Question: how much extra effort would it really take to write modules supporting multiple systems?

[Calthropstu]

I published ZEITGEIST in both 4e and PF, with me writing about 2/3 of the adventures in 4e first (and then it was converted to PF), with the other 1/3 written in PF first (and then converted to 4e).

The conversions always had trouble in tiny ways. First, like, Pathfinder monsters were f'ing boring. It's just how 3.5/PF/5e is built. Monsters suck. They don't do anything interesting. 4e monsters had much more interesting tactics.

Second, PF magic was so much more flexible. If wrote an adventure in 4e, my PF conversion guy would remind me gently that, um, the PF PCs would be using scrying, teleportation, divinations, passwall, etc etc etc. A lot of plots had to be rejiggered to make sure interesting scenarios in 4e didn't get solved trivially by PF spells.

Third, 4e didn't differentiate between magic and non-magic, and there weren't 'spell components.' In one adventure, the PF author wrote that the villains cast silence to sneak up and prevent the PCs from casting spells. Well, that just doesn't matter in 4e.

So yeah, it's not easy. PF2 to 4e might work. 5e to PF1 might work.

Not sure what you mean pf monsters were boring. I can pull a dozen different monsters and make each a completely different fight. At high levels things can get absurd. I put 4 derghodarmons and 1 phasmadaemon inside a complete illusionary fortress. Completely wrecked a 16th level party. Fear, illusions, mind affecting, shapeshifting, beatsticks, summoning, teleportation... monsters in pf have the widest array of abilities of any d20 system.


So I don't see it. But regardless, I DO see what you are saying about abilities in one system trivializing an encounter that would challenge another system's party. Or conversely overwhelm them.

And I agree such power disparities need addressing. But the systems themselves provide such tools for a good bit of it. For example, I expect a pf/3.5 character to fight a pf/3.5 demon. While a 4e/5e character or gurps character to battle a 5e/4e demon or gurps demon. So the abilities should be comparible vs the creatures. Granted, it takes more system mastery than mere monster conversions or bestiary entries. But I suspect such challenges can be addressed in system.

 

[RangerWickett]

Not sure what you mean pf monsters were boring.

What does a dragon do in PF? It stands in one place and full attacks. To do anything else is to misuse its action economy. Yes, I've made a dragon that used flyby attack and dropped large objects on the PCs, but meanwhile the party archer was dealing more damage . . . by standing in one place and full attacking.

What does a marillith do in PF? It stands in one places and full attacks. Yes, I made a marillith swashbuckler/shadowdancer with quicken spell-like ability so she could full attack and then teleport away, hide in plain sight to sneak up, then get another full attack. But that was me making an effort to build something engaging.

Troll? Stand in one place and full attack. I had my trolls grapple and try to drown PCs because that was dramatic, but it was less efficient than dealing damage.

I tried to build a high level spellcaster. Most of the spells were either a) "do a lot of damage, or less damage on a successful save" or b) "keep a player from doing anything for multiple turns, or do nothing at all on a successful save."

I mean, 5e is the same way. You win fights by doing HP damage, and the game makes you deal less damage if you want to try to do anything like impose a negative condition or create a challenging hazard, so usually you just want to deal damage. About the only exception to this is monsters that grab when they hit. Nearly every magical effect that has a negative condition can take you out of a fight completely, and has no counterplay other than "I hope I roll high on my saving throw."

 

[RangerWickett]

PF2 is a bit better, but it still foolishly lets you use multiple actions to make multiple attacks. It's more interesting to say you get movement and two actions, no more than one of which can deal damage. Then you're forced to use your other action to do something interesting that changes the dynamic of the encounter.

 

[Staffan]

PF2 is a bit better, but it still foolishly lets you use multiple actions to make multiple attacks. It's more interesting to say you get movement and two actions, no more than one of which can deal damage. Then you're forced to use your other action to do something interesting that changes the dynamic of the encounter.

PF2 does have diminishing returns on multiple attacks, though. A third attack is almost never worth it, and a second only sometimes.

There are quite a few PF2 monsters with some version of a three-action routine that is really devastating, but usually not in the form of just making three attacks. For example, if a Dire Wolf hits you with its jaws it can spend an action to Grab you, and then another action to Worry (shaking you in its teeth, dealing more damage). That means that if you're fighting a dire wolf, it's probably a good idea not to end your turn next to it.

