PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] 1st ed. conversions to 3.5



Hunter0441
2008-10-17, 12:39 PM
Has anyone done/seen any conversions of some the classic 1st ed. modules to 3.5? I was looking for the slavers series (A1-A4) primarily, but I would be interested in any conversions that may be out there.

JH

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 02:57 PM
I don't know actually, i've never played 1E, it would be interesting to see
from
EE

Moriato
2008-10-17, 03:18 PM
There's temple of Elemental evil, but I don't know if that was originally 1st or 2nd.

Matthew
2008-10-17, 03:43 PM
The Temple of Elemental Evil was published for the first edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Like most modules, it doesn't exactly follow a strict set of rules in presentation. I think I have seen proposals for "updates" of A1-4 to D20/3e, but I haven't been able to recall where exactly. It might have been at EnWorld or maybe...

Ahah! I knew I had seen them somewhere; here you go: AD&D Conversions (http://www.dndadventure.com/html/adventures/adv2.html). Click on the adventure title (A1-6) to download. Some of those links are broken, but the zip file for A1-6 seems okay.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 03:45 PM
Thanks a lot, i've always wanted to know. But i've never played 1E, does taht do 2E as well?
from
EE

Matthew
2008-10-17, 03:51 PM
Thanks a lot, i've always wanted to know. But i've never played 1E, does taht do 2E as well?

As I understand it, those are conversion documents, so they won't make much sense without the original adventure modules. Looks to me like all the conversions are for first edition adventures, but 1e/2e are almost perfectly compatible.

EvilElitest
2008-10-17, 04:10 PM
As I understand it, those are conversion documents, so they won't make much sense without the original adventure modules. Looks to me like all the conversions are for first edition adventures, but 1e/2e are almost perfectly compatible.

are they really? Then how are they different editions?
from
EE

paladin_carvin
2008-10-17, 04:13 PM
I've only barely dabbled with actually playing 1st ed, but I've poured over them (I consider it a history lesson). You can do translations yourself pretty easy, if you know what everything is in 1st (by the by, I am referring to AD&D 1st ed, not the original short lived 'D&D' that was very simple).

Rules of thumb:

-Replace monsters with the current versions. It's usually best to judge monster difficulty yourself, as the difficulty of 'goblin with club' has changed greatly over 30 years.

-Replace traps. Even in the same edition the difficulty of a trap can vary greatly. Best to remake them.

-If something calls for a saving throw (ability) replace as follows:
Strength: Strength check (or possibly Climb, jump etc)
Dexterity: Reflex save (some rare cases would call for a skill roll)
Constitution: Fort save
Intelligence: Knowledge Check or other Int skill (should cover everything)
Wisdom: Sense Motive or Survival cover most, unless it's a check because some force is against them (mind control spell, avoiding seduction, beholding Cthulu in his full form) in which case it is a Will save.
Charisma: Diplomacy or Bluff covers most

-'skills' were only available to rogues (thieves to be precise...)- they were the only ones who knew how to unlock doors and use elaborate disguises. Don't think you need to set it up so only rogues can do these things, but it's worth keeping in mind.

-Numbers were different. I'll save 'ThAC0' for another line, but take in consider these facts about stats you know. Ability scores did not increase with levels. In fact, only through wishes and magical items could you increase your abilities. A special note is STR; an 18 STR was actually divided into different sections based on a d100 you rolled. A 18/00 score represented that you had the strength equal to that of champions of the strong men competition (it also means you got a 1:21600 dice roll... or you cheated). You also needed a high constitution in order surviving being polymorphed... it was rough. Interesting way to kill something though.

-ThAC0- ThAC0 exist because the system used to be that you wanted low rolls on your d20. 1s were good and 20s were bad. ThAC0 starts at 20, though a fighter would start at 19 (think BAB). A starting AC was still 10, but you wanted to get it lower. Armour subtracted from your AC... full plate could give you nearly 0. The greatest of dragons had negative AC... as low as -10, meaning without 10 points of bonus from magic weapons, strength and ThAC0 you simply couldn't hurt them.

