Goodman Games

Anyone done the work on this? I'd like to run it, but D20 stat blocks trigger grand mal seizures.

This thread is the closest I've heard about converting that module:

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=785

While it is useful, it is not a conversion, simply guidelines to assist.

"I feel your pain." Converting high level modules appears to be a wee-bit more difficult than the lower stuff.

If you do it yourself I'd suggest two things:

1. Email Joseph Goodman about posting it as a free download for others and,

2. Make sure your group of gamers takes you out to a nice dinner. Do it before the adventure begins since it will kill off most of their beloved PCs!

*laugh*

//H

I keep meaning to do a C&C conversion for "Curse of the Emerald Cobra", but I never seem to have the free weekend to do the necessary work.

However, if I ever manage to throw something together, I'll ask Joseph to post it.

Better yet, if someone's already done the conversion work ... please send it to me.

Finally... a thread I can add something to...


I have a short list of DCC's that I am at this time converting to 1E. DCC #13 Devil Lich is on that short list.

The big question is which DCC 1E conversion to do first, then secnod, then third...

The really big question is whether:

A) these DCC 1E conversions will be in the format of conversion documents that can be used along with the 3.5 Ed version of the modules to run them under 1E,

OR

B) these DCC 1E conversions will be released by Goodman Games as special release, in print, modules that have been fully converted to 1E (as was the case with the special release 1E version of the Iron Crypt of the Heretics.

My personal preference should be obvious!


Disclaimer: This is not an announcement of anything, so there are not any details to share at this time. When that time comes, I'm sure you'll be able to read about it hear, on the Goodman Games boards.

cheers,

tacojohn

I agree with TacoJohn.

A person or group should do the conversion of some of these modules, add some new content, and then have it published in limited quantities by Goodman Games. It would be a surefire collectible, would be adored by the fans of 1E, and it would give new authors looking to "break in" to the business of making modules something to put on their resumes....and bragging rights.

Sounds great!!!

Ben "superfan" Waxman

Anything new on this front?

We are in the beginning stages of another release. Can't say any more than that.

//H

Any news? I'm dying to run The Devil Lich, but I don't dm 3e anymore. And I'm sadly inept at converting stuff. I go blind looking at 3e stats.

You know, they ARE written in English. Does that hurt your brain?

I need to pick up this mod, but nowhere around here carries it, and am too lazy to order it online. What about this specific one makes it so terrible to PCs? I keep hearing about it's leathality but have never seen a copy of it.

No abla D20.

MrFilthyIke,

This module is a death trap. It was written by a committee of gamers at Goodman Games with the expressed intention of being more deadly than Gary Gygax's Tomb of Horrors.

They may have succeeded....


JRR, I get where you are coming from. I don't DM d20 any more either. However, I think I could "wing" it through this module as well. I might redo the spells used by spell casters, but since I still own my 3.5 Players Handbook, I might keep the spells listed and "translate" them into Castles & Crusades on the fly. I do hope to use this module someday, but I'm afraid it will be years down the road.

JRR, what system are you wanting to run this module in?

I'd run it in a bastardized 1eAD&D/Hackmaster. I'm currently running a bastardized 3e/1e game, but it's getting to be way too much of a headache at high levels. We're about to finish up Hall of Many Panes and when that's done, I'm back to the 1e/Hackmaster game.

I take it you use Hackmaster seriously rather than with the humor?

There's plenty of humor in our games, just none of the over the top stuff. No vampires polymorphing into Robins, no Gargirls, flatulence flaws, crap like that. Basicly we default to 1e, and add things from Hackmaster that we like, like penetration, spells, etc. Pretty much 1e with Hackmaster attitude without the parody elements.

I know you're a huge C&C fan, Tree, I WANTED to like C&C, but it was so much work making it into the game I like, that it was just easier to play 1e. The siege system just doesn't do it for me.

What was the big hurdle, or hurdles? I use 1E stuff so easily I can't "see" what would have been hard to use.

Is there some mechanics you wanted to keep from 1E? Did you not want to get rid of percentile rolls for the Thief? Is it things like that?

Please don't think I am trying to pick an argument. I think you read enough of my posts on the TLG boards to know I don't pick fights. This is just honest questions born from honest interest.

I still own my 1E books and even own a fair amount of Hackmaster, so it isn't like I don't understand the attraction to these rules sets.

In fact I have been using a lot of "Lord Flataroy's Guide to Fortifications" for developing some castls and lands for my C&C campaign. Plus the suggestion on Knightly orders and orders for the other classes, such as wizards.

Several things spring to mind. First, Dex is a must prime. Without it, pcs can't climb anything. I'm not talking about thief type climbing, but trees, rough rock faces, etc. With a 10 dex and no prime, you'd need 1 19 to climb a cl one task. That's without penalizing for armor, etc. And if add level to the check, you get crazy things like weak magic users becoming great at climbing. You get this with other attribute checks as well, but they don't come into play nearly as often as dex. I have no problem with saves, just attribute checks - and mostly just dex checks. A first level character shouldn't be great at climbing, but he should have better than a 10% chance. It's not just climbing either, but pits, traps, any dex based activity. I played a halfe elf ranger with strength and con primes, and set off every trap, fell into every pit, and couldn't climb a set of stairs to save his life. Sure, you have to sacrifice something for the other primes, but it was SOOOO ridiculous. It was more of a parody watching my guy stumble around than Hackmaster ever even thought of being.

