ORC ENVOY: A proposal for an inter-system conversion site, a conversion app, and inter-company coöperation for ORC systems

[Dungeonosophy]

How would you do conversions between, say, Microscope and Pathfinder?

Good question. Yes, in the future I'm portraying, there could very well be a Microscope-Pathfinder conversion. A tiny-tiny RPG company (Lame Mage Productions) co-operating with a big RPG company (Paizo). Because I'm proposing an economically feasible way of supporting all of the "species" in the Open-allied ecosystem.

I haven't played or read Microscope, but looking at some explanatory webpages about it...

Microscope RPG » Lame Mage Productions

Microscope

Microscope is a diceless, GMless role-playing game by Ben Robbins. It was published in 2011 by Robbins' own imprint, Lame Mage Productions. In Microscope, players use index cards to create the history of a fictional universe. The timeline of this history is built up non-chronologically...

rpgmuseum.fandom.com

Review of Microscope - RPGnet RPG Game Index

...As far as I can tell, there are no pre-defined ancestries or classes, or even an implied setting in Microscope. The Microscope game is basically (AFAIK) a co-creative world creation session + world-ending session + storytelling session, by using symbols on index cards.

However, I see there are a couple of expansion products, which presumably provide some distinct modes of "play" (e.g. jumping around through time-travel), resulting in different results.

In the future I'm envisioning, there'd be a customary royalty and "conversion guidelines" that an existing Open-allied RPG company could use to convert the Pathfinder/Golarion worldbook (and setting sourcebooks and adventures) to its own system. And vice versa.

So Lame Mage Productions would just set up the royalty scheme on DriveThruRPG, use the Pathfinder Community Art packet, and make the Microscope version of the Golarion/Pathfinder/Lost Omens worldbook.

Basically, the Microscope version would use Pathfinder art on the cards. And Pathfinder symbols for the creative prompts. And whatever world-shaping guidelines there are would be about making the beginning and end of Golarion, with stories in between. (Each play session would of course create and destroy an alternate timeline of Golarion.)

There ya go. Ya didn't start me off with an easy one!

 

[Dungeonosophy]

How would you implement these cross-system conversions?

Say you have a 10th-level fighter in 4E D&D, with various exploits: Cleave, Tide of Iron, Steel Serpent Strike, etc. How would your app go about converting that fighter to 5E D&D?

I love this question.
Well, I grew up with BECMI, 1E, 2E, and Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Then played 3E and 5E.
I remember most or all of these editions had official inter-edition conversion documents or appendices.

Here's two versions of official 5E conversion documentation (2015 and 2016). They say that they apply to all previous editions (including 4E):

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DnD-Conversions.pdf

So, these official documents would serve as the basis for your question of converting 4E to 5E.

As for level:

"For fourth edition characters, fifth edition level is two-thirds
of fourth edition level, rounded normally instead of always
down. For example, 25th level in fourth edition becomes
17th level in fifth edition."

So, your 4E 10th-level Fighter is, in the 5E reality, officially a 5E 7th-level Fighter (6.67 rounded normally).

As for the Exploits you mention, the official 5E conversion doc says this:

"In the conversion process, feats from third and fourth edition should usually be ignored, because feats in fifth edition have a very different place in the game than the feats did in those two editions. Feats in fifth edition can make a character concept come
to life outside the race and class structures. Give the fifth edition feats a look if you feel your character lacks a needed
aspect after you convert race and class."

As for the subclass, the 5E conversion doc says this:

"Choose the fifth edition class that most closely matches
your character’s class (or classes, if your character has
more than one). Alternatively, choose the class that most
closely matches how you’d like your character to be in the
game’s narrative.
Don’t feel constrained by your character’s original class
or classes. For example, you might decide that warlock
or sorcerer is a better fit for your magic-user’s story than
wizard. Similarly, you are free to decide that fifth edition’s
paladin class or a cleric of the War domain better expresses
your fighter/cleric than multiclassing ... [etc.]"

All this to say, if those Exploits are essential to your character concept, then you'd probably go with Battle Master features that best model those. (I haven't looked into the specifics, but ya know what I mean.)

So...hardly any conversion would be fully automatic. Most would involve a series of questions, offering various reasonable choices, all of which would abide by the "official" conversion principles crafted by each company.

Well, in the case of "cloned" editions of D&D, WOTC wouldn't be offering official conversion documents...but their conversion docs could be "cloned" as well!

In the spirit of ENVOY, all previous RPG official conversion documents could be gathered. And in this ORC/ENVOY/Open ecosystem I'm envisioning, more and more companies would be issuing official conversions between every Open RPG system under the sun (large and small), and hyperlinking those equivalent feature to each other on the SRDs archive site, and producing cross-statted setting/adventure products.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

1) (Somebody!) offer a website which contains all of the ORC-Licensed SRDs.

Of everything you've said in this thread, this is the only thing that really makes any sense.

