Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8040706" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Another thread had me pondering a notion that I usually take for granted; the compatibility (I will use that term, but more precisely I thinking about interoperability) of the older TSR D&D Systems. One thing that might be helpful for people is some quick definitions of the various acronyms that I, and others, use:[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-brief-glossary-of-acronyms-and-d-d-terms.673299/[/URL]Many older gamers, such as myself, think of compatibility of older TSR systems in terms of the ability to go from a D&D System to a non-D&D System; famously, the 1e DMG had rules for converting characters between Gamma World, Boot Hill, and D&D. This was due to the concept espoused by Gygax (and followed by some) that characters would be able to engage in various adventures in the multiverse- in different primes. Underlying this was a concept that I had never thought about, because it was so basic and assumed when I was playing that it was not even discussed. Specifically, the various "branches" of D&D are all compatible. More specifically-OD&D, Moldvay, B/X, BECMI, 1e, and 2e are all fundamentally compatible (interoperable).At a very basic level, the entire line of D&D products from TSR is the same game. I don't mean that some details aren't different. And they can be major; obviously, the Moldvay Basic split (race as class, otherwise referred to as "Basic") has some key differences. And the gradual accretion of rules over time made the play experience of late 2e wildly different from that of 1975 OD&D....and yet, all of these games are fundamentally the same. They are all interoperable. Perhaps the best, and easiest, example of this is B2 (Keep on the Borderlands). B2 was originally written for OD&D (Holmes). But the module shipped with Basic (Moldvay). The module was so ubiquitous, that it was commonly run as an introductory adventure for 1e characters; and became so entrenched as a "popular trope" that it continued to be run well into the 2e era.All of this is to say that while there are numerous small differences over time, the entire structure of all of the D&D systems from 1974 through 2000 is so similar, so based on a common core, that the materials made for them are easily used without any adaptation.This doesn't mean that things did not change; obviously, a 1e UA character (or a 2e Kit character) would be much more powerful than an OD&D character. But because these systems didn't use "CR" or other balancing material, this wasn't really seen as a problem (just add or subtract an ogre).That is why 3e is the first "big break" in that lineage. 3e, at a very basic level, is not fundamentally compatible with the systems that came before; it does require extensive conversion and adaptation. As does 4e. Which comes around to 5e. One of the strengths of 5e is the way in which it both takes some of the mechanical and play improvements of 3e and 4e while still hearkening back to the TSR lineage of the game. It is possible to run B/X and 1e modules in 5e "on the fly" if you're comfortable with an assumed save/ability conversion, or with a minimum of prep work.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?</blockquote>

Verification