 

[Calthropstu]

What does a dragon do in PF? It stands in one place and full attacks. To do anything else is to misuse its action economy. Yes, I've made a dragon that used flyby attack and dropped large objects on the PCs, but meanwhile the party archer was dealing more damage . . . by standing in one place and full attacking.

What does a marillith do in PF? It stands in one places and full attacks. Yes, I made a marillith swashbuckler/shadowdancer with quicken spell-like ability so she could full attack and then teleport away, hide in plain sight to sneak up, then get another full attack. But that was me making an effort to build something engaging.

Troll? Stand in one place and full attack. I had my trolls grapple and try to drown PCs because that was dramatic, but it was less efficient than dealing damage.

I tried to build a high level spellcaster. Most of the spells were either a) "do a lot of damage, or less damage on a successful save" or b) "keep a player from doing anything for multiple turns, or do nothing at all on a successful save."

I mean, 5e is the same way. You win fights by doing HP damage, and the game makes you deal less damage if you want to try to do anything like impose a negative condition or create a challenging hazard, so usually you just want to deal damage. About the only exception to this is monsters that grab when they hit. Nearly every magical effect that has a negative condition can take you out of a fight completely, and has no counterplay other than "I hope I roll high on my saving throw."

See, there's your problem. "I throw trolls at the party." "I throw a dragon at the party." "I throw a group of wyverns at the party."

Instead, try something like this:
I throw a group of goblins supporting a troll at the party. 6 goblins + 1 troll. The troll moves to engage the party while the goblins snipe any spellcaster who attempts to cast. A goblin shaman either heals the troll or harasses the party. A party works by bouncing abilities off each other to make everyone stronger. If you threw a single troll against a single fighter, you'd get something boring. "I attack, he attacks. I attack, he attacks." But by combining it with a few goblins, the spellcaster is now making concentration checks, the cleric is being countered by the shaman and the troll is tanking the fighter. Same with npc enemies. One of my favorite tactics is to use a pair of burly knockback builds backed by a wizard casting black tentacles. It's devastating on mid level characters, and every party has used different tactics to counter. The encounter with 4x derghodaemons and a phasmadaemon was especially brutal. No one had prepared true sight. So they tried to land on the fortress. Which was an illusion. When they jumped from their griffons and fell through the ceiling it was hilarious. Then they suddenly had to start making derghodaemon will saves. x4. With prismatic sprays hitting them.

I have made some extremely effective (and logical) monster combinations. I've employed hit and run tactics. I once made a dragon turtle cleric who kept attacking a ship, fleeing, healing and coming back. I also once hid a pixie healer slave in a giant's pocket. If your PF experience is "full attack, full attack, flank for +2 full attack..." then yeah. But experienced gms have some serious firepower to work with which challenge the PCs to get seriously creative.

 

[aco175]

Why would I want to buy something written for several systems? I mean, you can have a great idea for a module and have a story that works for multiple systems, but I only want to buy one of them. If I want a 5e adventure, I do not want to flip through stats and paragraphs for other games. It would be better for me to have the story overlapped onto each system instead and then I only need part of it.

I have seen some kickstarters with options to buy and you check if you want 5e or PF. I would be more willing to purchase something like this over something that I feel is just watered down to try and please everyone or sell more copies.

 

[AtomicPope]

Who is going to buy it?

When you're making a product you need to have an audience in mind. Even if you're making an adventure for your friends, your audience is still your friends. The problem with a multi-edition module is the audience. Who is it for? Everyone? I don't think so. Modules have level ranges. The impact of levels are not the same across editions or systems. Can we have different level ranges? Let's complicate this even more.

System Mechanics Steer the Narrative - there's a lot of talk recently about the reward system and feedback loop of 5e mechanics. The reward system drives player choice, as does the system mechanics. Interaction with the world is governed by those mechanics. What is easy on one system is hard or even impossible in another. This is intention because it steers the narrative.

People often say, "It's hard to die in 5e." That's a heroic style of play where you're less likely to die from a Goblin than you are from a Dragon's breath weapon. PF games are designed around their hit point/death parameters and 5e is designed around theirs. Generic Goblins got WAY more effective in 5e than they ever were before, yet it's still harder for Goblins to kill a PC in 5e than it is in AD&D. How can you design a module that reconciles these differences?

