My general take is to assume module author competence; that the author is familiar with the system that they're writing for and that they playtested the module in the system that it was written for.
Even if they didn't playtest, by nature of the module being recommended by other folks, they've done additional playtesting, and often write up thoughts on what works and what doesn't.
When you play the module in a different system with different underlying math, you're now playing something that's less playtested, and so you'll run into more rough edges. For low level modules, I think this comes up *very* often with ghouls.
---
In B/X, a ghoul hits a plate-wearing level 1 front-liner on a 16+ (25% of the time). It attacks 3x per turn, so you expect 0.75 hits per turn for an average of 1.5 damage. First level clerics turn ghouls on an 11-in-2d6, which is 8% of the time, and they can cast turn undead every combat round. Meanwhile, in 1e, Ghouls hit banded+shield turn on a 13+ (40%). Their bite does 1d6 damage instead of 1d3. They're now hitting 1.2x per turn for 3 expected damage a turn, so they're fully doing twice as much damage in 1e as in BX.
Finally, OSE uses different frontage rules; enemies occupy a standard space in a 5' grid, so only two ghouls can attack the front line in a standard hallway. In 1e, there's a whole space required system, so if your GM rules that unarmed humanoids use 2' of frontage then the front line is getting attacked by 5 ghouls, and if it's 3' of frontage then the front lie is getting attacked by 3 ghouls. The net here is that ghouls are putting out somewhere between 3x and 5x more damage per round in 1e than in OSE. Fighting ghouls is going to feel **very different** in 1e than B/X.
An encounter against 5 ghouls might be a tough-ish dangerous fight in B/X, but those same 5 ghouls might be an extremely-likely-tpk in 1e, and so now one of the choices (fight but get taxed hp/spells/etc) has been *removed*. If the ghouls are in some sort of important path in the module (blocking the way to valuable treasure, an important clue, valuable magic item, etc) then now the module will *feel different*.
---
A general note is that every time we play a game in a different system, we're *translating*. Translated books/movies/etc are *not* the same as the original; nuance will always get lost. The more precise and nuanced the dialog is (especially books that "play" with language), the more gets lost. I think this is exactly what happens with translating adventures between systems.
Excellent analysis! I think people do underestimate how the feeling of play can shift as these probabilities shift, with the result is that playing across systems is less compatible than people think. It is a translation, as you say, and benefits from the GM taking some time to figure out where things will play much differently from intended rather than just trying to convert on the fly or using the same values but getting different results.
By the way I'd love to see you do a deep dive on Shadowdark in particular, given how popular it's become.
- advantage/disadvantage is a good system, better than modifiers imo
I don't like
- roll to cast
- the xp system (causes conversion overhead)
- the DC system (I *really* don't like coming up with DCs)
- the keywording consistency is rough
- attributes scores (which you don't control) are much more important than in BX
- backstab is not defined
- I'm never a fan of when a game says "pick a background, and have the GM use fiat to determine if it helps somehow". In play, I find this results in annoying mother-may-i style negotiation. I prefer for characters to have a background in adventuring (which should be a real profession in these sorts of worlds), and for past careers to be RP flavor.
- I don't like the luck metacurrency
- I don't like the carousing rules (require lots of gm improv)
Hello, very interesting reading! Your digression on B/X compatibility turned on my interest as I plan since some time to have a conversion of 3 simple adventures into b/x (or a generic OSR). Would you be open to discuss about the conversion and provide me with an advice? Thanks a lot and ciaoo
Thanks for the shout!
My general take is to assume module author competence; that the author is familiar with the system that they're writing for and that they playtested the module in the system that it was written for.
Even if they didn't playtest, by nature of the module being recommended by other folks, they've done additional playtesting, and often write up thoughts on what works and what doesn't.
When you play the module in a different system with different underlying math, you're now playing something that's less playtested, and so you'll run into more rough edges. For low level modules, I think this comes up *very* often with ghouls.
---
In B/X, a ghoul hits a plate-wearing level 1 front-liner on a 16+ (25% of the time). It attacks 3x per turn, so you expect 0.75 hits per turn for an average of 1.5 damage. First level clerics turn ghouls on an 11-in-2d6, which is 8% of the time, and they can cast turn undead every combat round. Meanwhile, in 1e, Ghouls hit banded+shield turn on a 13+ (40%). Their bite does 1d6 damage instead of 1d3. They're now hitting 1.2x per turn for 3 expected damage a turn, so they're fully doing twice as much damage in 1e as in BX.
Finally, OSE uses different frontage rules; enemies occupy a standard space in a 5' grid, so only two ghouls can attack the front line in a standard hallway. In 1e, there's a whole space required system, so if your GM rules that unarmed humanoids use 2' of frontage then the front line is getting attacked by 5 ghouls, and if it's 3' of frontage then the front lie is getting attacked by 3 ghouls. The net here is that ghouls are putting out somewhere between 3x and 5x more damage per round in 1e than in OSE. Fighting ghouls is going to feel **very different** in 1e than B/X.
An encounter against 5 ghouls might be a tough-ish dangerous fight in B/X, but those same 5 ghouls might be an extremely-likely-tpk in 1e, and so now one of the choices (fight but get taxed hp/spells/etc) has been *removed*. If the ghouls are in some sort of important path in the module (blocking the way to valuable treasure, an important clue, valuable magic item, etc) then now the module will *feel different*.
---
A general note is that every time we play a game in a different system, we're *translating*. Translated books/movies/etc are *not* the same as the original; nuance will always get lost. The more precise and nuanced the dialog is (especially books that "play" with language), the more gets lost. I think this is exactly what happens with translating adventures between systems.
Excellent analysis! I think people do underestimate how the feeling of play can shift as these probabilities shift, with the result is that playing across systems is less compatible than people think. It is a translation, as you say, and benefits from the GM taking some time to figure out where things will play much differently from intended rather than just trying to convert on the fly or using the same values but getting different results.
By the way I'd love to see you do a deep dive on Shadowdark in particular, given how popular it's become.
> I'd love to see you do a deep dive on Shadowdark in particular, given how popular it's become.
I wrote up some shadowdark thoughts here: https://rancourt.substack.com/p/review-old-school-essentials/comment/70397088
From a cursory read...
I like:
- class progression via random talents
- no one has darkvision
- advantage/disadvantage is a good system, better than modifiers imo
I don't like
- roll to cast
- the xp system (causes conversion overhead)
- the DC system (I *really* don't like coming up with DCs)
- the keywording consistency is rough
- attributes scores (which you don't control) are much more important than in BX
- backstab is not defined
- I'm never a fan of when a game says "pick a background, and have the GM use fiat to determine if it helps somehow". In play, I find this results in annoying mother-may-i style negotiation. I prefer for characters to have a background in adventuring (which should be a real profession in these sorts of worlds), and for past careers to be RP flavor.
- I don't like the luck metacurrency
- I don't like the carousing rules (require lots of gm improv)
I don't forsee myself playing shadowdark, so I probably won't write an in-depth review for it, but I think scholomance did a great job: https://scholomance.substack.com/p/tabletop-review-shadowdark-rpg-by
Hello, very interesting reading! Your digression on B/X compatibility turned on my interest as I plan since some time to have a conversion of 3 simple adventures into b/x (or a generic OSR). Would you be open to discuss about the conversion and provide me with an advice? Thanks a lot and ciaoo