-Which points out that magic items were scarce and a +1 bonus was something quite important. Numbers inflated when 3.x was made. 3.x also has more magic items and easier access to them.

-Since there were no sorcerers, arcane scrolls and books were much more important.


Basically, with these things in mind, it's not too hard to translate AD&D 1st, 2nd and '2.5' adventures.

hamishspence
2008-10-17, 04:15 PM
I got told once that 1st ed chose 4d6 drop lowest, arrage to taste, as a basic character generation method, whereas in 2nd ed, it was the highest, most powerful version (most of the others generated worse stats typically)

There are probably other diffrences. Some things I remember as the same: the example given of an act that causes instant alignment shift (paladin buring plague-village) was in both editions.

EDIT: And D&D covered from level 1 to 36, and had option to become demigod, or some other powerful being. Not entirely simplistic.

paladin_carvin
2008-10-17, 04:26 PM
are they really? Then how are they different editions?
from
EE

2nd edition represented an elaborate reorganization of the material. Classes were redefined (though, they still were built upon the same class/level structure. In other words, 3rd level characters in both editions were still just about as powerful). Customization became more available. Everything became much much MUCH more readable. You see, 1st edition lacked significant editing. The PHB was basically a meandering through the rules, rather than a logical reference book. The DMG is a horror to read, as there is no clear plan as to what it's trying to say... with minimal headers and chapter heads it's a mess. I read about how they literally cut up a few 1st edition manuals to make the ground work of the 2nd edition. Statistically speaking though, 1st and 2nd were very close. They both were based on ThAC0 and ability scores were basically unchanged (though, I think they were made a little more forgiving). There was also a 2nd Edition revised... which is, in our terms, 2.5. Still, 1st and 2nd were closer to each other than 3rd and 4th.

Matthew
2008-10-17, 04:35 PM
are they really? Then how are they different editions?

Back before D20/3e, a new edition just meant "a tidying up". The expanded and optional 2e material makes for rather a different sort of game. One of the key design principals behind 2e was that it should be almost perfectly compatible with 1e. I was reading some of the design articles from the late eighties the other night, and noted that compatibility is why they didn't switch AC and THAC0 round to an ascending system. From what I can tell, many of the changes made in D20/3e (and some in D20/4e) were considered for 2e and discarded on this account.



-ThAC0- ThAC0 exist because the system used to be that you wanted low rolls on your d20. 1s were good and 20s were bad. ThAC0 starts at 20, though a fighter would start at 19 (think BAB). A starting AC was still 10, but you wanted to get it lower. Armour subtracted from your AC... full plate could give you nearly 0. The greatest of dragons had negative AC... as low as -10, meaning without 10 points of bonus from magic weapons, strength and ThAC0 you simply couldn't hurt them.

No, no. You never wanted low rolls. You did want a low THAC0 and armour class, however.



-'skills' were only available to rogues (thieves to be precise...)- they were the only ones who knew how to unlock doors and use elaborate disguises. Don't think you need to set it up so only rogues can do these things, but it's worth keeping in mind.

A common trap is to think of them as "skills". They are better understood as special abilities. As you note, the adventure need not be set up in terms of thief skills.



There was also a 2nd Edition revised... which is, in our terms, 2.5.

Amusingly, David Cook was the first to suggest such numerisation, albeit as a joke about second edition back in 1987. :smallbiggrin:



I got told once that 1st ed chose 4d6 drop lowest, arrage to taste, as a basic character generation method, whereas in 2nd ed, it was the highest, most powerful version (most of the others generated worse stats typically)

Each edition presents about half a dozen methods. The difference between 1e and 2e is that the variants appear in the DMG rather than the PHB.



EDIT: And D&D covered from level 1 to 36, and had option to become demigod, or some other powerful being. Not entirely simplistic.

That's Basic Dungeons & Dragons (or Classic Dungeons & Dragons) you're thinking of. There was no explicit level limit in first edition (except for Demi Humans) :smallwink:

Fostire
2008-10-17, 06:08 PM
-ThAC0- ThAC0 exist because the system used to be that you wanted low rolls on your d20. 1s were good and 20s were bad. ThAC0 starts at 20, though a fighter would start at 19 (think BAB).