I think it would be easier, and in my opinion better for the community, if modules were designed with encounter flexibility as part of the design. What I mean is the standard module is 4 players with 1PC each at X level. Why not have a small section at the end that shows what monsters to add if there's an extra PC or an extra level? This would be WAY more helpful, expecially in something like the Starter Set where you'll often have a larger group because there are lots of people who want to try it out, who later break off and form their own groups.

 

[Blue]

Stat blocks are really the tip of the iceberg.

Okay, let's assume all of the systems support the concept of an adventure in the same way - you won't be publishing something for a PbtA or FitD adventure the same way you would a D&D adventure. Dungeon World and D&D 3.5 both can do epic fantasy - that doesn't mean a published adventure would have a lot of common ground.

You need to account for different systems in terms of attrition (and in D&D-like system, length of adventuring day).

You need to account for varying out-of-combat capability between systems - if you need to cross a gorge on a untrustworthy bridge, and one system has skill checks that are very swingy, another has easy access to flight, and a third is tight but has a very large gap between characters who are good at this and those that aren't.

Combine things like 4e encounter design, which is designed to be tactical and is missing a trick if the terrain isn't interesting and likely has hazards, vs. systems that are more theater of the mind.

Consider areas that need to be designed around for each of the games you are creating for, like PF2 where unplanned reinforcements that would make up another encounter can spell TPK so you have to design that not to happen.

 

[amethal]

See, there's your problem. "I throw trolls at the party." "I throw a dragon at the party." "I throw a group of wyverns at the party."

I've never played 4th edition, but I think this highlights a problem with converting adventures between systems. I assume that a group of trolls, or a dragon, can provide an interesting and varied encounter in 4th edition, but not in Pathfinder. (Or at least not so easily in Pathfinder - the dragon does have options like Vital Strike, Fly-by-Attack and maybe Awesome Blow, and maybe some interesting minor spellcasting, but they are hidden in the stat block and you need to know what they do, and whether they can be used together or nor.)

So if I'm in the market for a Pathfinder adventure, I'd prefer to buy one that was actually written for Pathfinder (rather than a conversion or a multiple-system module) since it was designed with that system in mind, so will have encounters Pathfinder is good at rather than encounters that work well in <some other system>.

I also find conversions quite jarring, especially when it is clear the encounter has been lovingly crafted for system X and has what seems to be a minimum effort conversion to system Y.

The first adventure in Zeitgeist, Island at the Axis of the World, is a fine example of a well-thought out 4th edition adventure that seemingly had a quick conversion to Pathfinder. (I say "seemingly" because I suspect that actually a lot of hard work went into converting the stat blocks, coming up with custom NPCs and monsters etc. and this was very well done.)

However, there are lots of "strange" references that make no sense in a Pathfinder context. (These are all from memory, so apologies if I get some of the details wrong.) Half Elven grooming rituals? Making a point of mentioning that a wizard wields a gold orb. Some monsters changing tactics when they get "bloodied". Someone helping out his friends with "a series of leaps and jumps" but not having any ranks in Acrobatics? I think there were other references to rituals as well. None of this impacts on my ability to run the adventure - but it might have, and gives me something additional to think about, which as a Pathfinder GM running a complex adventure, that's not something I need.

(And it could have impacted on the adventure - I read a 5th edition adventure where the body of a shark-like humanoid is found; later these turn out to be sahuagin, which have an affinity for sharks but don't much look like them. Turns out this is a conversion of a Pathfinder adventure featuring Adaro, which are shark-human hybrids but don't appear in D&D.)

 

[aco175]

I wonder if an encounter can be made for different systems with a generic, "Hard encounter with goblins and a troll" tag. Or maybe with a line saying if you are playing 5e you need 4 goblins and 1 troll and if you are playing PF you need 2 trolls and 2 goblins. This still leaves it choppy and a lot of additional words per page that I'm not using.

I'm also one of those DMs that like to have the statblocks printed out per fight like 4e had, so if you were to print out many pages of non-usable statblocks I do not need, it would not enhance the book. Also, if I needed to gather and print out each encounter statblocks I may not like it better.

Not sure if a good place to look is the Goodman Games conversions from 1e to 5e where they include the original and you can see how different they are and give you ideas.