After many years playing RPGs (a lot of them in Fantasy Settings, and a lot of gaming with AD&D, 3.5 and Pathfinder), me and my regular gaming group have come to the conclusion there are a LOT of iconic modules/adventures/scenarios/campaigns we have actually never played through.
Of course this is no biggie, and we all know some of the modules will probably look very strange in content and mechanics, when we look at them under a more modern light. However, we would still like to experience them nonetheless, and have been debating the best way to approach this idea.
My group is all familiar with PF 1st edition, so the idea which is currently being more accepted in our midst is either looking for those modules converted directly to PF, or to D&D 3.5 or even 3.0. The fact that a lot of these conversions already exist is a plus.
But I was thinking... What about the possibility of actually using the game versions for which these iconic adventures or campaigns have been designed for? Obviously this depends a lot on the group and DM being willing to learn/re-learn/remember older versions and mechanics, etc, but is it even feasible? Do you think it has the potential to be fun? Or most likely frustrating and a disappointment?
Let me hear your thoughts on this.
And thanks!
It's totally possible to learn many different roleplaying games, including ones far more different than PF and D&D. They're a lot less complex than different languages. Obviously anyone who's been gaming for more than 12 years (and there are many such people) has learned at least a couple, my closest friends and I have played a couple dozen and there are people who claim even more.
Or to put it another way - I have known AD&D players who make ungulates look smart by comparison. If you're saying you couldn't handle it, I have to ask how you got on to the internet.
I'd make sure players really know what they are signing up for, and pick a small module to test how it works out. Maybe I'd point players to helpful online sources: Beside a wiki there might be printer-friendly spell cards and the like.
I guess the target audience consists mostly of veterans of such editions. But maybe also a few new people would be interested in a harsh but rather easy-to-learn ruleset, especially hardcore RPG and strategy players.
|
The title made me think you might be attempting something I've done a few times... system mixing.
That is, the GM can run the encounters in the module under the original rules system (e.g. AD&D), but the players could all be using Pathfinder characters and following those rules for everything they do.
It requires some on the fly balancing (e.g. PF characters have more HP and do more damage than AD&D characters), but is entirely viable if the GM knows all the involved rules systems well.
Failing that, I'd suggest playing using the original system(s), but don't expect the players to learn all the rules. The GM should get as good a grounding as they can, but then just walk the players through things.
I've DM/GMed the ToEE campaign under 1e, 3.5e and Pathfinder. I've found the players want to play the current ruleset and I enjoy seeing new scenarios unfold in a game world I have 30+ years familiarity with.
It's totally possible to learn many different roleplaying games, including ones far more different than PF and D&D. They're a lot less complex than different languages. Obviously anyone who's been gaming for more than 12 years (and there are many such people) has learned at least a couple, my closest friends and I have played a couple dozen and there are people who claim even more.
Yeah, we have played lots of different RPG systems over the years, my question is more geared toward whether the players will find it fun/rewarding going back to stuff like AD&D 1e, or before that. But I guess that depends on the players.
I was really picking everyone's brains in case they had experience doing such a thing, and how they went about it :D
I'd make sure players really know what they are signing up for, and pick a small module to test how it works out. Maybe I'd point players to helpful online sources: Beside a wiki there might be printer-friendly spell cards and the like.
You are most likely right in that at least an introductory adventure would be relevant to allow them to 'get their bearings' - though I fear if I do not 'get to business' right away with the module/campaign/sequence of scenarios or adventures I wish to run, then we may end up dragging our feet again with 'side shows' and never actually get to the iconic one :P
That is, the GM can run the encounters in the module under the original rules system (e.g. AD&D), but the players could all be using Pathfinder characters and following those rules for everything they do.
It requires some on the fly balancing (e.g. PF characters have more HP and do more damage than AD&D characters), but is entirely viable if the GM knows all the involved rules systems well.
I would love to do just this, and I have already done it with some D&D 3.0 and 3.5 ones (and playing Pathfinder), but those are kinda easy to just run on the fly. Stuff like 'The Veiled Society' or 'The Lost City' makes me hesitate a LOT, before even considering running it on the fly... I am specially concerned with power levels and stuff like traps and whatnot. Don't you think? Maybe I should shrink my list of iconics to play, and do only stuff after (and including) AD&D 1ed. Might make things easier?
