General Discussion

[Beoric]

Many people have tried, nobody has succeeded. I challenge anyone here to name even one module that was converted to another edition that felt exactly the same as the original did. If we've learned anything from Bryce's reviews, it's that it just doesn't happen.

Most conversions are lazy, but IME even the ones that aren't don't try to emulate the feel of the original. A good example is with finding secret doors and traps and things like that. They get converted to the modern version's perception/trap-finding rules, which to be clear, is easy mode. So for example, your 1 in 6 chance to find a secret door in 1e becomes a 50-50 chance in modern editions.

When I do it, I figure out the odds of success in the original, and try to replicate it in 4e. That may mean a trap is higher level (since traps have a level assigned to them in 4e), and is worth more XPs, but I'm fine with that. Usually an appropriate level trap in terms of danger is also (barely) within the parameters of suggested encounter design anyway. I also encourage narrative approaches to finding and disabling these things, and I've pretty much adopted Courtney's approach to telegraphing danger.

Some things aren't a good fit, for example, save or die doesn't work well in 4e. But I've got a pretty good model for estimating the danger of save or die monsters/traps/whatever, so the worst something gets is that the monster might be just as dangerous in a slightly different way. Level drain also isn't a good fit, because it is so freaking complicated to de-level and re-level, but like 3e does with ability score damage, I use different semi-permanent penalties to similar effect - loss of healing surges and attack roll penalties are pretty similar in effect to losing a hit die with the consequent loss of hit points and level on attack tables.

Other than that, all I can really say is the game ends up feeling to me, personally, pretty much the way the game felt when we were playing 1e.

 

[Beoric]

I've been reading some 3.5e Eberron modules and ruminating on a few things, one of which was how few encounters there are for a given page count than with early TSR stuff. And yet you are still expecting to go up a couple of levels, which led to me assuming that the number of encounters to go up in level had to be less in modern games than in earlier editions. In 4e you generally expect to level every 8ish encounters, which ends up being more like 7 if you tend to write tougher encounters.

But I was curious about just how quickly you leveled in 1e. So I assumed a first level party was in a first level dungeon. I used Appendix C to estimate the average XPs from combat for a given encounter (using a few simplifying assumptions, and weighting the probability of getting a level I, II or II encounter), which came out to 53 XP. I used the tables in Appendix A to determine an average treasure haul for a treasure hoard with no monster (196 gp) and a hoard protected by a monster (443 gp). I also used the tables in Appendix A to weigh the chances of getting a monster with no treasure, a monster with treasure, and a treasure with no monster, which led to an average XP haul of 272 XP.

Which seems kind of low, especially since the norm at the time was for larger parties. The tables for NPC parties in Appendix C assume a party of 9, with 2-5 PCs and the remainder being men-at-arms or henchmen. But even assuming a party of four (and averaging the XP-to-level for a cleric, fighter, MU and thief), you are looking at 26 encounters to level. I remember levelling being slow, but I don't remember it being that slow.

It's possible I screwed up the math, but the math isn't actually that hard. So I'm wondering how that tracks with everyone's experience?

Also, one other interesting thing; experience gained this was was 16% combat and 84% treasure. I'm assuming Gygax was using a target of 15% combat and 85% treasure, which also tracks with my memory of somebody's (Delta's?) post in this regard.

I'm sure Delta has written something about encounters to level, but he's been pretty prolific for 18 years and has no search function, so ?

 

[Beoric]

Another thing that is interesting about these Eberron modules is how poorly suited they are to the goals of the setting. The original plan for Eberron was to have it support noir (think The Third Man, the Maltese Falcon or Chinatown) and pulp adventure (pulp westerns, Tarzan or Indiana Jones). And the setting very much does that (although it also supports a more classic or OSR game, for reasons that I think I have discussed elsewhere). But it is pretty clear that module-writers didn't have a great idea of how to pull it off.

