Dungeon conversion subforum? Anyone interested?


Dungeon Magazine General Discussion

Liberty's Edge

Hi,
I just very recently started to subscribe to Dungeon but I have a stack of old magazine, pre 3rd ed, lying around. Well not lying, but you know... around.
In there, are a ton of very very good adventures which I am not going to run ever or in the near future, because I dont have neither the time nor the skill presently to convert them to 3.5 ed. I know you can look at the conversion forum at ENworld, but that deals mainly with published TSR adventures so I dont know where to look for any Dungeon conversions done by YOU!
Logically, the place to look for conversion of old Dungeon adventures should be HERE, right??!?? Would any of you support such a forum, and if so, could we get one up and running?
Cheers,
Stegger

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

This sounds G-R-E-A-T!!!

How about including additional suggestions, maps and Notes/articles/NPC's from DM's who have run those adventures... (something similar is done in the Adventure Path forum, but IMO it lacks structure).

Liberty's Edge

Yes, exactly! Anything that people have that can be linked to the adventure. Of course it has to be presented in a way so that you have to have the actual magazine to be able to run it.... Copyright issues etc.
Any ideas for a structure to make it easily searchable? One folder for each issue? That would be it quick to look for something specific. But not to see for something new.
Ideas?
Stegger


I've been Jonesing for 3-E conversions of some of the old classic modules recently. This post got me thinking about some of the older Dungeon adventures as well. I just checked out ENworld, and I was a little disappointed, as the writers (or re-writers, actually) aren't really converting the adventures, but appear to be satisfied with simply converting the monsters and traps.

I guess this would be a problem with converting old Dungeon adventures as well ... to do it right, you need to take some liberties with the source material. I just read a conversion of G1: Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Hill Giants are a little tougher in 3E rules, but the number of creatures in each room is the same - just the monster stats were updated. Also, the ridiculous amounts of treasure were left the same. A shrewd party could loot about 4 unoccupied rooms and find enough treasure to call it a day.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see some true conversions. I was just looking over I3: Pharaoh last night, and was thinking how fun it would be to convert it. But in reading it, I realized how much would have to be changed to sinc up the ELs and treasure amounts to create parity for the new rules. A daunting task, and one that existing converters aren't fully walking (at least not in the few adventures I read on ENworld). If it's going to be done (and I would love to see it), it should be done right so we can use these things and not just read them in fond nostalgia.


I have most of Ssscaly Thingsss (Part 2 of Mere of Dead Men) from Dungeon #70 converted but it is by no means OGL compliant. I wouldn't know how to make it so.


This isn't a Dungeon adventure, but I've been doing a 3.5 conversion of the Tomb of Horrors for my home campaign. (It's for a recurring nightmare sequence.) Sadly, the final encounter is in no way OGC compliant, though I guess I could call Acererak something other than a demi-lich and cobble together stats for him which are slightly less horrid than those out of the ELH.

It's actually quite surprising how easy the early areas of the Tomb are now that poison doesn't kill you instantly. It brought a tear to my eye to use Deathblade instead of the unnamed poison of doom so prevalent in 1st edition adventures...


Tomb of Horrors *SPOILER*

Ah, the Tomb of Horrors. There's a kind of charm to the old rules, in that there was a ton of flexibility for the DM. I may be mixing encounters, but I remember that the players have to insert a key into the floor to reveal the true tomb of Acererak. The text says something like "when the key is inserted, there is a slight tremor and a low rumble. Count to 10 out loud and let the players react. When you reach 10, the tomb bursts upward from the floor, and anyone still standing at the keyhole is squashed into jelly against the roof."

How do you convert that kind of Gygaxian zanyness into 3E? Maybe you shouldn't. There's something about watching the players panic when you start mysteriously counting out loud, no matter what edition you're playing.


Asberdies Lives wrote:


I guess this would be a problem with converting old Dungeon adventures as well ... to do it right, you need to take some liberties with the source material. I just read a conversion of G1: Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Hill Giants are a little tougher in 3E rules, but the number of creatures in each room is the same - just the monster stats were updated. Also, the ridiculous amounts of treasure were left the same. A shrewd party could loot about 4 unoccupied rooms and find enough treasure to call it a day.

I have been slowly converting WGR1 for my campaign so I am well aware of a number of the issues with converting old modules/adventures. The issue I have is being true to the original module (with all the zanyness) and being balanced in 3.5. It isn't easy. Some people want the module to be exactly as possible true to the original. Others would like it reimagined to be more "modern". So depending on what the DM deems "right" you can either get straight 100% faithful conversions with all their problems or new modules "based" on the original.

My goal has been to give my players a 1st edition module with 3.5 mechanics. This means that some encounters are way overpowered, other rooms are filled with treasure and in the end the game play is significantly different that normal 3.5 modules. Normal 3.5 play, the players would inheritly meta-game a module knowing that no encounter would be presented that they couldn't tackle, now they careen from a EL 3 encounter (orcs) to a EL 18 encounter (beholders) within the space of 3 rooms. Caution rules the day. The ten foot pole is standard issue for everyone.


randomjack wrote:
My goal has been to give my players a 1st edition module with 3.5 mechanics. This means that some encounters are way overpowered, other rooms are filled with treasure and in the end the game play is significantly different that normal 3.5 modules.

I guess that's the balance that I would love to find - the classic feel with 3E mechanics, but a big part of that "feel" is because, despite the massive and ridiculously complicated amount of details in the original rulebooks, it was still a much less mechanical game.