There are several things wrong with that. First: you needed high rolls on every dice except on initiative roll, which was a d10+weapon or spell modifiers (lower goes first). The only things you wanted as low as possible where your initiative modifier, your THAC0, and your AC.
Second: A 20 was good on rolls as it was auto hit, and a 1 was auto miss.
Third: All characters started with THAC0 20, fighters would lower it by 1 each level (capping at THAC0 1 at level 20) and the other classes would advance at a different rate (I don't have the book with me, so I can't remember what the ratio was).

Here is how THAC0 works: THAC0 is short for To Hit Armor Class 0 and it was the number you had to roll (or higher) to hit a foe with AC=0. To calculate the number you needed to roll you subtracted the AC of the enemy from your THAC0. SO if you had THAC0 20 and you found an enemy with AC 10 you needed to roll a 10 or higher to hit, if the enemy had AC 5, you hit with a 15+ and if the enemy had AC -10 you needed a 30+ to hit (you can only hit it with a natural 20 cause there was no way you could get a +11 modifier on your to hit roll)

paladin_carvin
2008-10-17, 06:47 PM
There are several things wrong with that. First: you needed high rolls on every dice except on initiative roll, which was a d10+weapon or spell modifiers (lower goes first). The only things you wanted as low as possible where your initiative modifier, your THAC0, and your AC.
Second: A 20 was good on rolls as it was auto hit, and a 1 was auto miss.
Third: All characters started with THAC0 20, fighters would lower it by 1 each level (capping at THAC0 1 at level 20) and the other classes would advance at a different rate (I don't have the book with me, so I can't remember what the ratio was).

Here is how THAC0 works: THAC0 is short for To Hit Armor Class 0 and it was the number you had to roll (or higher) to hit a foe with AC=0. To calculate the number you needed to roll you subtracted the AC of the enemy from your THAC0. SO if you had THAC0 20 and you found an enemy with AC 10 you needed to roll a 10 or higher to hit, if the enemy had AC 5, you hit with a 15+ and if the enemy had AC -10 you needed a 30+ to hit (you can only hit it with a natural 20 cause there was no way you could get a +11 modifier on your to hit roll)

*tries not to go cross-eyed* See, this is why no one but math majors liked ThAC0. I mean, I am pretty good with numbers, but I still get this stuff mixed up. Then again, I've never played a true game with it, and maybe that's all I need.

Matthew
2008-10-17, 06:57 PM
*tries not to go cross-eyed* See, this is why no one but math majors liked ThAC0. I mean, I am pretty good with numbers, but I still get this stuff mixed up. Then again, I've never played a true game with it, and maybe that's all I need.

In my experience, math majors are no better equipped, people familiar with basic mental math on the other hand... :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though. A simple way to think about it is this:

"Roll 1d20, add the target's armour class and any modifiers. If the result is equal to or greater than your THAC0, you hit."

Low armour class = good; low THAC0 = good.

Jayabalard
2008-10-17, 10:19 PM
Each edition presents about half a dozen methods. The difference between 1e and 2e is that the variants appear in the DMG rather than the PHB.BD&D didn't list any alternate methods as I recall. And the only place I remember seeing alternate rolling methods in 1e was in Unearthed arcana; I have a feeling, though, that some printings of the 1e DM guide had them while others didn't.


That's Basic Dungeons & Dragons (or Classic Dungeons & Dragons) you're thinking of. There was no explicit level limit in first edition (except for Demi Humans) :smallwink:1e Monks and druids had explicit level caps, as well as implicit ones where they had to find and defeat the current holder of that title to advance.

Matthew
2008-10-17, 10:28 PM
BD&D didn't list any alternate methods as I recall. And the only place I remember seeing alternate rolling methods in 1e was in Unearthed arcana; I have a feeling, though, that some printings of the 1e DM guide had them while others didn't.

I wasn't counting BD&D, to be honest (or OD&D). Alternate rolling methods for AD&D 1e you should find on page eleven of the Gygax DMG.