You use the word "culture" to describe the group of companies using the ORC license, but you're assuming that this will create a culture of common and compatible games, but that's not correct. Rallying around an open license creates a culture of common and compatible business practices. It means that if one company produces a game that's super innovative and neat, one of the other companies could, if they want, create a derivative game, or third-party content. But two games being released under the ORC will in no way make the games similar, compatible or convertible in any way.

That last point is why I chose Microscope and Pathfinder as my examples. Those games aren't just apples and oranges, they're apples and orangutans. Those games are so different, there is no conceivable way to have any sort of "conversion" between them, let alone having a computer do it. Microscope doesn't have the concept of a "fighter", let alone classes, subclasses, races, feats, stats, abilities, levels, or any of that. And if we go the other way, how would we "convert" Microscope's periods, events, scenes and tone to Pathfinder? Do these concepts even exist in the Pathfinder rule book? It's kind of a nonsense question.

But both games are published as books, which are subject to copyright, and could be potentially licensed under the ORC.

Now, back to the idea of conversions, where they're even possible. You could play a game in Golarion using any of the rule systems you've listed (Savage Worlds, Fate, Cypher, etc.). However, any individual "conversion" where you port one setting to a new rules system represents a significant amount of game design work. It's not some mechanical procedure like converting between metric and imperial units. The idea of an app that could do this for arbitrary games is just not in the cards.

 

[Matt Thomason]

3) I propose a conversion app which uses these equivalencies to convert characters back and forth between ORC systems. The ORC ENVOY app.

Consider me interested!

I would suggest a good starting point is to look at books that already do "universal" stats, such as Bruce Heard's excellent Calidar setting books, which have a universal stat system designed to convey all the necessary data for a creature/character/whatever and then a converter you use to get those stats into the system you're actually playing.

The only difference would be that this would also need a converter to convert each system to the "universal stat system" as well. (Which avoids having to have numerous converters to take every possible system to every other possible system)

The main complication is coming up with that intermediate "universal stat" format which can hold all of the data you'll potentially get from all those assorted systems. It'd certainly be an interesting problem to figure out, and likely one that's ever-expanding as new systems are added which introduce concepts there's not a place to store.

 

[bedir than]

100s of the ORC signees don't produce fantasy games.

Asking for this is like asking for Amber Diceless, Synnibar and D&D to all have conversion documents.

 

[Alzrius]

Here's two versions of official 5E conversion documentation (2015 and 2016). They say that they apply to all previous editions (including 4E):

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_Conversions_1.0.pdf

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/DnD-Conversions.pdf

So, these official documents would serve as the basis for your question of converting 4E to 5E.

Amusingly enough, from what I can tell the only differences between these two documents (besides the former being "Version 1.0" and copyright 2015, and the latter being "Version 1.01" and copyright 2016) is the third sentence under the "Quick Conversions" header, which changes this sentence...

Fourth edition adventures are usually amenable to quick conversion.

...to this:

Fourth edition adventures aren’t usually amenable to quick conversion.

Clearly, this was an important change which warranted an entirely new document!

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Of everything you've said in this thread, this is the only thing that really makes any sense.\

Why thank you. One out of four ain't bad!

You use the word "culture" to describe the group of companies using the ORC license,

I'm using the word "culture" to describe the 1500 companies who expressed interest in shaping the ORC License. And the thin but potent cultural zest expressed in the brief announcement which characterizes them (us) as the ORC Alliance. And potentially, yes, within a month or so, "the group of companies using the ORC License." So yes.

but you're assuming that this will create a culture of common and compatible games, but that's not correct.

In this thread I've never said anything about "Compatible" games. As you may know, in RPG markets, the term "Compatibility" refers to things like the Pathfinder Compatibility License. My post is not about "Compatibility"...it's about Conversion.

Rallying around an open license creates a culture of common and compatible business practices.

Yep. Exactly. A "rallying" is kid of zesty business culture. Hooray!

It means that if one company produces a game that's super innovative and neat, one of the other companies could, if they want, create a derivative game, or third-party content.

Yep, okay. That has nothing to do with my OP or this thread, but I can't argue with ye there!

But two games being released under the ORC will in no way make the games similar, compatible or convertible in any way.

Gotcha! We are on the same page here. Understood from Day One. Is there something I've said in the OP that makes you think I don't understand that?

I'll repeat...

After the ORC License is in place (probably by the beginning of March), I'm proposing that some or many ORC allies consider doing those four actions which I envision:

1) A shared ORC Content (SRDs) archive site.

2) Hyperlinks on the archive (similar to a Wikipedia article's various language versions) which connect each element within one system to the equivalent element in other systems (e.g. Elf ancestry, Warrior class, fireball spell, Horse stats, etc.). (For those games which cover the same genre! And which have somewhat correlative mechanics!)

3) A conversion app, which I call ENVOY or ORC ENVOY. (A project which would be helped by the existence of action #2.)

4) A fresh set of business practices which streamline and encourage the production of parallel-statted versions of many setting/adventure products, for many different RPG systems. Among and between large, medium, and small companies. Lifting all ships.

