Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 3617947" data-attributes="member: 13892">Well, I meant &quot;true conversion&quot; in the sense of changing rules from one system to work in another. You know. . . uhm. . . converting them. What some folks see as &quot;conversion from&quot;, I see more as &quot;proprietary system modification&quot; for the following reasons: 1. If you're simply ignoring the rules of System X in favor of the rules that already exist in C&amp;C or BFRPG, you're not actually converting much of anything. You're just nabbing some fluff and grafting it onto another, already existant, system. 2. If you're porting in rules from System X to C&amp;C or BFRPG without altering them, again, you're not doing much actual conversion. You're simply adding new rules to an already existant framework (i.e., you're modifying the existing system, rather than converting something to it).&nbsp; I think the sum total of actual conversion that occurs when porting things to C&amp;C (or BFRPG) tends to come in the form of recalculating AC from older editions of D&amp;D/AD&amp;D. Most of the current crop of d20 products don't require any conversion to be used with either system, so much as both systems require external modification (i.e., both C&amp;C and BFRPG require you to bolt on options from full-blown d20 in order to use said options).So, in that light, systems like C&amp;C or BFRPG are extremely easy to modify (i.e., house rule) but the actual conversion of mechanics from other systems isn't explicitly (or implicitly) supported by either game. It's more about adding options wholesale to the systems in question, rather than mechanically altering options from other games to make them work in either system.Granted, this is a rather minor distinction, though an important one where certain play preferences are concerned.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 3617947, member: 13892"] Well, I meant "true conversion" in the sense of changing rules from one system to work in another. You know. . . uhm. . . converting them. What some folks see as "conversion from", I see more as "proprietary system modification" for the following reasons: 1. If you're simply ignoring the rules of System X in favor of the rules that already exist in C&C or BFRPG, you're not actually [i]converting[/i] much of anything. You're just nabbing some fluff and grafting it onto another, already existant, system. 2. If you're porting in rules from System X to C&C or BFRPG without altering them, again, you're not doing much actual [i]conversion[/i]. You're simply adding new rules to an already existant framework (i.e., you're modifying the existing system, rather than converting something to it). I think the sum total of actual [i]conversion[/i] that occurs when porting things to C&C (or BFRPG) tends to come in the form of recalculating AC from older editions of D&D/AD&D. Most of the current crop of d20 products don't require any [i]conversion[/i] to be used with either system, so much as both systems require external modification (i.e., both C&C and BFRPG require you to bolt on options from full-blown d20 in order to use said options). So, in that light, systems like C&C or BFRPG are extremely easy to modify (i.e., house rule) but the actual conversion of mechanics from other systems isn't explicitly (or implicitly) supported by either game. It's more about adding options wholesale to the systems in question, rather than mechanically altering options from other games to make them work in either system. Granted, this is a rather minor distinction, though an important one where certain play preferences are concerned. [/QUOTE]

Verification