I've DM/GMed the ToEE campaign under 1e, 3.5e and Pathfinder. I've found the players want to play the current ruleset and I enjoy seeing new scenarios unfold in a game world I have 30+ years familiarity with.
You may be right there - the current ruleset offers so many options and variety, that if I put them back in a place where clerics could not convert spells to cures, they may just cry themselves to sleep :D
-----------------
Thanks a LOT for the feedback so far guys - I know I want to do this. Just not sure exactly how.
And apologies if I am in the wrong forum.
(Rolling for Extraordinary STR at 18 was such a bummer...)
|
I remember back in the day, it was a year after 3e had been released and we had all made the switch and were loving the new system. We had a local con and some guy decided it would be fun to run an old adventure, so we sat down and played an ad&d game. That game cemented just how much I loved the new edition and how horrendously awful 2nd edition was. After that game I was all like yup, never playing second edition again.
Dice mechanics aside, old d&d is extremely simplistic with no meaningful character customization. Unless your players like playing generic old fantasy tropes, they will be dissatisfied with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the last couple of years we have been having an ‘old school day’ at one of the UK cons, where my other half has run classic D&D/AD&D games for PF1 players, starting with Keep on the Borderlands, and following up with chapter 1 of ToEE.
Once you get past the system shock (2 hp wizard gets stabbed once and dies, roll up a new character) it’s a fun experience, because everything is in the roleplay, since you have so few codified actions. Whether it’s something your players want to do long term I can’t say, but At the very least try a one-shot and see if they can cope with the shift in style of play.
Or, if you want to play ‘classic’ adventures, but not keep comparing editions, go for one of the other old systems - Runequest, Rolemaster, Vampire... and see what that can offer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've given this subject some thought over the years. I have been playing D&D since the early '80s, so I've read several classic modules that I haven't had the time to play or run--or only got to run part of--and would love to try out with others.
I started with Basic/Expert and soon moved on to AD&D 1E. With the exception of 4E, I've embraced each new edition since then. Instead, I played 3.5 for about 10 years until I finally tried and got hooked on Pathfinder. Up through 3.5 and PF1, if I wanted to run an older adventure, I always converted it to the current rules set, because it was much easier to get my group (and myself!) interested in the adventure if we used the edition we were most familiar with at that time. I've never really been interested in going back and relearning an older edition of D&D, because I almost always (again, excepting 4E) enjoyed the new version better. I have tried out 5E, but have too many other games competing for my time (mostly PF1) to have played it as much as I'd like to.
Back in the AD&D 2E days, conversions were easy, because most of 2E was just 1E with better editing. I ran several 1E modules in 2E with minimal effort: Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, the two Dungeonland modules, and a number of adventures from Polyhedron Newszine. With most of the monsters, I didn't have to do more than calculate their THAC0, and I was ready to go.
Once 3E came out, the effort needed for conversions multiplied dramatically--but if you were lucky, the monsters you needed were already in the 3.0/3.5 Monster Manual or the 3rd-party Tome of Horrors. Similarly, 3E adventures were fairly easy to adapt to Pathfinder. I ran adventures in Green Ronin's Freeport setting in 3.0, 3.5, and PF1, including updating Freeport adventures published for older editions to whatever we were using at the time. (I also did the official revision of the original Freeport Trilogy from 3.0 to 3.5, but that's a story all on its own.)
Wizards has issued 5E versions of several old adventures in their anthologies Tales from the Yawning Portal and Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and the core of Curse of Strahd is a conversion of the original Ravenloft. I've run the first couple adventures from Tales, and hope to find time someday to run more from these books.
