updates of older modules

[Mouseferatu]

I wonder how the new Tomb of Horrors by Ari Marmell is going to be?

Hey Mouseferatu, got any "this is what I was thinking as I worked on it" bits of interest to share?

Quite a bit, but I can't share most of it yet. I can say a few things, though.

First, make sure to carefully read the description of the new ToH in the catalog before you get any ideas locked in your head in terms of what the adventure is/contains.

Second, to address something that Crothian said...

Long modules I have noticed do have pacing issues in general. I usually run the short 32 pagers becasue we can get in and out easily and it doesn't have complexities that we aren't looking for. Maybe I'll have a thread about how to pace out a long module next.

I think the solution we came up with for ToH is a good middle ground, and it's something I'd love to see more "super-adventures" do. ToH isn't a single "play through from beginning to end" adventure. It's basically four smaller adventures with an ongoing plot, designed to be sprinkled throughout a campaign at different levels. So the PCs might first encounter Acererak's machinations at 10th level, and then not again until somewhere in the teens (though of course the DM is encouraged to drop hints between the two). So the ongoing plot winds in and out of the events of the campaign, slowly drawing the PCs more and more into--and letting them discover more and more about--Acererak's scheme.

Like any good remake, the spirit of the original has to be captured and that's where I feel most remakes fail.

While I have yet to work on any straight remakes--I've done quite a few "sequels/homages/inspired-by" kinds of modules, but not a direct conversion--I have to agree. It's far more important to get the feel/spirit/tone of the original than to get every single detail correct.

And it can be very difficult. Completely ignoring whether it's a good or bad thing, it's undeniable that the focus and presentation of the rules has changed over the course of the editions. Sometimes, that means that certain aspects of an older adventure simply do not translate well, no matter how loyal a writer is trying to be to the original conception.

I also think that this is one place where the delve format of the encounters actually works against us. See, I think the delve format is a brilliant means of showcasing encounters--it's an absolute dream for the DM to have all the info (monsters, terrain, suggested tactics, map, etc.) right there at his fingertips. When it comes to individual encounters, I have trouble thinking of a better presentation.

But, while the presentation is great on an encounter level, it causes some headaches (at least for me; I can't speak for other designers, of course) for the adventure as a whole, because it takes up so much space. Look how short some of the old classic modules are, like Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or White Plume Mountain. An adventure of the same length, written with the delve format, could include maybe a half-dozen total encounters. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that many of the old-fashioned encounters can be combined into a single larger one, but that only reduces the problem, rather than eliminate it.

What it boils down to is that--again, leaving aside whether it's for better or for worse--a delve-format module (be it 3.5, 4E, or whatever) cannot, by definition, include nearly as many encounters as a non-delve module. And that makes conversion of older material harder purely for reasons of space and intensity of labor. Whether the clarity and ease of encounters under the delve format makes up for that is entirely dependent on the personal tastes of a given DM.

 

[Kurtomatic]

I honestly don't see something like Revenge of the Giants figuring very much into a conversation about cross-editions remakes/conversions. RotG has no narrative connection to the G series. Its an homage in only the most general sense, and the similarities are pretty orthogonal. It certainly has its strong and weak points as an adventure, and since I'm adapting it currently in my personal game, a conversation about RotG is something I'm interested in. However, I don't think this adventure informs the topic of classic module conversions at all, which is another topic I'm very interested in.

As far as I am aware, the Village of Hommlet is the only WotC 4E conversion of an AD&D module. There are also WotC-released 4E conversion notes for a handful of very late 3.5 modules (DD1-3?).

I get the feeling the 4E Tomb of Horrors will be somewhere between a true conversion and Revenge of the Giants-style treatment, but still more of an homage than a remake.

 

[Dire Bare]

From my own experience, most (if not all) of WotC's conversions over the years (both 3E and 4E) aren't really conversions but new modules inspired by the original. I suppose the new RPGA award "Village of Hommlet" would be an exception to that, as it hews fairly close to the original.

So complaints about details seem silly to me. Whether different monsters are used or rooms/building layouts change are just details that are sometimes necessary to adapt an older style adventure to current game design. They certainly can impact the overall feel of a module, but to focus on them is silly, IMO.

As mentioned above by several folks, the important thing is how the overall feel evokes the original adventure. Like any series of endeavors, I think WotC has succeeded sometimes and succeeded-less-well at others (I don't really think they've truly failed, but it's all subjective).

I do somewhat understand some grognards anger at WotC choosing to update their favorite old modules. It's the same anger uberfans of any hobby/interest take when their memories are "remade" not to their liking. It's like the anger of some over the newer Star Wars movie prequels, while not remakes, they failed to evoke the original films for many.