The noir modules lean pretty heavily into very linear, largely event based adventures, where (it seems to me from reading it) the players are really just along for the ride. So the characters may be "inquisitives" (Eberron speak for private investigators), but there is not a lot of actual room for investigating; one scene just moves to the next, one after another, until the (combat) climax encounter.

It seems to me like it would be much better to give them, or allow them to choose, investigative resources. So they have some sort of capital to spend, but instead of getting gear, you get contacts, all of which have pros and cons. This gives the party a way to evaluate evidence if they can't figure it out on their own (and let's be clear, DMs and module writers aren't great about recognizing what will or will not be figured out by the players). But each contact comes with a price and a level or risk, so you have to choose who to ask for a favour, or pay fees/bribes to. And you can't just go to all of them, because there is time pressure in the form of randomly occurring encounters with the villain's agents, people with a score to settle against you or your client, the city watch that thinks you are the criminal, rival inquisitives, etc.

Same with the pulp stuff. The usual model tries to emulate an Indiana Jones plot, following a string of clues from exotic location to exotic location. And the locations are exotic! But you would never know that from the modules. In Raiders, Peru was tonally different from Nepal, which in turn was different from Cairo, and the events, resources and dangers in those locations have a local colour. The modules don't do that at all, every location seems the same, and every NPC is culturally generic D&D. The example that I just read yesterday is particularly irking me; if you travel to a nation that is literally governed by goblionoids for goblinoids, why is your main contact an ex-pat human? This is your chance to showcase something really cool from the setting, and show why it works, why are you blowing this? (This is more a critique of WotC than the author, I am aware that parts of the module suffered from executive meddling.)

I mean, at the least you could distinguish places by the weather. Is it too hot to wear armour? Does snow slow travel? Is there a cold, sustained drizzle that makes it harder to recover when you rest (and you thought the canvas tent would be too heavy!). Does a blizzard impair visibility? Does the town just stop in the afternoon, because there is a regular downpour? Is it too windy for arrowfire? Are the streets always blanketed in a dense fog?

Plus they don't do travel well. Yes, in an India Jones movie, travel is handwaived with a red line on a map. But even that is a more interesting transition, because it gives you a sense of time, distance and location. When most of the game takes place in the players' heads, you need more than an announcement that you have arrived at your destination. Particularly if the planned travel is interrupted. Like when Jones and Marion are interecepted by the Nazis when sailing in the Aegean, that may be a surprise for a movie audience; but if you do the same thing in an adventure that handwaives travel, it is obviously a planned encounter that probably has nothing to do with the player's choices.

Plus, some sort of travel minigame gives another opportunity to show just what makes this exotic locale different from the last. I'm not saying every transition needs to be a hexcrawl, but I do think that the choice of route, conveyance, and travelling companions should have an impact on the risks of the trip. Do you join the slow, well guarded caravan, or buy horses (and from which dealer), or charter a sloop from the shady captain, or book passage on the passenger ship that won't leave for another 3 days, or blow a ton of cash chartering an airship?

In general, these modules don't handle transitions well. You are at one place, then you are at another. Sometimes there will be one planned encounter on the road. This does not work when you are working in genres that include interruptions in travel that occur because of the choices of the protagonist.

 

[The Heretic]

I've been reading some 3.5e Eberron modules and ruminating on a few things, one of which was how few encounters there are for a given page count than with early TSR stuff. And yet you are still expecting to go up a couple of levels, which led to me assuming that the number of encounters to go up in level had to be less in modern games than in earlier editions. In 4e you generally expect to level every 8ish encounters, which ends up being more like 7 if you tend to write tougher encounters.

That's interesting. I can't help you with the 1e levelling, but I can tell you that 3.0 (not sure about 3.5) aimed to have the PCs level after every ~14th encounter. That was based on their research on how fast the players and the DMs wanted to go.

It would be interesting to compare how fast 1e levelling was compared to 2e levelling, since 2e dropped the gold=xp standard.