Goodman Games also has a series of deluxe editions of old D&D adventures converted to 5E. I haven't been much interested in those, until they released Expedition to the Barrier Peaks last year. I once tried to run that (1E) adventure using 2E, but the game only lasted a couple of sessions before the party dynamics imploded and forced us to stop. Ever since then, I've wanted to go back and give it another shot, but that module presents many unique challenges for conversion beyond just the differences between editions. First of all, it presents many unique new monsters, only some of which made it into the 1e Monster Manual II, and thus into later editions. Second, it's full of futuristic alien tech, which became harder and harder to define in game terms as each new edition grew more detailed and complex. As I said above, I never had any interest in going back to 1E, so I puttered around with conversions to 3E while I played that version, and later to PF1. PF even has an entire Adventure Path that draws direct inspiration from Barrier Peaks, but PF is such a crunchy, fiddly system to start with that I dread the headaches involved in playing or running any adventure involving high tech on top of that. I've had small tastes of it through PFS, and heard many grisly war stories from friends who have played Iron Gods, and decided long ago that I was NOT going to try to run Barrier Peaks using PF. 5E is the first edition since 1E that I find to be a decent fit for the original adventure: the rules are extremely simple compared to 3E or 4E, so it seems much easier to capture the right feel. And now I no longer have to do my own conversion work to run it! I don't know how soon I'll get a chance to do that--it's not something I feel remotely ready to run online--but I do intend to try it out someday.
I've never understood why people stress about "converting" old modules. For the most part modules are little more than a story. when you encounter something in that story that requires mechanics, simply use the mechanics of the game you are in.
i.e.
you encounter a goblin. DM grabs the PF1 bestiary and looks up goblin
you encounter a trap, DM uses standard trap DC's for locating and disarming it.
etc.
Know and embrace the strengths and limitations of a system you use.
Not each system is appropriate for each type of story but within the realm of D&D, each story could be run with any iteration of the engine, mutadis mutandis, as the core is still similar compartimented classes and levels spread over comparable ranges.
Once you have a good grasp of where in narration a system does well and where it does poorly, it is up to you to decide whether to run a story using the current system/the system your group has the greatest expertise in or to use the system that was current when the story you want to run was written, or yet another system.
Besides not having to convert to another system, there is no inherent merit to using the system the story was written with. Weight the costs, learning the system it was written in against converting into the system you usually use and more importantly, which system would yield the most interesting narration and play.
I've never understood why people stress about "converting" old modules. For the most part modules are little more than a story. when you encounter something in that story that requires mechanics, simply use the mechanics of the game you are in.
i.e.
you encounter a goblin. DM grabs the PF1 bestiary and looks up goblin
you encounter a trap, DM uses standard trap DC's for locating and disarming it.
etc.
You encounter a Red Abishai Ba'atezu. DM grabs the PF1 bestiary and... I know Ba'atezu are devils, but I can't find any entry for "abishai"! Speaking of devils, neither they nor demons resisted acid in AD&D.
Oh, and Yugoloths are Ceustodaemons. I got lucky with that search.
You encounter a Beholder. Wait, PF1 Bestiary isn't going to have Beholders because they were never on the OGL! What do?!
Sticking to AD&D, did you know:
- Haste can instantly kill its targets. (aging)
- Wish (even limited wish) can instantly kill its caster. (aging)
- Restoration can instantly kill its caster. (aging)
- Magical aging is a butt, because it triggers a type of Death Save called a "system shock". This also gets triggered if you are involuntarily polymorphed, and if you dispel an involuntary polymorph that you had survived. (I might have killed a player character this way once.)
- Permanency had a 100% chance of 1 point of Constitution drain for personal applications, and 5% chance of the same for non-personal applications.
- Magic item creation required Permanency, or else the item would be consumable or charged rather than permanent.
In First Edition, if a caster wins initiative against melee, but the absolute value of the difference between the melee fighter's initiative roll and weapon speed is lower than your cast time, he gets to go before your cast. Never mind that there are situations (I win 6-5, casting a 3-speed spell, and you're using a 1-speed weapon) in which the weapon might be TOO FAST to get this advantage.
Also, if two melee fighters tie initiative, and one has a faster weapon by 5 speed points, the faster gets an attack of opportunity but then loses initiative to the slower. However, if the faster is faster by 10 (usually if the slower is using a polearm,) then the faster gets TWO attacks of opportunity, and his first real attack is simultaneous with the slower! Note that none of this happens if one of the fighters actually wins initiative.
