PDA

View Full Version : Is Version-Jumping a viable campaign idea?



OMG PONIES
2009-06-12, 04:58 PM
So, I'm not trying to start a flamewar or discuss the differences of each iteration of D&D, but what does the Playground think of this as the starting point for a campaign idea:

A rugged team of adventurers with the mission to find and defeat a big bad guy who is playing with the rules of time and space. Now, instead of the usual BBEG who does so with violence or magic, what about a bad guy who actually changes the mechanics of the way the world works?

I envision the characters going through portals to change editions as the campaign progresses, using all current versions (and not necessarily in order).

While such character creation (and re-creation) might usually be tedious, right now we're in the habit of stringing together one-shot nights, so we're used to making a new character for each session.

So what do you all think? Interesting? Boring? Fun in theory but tedious in practice? A flamewar waiting to happen?

Hat-Trick
2009-06-12, 05:00 PM
Interesting, but time consuming, although you seem to be used to the time consuming part.

daggaz
2009-06-12, 05:02 PM
I would spend a few days doing up all the different versions of the characters together, but dont tell the players exactly why (tho they will probably get the hint).. That way everything is ready before hand. Also have the BBEG and his main stooges, as well as other important NPCs statted out as well.

Moose Fisher
2009-06-12, 05:02 PM
You could predesign characters for each version, it also allows you to keep track of the player's capabilities.

The changing editions of D&D have always been implemented in some way in the Forgotten Realms. I think there was a module where Vecna invades Sigil, which results in the Lady of Pain changing how the universe works (2e to 3e)

potatocubed
2009-06-12, 05:52 PM
That module would be Die, Vecna, Die.

Personally, I think that's a great idea and I may well steal it for my own games. Just be aware that some things really don't translate well between editions.

shadzar
2009-06-12, 05:59 PM
Create and update the characters for each edition, and you should be fine....

Just make sure to keep track of things like resources spend, so you know how many if left of something when you flip from edition with, to edition without, to edition with, this thing.

So one edition you may have full plate, and the next you have only half plate because of how the systems work. :smallbiggrin:

Wands of CLW disappear when going to editions without them, and would reappear for editions with them.

KIDS
2009-06-12, 06:23 PM
In theory it might be a good idea, but my only experience with it was when the GM invented some silly excuse to put 4E characters with a bunch of 3E ones and most of the session passed in debate about whether the good wizard character would count as neutral or chaotic good for the purpose of some spell and how to convert a fortitude save for save or die effect. Big failure :(

The problem, I think, is that if it is too subtle, no one will notice. And on the other hand, if it is not subtle enough, it will feel ridiculous. The line is much thinner than usual.

yilduz
2009-06-12, 06:24 PM
I think it would be an awesome idea.

Maybe you could do it by having the players make their character for each edition you'll be using. Every time they level up, they level up each version of their character, but only use the version for the world they're in at the time. I think that way would make for more initial start up time, but would make things smoother in the long run.

It's definitely something I'd be willing to try.

MickJay
2009-06-12, 06:34 PM
Could be fun, I remember how much fun a simple substitution of mental stats for physical, and vice versa, can be (not D&D, though). Changing laws of the whole world might be even better, if done well :smallwink:

Dagren
2009-06-12, 07:26 PM
...and how to convert a fortitude save for save or die effect. Big failure :(How do you argue about that? The way I understood it they are mathematically equivalent! Have I missed something here? :smallconfused:

valadil
2009-06-12, 08:54 PM
I've considered it, but never found a good enough in game justification for it.

You will need the right set of players for this sort of thing. Either get players who don't care about mechanics and will player their character consistently over any character sheet, or get powergamers who would love the opportunity to restat their characters once a session.

MickJay
2009-06-12, 09:20 PM
[...] or get powergamers who would love the opportunity to restat their characters once a session.