The Heretic

 

[DangerousPuhson]

In general, these modules don't handle transitions well.

I'm very curious if you've got an example queued up for a module that actually does overland travel well (that is to say, an example module where travel is not the entire adventure, like it is in something like Isle of Dread). I'm at a loss to think of one; even old school modules like Assassin's Knot were usually all abbreviated like "It is 2 days travel from Restenford to Garotten. When the party arrives...", and maybe at most you could get a random encounter table (usually a painfully generic one with entries like "2d4 goblins" and "1d3 giant spiders").

 

[Beoric]

That's interesting. I can't help you with the 1e levelling, but I can tell you that 3.0 (not sure about 3.5) aimed to have the PCs level after every ~14th encounter. That was based on their research on how fast the players and the DMs wanted to go.

The 4e 8 encounters per level thing was also alleged to have been based on such research. But they may have been talking about a slightly different market. My impression is that WotC at that time was leaning heavily into organized play, like Living Forgotten Realms.

It would not surprise me if people who were playing with strangers half the time, in a very structured campaign with no time to spend on anything that wasn't directly contemplated by the modules, needed fast advancement to stay engaged. Because, whatever people may say about LFR, you will have a hard time convincing me that those modules were engaging in their own right.

I actually prefer slower advancement, mostly because there are so many interesting things that can be done in a given level of play, that I don't know why you would rush your way through them. But I definitely have players who would get cranky if I slowed it down. I'm hoping with my new group (if I ever get that going), I can keep it slower from the start.

I'm also hoping that my training rules will provide a steady drip of player facing goodies that keeps them engaged even if they level more slowly. I don't know if I've talked about this before. When a PC in my game gets enough XPs for a new level, he gets the basic stuff - purely mathematical things like bumps to attack bonus and more hit points - after a decent night's sleep. But if he wants a new feat or power, he is going to have to train for it. I don't make it hard to find people you can train with, at least for common classes, but it does mean that the purely additive parts of leveling and the features part of leveling can happen at different times.

I'm very curious if you've got an example queued up for a module that actually does overland travel well (that is to say, an example module where travel is not the entire adventure, like it is in something like Isle of Dread). I'm at a loss to think of one; even old school modules like Assassin's Knot were usually all abbreviated like "It is 2 days travel from Restenford to Garotten. When the party arrives...", and maybe at most you could get a random encounter table (usually a painfully generic one with entries like "2d4 goblins" and "1d3 giant spiders").

B2 has a small but workable map. N1 has a very small hex map, with different random encounters in each region. ToEE's map is a bit bigger, but again has regional variations in challenges; whereas I think T1 suffers from having no regional map. U2 and U3 both have overland components. I think S4 (Tsojcanth) and WG4 (Tharizdun) theoretically share an overland map, although the presentation is different in each module.

However, none of these deal with long distances. So no, I can't point to a module that exemplifies what I am discussing above. Sometimes you just need to come up with a new procedure. I think I would just eyeball the distance, terrain, weather, likely inhabitants, and the precautions taken by the players, and come up with an ad hoc assessment of frequency and danger level of random encounters, as well as how they would be affected by local colour. I would probably use the 1e DMG as a baseline. And it might not actually require significant changes in procedure, so long as you are aware of the problem when building your encounters/encounter tables.

For long distances, I think I would reduce the number of encounter checks for a given distance, based on the unit of time we are talking about. If travel is measured in days, it would be checks per day. But if travel is measured in weeks, it would be checks per week, and probably more significant encounters, because of the amount of time to rest between encounters makes every encounter the only one that day (breaking from the attrition assumptions of D&D), and because I would be handwaving more frequent but lesser encounters as being something that occurs but is not worth gaming.

As for making a system for publication, that would take more playtesting than I have time/inclination for, but then nobody is paying me to design or play D&D modules.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

However, none of these deal with long distances. So no, I can't point to a module that exemplifies what I am discussing above. Sometimes you just need to come up with a new procedure.