As for wealth by level, it's cute that PF1 suggests that you distribute treasure such that the party enters level 2 with about 1k worth. In AD&D 1E, you'll be forced to spend three to six times that much on the downtime activity required to enter level 2.
And as the final example... AD&D multiclassing does not reasonably correspond to Pathfinder multiclassing, whether you try to use standard MC, VMC, or gestalt to accomplish it. Maybe a magus could stand in for a fighter/mage? But those couldn't wear armour in Second, unless they were elves wearing elven chain (which explicitly could not be enchanted as a magic item, because elven chain simply couldn't be.)
I've never understood why people stress about "converting" old modules. For the most part modules are little more than a story. when you encounter something in that story that requires mechanics, simply use the mechanics of the game you are in.
i.e.
you encounter a goblin. DM grabs the PF1 bestiary and looks up goblin
you encounter a trap, DM uses standard trap DC's for locating and disarming it.
etc.
You encounter a Red Abishai Ba'atezu. DM grabs the PF1 bestiary and... I know Ba'atezu are devils, but I can't find any entry for "abishai"! Speaking of devils, neither they nor demons resisted acid in AD&D.
Oh, and Yugoloths are Ceustodaemons. I got lucky with that search.
You encounter a Beholder. Wait, PF1 Bestiary isn't going to have Beholders because they were never on the OGL! What do?!
Sticking to AD&D, did you know:
- Haste can instantly kill its targets. (aging)
- Wish (even limited wish) can instantly kill its caster. (aging)
- Restoration can instantly kill its caster. (aging)
- Magical aging is a butt, because it triggers a type of Death Save called a "system shock". This also gets triggered if you are involuntarily polymorphed, and if you dispel an involuntary polymorph that you had survived. (I might have killed a player character this way once.)
- Permanency had a 100% chance of 1 point of Constitution drain for personal applications, and 5% chance of the same for non-personal applications.
- Magic item creation required Permanency, or else the item would be consumable or charged rather than permanent.In First Edition, if a caster wins initiative against melee, but the absolute value of the difference between the melee fighter's initiative roll and weapon speed is lower than your cast time, he gets to go before your cast. Never mind that there are situations (I win 6-5, casting a 3-speed spell, and you're using a 1-speed weapon) in which the weapon might be TOO FAST to get this advantage.
Also, if two...
Let's see. Monsters you can replace with a similar monster of the right CR. For a Beholder you use an Evil Eye BTW. And who cares that Devils didn't resist acid in D&D, you're using PF character and PF devils, so unless the module has an acid trap that the devils are supposed to be protected from it doesn't matter.
you now are using a list of spells that typically are never part of a module, so no need to convert, simply use the new rules.
So again, casting time isn't in a module, so no need to convert. simply use the rule of the system you are using.
AS for the different power levels etc mentioned above, I've found that to be pretty trivial when comparing the systems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, and spare myself hours of conversation? Never! I live for that!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a Pathfinder Reign of Winter Game and at one point in the first module expanded a fey portal into a full trip into the primal timey wimey First World where reality is similar but works differently. I had everybody convert their Pathfinder characters into 1e versions of themselves and used AD&D1e rules throughout their time there, even pulling out the early Dragon/The Strategic Review version of a bard class to use at low level.
People felt it was fun as an experience, but a number said they would not have liked it if it was the standard and not knowing it was a limited thing.
The classic modules work well in their original editions and as conversions. I ran ToEE in AD&D and played through it in 3e and both worked great.
For conversions the general issues are monster substitutions, treasure awarded, leveling point expectations, and encounter designs.
Exactly. It is not as simple as going straight across. You will have to substitute similar things in the system you are converting to. Something that takes some amount of time, effort, and preparation to do.
But that's not "Converting" a module, it's using the adventure as is, with the appropriate monster substituted. There's a difference between substituting a similar monster vs. building a new monster to match the one from the other system.
I'm pretty sure that for most 3.5 adventures, I could run them as is for PF1, with little modifications other than simple substitutions to the appropriate monsters and traps. Negligible additional prep time to what I would spend on a PF1 AP.
|
|
Exactly. It is not as simple as going straight across. You will have to substitute similar things in the system you are converting to. Something that takes some amount of time, effort, and preparation to do.But that's not "Converting" a module, it's using the adventure as is, with the appropriate monster substituted. There's a difference between substituting a similar monster vs. building a new monster to match the one from the other system.
I'm pretty sure that for most 3.5 adventures, I could run them as is for PF1, with little modifications other than simple substitutions to the appropriate monsters and traps. Negligible additional prep time to what I would spend on a PF1 AP.
You could but I would posit that would not make for a great game. You would end up with combat difficulties all over the place, not the proper amount of treasure, not the right amount of xp and so on. Whereas spending the time to convert a module would result in a better experience because you fit it to the different design assumptions of the different game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can be good, but at the same time in my experience going back to old systems can highlight why you left the system in the first place.
Like nostalgically? I love a tightly controlled for power level rifts game. LOVE it...in theory. By about hour 2 of the math involved in filling out your skills in a palladium system and i remember why i dont play it anymore.
I have amazingly fond memories of 2nd edition forgotten realms and birthright in particular as settings. I'm not into going back to racial caps on levels.
You could but I would posit that would not make for a great game. You would end up with combat difficulties all over the place, not the proper amount of treasure, not the right amount of xp and so on. Whereas spending the time to convert a module would result in a better experience because you fit it to the different design assumptions of the different game.Exactly. It is not as simple as going straight across. You will have to substitute similar things in the system you are converting to. Something that takes some amount of time, effort, and preparation to do.But that's not "Converting" a module, it's using the adventure as is, with the appropriate monster substituted. There's a difference between substituting a similar monster vs. building a new monster to match the one from the other system.
I'm pretty sure that for most 3.5 adventures, I could run them as is for PF1, with little modifications other than simple substitutions to the appropriate monsters and traps. Negligible additional prep time to what I would spend on a PF1 AP.
Many people use milestone leveling anyway, so that's not an issue. We always have to adjust APs CR level to match the party (they are written for 4 non-optimized PCs), so no extra work there. Treasure is not that big of a deal, I've never found too much or too little to be a game breaker, especially if you are needing to adjust the CR based on the party anyway. Like I said, it's pretty much no extra work to just have the right list of PF1 monsters and traps to use in a module from an older system.
Like nostalgically? I love a tightly controlled for power level rifts game. LOVE it...in theory. By about hour 2 of the math involved in filling out your skills in a palladium system and i remember why i dont play it anymore.
I have amazingly fond memories of 2nd edition forgotten realms and birthright in particular as settings. I'm not into going back to racial caps on levels.
*sigh*
Yup.
I am really happy to see this conversation alive and healthy, and I guess as expected the answers/opinions are as different as can be. But that makes sense - to each his own ;)
Before even deep diving into any sort of conversion AT ALL, I started looking at what comes before that - WHAT to convert?
Using THIS LIST as reference, I started looking through the modules, and I guess it makes sense starting with the D&D Basic Set and the B-Series?
Looking at those I immediately start smiling, since I played through almost all of them actually. The one from that list that immediately jumps at me, and I never played is B2 The Keep on the Borderlands
What do you guys think? Would it make sense to start with this one?
Beyond these, and unless I am misinterpreting systems, among the best known we have the S-Modules, right?
S1 Tomb of Horrors by Gary Gygax
S2 White Plume Mountain by Lawrence Schick
S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks by Gary Gygax
S4 Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth by Gary Gygax
Then I guess:
Temple of Elemental Evil
The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh
The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun
The City of Skulls
The Isle of Dread
So, would you consider the above be the 'iconic' ones for for D&D (Basic/Expert/Companion/Master)? I know a lot of these are a matter of preference, but would you have any others to add?
Still wow! They are a lot more than I thought :D
I also know some of these have seen later reprints, or included in later compilations with other systems, so I need to go look for them.
My initial plan was to either find conversions already done to 3.5, and then play them using PF1e. Or convert them myself to PF1e and take it from there. But I get the feeling if we just played D&D5e this whole 'project' might be easier (since there are a lot of conversions already being done), even if my players are much more used to PF1. So I may consider using D&D5e just for this... Would it make sense?
