Your opinion of Goodman Games 1E style Modules

[tacojohn4547]

I have about 15 of the DCC D20 modules. I went that direction from the standard 3E stuff that was out at the time because I liked the 'old school' feel of the adventures. It was soon after that that I realized it was still a poor substitution (no offense to GG) for the real thing. Not long ago I went totally back to 1E. Maybe DCC was a stepping stone.

I also have the 1E DCC conversion on preorder and hope that its half as cool as Pod Caverns or Cairn of the Skeleton King. Since OSRIC came out I am bolstered in my quest to not look back from 1E. Much good material out and coming out to support 1E - kudos to those who are making this happen. :salute:

Hi guys,

I appreciate the willingness of the old school cn line community to take a chance on the 1E conversion of DCC #12.5 The Iron Crypt of the Heretics. I did the conversion work myself (some of you may recognize my sig from DF, the NG boards, or the GG boards).

I ran this addy under 1E at a small local con, GorillaCon, for one party of 7 players. We playtested it with two parties from our local gaming group (6 players each). I also ran it under 1E at GenCon Indy for four sessions, with a total of 23 players. The feedback in each instance has been overwhelmingly good, and has mostly come from crusty old schoolers (including grodog).

I hear where you're coming from on some of the other Goodman Games DCC releases. Half-this, half-that, dripping with drow, not to mention 3E stat bocks and game mechanics. I own most of the DCC line, and there's a lot of not-so-old-school content between the gorgeous old-school covers.

IMHO, you'll find very little if any of that in the 1E Iron Crypt module. There are driders, to be sure, but no drow. No half-anythings present.

The stat blocks and mechanics have been swapped out wholesale. I substituted attribute-based checks (with modifiers noted) for many of the "spot checks", feat checks and skill checks that were present in the 3E version. This may or may not appeal to you, but that is how we did/do things in 1E when not covered specifically by a racial or class-based ability. This will certainly appeal to those playing C&C.


I can assure you that this module is very deadly. No 3E balance here. Of the times I've run it, I've averaged probably 1-2 PC deaths EVERY TIME. At GenCon, out of four parties, I had one TKP. And these were veteran 1E players. This module has, in my opinion, captured the feel of The Tomb of Horrors rather well.

So, I hope that when the module comes in, you like it. Please feel free to post your likes and dislikes about the conversion. That will help improve any future DCC 1E conversions that we undertake.

tacojohn4547

[Wes]

Please feel free to post your likes and dislikes about the conversion. That will help improve any future DCC 1E conversions that we undertake.

tacojohn4547

Thanks for the post, John! I hope that last bit means we can expect more 1E conversions from GG?

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I substituted attribute-based checks (with modifiers noted) for many of the "spot checks", feat checks and skill checks that were present in the 3E version. This may or may not appeal to you, but that is how we did/do things in 1E when not covered specifically by a racial or class-based ability.

Just a quick question about your methodology here TJ. Did you make an attempt to use standard 1e rules such as Surprise, Hear Noise, Bend Bars/Lift Gates, etc. in place of the 3e skill checks or did you go with ability checks throughout? This is an important issue to me, because I feel that in many cases authors using ability checks (an ad hoc method at best) rather than the standard rules are not only trying to pound round pegs into square holes (in other words, they're not using the best tool for the job), but are also demonstrating a lack of familiarity with (or a distaste for) the multitude of versatile 1e rules that already exist to help the DM adjudicate situations normally covered by 3e skill checks.

Whenever I see an author including broad use of ability checks rather than more appropriate standard rules in an adventure it usually sends up a red flag that the author's take on the game is going to be at odds with my own and that I'll have aesthetic problems with the content of the module as well as technical ones.

[tacojohn4547]

Please feel free to post your likes and dislikes about the conversion. That will help improve any future DCC 1E conversions that we undertake.

tacojohn4547

Thanks for the post, John! I hope that last bit means we can expect more 1E conversions from GG?

Wes,
I'm trying to convince Goodman Games to do more 1E DCC conversions in print & PDF formats. I've offered my humble services for the conversion itself and for editing the manuscript. There is nothing to announce at this time, but I feel pretty strongly that some kind of DCC conversions will become available, even if the conversion is nothing more than a prepared document for running the 3.5 edition modules under first edition rules.