Agreed, I can't think of any.

With that being said, why chastise Eberron modules in particular for this, when no adventure to date has done it right?

 

[Beoric]

Agreed, I can't think of any.

With that being said, why chastise Eberron modules in particular for this, when no adventure to date has done it right?

They are what I am reading at the moment. But also, Eberron has a stated intention to emulate particular genres, and the choices the writers and publishers make are particularly unsuited to those genres. The modules are basically vanilla Trad faux-Medieval D&D with the numbers filed off and new names pasted on with stickers.

And there are some structures that could be used that are already part of D&D. If you want a feeling of exotic places, you don't need a new mechanic in order to make those places exotic, and differentiate one from another. And if one of your tropes is "Explore the jungles of Xen'drik", that seems like a good place to have a traditional hexcrawl. If you have a bunch of different means of travel baked into the setting, all of which have pros and cons, why would you not make those choices part of the module?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

If you have a bunch of different means of travel baked into the setting, all of which have pros and cons, why would you not make those choices part of the module?

*shudders in lightning rails*

I think Eberron's emulation goal is relegated solely to the steampunk genre, since that's the only apparent differentiation from traditional settings. Like, if you added air-elemental-powered zeppelins and steam-elemental-powered trains to Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, you'd basically have 90% of Eberron right there. I actually refuse to touch it on principle (even though I own the sourcebooks) for the audacity it has to try and brand itself as something unique, when it's basically just magical steampunk Ren-faire. Conceptually, steampunk is only cool because it's cool to see gizmos powered by coal and steam - when that "steam" is just magic, it loses basically all of what makes it cool or different from normal fantasy.

 

[Beoric]

I think Eberron's emulation goal is relegated solely to the steampunk genre, since that's the only apparent differentiation from traditional settings. Like, if you added air-elemental-powered zeppelins and steam-elemental-powered trains to Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, you'd basically have 90% of Eberron right there. I actually refuse to touch it on principle (even though I own the sourcebooks) for the audacity it has to try and brand itself as something unique, when it's basically just magical steampunk Ren-faire. Conceptually, steampunk is only cool because it's cool to see gizmos powered by coal and steam - when that "steam" is just magic, it loses basically all of what makes it cool or different from normal fantasy.

There is so little in this statement that is true, that there is just no point in responding to it.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

There is so little in this statement that is true

News to me, care to elaborate?

I should preface by mentioning that I deliberately wrote "I think" before any of that, because what I was writing was opinion (sidenote - Why do people never catch that? It's not like we're chiseling laws into stone here; transitory debate is exactly what forums are meant for).

My understanding of Ebberon, which I already mentioned I refuse to touch, comes based off surface reading and a few game sessions there as a player about 15 years ago. In that time, I came to understand Eberron as one way: generic fantasy world with magic-powered steampunk elements. That was my base level, gut feeling about it. I'm certainly no authority on it. But like any sane person, if I am incorrect in my assumptions, I'm willing to change my viewpoint... but only if I'm presented with information beyond "there's no point in responding to it". A response like that doesn't do anything beyond make me think you're just a contrarian asshole (and I really hope you aren't just another internet asshole - that would be tragic).

So please, elaborate. I implore you. In what way is Ebberon not just Fantasy-gone-steampunk?

 

[Beoric]

If a complex thing is compared to another complex-ish thing, it's hard to describe it without resorting to platitudes or gross simplifications. It's like describing the difference between Canadians and Americans; there are fundamental differences that are difficult to describe, so we fall back on things like "Canadians are polite", which is a difference, but not the difference, and even the description of "politeness" itself misses a lot of nuance regarding that trait.