I ran my players through the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief about 5 years ago, using 1st Edition rules. Arguably the most interesting room was the Great Hall, where the Chief, his wife, a few pet cave bears, dozens of other hill giants, a few score of ogres, and stone and cloud giant emmisaries were drowning in drunken revelry. The party (8 8th level characters, per the guidelines) snuck in, broke out anything designed to explode (wands of fireballs, necklaces of fireballs, flame strike spells, and a pot of oil for an under-equipped thief) and absolutely blasted away.

Convert those monsters into 3E and send in your party of 4 8th or 10th or whatever-level characters, and that encounter is entirely different. It loses that classic feel that anything is possible since no creature has an insane amount of hit points. I think you need to change the encounter dramatically, and I'm not sure how, to retain the zany classic-osity.

The new rules promote the metagaming attitude, and that's hard to get around. I can't see how converting the monsters and leaving everything else the same keeps the "feel" of classic 1E modules. I'm curious to see how your conversion works out when they play it.


Asberdies Lives wrote:
I guess that's the balance that I would love to find - the classic feel with 3E mechanics, but a big part of that "feel" is because, despite the massive and ridiculously complicated amount of details in the original rulebooks, it was still a much less mechanical game.

I only use the core 3.5 rulebooks and ignore the rest. If there is a game mechanic that is needed, like the effects of drunkeness I make it up.

The conversion has been great so far. My players don't know they are running through WGR1. I have changed the superficial details since I know some of them have adventured in the original. The best comment I got was that the adventure was very "Gygaxian".

To me 1st edition feel is

Great traps - Lots of curses, changing hands into claws, etc...

Also weird details - odd treasures, gravity switching rooms, fountain teleporters, puzzles

Lack of well thought-out dungeon ecology - Random monsters placed in dungeons.

All of the classic modules I think had elements of each of these in them. Some more than others, but they each had these elements in them.


randomjack wrote:


To me 1st edition feel is

Great traps - Lots of curses, changing hands into claws, etc...

Also weird details - odd treasures, gravity switching rooms, fountain teleporters, puzzles

Lack of well thought-out dungeon ecology - Random monsters placed in dungeons.

Never has anything been hit so directly on the head, my friend. I mentioned above that I've been reading I3:Pharaoh recently. One of the reasons I love it is that it includes all of the classic elements that you mentioned - great traps (exploding pomegranites on palm trees, a mirror that spits out an opposite of the character looking into it), weird details (a gravity-switching oasis AND a labyrinth), and no ecology to speak of (a cursed wizard trapped inside the pyramid and not a privvy in sight). I'd love to put my players through it some day, so I'm thinking about converting it. I think you're right - as long as those classic details stay intact, it should still be fun.


I'm all for conversions, but I don't do many. I find it much easier to wing it. Just use the MM and wing it. If the creatures in the module are way tougher in 3.5 then wait a couple levels or cut some out, no big deal. Noting is worth sitting down and converting every stat in a whole adventure. Your PCs won't come into contact with 80% of the stats in a module anyway. Make sure you have an AC, HP, attack & damage stats or rough guesstimates and go to town. Almost ALL battles are over in 3-5 rounds. But hey, if someone else wants to convert adventures, I'll definitely use them. And if Paizo would do so and print them, I'd buy it!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I, for one, would also be interested in such conversions. B.T.W., E-Tools, with all it's attendant patches, makes for pretty good conversions, esp. 2nd Ed. to 3rd, though even the old 1st Ed. stuff can be done. But even with that help, it's still time-consuming, and as a busy DM, it's sometimes a challenge to keep plenty of material prepared for my party -- esp. since WOTC and other publishers seem more focused on core rulebook tweaking and creating new and better feats, prestige classes, spells, worlds/settings, etc... then actual adventures. I'm willing to share a conversion or two if someone else is.


Monkster wrote:
I'm willing to share a conversion or two if someone else is.

I'm seriously thinking about converting (and I don't mean just updating the monster stats and treasure) I3:Pharaoh. It's a great, classic module, and I'd find it challenging to rewrite a version that works with 3E rules and keeps the old feel. I'd love to trade - it would force me to set a deadline for doing this. Any interest?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I say this without having played a real game of 3e yet--though I am involved in an on-line game that is using 3e rules. Even though the monsters would be much tougher in the new rules (specifically, the Hill Giant scenario), the player-characters also seem to be much stronger: feats, skills, etc. Is there no balance in that equation? I grant that the monsters, in some cases have gotten much stronger.


Sublimity wrote:
Is there no balance in that equation?

The new rules allow the DM to calculate an Encounter Level (EL) for every encounter the players may run into, so you could use that to ensure there is equity. Add or subtract monsters until the EL is roughly equivalent to the average character level. Then you need to add up the XP to see how many levels the PCs should gain in the adventure, then modify the treasure to conform to the suggested wealth tables so the PCs aren't left too rich or too poor for their level.

Those are the basic conversions that you'd have to make, but I'm going a step beyond that, thinking about how skills and feats, which didn't exist in the old rules, might play into a module from an older edition. The addition of skills and feats changes combat strategy. They can also affect general game play. In the Pharaoh module, there is a labyrinth that goes an extra step towards confusing direction, so how would the Intuit Direction skill come into play?

Just converting monsters and treasure goes a long way to creating equity. I just think it would be fun to really rewrite an old adventure for the new rules.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Intuit Direction is not available any more in the 3.5 revision. It has been folded into Survival (formerly known as Wilderness Lore).

Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / Books & Magazines / Dungeon Magazine / General Discussion / Dungeon conversion subforum? Anyone interested? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion