying to design for an old edition and didn't really understand the beast they were working with. As 3.5 modules with faster combats I can see them being more enjoyable. I don't think most modules were tailor-made for editions. Besides the writing, art style, and combat mechanics I can't see anything about the original Ravenloft that was innately 1E and couldn't be directly translated into anything besides 4E. Generally speaking translation from 1E to 2E to 3.5 to PF and C&C should be pretty minimal. Going from pre-4E to 4E is extremely problematic. Going from 4E backwards requires redesign but is certainly doable (but also open up sales potential to new demographics) [/QUOTE]

Verification