1e Monks and druids had explicit level caps, as well as implicit ones where they had to find and defeat the current holder of that title to advance.
Oh yeah, I don't use those classes, so I sometimes overlook them; mea culpa.

ken-do-nim
2008-10-17, 10:47 PM
are they really? Then how are they different editions?
from
EE

I like to tell people that 1E is to 2E as 3E is to 3.5E. 1E/2E is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and basically the same game. 3E/3.5E is "Wizards of the Coast D&D". The edition numbers are really pretty meaningless, especially considering I am starting a Classic D&D group and when people ask me which numbered edition that is, I am forced to say none of the above.

hamishspence
2008-10-18, 05:13 AM
is "OD&D" so-called Basic D&D, expanded: with Expert, Companion, and Master rules?

I have copy of Expert and Master rules. Which is why I found the level cap, combined with things that rather closely resemble Epic Destinies, interesting.

Darrin
2008-10-18, 05:49 AM
Has anyone done/seen any conversions of some the classic 1st ed. modules to 3.5? I was looking for the slavers series (A1-A4) primarily, but I would be interested in any conversions that may be out there.

There are a couple modules on the WotC website that have been updated for 3.x, notably Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20051031a

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/oa/20051207a

(The Revised Tomb of Horrors may require some material from Libris Mortis, but with a little futzing you can rework it... the original module had almost no undead in it anyway.)

Note: these are different from the 2nd-Edition-era "Return to the Tomb of Horrors" (which wasn't really a return, more like an entire campaign "in the spirit of the original", although I think it includes the original 1st edition version), and the "Return to White Plume Mountain", which did expand quite a bit on the original module.

Also for 3.x:

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk
Expedition to Undermountain

You can find those on the Wizards/Paizo/Amazon sites, most likely.

There may have been a few issues of Dungeon that converted or updated various settings... Johnathan Tweet updated Gamma World with Omega World in Dungeon 94, and Andy Collins did something with Spelljammer in Dungeon 92. I haven't paid much attention to Dungeon, however.

I'm sure a little googling would turn up quite a few fan conversions for classic modules.

Premier
2008-10-18, 06:15 AM
is "OD&D" so-called Basic D&D, expanded: with Expert, Companion, and Master rules?

I have copy of Expert and Master rules. Which is why I found the level cap, combined with things that rather closely resemble Epic Destinies, interesting.

If I interpret your question right, the answer is no, it isn't. Look at the timeline on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Dungeons_and_Dragons#Advanced_Dungeons_.2 6_Dragons) page.

"Original D&D", or "OD&D", is the one that came out 1977. It was expanded by the titles in green, but none of them is called "Basic" or "Expert", etc. in any way.

Then there was what most folks call "Classic D&D", or "CD&D", which is the right column from 1977 onwards, of which there are three basic versions. The first one is the Holmes version (blue book), which is apparently the most different from the other two (but still only in relatively small ways, compared to the differences between, say, 3E and 4E). Then there's the 1981 Moldvay/Cook edition, and the Mentzer edition from 1983 onwards. I have no personal experience with the former, but here's what someone else said on the Grognard's Tavern forums:


The Mentzer Basic and Moldvay Basics are so close in terms of rules that's it doesn't matter much which you use. I find the Moldvay book better organized and more concise, but Mentzer's was designed with the idea of teaching you how to play an RPG if you'd never seen one before. Whereas Moldvay is more of a normal rule book for people who are already gamers.

Another obvious difference is that Moldvay/Cook only had two sets, Basic and Expert for higher level play, while Mentzer had Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal, following character development all the way up to level 36 and into godhood beyond. So you see, when you say "Basic D&D", you might mean any of the following:
- The 1977 Holmes version of D&D.
- The first, low-level book of the 1981 Moldvay/Cook version.
- By means of ellipsis, the entirety of the 1981 version.
- The first book of the 1983 Mentzer edition.
- By ellipsis, the entirety of the Mentzer series.
...with numbers 3 and 5 being a slightly misleading use of the name.