But, as I tell my friends who rant over the Star Wars prequels . . . "Get over it!" Use your spare time to enjoy things you like and don't waste mental energy on things you don't. Lucas didn't do anything to you by creating the prequels and WotC didn't do anything to you by publishing "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" (or any other conversion).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I generally find that I prefer the original to the remake (or return to/inspired by). I'd rather that creative energy to be put into making "new classics" rather than yet another returning expedition to fill-in-the-classic-adventure-name. But I understand why it's done.

I thought the best of the remakes was Return to the Tomb of Horrors, not least because it included a reprint of the unaltered original adventure along with the new material.

 

[M.L. Martin]

There were a few remakes for 2E that haven't yet been mentioned: RM4 House of Strahd was a remake of I6 that could be played with either the younger 10th-level Strahd or the module or the older 16th-level Strahd of the campaign setting, with revised encounters for higher-level PCs taking on the higher-level version. The flavor text was revised somewhat (although they left the goofy puns in the crypts), and some extras were added, but it's largely the same module with RL mechanics and style. The RPGA version appears to only include the higher-level variants and doesn't have the rules for using the Tarokka deck in the fortune-telling scene.

The Return to White Plume Mountain was done in 1999 as part of the 25th Anniversary of TSR. They also did the Dragonlance Classics 15th Anniversary Edition, a reimagining of DL1-14 that may be one of the most radical redesigns they ever did, as it adds stats for a non-AD&D system (the late, lamented and underappreciated SAGA Rules System) and reworks most of the adventures and encounters to provide a more story-focused adventure that's a new take on the familiar story and include elements from across DL's subsequent history.

Margaret Weis Productions did a 3.5 revision of DL1-14 as well, as the three volumes Dragons of Autumn, Dragons of Winter and Dragons of Spring. I haven't read them, so I can't say how dramatically they depart from the originals--although I do know that they give guidelines for character archetypes so you can use original PCs and still get a lot of the same story mileage.

 

[Dire Bare]

I generally find that I prefer the original to the remake (or return to/inspired by). I'd rather that creative energy to be put into making "new classics" rather than yet another returning expedition to fill-in-the-classic-adventure-name. But I understand why it's done.

I thought the best of the remakes was Return to the Tomb of Horrors, not least because it included a reprint of the unaltered original adventure along with the new material.

Generally, I'd agree, but nostalgia is important to the D&D fanbase, myself included. Besides, most of the modules WotC releases are brand new, we've only had 2 "conversions/updates/inspired from" modules released so far, with "Tomb of Horrors" making a third.

 

[Jhaelen]

I generally find that I prefer the original to the remake (or return to/inspired by). I'd rather that creative energy to be put into making "new classics" rather than yet another returning expedition to fill-in-the-classic-adventure-name.

Indeed! Especially, since some of the classic originals aren't really that great when viewed with modern eyes -> see the thread about 'Temple of the Elemental Evil'.

Imho, the best 3e adventure was 'Red Hand of Doom' (or rather the best from WotC).

And the best 4e adventure so far? None, yet. I think 'Hammerfast' has the most important ingredients for a great adventure module, though. I'm also curious about the new HS1 module.

Since RHoD was released rather late into 3e, it's probably no wonder, there's not yet a really great modern classic for 4e.

 

[renau1g]

I think Red Hand of Doom was also WotC's best 3e adventure and I don't think it'd be that hard to convert to 4e personally.

I really, really hope that the can put out something of Paizo quality for 4e, their adventures are awesome. Ah well, to the conversion mobile!

 

[TheYeti1775]

I generally find that I prefer the original to the remake (or return to/inspired by). I'd rather that creative energy to be put into making "new classics" rather than yet another returning expedition to fill-in-the-classic-adventure-name. But I understand why it's done.

I thought the best of the remakes was Return to the Tomb of Horrors, not least because it included a reprint of the unaltered original adventure along with the new material.

Can't give ya Exp again yet.

I think that is a very good method to use when doing remakes of classics, or even Return to XXXXXX.

This in itself could boost sales just from I'm not going forward crowd as they will want the older module that is included with it. Considering most of those modules were quite short, I think the additional printing cost could be negibile (someone correct me if I'm wrong) if spread over the line.
Not saying a reprint of the rule books, only of adventures.

That's just the standpoint of someone that doesn't really buy 4E, but would consider buying adventures quite readily if that were to happen.

 

[Crothian]

I generally find that I prefer the original to the remake (or return to/inspired by).

I like to see the old things done in a new one. Once many people have gone through a module once there is not a lot of desire to do so again even with the classics. I like to take people through something similar but different and m,any times with the return to ones there is a passage of time so what happened before can be important and easily incorporated into the game.