I have noticed that some of D&D's classic modules have been redone in PF1, I mean, the Iron Gods AP is effectively an expansion on Barrier Peaks.
I've been playing D&D (and variants) for over 30 years now, PF1 since it was first published. we do the adventure paths. We haven't even done half the adventure paths yet. Not to mention all the modules. I have yet to find anything from Classic D&D that hasn't effectively been redone in PF1. An adventure path takes us 12-18 months to play (We play every saturday). So, not only do we have 10-20 years worth of PF1 material to still play through (Have you already played through all of the PF1 stuff) before I would need to go back and play through older D&D stuff, that in my opinion should be super easy to convert (which I really don't see a need to, since a lot of it already exists in Pf1 somehow)
I mean, the Rod of Seven Parts from D&D is Rise of the Runelords AP, I'm sure other APs were strongly base don older D&D adventures as well.
I mean, the Rod of Seven Parts from D&D is Rise of the Runelords AP, I'm sure other APs were strongly base don older D&D adventures as well.
The Rod of Seven Parts is nothing like Rise of the Runelords. Did you mean Shattered Star? I've heard that comparison before.
I mean, the Rod of Seven Parts from D&D is Rise of the Runelords AP, I'm sure other APs were strongly base don older D&D adventures as well.
The Rod of Seven Parts is nothing like Rise of the Runelords. Did you mean Shattered Star? I've heard that comparison before.
yes, sorry. I do mean Shattered Star. they were the first ones we played, and I get them mixed up sometimes.
Also, if two melee fighters tie initiative, and one has a faster weapon by 5 speed points, the faster gets an attack of opportunity but then loses initiative to the slower. However, if the faster is faster by 10 (usually if the slower is using a polearm,) then the faster gets TWO attacks of opportunity, and his first real attack is simultaneous with the slower! Note that none of this happens if one of the fighters actually wins initiative.
Can you point me to where this rule is explained in the 1E books? I don't have the books in front of me, but I recall not being able to find any rules regarding Speed Factor in 1e (though a value was provided for each weapon). First rules I remember re: Speed Factor was in 2e. Thanks!
The one from that list that immediately jumps at me, and I never played is B2 The Keep on the Borderlands
This seemed clunky when I was in my early teens. I can't imagine it's aged as well as all that.
S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks by Gary Gygax
OTOH this could work. There's a lot more work involved than in a Paizo module tho', even before considering updating or converting anything. Old modules left more work for the GM.
The Isle of Dread
As S3.
There's a lot of modules there I've never run or seen. Financial limits kept me from getting into modules a lot back then. Once you're in the habit of running your own adventures there's just less reason to get into them too.
D&D 5e does make sense for running old modules IMO - you'll get the old school feel without as much old school clunkiness.
Also, if two melee fighters tie initiative, and one has a faster weapon by 5 speed points, the faster gets an attack of opportunity but then loses initiative to the slower. However, if the faster is faster by 10 (usually if the slower is using a polearm,) then the faster gets TWO attacks of opportunity, and his first real attack is simultaneous with the slower! Note that none of this happens if one of the fighters actually wins initiative.Can you point me to where this rule is explained in the 1E books? I don't have the books in front of me, but I recall not being able to find any rules regarding Speed Factor in 1e (though a value was provided for each weapon). First rules I remember re: Speed Factor was in 2e. Thanks!
I remember rules regarding who could or couldn't interrupt spellcasting but no analogues to attacks of opportunity.
OTOH AD&D 1e was basically all house rules and I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere did that - and considered it as official as anything else.|
|
Also, if two melee fighters tie initiative, and one has a faster weapon by 5 speed points, the faster gets an attack of opportunity but then loses initiative to the slower. However, if the faster is faster by 10 (usually if the slower is using a polearm,) then the faster gets TWO attacks of opportunity, and his first real attack is simultaneous with the slower! Note that none of this happens if one of the fighters actually wins initiative.Can you point me to where this rule is explained in the 1E books? I don't have the books in front of me, but I recall not being able to find any rules regarding Speed Factor in 1e (though a value was provided for each weapon). First rules I remember re: Speed Factor was in 2e. Thanks!