Eberron didn't start out wanting to be magepunk. Eberron was created during the 3e period, where arcane magic followed consistent rules, could be reliably replicated, and the low level stuff could be learned without any particular talent. Like, you need a 10 Int for 0-level wizard spells, if I am reading that correctly, or a 10 Cha for sorcerer spells (which are the same spells as wizards). In other words, 3e magic pretty much works like a science, and majority of people are able to cast some sort of magic. Moreover, there are learnable rules for creating magic items, which can also be reliably replicated if the relevant spells are known.

So the initial premise was, what does a world look like if magic is basically a technology? Say the magical "technology" level means 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells are common, 4th & 5th level spells are rare, and 6th to 9th level spells are unheard of. If the majority of the population is capable of learning to cast prestidigitation, how does that affect society, or the economy, or politics? So it is less that it set out to be magepunk, it is more like magepunk resulted from the initial premise.

A second theme is the exploration of issues relating to nationalism and the trauma of war. The continent that is home to most of the "common races," Khorvaire, has been ravaged by a civil war among the five provinces for more than a century. Four years ago, one of those provinces was wiped from the map - like if the whole of Japan had been obliterated by an atomic bomb - and is now a hellscape of undead, aberrations and planar anomalies. And nobody seems to know what caused the devastation, or who was responsible.

Two years after that, an armistice was signed, but nobody thinks the peace is going to last, and there is a vicious 4-way cold war going on. Meanwhile, the surviors from the obliterated province are refugees, and nobody wants to take responsibility for them.

The citizens of the provinces (now independent nations) are highly nationalistic. Country of origin is a much better predictor of culture and attitudes than race, so a Brelish elf has more in common with a Brelish dwarf than with an Aundairan elf.

A third theme deals with monopolistic power. A handful of extended families have innate advantages in certain economically important types of magic, and tend to dominate trade in their spheres. Most tradesmen that work in those areas went to trade schools run by the mercantile houses, and have their businesses acredited by them. The houses are very wealthy, are major employers, and have enormous economic power, enough that they have their own transnational court systems for house-related matters. While there are ancient laws restricting their rights and ability to be involved in politics, those laws are arguably no longer effective. Many of the former provinces are in debt to these families for the supply of goods and services during the war, and the houses wrangle various types of concessions from the nations.

Alignment is treated very differently in Eberron than other settings. Other than creatures like demons or angels, which are really the embodiment of concepts and not automomous creatures with free will, most races or types of creatures do not have a default alignment, so orcs and red dragons can be lawful good, and elves and gold dragons can be chaotic evil. Evil is also not cartoonish, and can manifest in different ways; an evil bartenter may water his drinks, serve spoiled food, and cheat on his taxes, but being evil doesn't necessarily mean he is murdering people or sacrificing babies. Paladins (depending on edition) can still cast detect alignment, but they don't just murder people who are evil (which is probably a third of the population), and basically leave them alone unless they have committed an actual crime.

As for religion, nobody knows if the gods are real. Unlike most settings, the gods don't walk around or talk to people. So religion is a matter of faith, and there can be different interpretations of the faith. Sectarian violence is a thing. Unlike arcane magic, one does need a talent for divine magic, so most priests are not clerics. Moreover, a priest can have faith in a good deity and still be an evil person, and churches are not immune to corruption.

In addition to all of that, there are still supernatural dangers and powerful malign entities in the world, especially in the wild spaces. And there are a few outdoor dungeons, like the province that was destroyed, as well as a mythic underworld to be explored. But I think most Eberron campaigns have at least some connection to the various factions that are vying for power.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It's like describing the difference between Canadians and Americans; there are fundamental differences that are difficult to describe, so we fall back on things like "Canadians are polite", which is a difference, but not the difference, and even the description of "politeness" itself misses a lot of nuance regarding that trait.

I guess what hangs me up is that Theme 1 (magic as technology) is very apparent, whereas Themes 2 and 3 (nationalism and power) are only knowable once you've properly dug into the setting, and aren't elements you can grasp at a glance. A DM can easily describe an airship powered by a living bottled storm and players will know they aren't in Kansas/Karameikos anymore; but if you say "there is jingoism and moralistic nuances", I mean, that could describe anywhere. Essentially, Theme 1 is what sets Eberron apart (and I gauge its merit based on said differentiation), but Themes 2 and 3 are seemingly just dressing added to the world as an extra layer but not unique to the world itself.

Like in your Canada/USA analogy - it's super easy to mistake a Canadian for an American and vice-versa, so much so that Canadians and Americans certainly don't find one another especially "exotic". By what I'd heard, I had hoped Eberron would be as different as comparing the USA to Japan or Egypt or Russia; "just Canada" is not as paradigm-changing a comparison as was advertised, so I'm a bit miffed for that reason, and it's why (to me) Eberron equates to "yet another generic fantasy world but more magickpunk".

Like, I can add powerful clans and xenophobes to any world; I can't add Dark Sun's bronze-age tech limits or Sigil's endless planes of possibilities, you know? Without magic-as-tech, it feels like Eberron totally loses its unique selling point.

 

[Beoric]

Whatever, man. That's reductive to the point that I don't think you are arguing in good faith, which is why I didn't want to argue with you before. If you want an argument, write something that's worth arguing with. Otherwise you're just trolling, and it isn't worth my time.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I'm not arguing anything. I'm expressing my views on Eberron as a setting.

 

[squeen]

Leveling was sporadic, entirely dependent on the treasure haul. You needed to go where the loot was.
In 1e, monster XP is light. Lighter yet if randomly encountered.

 

[Beoric]

Food for thought: Why Celebrimbor Fell but Boromir Conquered: the Moral Universe of Tolkien.

 

[squeen]

Food for thought: Why Celebrimbor Fell but Boromir Conquered: the Moral Universe of Tolkien.

Interesting.

I think the show's writers for ROP are too tainted with modern sensibilities to be use Tolkien's original Christian framing of morality or how one can fall from grace by their own hand. They view all beings (man or elf) as inherently good-intention, and who only fail due to forces beyond their control. It is essentially unpalatable to the modernist that a weakness of internal character can be the culprit---that's a framing too judgemental for the current pop-culture. A tendency to portray all as blameless victims of fate, with an odd Sauron/Hitler psycho popping up here-or-there to sir things up.

Whether or not the modernist's uber-compassionate world-view to is correct, it inevitably makes for poor theater. Takes all the bite out of tragedy if the sad result could not have been avoided & no one is to blame. I think we have been drunk on the wine of faux compassion for some time now. Perhaps the pendulum will swing in the other direction for a bit. While that can have unwanted real-world repercussions, at least the fiction might not suck quite so hard.

"In Tolkien’s world it is the moral universe, the spiritual value of our choices, that matter most, far more than the physical results those choices produce."

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Nah.

Tolkein is not consumed and enjoyed for it's rich history of "Christian moral framing", and it is very clearly a work of absolute good vs. absolute evil. There is almost no moral middle ground in Middle Earth; you either aligned with Sauron, or you're a good guy. When someone isn't aligned with Sauron and turns out to be bad it's a huge twist, because being good is literally the default in Middle Earth. Every world has stories of falls and redemption; it is not the core of Tolkein's work, nor does its absence automatically make it dismissible as "poor theatre".

The choice to not focus on inherent moral belief was likely because marketing departments said "hey, you know a good way to flush your entire multi-million dollar budget down the toilet? Make the show about moral nuance instead of dragons and magic. And be sure to tack a sad ending on there - audiences hate that! Now you're capturing Tolkein sensibilities!". You're very quick to blame things on being "woke" (and yours was absolutely a bog-standard "folks are too woke" old man rant above), when most of the time it's just the sensible business practice of catering to the paying audience. Show producers are not in the business of making grognards feel good about classic literature; there's very little money in it.

 

[squeen]

Ever the fool DP.