Furthermore, there's RC, the "Rules Cyclopedia", which is often also referred to as Classic D&D. It's basically 99% identical to the Mentzer series, only compiled into a single product and differently organized. Then there's Advanced D&D, which is a whole different story.

I hope that answers your question.

EDIT: As you also see, "OD&D" and "Basic" are in fact different things.

hamishspence
2008-10-18, 06:34 AM
I've got two of the Mentzer series (Expert, Master) and the reprinted Basic: Black book with big, red, blue-eyed fiend on front.

EvilElitest
2008-10-18, 09:27 PM
thanks i never knew all that actually
from
EE

Thane of Fife
2008-10-19, 10:28 AM
Seriously, though. A simple way to think about it is this:

"Roll 1d20, add the target's armour class and any modifiers. If the result is equal to or greater than your THAC0, you hit."

Low armour class = good; low THAC0 = good.

Something I was thinking about recently was that, really, THAC0 is exactly like BAB but in reverse.

3rd Edition: Take your attack bonus, add 1d20, get equal to or higher than AC

2nd Edition: Take your THAC0, subtract 1d20, get equal to or less than AC

Matthew
2008-10-19, 01:37 PM
Something I was thinking about recently was that, really, THAC0 is exactly like BAB but in reverse.

3rd Edition: Take your attack bonus, add 1d20, get equal to or higher than AC

2nd Edition: Take your THAC0, subtract 1d20, get equal to or less than AC
Yep; that is probably the best way to do it if you don't know the armour class of the opponent [i.e. if the player is doing the math]. I do most of the math when the game master, so I tend to subtract armour class from THAC0 to determine what number succeeds [i.e. the player just rolls the die].

Apparently, David Cook considered a positive THAC0 system for second edition, but decided against it because it would create compatibility issues with first edition.

hamlet
2008-10-20, 08:47 AM
Apparently, David Cook considered a positive THAC0 system for second edition, but decided against it because it would create compatibility issues with first edition.

That was always what he said, though I think there was more to it than that. I have nothing to back that up, but it's a sense that I get. Specifically, that many of the old-time designers hadn't yet left TSR by the time 2e came round and so there was a lot of corporate inertia in favor of keeping things closer to "static" than "revolutionary." That's something that seemed to happen near the middle and end of the 90's, loss of corporate knowledge. That, and all the other issues floating through TSR those days.

THAC0 is freakishly simple, really, and I'll never understand why it causes such consternation. If you find it difficult to do the math in your head on the fly (as I do admittedly) all you had to do was add a chart to the bottom of your character sheet. Or the DM could build his own compiled chart for everyone. Or you could, as one of the groups I am in has done, invert THAC0 and AC to something very close to the D20 version.

It was so loose that you could do pretty much whatever felt natural to you.



As for the original post, most of it has been covered, though I will throw in this bit of advice: if you're converting 1st edition modules over to 3.5, be cautious of power levels. In 3.5, a first level fighter is not of the same power as an AD&D first level fighter and so those goblins can be more or less dangerous.

Also, 1st edition modules are built on the assumption of a larger party than the 3.5 4 person standard. In fact, many assumed anywhere between six and ten PC's at a time and the adventure is ballanced accordingly. This can be particularly true in the Slavers series at some points. Actually, it's even truer for the Giants series. Giants, Dragons, and Demons/Devils (not to mention Angels, Modrons, and etc.) got a serious power boost through the editions. In G2, there are a pair of white dragons, in addition to a rather large contingent of Frost Giants. In 1st edition, those dragons were little more than a nuisance to appropriately leveled PC's, much less dangerous than the giants (who were still not as dangerous as they would become by 3rd edition). In 3.5, though, a pair of white dragons of the age category they were in G2 (adult IIRC) would have been something like a CR20 encounter rather than the 10th level encounter they were..

Many modules were also constructed on the premise that PC's would spend longer in "the dungeon" than 3.5 assumes. Natural breaking points were fewer and farther between. You may have to jerry rig something at points in order to give the players' a breather here and there.

I said all that to say this: direct conversions may not work out well. Many times, you'll have to go for the spirit rather than the word.