If any converted DCC's end up being released as in print conversion modules or as pdf's, in all likelihood any such release would be coordinated with one or more of the larger gaming conventions - especially Gen Con Indy.

tacojohn4547

[tacojohn4547]

I substituted attribute-based checks (with modifiers noted) for many of the "spot checks", feat checks and skill checks that were present in the 3E version. This may or may not appeal to you, but that is how we did/do things in 1E when not covered specifically by a racial or class-based ability.

Just a quick question about your methodology here TJ. Did you make an attempt to use standard 1e rules such as Surprise, Hear Noise, Bend Bars/Lift Gates, etc. in place of the 3e skill checks or did you go with ability checks throughout? This is an important issue to me, because I feel that in many cases authors using ability checks (an ad hoc method at best) rather than the standard rules are not only trying to pound round pegs into square holes (in other words, they're not using the best tool for the job), but are also demonstrating a lack of familiarity with (or a distaste for) the multitude of versatile 1e rules that already exist to help the DM adjudicate situations normally covered by 3e skill checks.

Whenever I see an author including broad use of ability checks rather than more appropriate standard rules in an adventure it usually sends up a red flag that the author's take on the game is going to be at odds with my own and that I'll have aesthetic problems with the content of the module as well as technical ones.

blackprince -
The short answer is that I did make an attempt to use standard 1e rules in place of the 3e skill checks.

Here is the long answer:
I went back to the pre-layout manuscript tonight and took a quick look through the module, looking for the 1E game mechanics I substituted in place of the 3E mechanics. For the most part, I did use class-based abilities where possible (for such things as Find/Remove Traps, Pick Locks, and such). I also incorporated as many of the race-based mechanics where possible (for concealed door/secret door detection, as an example). In most of those cases (class-based and race-based), I've provided a modifier to the base probablility for success. So for example, if Lefty the thief tries to check for traps, he might have to adjust his Find/Remove Traps required roll by a +/- modifier of 35%, depending upon how the trap was written up.

To be honest, though, there are a few places where I provided a game mechanic that may not be fully a part of first edition. For instance, at the beginning of the module, there is a quick description of the types of doors used throughout the dungeon. The 3E mechanics for opening the door were deleted and replaced with a straight % chance of opening the door. (I remember that there is a strength-based 1E mechanic for opening doors wherein the PC rolls a d6. I did not employ the d6 mechanic for purposes of determining whether the door could be opened or not. Instead, I came up with a % score that looked about right to me and used that as the mechanic for determining success.)

If I recall correctly, there aren't a lot of instances where Surprise comes into play in this module, as written. But, a crafty DM could add that in at any point desired. Accordingly, I don't recall that I had to do a conversion of the Surprise mechanic. Same goes for Hear Noises - I'm sure that ability could be used to an advantage for the party, but I don't recall whether or not there was a specific instance of needing to swap out a game mechanic for Hear Noises.

There are other places in the module where I've provided both a class-based or race-based mechanic (where I thought of them) as well as a straight % probability for determining success, giving the DM options and flexibility.

If you're interested in looking over part of the pre-edit 1E manuscript before deciding to order, drop me an email at tacojohndm@yahoo.com. I'll send you some portions of the module manuscript for you to get a feel for how I handled the conversion to first edition. (I'm not going to send you the full manuscript for obvious reasons.)


tacojohn4547


PS - One last thing to keep in mind. This module was originally written for 3.5 Ed, by a writer that writes in 3.5 Ed jargon. On the other hand, I am an active 1E player/DM and have been playing/DMing under 1E since 1981. I've played 3.5 Ed a sum total of 1 time. I honestly think you would like the converted version as it does a nice job of capturing the first edition spirit.
tj

[Mythmere]

Heh, ability checks arise again. Here's my standard argument: ability checks are a perfectly valid tool with a long-standing tradition (cf, Caverns of Thracia). As long as they're not a standardized tool and don't replace class abilities, there's nothing wrong with them IMO.

In terms of doing conversions of 3e modules, there's a significant difficulty - and it's not in translating mechanics. The difficulty is that once the mechanics are translated you no longer have a module in which the challenges fit the gaming process of 1e's smaller ruleset. One has to add challenges to the players' skill to replace areas in which the 3e mechanics challenged the numbers on the character sheet. A good and playable set of 3e challenges don't translate into interesting playability for 1e. A 3e skill-check trick has to be turned into a mental challenge to fully translate.

