D&D General The Interoperability of OD&D, Basic, AD&D, and (kinda) 5e

[see]

Obviously things changed some between TSR versions, but there's a reason why the original Encyclopedia Magica, Wizard's Spell Compendium, and Priest's Spell Compendium multi-volume sets were able to provide every magic item and spell that had been published for any TSR D&D for use in 2e games.

 

[ZeshinX]

What do you think?

1. Do you think that the old TSR D&D games are largely compatible?

2. What is your experience, if any, converting TSR material to 5e? 3e material? 4e material?

Aside from 1e/2e being, mostly, identical (with a minimum of conversion work needed), I'd say the various editions aren't so much compatible mechanically as they are conceptually. You can take an older module from previous editions and convert it to whichever edition you happen to be running it in, but I'd bet most would require some significant tweaking, the ease of which would depend greatly on the person's system mastery between the two (or more) systems. So, certainly doable, but requires a fair bit of knowledge. Of course, going from 1e -> 2e (or vice versa) requires little to no significant changes (though there are some gotchas of course). I can't speak to converting anything to or from 4e though, as I skipped it entirely (just wasn't my cup of tea).

I messed about with (somewhat) converting 2e's nonweapon proficiencies into 5e (as I find 5e's skill system and lack of any real progression there) a huge weakness of 5e. We (my group) tried it using just the 5e skills as they were, but it was ultimately limited by the small (compared to 1e/2e/3e/PF) number of available skills.

The basic approach was that each 5e class would receive a starting number of profs equal to the number they currently get (so the "choose X of the following skills). We then used the class groupings of 2e (Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Wizard) as a guide to determine nonweapon (skill) prof progression for each class. So you had Warrior (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger), Priest (Cleric, Druid, Monk), Rogue (Rogue, Bard), Wizard (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard). We ignored the grouping of what nonweapon profs could be taken by what class. The 2e progression didn't work so well (as Thieves/Bards were not the skill monkeys they have been since 3e), so we just used a universal progression of 1 new skill prof every 3 levels, so each class would earn 6 skills/profs over their career (3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th). With 18 skills and lots of tool profs to choose from, it worked well enough.

As we played we realized we really over-thought it initially. We didn't need to convert so much as just add a new skill/tool prof every 3 levels (of the player's choice to foster nifty character ideas). We eventually changed it to one new skill/tool prof every 4 levels (based on character level, not class level) to slow it down slightly and to foster a team effort approach to using skills/tools (some skills are still more useful for all to have than others). Even with backgrounds and subclasses and MC'ing adding possible new skill/tool profs, we've found this to work pretty darn well.

 

[Shiroiken]

There is quite a bit I disagree with about what you wrote, but this is something I wanted to pull out. While quality is a subjective issue, quantity isn’t.

There were far more AD&D adventures than BECMI ones.

If you combine both 1E and 2E as "AD&D," then you're correct. There were about 81 BECMI, 114 1E, and 111 2E. Interestingly there were a lot of 1E "adventures" that were just compilations of previous adventures (BECMI had a couple, but not many). If you take those out, 1E probably had a bit more than a hundred. I wouldn't consider these numbers to be "far more," although it was more than I recall (guess I happened to have more BECMI adventures).

 

[GreyLord]

1. I think TSR D&D from 1975-2000 was all compatible with each other. What people consider compatible now is far less compatible than the base systems of all those versions (OD&D to Core AD&D 2e). People find Pathfinder and 3.X compatible, and they have far more differences between each other than the old TSR games. People played and switched between modules and D&D forms all the time back then.

2. No, I don't consider TSR D&D 1985-2000 compatible with 3.X, 4e, or 5e today. One can change stats and other items, but nothing can be run as is and be compatible with the different versions. There are some that require more or less work if you want to run it for an another version (For example Castles and Crusades, though technically not D&D, is probably the easiest to run and convert 5e materials for, and as a crossover could be easier to convert Old D&D to as well. 3e and 5e are probably next in conversion, and then perhaps it is a tie between 3e and 5e to older D&D versions. 4e is probably the hardest to convert to any of the other versions).

 

[TheDelphian]

My experience comes mostly from converting 4th edition Gamma world, the 199 edition which was pre 3rd edition post 2nd for D&D to 5th edition D&D.

It really depends on what your design goal is. I went for things being mostly recognizable but trying to bring things more into balance. I did not make things balanced though to be honest, I was shooting for more balanced not balanced.

So my intent was the sort of things a new group of PC's exploring the world would be expected to handle the same challenges. A Starting group fighting a group or Arks or Badders, a mid level group facing Serfs, and a high level group fighting big robots or a thunder lizard.

Systems very seldom are compatible but I think it is a more important matter of do the things I encounter seem reasonable. In keep on the borderlands do I expect my first through say 3rd level group to fight and survive the same against the same opposition. Can 1st level characters cut it in the kobold caverns. Sure lots of stuff would have to change but does so much change that it is no longer the same D&D or the same Keep on Borderlands.

I actually did the same conversion to 3.5 as well from same base. It was actually much harder just because of 3.5 complexity. So much interaction and cascade of effects. adding 2 Str to something effected so many things. 5th was a lot easier. I managed to hold to Bounded accuracy with the conversion though the range is bigger,for example a starting character in 5th is expected to have a +4-+5 to hit at 1st and a +10 - +12 or so at 20th at their main thing magic or weapon. IN my conversion that is more like +5-+6 up to +12 - +14 but still bounded somewhat. Everything is inched up accordingly. More Monsters with 16-20 Ac's and such. Hit point inflation is a little more but so is artifact damage.

But over all compatibility me is more about feel, impression and experience then how much numbers match or other factors.

I have wanted to post my GW conversion but then the whole racial issue occurred and I just didn't want to compete with the current much more serious discussions and issues that abound on the boards lately.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've run 2nd e modules in 3e, and I've run them in 5e, and it's far easier to convert to 5e than it is to 3e. I'm guessing it's... half the work? Maybe even less?

The main two things to remember is to have less magical item as treasure (SO MUCH TREASURE) but also that swarms of weak enemies are far more dangerous in 5e, with a goblin having +4 to hit instead of a thaco of 0 (ie +0 to hit), as an example.

Lastly, there is also an intriguing possibility that more than one set of rules are operating within the same world.... Super-heroes run 3.X or 5e, more "normal" heroes run B/X, and grubby ones run the GLOG.... The Goblin Conspiracy

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.