Oh, and for the original poster, if you're considering Classic D&D, while it's nice to have the indicidual BECMI sets, you're much better off nowadays laying hands on a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia. It's got a lot of extra material in it, but it's all marked optional and stripping out what you don't want is so easy it's criminal. The core of Classic D&D is so simple it's kind of mind bending.

ken-do-nim
2008-10-20, 11:04 AM
In 3.5, a first level fighter is not of the same power as an AD&D first level fighter and so those goblins can be more or less dangerous.

Also, 1st edition modules are built on the assumption of a larger party than the 3.5 4 person standard. In fact, many assumed anywhere between six and ten PC's at a time and the adventure is ballanced accordingly.

I wonder if the more powerful characters balance out the fact that the party is lesser in numbers. Probably more relevant for converting a Classic module rather than a 1E module.

Ethdred
2008-10-20, 11:51 AM
I wonder if the more powerful characters balance out the fact that the party is lesser in numbers. Probably more relevant for converting a Classic module rather than a 1E module.

I don't think so. For one thing, characters aren't necessarily more powerful in 3.x for all levels and all classes, but also, more characters means more actions and less chance of being overwhelmed by the enemy. When anyone can get a flanking bonus, that horde of trolls (hello G3) suddenly becomes much more lethal.

hamlet
2008-10-20, 12:29 PM
I don't think so. For one thing, characters aren't necessarily more powerful in 3.x for all levels and all classes, but also, more characters means more actions and less chance of being overwhelmed by the enemy. When anyone can get a flanking bonus, that horde of trolls (hello G3) suddenly becomes much more lethal.

Pretty much, though I recall even with a squad of 10 hard core fighters at our disposal that horde of trolls being very deadly and brutal.

ken-do-nim
2008-10-20, 03:23 PM
Pretty much, though I recall even with a squad of 10 hard core fighters at our disposal that horde of trolls being very deadly and brutal.

Man it's been years since I ran G3. I don't remember the horde of trolls, but I do remember kicking the party's collective butts, and I think I had a 6 character party (5 players + 1 DM PC).

hamlet
2008-10-20, 04:27 PM
Man it's been years since I ran G3. I don't remember the horde of trolls, but I do remember kicking the party's collective butts, and I think I had a 6 character party (5 players + 1 DM PC).

G3 is great. In my experience, that first couple of rooms comes down to the massive and continued application of world shattering force and a lot of luck.

kbk
2008-10-20, 06:51 PM
A lot of the basic mechanics for things are similar between 1st and 2nd edition with a major change in 3rd and a major change in 4th. 3.5 is basically a bug fix for 3rd, so there shouldn't be much of a difference there. There are extant rules for converting 2nd to 3rd, but not so much 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th.


My recommendation: If you are jumping more than a single edition, just start over. Still you might be able to used the 2nd to 3rd conversion rules for some stuff in 1st, but I really think you're better off just starting over. Even if there was a lot of backwards compatibility between 1st and 2nd.


Also, THAC0 may have been simple once you learned it, but it was an unnecessary complication. I caution you in just flat out converting THAC0 and AC in the way described above. There's just a lot of changes in the expected +hit of a character at a given level between 2nd and 3rd. For instance, the maximum AC in 2nd was -10. Which if converted to 3rd would be 30. Now 30 is a lot, but by 10th level, 30 is an AC you can expect people in your party to hit (+3 weapon, +5 ability modifier, +7-10 from class).

hamlet
2008-10-21, 07:04 AM
Also, THAC0 may have been simple once you learned it, but it was an unnecessary complication. I caution you in just flat out converting THAC0 and AC in the way described above. There's just a lot of changes in the expected +hit of a character at a given level between 2nd and 3rd. For instance, the maximum AC in 2nd was -10. Which if converted to 3rd would be 30. Now 30 is a lot, but by 10th level, 30 is an AC you can expect people in your party to hit (+3 weapon, +5 ability modifier, +7-10 from class).

I don't think anybody advocated a flat conversion between editions of to hit and AC. Not least of which because the bonuses to hit would never match up.

What I talked about is that if you wanted to, it's very easy to invert THAC0 and AC to ascending values. THAC0 becomes bonuses to hit (20-THAC0=to hit bonus) and AC starts at 10 and ascends towards 30 where there is an implicit barrier. Not difficult. That's if you're playing 2nd edition.

potatocubed
2008-10-21, 09:16 AM
My recommendation: If you are jumping more than a single edition, just start over. Still you might be able to used the 2nd to 3rd conversion rules for some stuff in 1st, but I really think you're better off just starting over. Even if there was a lot of backwards compatibility between 1st and 2nd.

Quoted for truth. I recommend starting over even if you're just skipping up one edition, myself.

Also, more relevantly, I found out the other day that The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth was remade as Iggwilv's Legacy, a free download for 3.5 available from the Wizards website.

I prefer the original, but it's nice to have all the combats re-balanced for you.

paladin_carvin
2008-10-21, 02:59 PM
I actually find that the biggest differences between editions is theme. Core philosophy. And this is always the real reason why there are edition wars. I will try and state all of this without showing my bias.

OD&D- A mix of war game and ultra sophisticated board game. The concepts were very goal oriented with limited 'back in town' action. Dungeon crawl is the idea, grinding monsters and such. The video game Gauntlet is based on this thinking. You kinda argue the Mario games are like this.

AD&D- You see much more idea of society and complex interactions. There is a grand idea to what you are doing, and you are the normal people that are going to become amazing heroes. The world is not a horrible one, but there is something trying to make that so and you need to stop. (inversely, an evil campaign could be the ones trying to turn the world). Most Final Fantasy games are based on this concept, especially the first one. Many RPGs use this model, actually, though it's waning over the last decade.

AD&D 2nd and 2nd revised- This is when the idea of really dramatic deep characters go and do things to help the world. Or hurt the world. An adventurer is a world shaper. In many ways, adventurers became dragons: beings of increasing power that can shape governments, landscapes and societies by full uses of their powers. This is when you could really feel like you were in Middle-Earth, Narnia or could be Conan or King Arthur. Particularly deep RPGs are based on these ideas, like Star Ocean and Final Fantasy Tactics.

D&D 3rd and 3.5- This was a logical reformat. This meant that everything became statistically defined and there was no need to 'make things so'. Monsters lived with the same rules as the heroes- so closely that they could be exchanged. There were major philosophical implications to the game to this. The statistical progression that was both fast and non-exponential meant that levels were easier. This was good because it dangled hope before the PCs easier. It meant that a character's (and monster's) powers could be greater defined. But it also meant that the characters much quicker became more powerful than the world around them. This also meant a greater proliferation of magic items and gold. Perhaps the best thing (in my opinion) to come out of this was monsters having levels. With some rules in 2nd edition it became 'official' to use monsters as characters, but with 3rd this was not only possible but completely logical and understandable. This had the benefit of making it so you, as DM or PC, could greater understand the things you fought. Goblins weren't just rats on two feet, they were truly intelligent beings. We wouldn't have a character like Red Cloak in an older edition, and if we did, it would be completely alien. But we can comprehend now a 15th (or whatever) level cleric goblin. Sure, this opened the door to a billion drizz'ts, but it also means that it wasn't just enemy humans and dragons that could shake the world like the PCs. This fits the thinking of more recent RPG games, like FF7 and later, at least statistically speaking. The idea of 'same from a different view point' is being seen more and more in games and movies. Halo actually hits this well. All of this can be seen in Oblivion and the rest of the Elder Scroll games.

4th- 4th is based on the candles in the dark. The idea that society exists as small dots against the darkness. This means that there is no longer an understanding of enemies, since their existence is part of the darkness trying to consume the light. It is by definition a struggle to get from dot to dot. People don't travel unless they are adventurers or with them. The powerful become very responsible for the world, and the weak become little more than numbers. This can be seen in the new alignment system which is essentially one axis, a measure of how much you care for the candles or how eager you are to destroy them. I personally can't find a value to this whole concept... but, you are my guest to make an addendum. This is clearly analogous to MMORPGs, as they are set up as town areas; where the inhabitants are statistics and powerless and require adventurers to do most everything, where once you leave town things are either monsters or allies.

