Okay, so I recently purchased pdfs of the supermodule trilogy:
Temple of Elemental Evil (ToEE)
Scourge of the Slavelords (SotS)
Queen of the Spiders (QoS)
Dungeon printed an article a few years ago, putting all three of these in the "Greatest 30 Adventures of All Time," with QotS as #1. So I wanted to try them out and convert them to 4e. This thread is my attempt. I hope not to be the only one to contribute, but I'm not sure what the interest is.
Anyway, the first issue is levels. The original modules say ToEE is 1-8, SotS is 7-11, and QoS is 8-14. Obviously that introduces difficulty: how does this translate to 4e? So I came up with this:
ToEE 1-10
SotS 11-17
QoS 18-30
For those of you who have played or read these adventures, and are familiar with 4e, how does this breakdown sound? Will the modules take one to level 30 in 4e?
At any rate, any level of participation is appreciated.
|
For those of you who have played or read these adventures, and are familiar with 4e, how does this breakdown sound? Will the modules take one to level 30 in 4e?
At any rate, any level of participation is appreciated.
I am not familiar enough with 4E to tell you how it will work out with that, but I am familiar enough with those adventures in AD&D and 3E to tell you how it worked with them.
The given level ranges are weak in 1st ed, feeble in 2nd ed, and unsustainable in 3E.
ToEE is not easily completed at 8th level in 1st ed, despite what the blurb says. It is somewhat manageable at that level in 2nd ed with some of the additional options, but there is a strong chance the massive amounts of gold and magic will send the players over that level very quickly. In 3E, using a strict conversion, the rate of advancement is closer to putting the PCs at 15th level by the end than 8th, especially with a party of 4 compared to the AD&D standard of 6-10 PCs.
Scourge of the Slavelords does not start with a low level limit of 7. The original adventures were for levels 4-7. Characters coming from ToEE will blow through everything in it, particularly with the incredible mass of magic they have.
Queen of the Spiders starts out fairly decent with characters of that power level, particularly in a 2nd ed game because of the power boost to giants. The problems will start when you get to the D series. The encounters in D1 are actually a bit weaker than the ones in G3, and even D2 is not as difficult provided the PCs do not try a FFA without any reasonable preparations. The balance here is the opposite of the G series in 2nd ed, where the enhanced player power and the unenhanced monster power will give the PCs a massive advantage. D3 will generally be a wash in power balance unless the PCs insist on trying to cleanse the entire vault. In the last adventure. In the final adventure, the edition change from 1st to 2nd swings against the players massively, as type I-IV demons received ridiculously huge power boosts for being declared "true" demons, and type V-VI were heavily buffed as well. That will require a major rewrite. In 3.5 those effects are magnified even more, with the large masses of giants overpowering the PCs unless the numbers met are modified, while the mega-swarms of low CR critters in the D series are pathetic jokes. The last adventure is likely a wash, with the powers boosts equaled by the fact that the PCs should be 20th level by this time from killing all those giants. Of course that also means the majority of encounters will be with low CR mooks again that will just eat up time with little excitement or relevance. This is the only one I am not too sure of as I never bothered considering a conversion of it to 3E, having figured I would never both as I went through D1 and D2 and realized the divergence in power level.
I will also note that I have a major rant about the plot structure of SotS which is fine for tournament play but has way too high a chance of causing a player revolt in a home game.
And I will make a very long guess that maybe the minions rules will help the stability of the later adventures.
For the rest, my general expectation is that you will have issues keeping the level of the PCs under control in the last parts of ToEE; you will have difficulties finding suitable equivalents, advanced or otherwise, for all of SotS, and I have no idea about the rest, as I do not know what level giants and demons and such are in 4E.
a lot of stuff.
Wow, it sound like one has to do a major amount of adjusting if one wants to play as supposedly intended.
4e is similar to 3e in that one can adjust monsters to be various levels. However, it depends on how much work has to be done. It sounds like, if one is to stay true to the encounters in the adventures, you may have a lot of adjusting for monster levels that may end up being a lot of work.