That doesn't mean it can't be done; only that it's a considerably more difficult task than it might appear. It is akin to converting a D&D module to CoC or vice versa. There's more involved than just the mechanics. Some massaging is necessary to the whole thing, not just the numbers.

This is an edition neutral comment; the same problem exists when translating 1e to 3e. An example is the Dragon Mag version of Castle Maure. The ogre mage's trick (I won't say what it is), which is a great challenge in 1e, can be completely exposed by 3e skills and spells. It needed more massaging to be the right "kind" of challenge under a different ruleset.

[tacojohn4547]

So, Mythmere, just out of curiosity, did you order a copy of Iron Crypt of the Heretics that I converted to 1E?

If so, I’d be interested in your thoughts/opinions on both the adventure itself (writing style, level of challenges, cohesiveness, etc.), and in the conversion to 1E (whether or not you have the 3.5 edition to compare to).

If not, can I ask why not?

tacojohn4547

[Mythmere]

So, Mythmere, just out of curiosity, did you order a copy of Iron Crypt of the Heretics that I converted to 1E?

If so, I’d be interested in your thoughts/opinions on both the adventure itself (writing style, level of challenges, cohesiveness, etc.), and in the conversion to 1E (whether or not you have the 3.5 edition to compare to).

If not, can I ask why not?

tacojohn4547

I didn't, but solely for lack-of-cash reasons; otherwise I would have. We blew a bunch of money taking the kids to the TX Ren Fest at the end of September, and still haven't balanced it back out. If there are any copies left in mid November, that's probably when my wife wouldn't "bring up for discussion" another gaming purchase.

[Falconer]

Just thought I'd mention that I noticed that Goodman is selling a C&C version of DCC#3 The Mysterious Tower. Though they ditched the DCC cover design in favor of the C&C cover design, which takes away much of the allure of buying it. Anyway, has anyone seen this? Regards.

[tacojohn4547]

So, Mythmere, just out of curiosity, did you order a copy of Iron Crypt of the Heretics that I converted to 1E?

If so, I’d be interested in your thoughts/opinions on both the adventure itself (writing style, level of challenges, cohesiveness, etc.), and in the conversion to 1E (whether or not you have the 3.5 edition to compare to).

If not, can I ask why not?

tacojohn4547

I didn't, but solely for lack-of-cash reasons; otherwise I would have. We blew a bunch of money taking the kids to the TX Ren Fest at the end of September, and still haven't balanced it back out. If there are any copies left in mid November, that's probably when my wife wouldn't "bring up for discussion" another gaming purchase.

Mythmere, if by some chance you aren't able to get a copy through Goodman Games, let me know. I bought several extra copies and would probably be willing to fix you up with a copy. (Note that I'm not looking to make money on these extra copies. I just bought extras. It's not every day a guy gets published in a first edition module!)

So, although I don't know you from Adam, you seem like the kind of guy that would have an appreciation for owning a copy of this module (or for receiving a copy as a gift).

I can be reached at tacojohndm@yahoo.com.

And I would still be interested in your thoughts/opinions on the adventure content and on the 1E conversion.


tacojohn4547

[tacojohn4547]

Just thought I'd mention that I noticed that Goodman is selling a C&C version of DCC#3 The Mysterious Tower. Though they ditched the DCC cover design in favor of the C&C cover design, which takes away much of the allure of buying it. Anyway, has anyone seen this? Regards.

I own both the D&D 3.5 version of DCC #3 and the C&C version of DCC #3. IIRC, the C&C version was a bit of an experiment for Goodman Games. It is definately a crossover product, providing a "new" adventure for C&C fans.

The C&C version of DCC #3 is a C&C adventure through and through. Goodman not only changed the DCC cover to more closely mirror the covers of the C&C adventures released by TLG, but the adventure's writing has been revised to more closely resemble the other TLG C&C modules. The font looks like the font used by TLG, and the D&D 3.5 stat blocks have been replaced by the C&C standard stat paragraph (thank God).