Ethdred
2008-10-22, 05:46 AM
I actually find that the biggest differences between editions is theme. Core philosophy. And this is always the real reason why there are edition wars. I will try and state all of this without showing my bias.<snip>

Excellent analysis - I've played for over 25 years and hadn't really thought about it in that systematic way before.

paladin_carvin
2008-10-22, 03:01 PM
Excellent analysis - I've played for over 25 years and hadn't really thought about it in that systematic way before.

I hadn't much myself. A figured a little bit about it when I started 3 or so years ago (I started playing a little after 3.5 came out, so I never have converted anything 'up'... not anything I was used to, anyway). My friend who was DMing was a long time 2nd ed. He was frustrated at some of the changes, yet he liked many of the mechanics (he understood thAC0 perfectly, but admitted that it wasn't a perfect system). He said he didn't like the way magic items were so easy to get... as if they just littered the world. Talked about how before a dungeon crawl to get a +1 sword was worth it... how he had to use his bastard sword in the snow, both way!... wait... never mind. I started realizing that there ideas behind the way the editions work.

I really figured it all out when I learned about candles in the darkness. I had disliked so much about 4th edition, but I couldn't put my finger on it exactly. There were even a few stat things that made sense. The only clear symptom I could recognize is that there wasn't a single good creature in the MM. No good dragons, no angels... hell, the unicorn was turned into 'unaligned'. I could tell (like most) that 4th was heavily inspired by MMORPGs. I just couldn't answer the question of 'why is that bad?'. I found the answer to why I disliked the edition so much when I read the press release from way back when that explained candles in the dark.

Matthew
2008-10-22, 04:33 PM
A lot of the basic mechanics for things are similar between 1st and 2nd edition with a major change in 3rd and a major change in 4th. 3.5 is basically a bug fix for 3rd, so there shouldn't be much of a difference there. There are extant rules for converting 2nd to 3rd, but not so much 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th.

Hmmn; first and second editions are almost exactly the same, not merely similar. Most of the modules that were converted to D20/3e were actually first edition. On the other hand AD&D, D20/3e and D20/4e are all significantly different games so that conversion notes are necessary between each.



*snip*

Whilst some of what is said here is true, I find most of it entirely disagreeable, both factually and in terms of analysis. First of all, it is necessary to discern between Original Dungeons & Dragons and "Classic" or Basic Dungeons & Dragons (a product line that ran concurrently with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons).

The core philosophies you are identifying do not seem to me to be borne out in the games you are discussing, but rather constructed for the purposes of arbitrary differentiation. First edition could be heavy on plot railroading drama [aka Dragonlance] and second edition was as likely to be a gold mooching hack fest. It is true that 3e/D20 is the heaviest in terms of rules from the get go, but nothing about that implies that Goblins are thus more than "rats on legs".

Thinking about these editions and variants in terms of computer role-playing games is extremely misleading, as whilst computer games were limited by the technology at the time, pen and paper RPGs certainly were not. What you are basically describing here (it seems to me) is the editions in terms of evolution, but you appear to have fabricated the process to accord with your initial premise, rather than looking at the actual products themselves.

paladin_carvin
2008-10-22, 07:02 PM
You have called out an error here. My knowledge has till recently been greater in terms of computer and console games. Thus, I think often in those terms. I don't think the evolution of D&D was due to influence from video games (well, short of 4th edition... but that is another rant). I'd wager it the other way around, in fact. I think there may have been a hint in the transition to 3rd... but that transition was far more influenced by 'pop' nerd culture in general. Admittedly, I was not 'there' for that, but I have done what research I can. A good bit of it is reading through the core books and analyzing the differences. Especially in terms of 'flavor' information. I do feel at least a good understanding on 3rd plus, since I have some first hand experience with it.

I will admit that I know little before AD&D 1st, and most was educated guessing from what I've heard. If I was entirely wrong there, I am not surprised. It's so 'in the past' that it is hard for me to gather information on it.