Regardless, I may still try.
I'm assuming the plot challenge you have with Scourge of the Slavelords is...
Part of the reason I'm doing this is to see if these really are some of the "greatest adventures of all time." Right now I get the feeling they are imperfect masterpieces, like a statues with missing arms. Samuel - have you played through the adventures? If so, how was your experience (other than the funky level problems)?
a lot of stuff.Wow, it sound like one has to do a major amount of adjusting if one wants to play as supposedly intended.
4e is similar to 3e in that one can adjust monsters to be various levels. However, it depends on how much work has to be done. It sounds like, if one is to stay true to the encounters in the adventures, you may have a lot of adjusting for monster levels that may end up being a lot of work.
Regardless, I may still try.
I'm assuming the plot challenge you have with Scourge of the Slavelords is...
** spoiler omitted **
Part of the reason I'm doing this is to see if these really are some of the "greatest adventures of all time." Right now I get the feeling they are imperfect masterpieces, like a statues with missing arms. Samuel - have you played through the adventures? If so, how was your experience (other than the funky level problems)?
I have all of those. Translating them to 4E would be doable, as long as you keep in mind what level you want the party to be in what chapter so you can rewrite the critters accordingly for level balance.
They are indeed imperfect, but what got them in their niche as 'masterpieces' was groundbreaking plot, story twists, and creature types that had not been seen before. (Drow! new and reallllly scary!)
Don't know about Slavelords or Queen of the Demonweb Pits, but TOEE was the first super module I ever ran and have a ton of my own notes on it.
BY THE WAY - SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED TOEE.
I actually was considering running a redux version of the module due to its open-ended nature, and the fact that I felt too many of the module's fights were against hordes of relatively weak gnolls, bugbears, and 1st level warriors rather than interesting monsters.
For my 3rd edition redux I decided to ignore the Tharizdun connection, Lolth, and tried instead to focus on Iuz (through Hedrack), Zuggtmoy (through Senshock), and Falrinth/Smigmal Redhand as the three primary forces fighting with each other for control of the temple, with the element themed temples being used a recruitment pools for these different factions.
As a result of this I decided to use the modules own rules for reinforcements, but also devised my own system that meant that, if left alone, the temple would churn out higher level npcs at the cost of dead minions according to the CR needed to challenge the PCs at the time.
Thus, Lareth the Beautiful became a former member of Water Temple that had been recruited by the Zuggtmoy faction, and had been sent out as a general recruiter by the Greater Temple, and killing him would reduce the overall recruitment, as would killing Dick Rentsch and Wat for Earth Temple and Fire Temple respectively.
The structure of the Temple itself also changed as a result: the 1st level became the Temple's general recruitment area, where new arrivals would be inducted and forced to fight each other to advance. Recruiters from the elemental temples would come up and see who looked promising and then invite them to join their cause, possibly causing counter offers, etc. This would allow the PCs the opportunity to infiltrate the temple, should they so choose.
The 2nd level I split into four parts (one for each element) and had a similar setup to the 1st level except that it was the greater temple members who came up from below to pick and choose the strongest from the element ranks. Obviously, some of the former members of the elemental temples retained a sort of "team" loyalty - such as with Commander Barkinar, who was not so subtly trying to ensure that Earth Temple stayed on top.
To expand the monsters, I decided to use creatures themed for the different elements, instead of actual run of the mill elementals. This, as well as numerous clues, would hopefully give the PCs the idea that elementals weren't the real threats of the module, and that something else was behind it all. So, gargoyles and a gorgon defended earth temple, harpies, belkers and arrowhawks for air, Hydra for water (not fire!), and magmins, salamanders and trolls (I liked the idea that they could only be intimidated by fire wielding priests) for Fire.