I cannot offer an opinion as to how good the conversion to C&C is since I don't play C&C. But, for first edition AD&D fans, this C&C version should be easier to run under AD&D than the D&D 3.5 version. It is certainly easier on the eyes!

Also of interest - Joseph Goodman himself authored DCC #3.

Also note that Goodman Games has released a new C&C adventure called Palace of Shadows. As far as I know, this was not a 3.5 Ed module that was converted to C&C, but appears to be a "written for C&C" adventure. I picked up a copy at Gen Con, and it looks rather good, too.

tacojohn4547

[Mythmere]

So, Mythmere, just out of curiosity, did you order a copy of Iron Crypt of the Heretics that I converted to 1E?

If so, I’d be interested in your thoughts/opinions on both the adventure itself (writing style, level of challenges, cohesiveness, etc.), and in the conversion to 1E (whether or not you have the 3.5 edition to compare to).

If not, can I ask why not?

tacojohn4547

I didn't, but solely for lack-of-cash reasons; otherwise I would have. We blew a bunch of money taking the kids to the TX Ren Fest at the end of September, and still haven't balanced it back out. If there are any copies left in mid November, that's probably when my wife wouldn't "bring up for discussion" another gaming purchase.

Mythmere, if by some chance you aren't able to get a copy through Goodman Games, let me know. I bought several extra copies and would probably be willing to fix you up with a copy. (Note that I'm not looking to make money on these extra copies. I just bought extras. It's not every day a guy gets published in a first edition module!)

So, although I don't know you from Adam, you seem like the kind of guy that would have an appreciation for owning a copy of this module (or for receiving a copy as a gift).

I can be reached at tacojohndm@yahoo.com.

And I would still be interested in your thoughts/opinions on the adventure content and on the 1E conversion.


tacojohn4547

If the supply is gone before I free up some cash, I'll take you up on that offer. I know the print run was pretty limited.

[AxeMental]

Taco John, do you know if there's any talk of Goodman going to OSRIC?

This limited run of 500 (was it?) concept is really pathetic (all to avoid a lawsuite...jeeze). At some point enough time will have passed to give OSRIC publishers the "all clear" (from the threat of legal challange by WOTC/HASBRO) maybe a year (I'm sure there must be some official or unofficial time frame for WOTC to make a legal challange to OSRIC, and that may have already passed by; I'm sure an attorney in this field would know).

If we ever hope to grow this hobby back to anywhere close to what it used to be (in the early 80s), hell even something you can make a living at, we have to start thinking much bigger (and for God's sakes, get out of this collectors' mentality, which IMO is actually hurting the survivability of the game...creating a business model on scarcity is so foolish on so many levels its not even funny. It's also a BIG turn off to gamers in general, who want plentiful affordable modules, and don't feel like being taken advantage of by 2ndary marketers. Its the publishers that end up getting blamed for not continuing to print. I understand the business model being used by PP and GG in regards to 1E support material, but ultimately its a defeatest stance. Shouldn't the goal be to increase the number of 1E AD&D players; wouldn't Goodman rather be selling 1000s of modules for 10 bucks each rather then 500 to collectors out to take advantage down the road? It baffles me how these companies (TLG, PP, GG etc.) stay in business, they can't be making much. And then they contribute to shrinking their markets making limited runs. I've seen small private grade shools with bigger circulations of their kiddy papers for God's sake.

AD&D is a great game and platform to launch from. And there's also a great untapped market of old timers out there just waiting to dig in. Yet no one seems willing to take a stab at it.


Taco John, I assume since you did the conversion for GG you have some strong ties with the company , If not please ignore the above rambling questions.

[dcs]

This limited run of 500 (was it?) concept is really pathetic (all to avoid a lawsuite...jeeze).

I don't know if the print run was limited in any way, except that they only printed what people ordered. The original GenCon run was only 60.

It's stupid to print more than you think people will buy.

[AxeMental]

dcs: "It's stupid to print more than you think people will buy."

Oh, I agree. I'm a big fan of POD infact. My understanding (and this is coming from secondary sources at DF and "other places" so it may be only a rumor) is that some publishers of 1E modules are limiting there totals for any particular module to 500, which is some legal thresh-hold allowing them to avoid violation of copywrite laws. I just find these numbers (500) utterly dismal. And they only thought they could sell 60 at GenCon? WTF even bother.