Also, I end up replacing most of the classes with their 1e counterpart, because I just plain don't like the C&C versions, with the exception of the bard, which I call a skald, and the monk, which I allow as a separate college of monks. Then theres the attacks per round ratio, which I also replace with the 1e ratio.

I'm not knocking C&C here, it's a fine game, much better than D20 imo, but it's just not for me and mine.

Heh, you asked....

JRR, I get were you are coming from. When I burned out of 3.X after trying it for 2 years I wanted to return to AD&D (first edition), but most of my friends wanted nothing to do with it any longer.

Castles and Crusades is the only system with ease of adding the bells and whistles they wanted with the simplicity I sought after being choked on rules over kill.

The bonus with C&C was the ability to use any published module from any version of D&D with relative ease.

Using DEX to climb trees? I really hadn't give it much thought. The rules don't control me anymore. That ended when I put a stake in the heart of 3.X at my gaming table. It seems to me a group of heroes with or without DEX as primes should be able to climb a tree. That's my ruling as a DM. Forget the rules and have fun.

Well,both climb and scale use dex according to the PHB. I just looked it over and it seems no check is neccesary for "steep, but rocky" natural inclines, so maybe we got that part wrong. But a cl 1 man-made wall, you can't climb, yet a cl 10 natural incline, you can? Seems to me a rock is a rock, lol. Anyways, I realize C&C is made to house rule, but there comes a point when just using 1e is easier than piling all of 1es rules on top of C&C. I hope C&C stays around a long time - as Tree said, a C&C module is easy to convert to 1e - not so with 3e. It's just not for me, as much as I wanted it to be. I still hang out on TLG boards, even though I don't play C&C, though I wouldn't be adverse to playing in one if the opportunity arose. I just find a 1e or (hybrid) a better fit when I'm behind the screen.

Any time you run into a situation like that you just say, "Thats nonsense! You climb the frickin tree!"

That is not only allowed in C&C (and 3E), but in C&C you are encouraged to hand wave things like that.

C&C is like any other game, even if C&C is "familiar". It still takes time to realize how C&C works, and what its weak areas were. I waited until we played up to 5th level before I started instituting house rules. 5th level in C&C takes a long time, like it does in 1E and 2E. So I had a really good look at how the basics of the system works in actual play with a variety of situations.

All I can say is C&C has turned out to be the "D&D" system I have been waiting for these past 20 years. Simple and gets the job done and lets us play rather then figure out how the various rules/feats/skills/special powers work together in this "round" of combat.

1E worked well for me too, but that is because I got rid of all the racial class limits, all the level limits, speed factors, etc... IE I made the rules what I liked. I did the same with 2E. The only reasons I even switched to 3E was the positive AC and "to hit" matching up and the defined skill system. I liked feats, but not how they were so changeable/malleable. I like them better when constrained by a "path", not a hodge podge throw them together how you like approach.

So with C&C I instituted the rules I liked, such as skills, and my own version of feats, and C&C already has the positive AC/to hit, and I like how they re-did saves, so that is why I did not go back to an older edition of D&D like I was planning to before discovering C&C.

Anyways, I am interested in other reasons you had for going back to your 1E/Hackmaster blend, but so far it looks like maybe you didn't test drive C&C long enough to see how well it really runs. If that is the case I hope your open to test driving it some more and seeing if it does run better than you thought.

There is a lot to say for familiarity and the fact that "it works", so don't think I'll give you any "knocks" for staying with it rather than C&C. Fun is the bottom line, not the system with which your accomplishing the fun with.

Heh, these are all things I LIKED about 1e. My new rule is to lose level limits altogether. To keep it a humanocentric world, Humans may use the character generation method from UA, demihumans must use one of the other methods from either the PHB or DMG.


Anyways, as I said, I'll still support C&C because of it's portability to 1e. Hell, I have every product yet to be released, save a few of the lower level modules, and I'll probably eventually get those as well. I am looking forward to the mythical CKG, which should be out right after Dukenukem 4Ever.... Maybe there will be something there to sway me back to C&C.

The fact that your keeping your fingers on the "pulse" is a good sign.

I can see why you kept level limits as long as you did because of the humanocentric angle, but other than just an "arbitrary" rule did you ever work up a "realistic" reason as to why a 1,000 year old elf couldn't be 20th level in every class?

That was a big reason why I threw it out almost as soon as I started DMing. I couldn't think of a "real" reason for such a limit, so I got rid of it.

Same deal for class/race restrictions. I kept that limited, but would drop it if the player came up with a viable backstory as to why their character was an exception to the rule. So I kept that rule, but with exceptions allowed.

I liked weapon speed factors, but dropped it just because it was to much extra book keeping with too little meaningful return. I just went to a straight initiative penalty for anyone using the "slow" weapons. If I remember correctly I had the Great sword equiv. impose a -3 penalty. 2 handed sword was -2. Etc....