Third Level - Lots of leveled NPCS. These guys, after all, survived levels 1 and 2. As stated before, they were split into three factions, and all had one part of the key that would open Zuggtmoy's prison. I decided that, in my continuity, Thrommel had been willingly imprisoned in the Temple by Mordenkainen himself, and that his sacrifice was the only thing keeping Zuggtmoy locked up. I also decided that Mordenkainen had made it impossible for anyone but a good being to harm him - so Iuz had to pull some massive illusions off in order to get the PCs to kill him... And accidently killing Thrommel really is one of the high points of this adventure.
4th Level - I thought that it was only fitting that Zuggtmoy's prison be located here, rather than on level 3, and that the battle against her should be against an Aspect, seeing as fighting a demon lord is an epic level challenge. Throw in every fungoid monster in the books into this level: violet fungi, myconids, phantom fungi, rukarazylls, sporebats, phycomids, basilironds, ascomoids... A lot of them appeared in the Demonomicon of Iggwilv in Dragon Magazine. And don't forget, a least one Vathugu demon!
As far as levels go - I'd say 4-12 probably is best.
I am currently working on a 4E conversion for Temple of Elemental Evil.
I have the moathouse completed. It is done for 7th level characters, which is where my party will be when we run it. I combined "elements" from ToEE and RttToEE to convert the moathouse. I think it is balanced and has much of the feel of the original moathouse.
The problem I run into is the original temple. It is a mass of winding corridors and tiny rooms with single monster encounters abound. There are plenty of large chambers for 4E style encounters, but I am not sure what to do with the rest.
Whimsy, you've just inspired me to do a full conversion of the series to 4E.
I'll be handling the level issue by judicious use of minions when necessary and by not predicting the level ranges. If the PCs end up 30th, so be it. If not, no problem.
Given my track record for finishing projects of this magnitude, I'm not optimistic. I'm definitely going to give it a whirl, though. I think the two biggest motivating factors are these:
1) If these are three of the very best adventures ever published, I expect to learn a lot about adventure design.
2) I hope to learn a little about DMing and how to inject that old-school feel into my own games. I've never run or played any of the old modules, and I want to see for myself what made them so good. Was it just the newness and sense of wonder for those early players that made the adventures good? Or are they really good on their own merit, no matter your experience level.
Thanks for your input everyone. Please note, there are spoilers ahead.
I have decided to start at level 1 and then take Sebastrd's lead and just see where the levels take them.
Right now I'm focusing on the Village of Hommlet, although I do like David's explaination of how Lareth the Beautiful is connected to the Temple.
One thing I'm already sure of - I won't be statting every farmer and townsperson, just the villians such as Zert, Rannos, and Gremag. If any of the others come into play, I'll use the Human entries in the Monster Manual, particularly the Rabble, Bandit, and Guard stats. Obviously I'm not going to give them the same amount of treasure that is described in the adventure in case that comes into play (although I do like the idea of the various hiding places).
I want to capture what makes the Village of Hommlet great during my conversions. What makes it great? Was it the first detailed village in D&D? Or was it the town intrigue? A combination? For those who have played this first adventure and enjoyed it, do you have any feedback along these lines?
Also, one thing I've noticed is that there isn't a strong or obvious hook at the beginning. Should I keep it that way and expect players to naturally get involved in determining the town villians, or should I introduce some idea of why they need to investigate townfolk which leads them to the moathouse?
Edit: Also, and this may be sacrilege, I plan to stick to the deities in the PHB and replace St. Cuthbert with Erathis. I personally don't see a major flavor difference if one is not dedicated to the Greyhawk pantheon or have a lot of attactment to St. Cuthbert. Unless of course I'm convinced otherwise.
|
|
The problem I run into is the original temple. It is a mass of winding corridors and tiny rooms with single monster encounters abound. There are plenty of large chambers for 4E style encounters, but I am not sure what to do with the rest.
Actually, that fits the 4E paradigm of sprawling encounter areas a lot better than it does the 3E paradigm of isolated encounters.