Per my 1E PHB from 1978, initiative was a straight 1d6 roll for each side, with exceptions for having more attacks or being hasted (always goes first), being slowed (always goes last), and weapon length.
Of course, it then goes on to say 'When important single combats occur, then dexterities and weapon factors will be used to determine the order and number of strikes in a round.'
Looks like p66 of the 1e DMG has the actual rule being referred to:
- If your SF is half or 5 less than that of your foe, you get two attacks before he acts and none afterwards.
- If your SF is 10 less than your foe, you get two attacks before he acts and one attack after.
- This doesn't apply when closing or charging.
Man, these rules were a complete mess...
My initial plan was to either find conversions already done to 3.5, and then play them using PF1e. Or convert them myself to PF1e and take it from there. But I get the feeling if we just played D&D5e this whole 'project' might be easier (since there are a lot of conversions already being done), even if my players are much more used to PF1. So I may consider using D&D5e just for this... Would it make sense?
Using 5E is pretty much the conclusion I've come to. Quite a few of the items on your list have already been converted to that system. You have the following from Wizards themselves:
* Tales from the Yawning Portal includes Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain (as well as Against the Giants and 4 other adventures from earlier editions).
* Ghosts of Saltmarsh includes Sinister Secret and the rest of that trilogy (and 4 other nautical-themed adventures).
* It's not on your list, but worth mentioning: Curse of Strahd is pretty much Ravenloft, with lots of additional material added on.
I own all three, have run the first two adventures in Yawning Portal, and hope to run more if I can make time in my always-busy gaming schedule.
Goodman Games has been producing 5E versions of old D&D modules in their Original Adventures Reincarnated series: 1. Into the Borderlands (Into the Unknown + Keep on the Borderlands), 2. Isle of Dread, 3. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, 4. The Lost City, and 5. Castle Amber. Their format is a lot pricier--only one, maybe two, adventures per book, because each one includes a reprint of the original as well as a conversion and a brief historical essay. #3 is the only one I've wanted to run enough to shell out for so far, but Covid has delayed making any plans to actually run it.
Albion - My recommendation would be updating the adventures to the system your table is currently most familiar with.
It will certainly put a work on the GM for game prep; but probably less than coming up with something from square one. .
Primarily, it will just be a matter of updating just those parts that have to do with game mechanics. Swap out data blocks for the same or compatible monsters etc.; Figure out CR appropriate traps, spells, etc.
All the the non-mechanic parts can be used pretty much as is. The locations, environment, NPCs, plots/sub-plots, puzzles, and narrative bits, can all still provide the group the ability to experience the classic adventure.
Plus, this will give the GM the ability to even edit parts to put their own style on the module. And even expand it. Quite a few of even the classic well-loved adventures were a bit thin by today's standards.
Lots of room the fill in the empty spaces. Most of us who ran those classics in the past did that anyway. That's why a player could go through a module multiple times (with different DMs), and have a very different experience each time.
Overall, I believe it will be easier to do that, than have everyone learn a rules set they are not familiar with.
My group has some experience with this. We changes systems periodically. And depending on who is running, we could be playing Pathfinder, D20 Modern/Future, Star Wars, Traveller, or a World of Darkness game.
Even with the advantage of the group all being long-in-the-tooth gamers, and knowing all these rules sets pretty well, it is STILL not uncommon for us to mix something up rules-wise from time to time.
However you choose to proceed, I wish you luck. Hope all involved have some great adventures you can still reminisce about years from now.
Those are always the best ones; whether from a classic module, or home brewed campaign.
I can only thank all of you guys for the feedback so far - your experiences and opinions are helping me piece together what my best options may be moving forward...
Like I said, I was inclined to run with D&D 5e, but now that I am playing a game with it, I cannot say I am overwhelmed by the system itself. I need to give it some more time though.
But PodTrooper's words do make a lot of sense as far as using a system people are comfortable with - the only way to know is grabbing perhaps a simple first module/adventure, and starting to work in converting it. Who knows? I may even enjoy the whole process, right? :D
To all - any thoughts on my post here and what would make sense to convert in your opinion?