Those four action have nothing to do with the ORC License per se, except that the license is couched within a group of companies which have informally adopted a zesty name "ORC Alliance". And my proposal is relevant to one thing Eric Mona said in a recent interview (on Roll for Combat)...he said that after the ORC License is in place, then other forms of business cooperation could be considered.

I'm simply priming the pump, expressing what forms of business cooperation I'd like to see.

That last point is why I chose Microscope and Pathfinder as my examples. Those games aren't just apples and oranges, they're apples and orangutans. Those games are so different, there is no conceivable way to have any sort of "conversion" between them, let alone having a computer do it. Microscope doesn't have the concept of a "fighter", let alone classes, subclasses, races, feats, stats, abilities, levels, or any of that. And if we go the other way, how would we "convert" Microscope's periods, events, scenes and tone to Pathfinder? Do these concepts even exist in the Pathfinder rule book? It's kind of a nonsense question.

Oh, I thought you asked the question in good faith.
So I responded in good faith. Yes, a Golarion-themed version of Microscope could be done.

Okay, I will clarify that:

1) The conversion links would only be between elements that are from the same genre!
2) The conversion links would only be between systems that are mechanically capable of being converted!

(You rightly question whether Microscope has enough mechanics to be "convertible" with PF. All I can say is that a PF-branded version of Microscope could be made, with PF art and with Golarion serving as the framework for the story. The inter-company cooperation I envision in point #4 would enable even small indie systems to produce their own re-statted version of "big-company" worlds like Golarion and Ptolus. In a way that is mutually lucrative to both.)

Yet in my OP, I only refer to the systems housed at: Open Gaming Network | The Home of Open Gaming

All of the systems there which share the same genre could be included in the conversion initiative (i.e. hyperlinked pages lining up race/class equivalents, and inclusion in the conversion app).

Fantasy:

• 5E (but there are Sci-Fi, Modern, Supers, and Anime rules for 5E, produced by various companies, which could be included in the conversion matrix)
• Dungeon World
• 13th Age
• PF1/d20 (but there are also PF renditions of other genres, e.g. sci-fi)
• PF2
• Fudge (fantasy)
• FATE (fantasy)

Modern:

• Gumshoe (maybe there are other genres, but the skills look all "modern" to me)
• Fudge (modern)
• FATE (modern)

Supers:

• d20 Hero (i.e. MnM 3E) (Though, Green Ronin did convert MnM 2E to fantasy/Freeport in Wizards & Warlocks.)
• 4COLOR
• Fudge (supers)
• FATE (supers)

Anime:

• d20 Anime. (Certain subgenres of Anime probably model fantasy, modern, and sci-fi, though sometimes in a less granular way.)
• Fudge (anime)
• FATE (anime)

Sci-Fi:

• Traveller (but see also Worlds Apart and Cephus System for fantasy adaptations of Traveller)
• Mindjammer
• Starjammer
• Fudge (sci-fi)
• FATE (sci-fi)

But both games are published as books, which are subject to copyright, and could be potentially licensed under the ORC.

Okay sure. PF2 is certainly gonna be licensed under the ORC. I'm glad to hear a voice for Microscope joining ORC as well. Sounds great.

Now, back to the idea of conversions, where they're even possible. You could play a game in Golarion using any of the rule systems you've listed (Savage Worlds, Fate, Cypher, etc.).

True. Exactly.

However, any individual "conversion" where you port one setting to a new rules system represents a significant amount of game design work.

Well, that's one 'thesis' of my OP. That if more and more systems were presented on the Open Gaming archive in a way that their various equivalent features were "officially" lined up, and if an officially supported inter-company conversion app were to be developed, then some of this "conversion architecture" could become more and more robust and filled out, required much less labor-intensive work in the future.

For example, now that the core of Pathfinder/Golarion is translated into Savage Worlds, it's going to be a heck of a lot easier to convert PF adventures and sourcebooks into SW.

It's not some mechanical procedure like converting between metric and imperial units.

I've been proposing a mixed mechanical+question-based app. Some of the stuff can be automated. But much of it will revolve around questions for the player/GM, steering between various reasonable options, depending which aspect of the character the player wishes to emphasize in the new conversion.

The idea of an app that could do this for arbitrary games is just not in the cards.

I don't know what you mean by "arbitrary games." And I've never suggested that such an app yet exists, or is presently slated for production.

My OP is offering my vision for something which does not yet exist. A multi-system RPG conversion app. Which I call the ENVOY app, or ORC ENVOY app.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Asking for this is like asking for Amber Diceless, Synnibar and D&D to all have conversion documents.

Well, first things first. Such as PF2, 13th Age 2E, Savage Worlds, AGE, Cypher System, DCC, Black Flag 5E, C7d20, and A5E.

Then, yeah...bring on Amber Diceless and Synnibar. hehe

As for D&D conversion. Well, in what I'm proposing, there'd definitely be space for all of the D&D clones of all editions (OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, L&L, OSE, etc.) to participate in the ENVOY "conversion-o-pedia" and "conversion app."

OSE devoted a whole book to B/X conversions of AD&D elements (e.g. Illusionist class, etc.)