Balancing those in 3E (3.5) was a major PITA, with the players all too often having a running battle through several rooms at once that was "technically" an EL 12 encounter at APL 3-5. I would expect it to balance a lot better in 4E.|
|
1) If these are three of the very best adventures ever published, I expect to learn a lot about adventure design.
2) I hope to learn a little about DMing and how to inject that old-school feel into my own games. I've never run or played any of the old modules, and I want to see for myself what made them so good. Was it just the newness and sense of wonder for those early players that made the adventures good? Or are they really good on their own merit, no matter your experience level.
For the first, a lot depends on what you consider contributing to making something the "best". For me, the biggest element of that in these adventures is the DM, and how he interprets the adventures.
For the second, provided you work within the requirement of the first, you definitely will.As for your two questions, the newness is a huge factor. If you can accept the differences in writing style and expectations then and now, then you will be able to appreciate their merits, even if they are different.
|
|
Wow, it sound like one has to do a major amount of adjusting if one wants to play as supposedly intended.
I did for 2nd ed and 3E. I cannot say definitively for 4E, but I really expect so.
4e is similar to 3e in that one can adjust monsters to be various levels. However, it depends on how much work has to be done. It sounds like, if one is to stay true to the encounters in the adventures, you may have a lot of adjusting for monster levels that may end up being a lot of work.
Regardless, I may still try.
Right.
I think, without knowing the MM 4 back and forth, that with the expected rate of advancement you will run past the range at which you can use some monsters. For example, trying to have hobgoblins for the Paragon tier of SotS.I could of course be completely wrong.
I'm assuming the plot challenge you have with Scourge of the Slavelords is...
Yes. Plus the manner in which it is done within the adventure. (That being boxed text fiat.)
I have players who would hurt my feelings if I tried that.Part of the reason I'm doing this is to see if these really are some of the "greatest adventures of all time." Right now I get the feeling they are imperfect masterpieces, like a statues with missing arms. Samuel - have you played through the adventures? If so, how was your experience (other than the funky level problems)?
I have never played them, just run them.
I have run T1 (only) 1 time in 1st ed and 1 time in 2nd ed.I have run ToEE 80% through in 1st ed (we got to the nodes), 40% through in 1st ed (we got through the first level of the temple), 60% through in 2nd ed (we got to the third level of the temple), and all the way through in 3.5 using some variations.
I have run SotS once 75% of the way through in 1st ed (collapsing due to above mentioned spoiler), once 75% of the way through in 2nd ed (losing steam due to the above mentioned spoiler and hand-waving past most of those elements), and a heavily redacted version using about half of the elements in 2nd ed (to completely avoid above mentioned spoiler elements altogether. I used the first two adventures as inspiration for personal variants in 3E game.
I have run the G series 3 times in 1st and 2nd ed, and 1 time in 3E. The 3E run through involved significant customization to the giants (rewriting most with the elite array and custom feats, and adding a few other variations), and some customization of encounter structure (to avoid some rooms with 10 or more giants in them at once).
I have run the D series 2 times in 1st and 2nd ed, skipping them completely 1 time I ran the series in 2nd ed. I have not run them in 3E.
I have run Q1 twice in 1st and 2nd ed, one time with a full run through of the D series and one time skipping over the D series. As with the D series, I have not run a conversion of it to 3E.
*whew*
OK, with all that background:
My experiences with the T series has generally been positive.
In AD&D T1 is often a bit difficult for 1st level characters. Because of that, when I did the 3E conversion, I ran a converted version of B1 to get the PCs to 2nd level as a lead up. It was still a pretty close thing with the relatively strict conversion I did.
T"2-4" (the temple itself) is a lot more difficult to work with. Nulb really needs about 20-30 hours of prep work that I never did and the players never really cared about. Some parts of the temple are exceptionally difficult swarm areas, while others can be near cakewalks. The design problems surge again when you get to the nodes, which have scaling issues. Just wandering around them, waiting to bump into the right random encounter, and with limited access to rest and healing is very jarring compared to the previous parts of the adventure.