I think the beauty of this idea is that once the characters are designed for a particular edition, transferring them into another one has to re-model the same character as close as possible to the original - which in most cases would mean they would be less optimized than previously (unless the system offered even better abilities/spells than the last one for the same build). Multiclassing, for example: 3.x monk/something would end up being pure monk, some monstrosity that had more slashes between classes than levels in any of them would become dual class or simple x/y multiclass (since most of those classes didn't exist yet); suddenly a hyper-specialized build would become mediocre, since the mechanic that it utilized is nonexistent in the particular ruleset the players just moved to, and so on.

Of course, it would be only fair to warn players that they shouldn't specialize too much and make well-rounded characters...

Gaiyamato
2009-06-12, 09:40 PM
I would keep to classes available in all editions. Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue

Would make things easier.

I'd love to see a AD&D 1.0 Warlock or Truenamer. Would take way to much work.
1.x<>2.x changes are not so hard though.

Going to 4.0 would be the hardest. Going from 2.x/1.x > 4.0 would be down right insanity.

If you keep to just 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 then it would be a lot smoother.

Hint for prestige classes. Look around at different kits.

Malacode
2009-06-12, 11:21 PM
Hmm... In a vein similar to this, but not identical, I'm par of not one, but -two- campaigns that are built around multiple game systems (One IRL, one run by the first DM's brother online). There are M&M characters fighting alongside Jedi, both of whom are being healed by a Naruto D20 Ninja, and so on. This required a few houserules for WBL, class abilities, etc, but problems so far have been almost non-existant. This was because only 3.5 compatible d20 games were used though. You might want to try that, if the setting isn't specifically D&D.

OMG PONIES
2009-06-12, 11:29 PM
We've definitely been a DnD-only group thus far. We tried star wars saga once with mixed reactions. I've been blessed with a group who is the following:

4. Knowledgable about obscure rules, but laid back in our approach to lawyering.
3. Crazed powergamers who know our own limits of what makes the game unfun.
2. Great roleplayers who create living characters rather than just character sheets.
1. Great friends before, during, and after the game.

So, honestly, I think my friends will handle any conflicts with grace. We have so far, except the time one guy took a beer bottle cap to the eye. That was during our Star Wars campaign...just saying.

From what it sounds like, I think we may give this a crack. I like the idea of keeping it to the classes available across all editions, and my players will be fine with that. Now the big question: do we proceed in a linear fashion from 1.0 up to 4.0, or should each session end with a jump into the portal and a roll on a good old d4?

Innis Cabal
2009-06-12, 11:31 PM
So, I'm not trying to start a flamewar or discuss the differences of each iteration of D&D, but what does the Playground think of this as the starting point for a campaign idea:

A rugged team of adventurers with the mission to find and defeat a big bad guy who is playing with the rules of time and space. Now, instead of the usual BBEG who does so with violence or magic, what about a bad guy who actually changes the mechanics of the way the world works?

I envision the characters going through portals to change editions as the campaign progresses, using all current versions (and not necessarily in order).

While such character creation (and re-creation) might usually be tedious, right now we're in the habit of stringing together one-shot nights, so we're used to making a new character for each session.

So what do you all think? Interesting? Boring? Fun in theory but tedious in practice? A flamewar waiting to happen?

Its called Die Vecna Die, its been done before

Dagren
2009-06-13, 12:12 AM
From what it sounds like, I think we may give this a crack. I like the idea of keeping it to the classes available across all editions, and my players will be fine with that. Now the big question: do we proceed in a linear fashion from 1.0 up to 4.0, or should each session end with a jump into the portal and a roll on a good old d4?d4? Does that mean you don't consider the 3.0-3.5 change worth considering?

DMfromTheAbyss
2009-06-13, 12:21 AM
I've translated from edition to edition... as long as you start with a character concept... not just stats (though base stats at least work fine) it actually goes fairly smoothly. Though the more advanced the concept the more work.

Though the most difficult/funny would definately be going to 0D&D... "You are no longer a 7th level elven ranger.. you are now a 7th level Elf!, here have some wizard spells:smallconfused:"

OMG PONIES
2009-06-13, 09:57 PM
@ Innis:

I heard Die, Vecna, Die was a 2.0-3.0 (or 3.0-3.5) transition...I'm talking about all versions. Which brings me to...

@Dagren:

whoops. Color me embarrassed.