One very major issue that is often glossed over is the sheer amount of magic available in the adventure. I mean huge! With the PCs recruiting every single NPC prisoner in the temple, they were able to equip all of them with cast-off +1 weapons and armor, as well as some wondrous items, without limiting PC equipment at all. That does not sound too dramatic until you know there are about ten such NPCs to be recruited.
The temple area also has a bit of an issue with boxed text that is a bit too florid for its own good.
For SotS, the main problem is the converted tournament module basis of the adventures. They are extremely linear, with the non-linear parts allowing some extreme short-circuiting of plot by taking alternate routes. Where that is not possible you wind up with a tedious slog through chokepoint after chokepoint, with the need to explain why everyone does not just leave when the PCs back off to rest for the third time after having trashed 75% of the complex.
The third adventure is even more of a linear horror, before ending with the spoiler noted above.
The fourth would be fairly decent if it did not have bad feelings from the third hanging around. If you can find a way to set up the fourth while avoiding that it will be fun.
The biggest issue with running it as a sequel to ToEE is all the magic loot the PCs will bring in with them, as well as their level being over that of the adventures. The one time I planned to use them in that manner I just looked at the PCs, looked at the adventures, shrugged, and skipped right to QotS.
For QotS, the tournament origin of the G series is also an issue, primarily with the amount of magic available. For the tournaments, you did not keep everything. For a regular group, the players will most certainly expect to. That causes a gradual but very dramatic increase in power above most expected progressions, most dramatically because you are constantly expected to get the stuff you need to kill the main opponents in the next adventure each time. Beyond that though the G series is pretty much a straightforward, FFA, hackfest, that contributes a lot to stereotypes of old school gaming styles.
The D series then becomes a bit of a disconnect as I mentioned before. From big mean giants you take a step back to swarms and swarms of lower HD/CR grunts, with only a few really tough leader types breaking the monotony. While there is more of the sublime hackfactor joy of slaying a few hundred 2-3 HD kuo-toa grunts until their bodies form a wall around you Conan-style, spending 3-12 hours doing it (depending on system) does get more than a tad boring. That is about 90% of D1 and D2. D2 has another issue with the kuo-toa leaders who simply do not convert well into 3E terms. D3 poses the problem of the players deciding to get sidetracked with staging a guerilla war to destroy the entire vault. Yes, just by rolling dice it is ridiculously easy to assemble a huge slave army, all armed with never decaying +1 to +3 drow weapons and armor ("Ha! Not only am I not taking them to the surface, I am using them right here in the Vault. Suck it up treasure stealing DM swine!"), but even if you do have the drow suddenly unite, they are still not that impressive. Their leaders are barely equal to the PCs in level, and the PCs should have significantly more magic than the drow. You really need to have players who will not try and crunch the numbers and realize they can manage a victory barring DM fiat of overwhelming numbers that are not that easy to justify.
Q1 is probably the most straightforward as well as the most inspiring of DM "twitchiness". The players will want to just go straight ahead and win before they are worn down by too many side encounters. The DM will most likely want the PCs to encounter every single bit of "kewlness" in each and every useless side encounter, whether the players want to check them out or not. This is actually one of the things that makes the old adventures so good - even the throwaway encounters beg to be played. As long as the DM can avoid the urge to "force" the players to do everything, it plays rather well up until the "last" encounter. That is where you need to make the command decision as to whether the players really and truly can kill Lolth. Her AC and hit points, despite intent otherwise, are a joke at that level to any fully equipped party. Of course the players love that, but the DM may not.
Now to recover from typing all of that.
:-P
Metric ton of stuff
Thanks. That's a lot of good info to keep in mind when doing a conversion.
Remember that treasure works completely differently now, so the magic arsenal will not be an issue. If you want creatures to use powers from magic items you can deem that it is a power unique to that creature.
|
|
A4 Slave Lords spoiler:
so I don't know much about 4e, but I think it would exacerbate it a little more; IDK.