As you may have heard, we're running a crowdfunding campaign to publish The Sinister Stone of Sakkara for 5E. This was the first time Autarch has adapted an ACKS product to 5E. The exercise was interesting enough that I thought I'd share how it got done.
Adapting an adventure module from one game system to another has similarities to translating a text from one language to another. Translators distinguish between "formal" and "dynamic" translation, which is to say "word-for-word" and "overall meaning" methods. Which method is the right method very much depends on the goal of the translator and the nature of the original text.
In adapting TSSOS, I initially began with a "formal" translation. The ACKS version of TSSOS was designed for 1st to 3rd level characters, and so was the 5E version. Each monster, item, and treasure in the dungeon was replaced with its 5E equivalent. When this was complete, a few major problems became apparent:
1. The relative strengths of PCs, NPCs, and Monsters no longer matched the assumptions of the adventure. For instance, what were 0-level guards in ACKS became 2 HD guards in 5E with more hit points than the adventurers. Gnolls in ACKS are twice as dangerous as orcs, and as such were used as the main antagonists on the second level of the dungeon. Gnolls in 5E are the same challenge rating as orcs (1/2).
2. The adventure was far too hard. The easiest section of the dungeon - the kobolds - had encounters that rated anywhere from Hard 1st level encounters to Deadly 3rd level encounters. The adjoining orc section was even worse, with encounters starting at Deadly 2nd level and rising to Deadly 4th level. In the absence of ACKS's cleaving mechanic, the large mobs of humanoids in the dungeon are just too tough for low level 5E characters.
3. The adventure had far too many magic items. There were 25 magic items in TSSOS, including eight magic weapons and two sets of magic armor. In contrast, for a 1st-3rd level adventure, 5E recommends 14 magic items, with no more than two magic weapons and one set of magic armor.
4. The adventure had far too much treasure. TSSOS was designed to carry a party from 1st level to 4th level. ACKS assumes that 80% of experience comes from treasure, and that reaching 4th level will take around 8,000 XP per character; a party of four characters will need 25,600 GP in treasure. 5E, of course, detaches XP from GP, and instead broadly recommends treasure placement based on challenge rating. For 1st to 4th level, 5E recommends placing 2,632 GP in treasure. The difference in recommended treasure was an order of magnitude!
Now the discrepancy between treasure was particularly remarkable because 5E and ACKS actually agree on what things cost. Consider:
- Quarter of wheat: 4gp (ACKS) v 4.8gp (5E)
- Pound of saffron: 15gp (ACKS) v 15gp (5E)
- A Sheep: 2gp (ACKS) v 2gp (5E)
- A Donkey: 8gp (ACKS) v 8gp (5E)
- A Sword: 10gp (ACKS) v 15gp (5E)
- A Longship: 15,000gp (ACKS) v. 10,000gp (5E)
- A Keep: 75,000gp (ACKS) v. 50,000gp (5E)
That's remarkable consistency across everything from wheat to castles. But treasure allocation varied by 10 fold!
As it turned out, most of the problems above could be solved with one change: Instead of translating TSSOS into 5E as a 1st to 3rd level adventure, I translated it as a 3rd to 5th level adventure. How did that address our four problems?
1. Since 3rd level 5E characters were being treated as the equivalent of 1st level ACKS characters, there would be 2HD unclassed NPCs in 5E occupying the equivalent role of 0-level NPCs in ACKS. And that's exactly how the Monster Manual does it. The bandit and guard NPCs in 5E are presented as 2 HD unclassed NPCs.
2. The challenge ratings for the encounters made sense. The kobold and bandit encounters now ranged from Easy to Hard, the orc encounters from Medium to Deadly, and so on.
3. The discrepancy in magic items was reduced. The 5E recommendations for 3rd to 5th level characters permitted 18 magic items instead of 14, with better items permitted.
4. The discrepancy in treasure allocation was greatly reduced. 5E's treasure recommendations for a party are 1st level - 376 GP; 2nd level - 376 GP; 3rd level - 752 GP; 4th level - 1128 GP; 5th level - 13,635 GP; total 1st - 5th, 16,267 GP. That is, there's a huge jump in treasure allocation at 5th level. That brought the treasure recommendation much closer to the values that TSSOS was built on!
From this key insight - 1st to 3rd in ACKS is 3rd to 5th in 5E - the rest of the translation followed swiftly. There were, of course, some more qualitative factors to address. I've already written about how I designed Zakiti and The Sinister Stone itself. The other challenges were minor. For instance, 5E gnolls are very different than ACKS gnolls, and didn't fit into the dungeon as written. Since their challenge rating was wrong for our purposes anyway, it was an easy swap to replace them with bugbears.
The translation of The Sinister Stone of Sakkara into a 5E-compatible adventure has raised a lot of other questions about how I might convert ACKS's domains and warfare systems to 5E, but "that is another story..."
Quote from: amacris;1052562As you may have heard, we're running a crowdfunding campaign to publish The Sinister Stone of Sakkara for 5E. This was the first time Autarch has adapted an ACKS product to 5E. The exercise was interesting enough that I thought I'd share how it got done...
If you can make my blind investment of $150 into a fifth edition I
abandoned entirely for your game into something that actually pays a dividend of fun for me, then you're my personal Christ.
Running Stonehell Dungeon for the past year or so, I'm constantly converting BX style stats to 5e.
You are right of course; the solution is not to mangle the BX/LL/ACKS adventure to fit 5e at that level, the solution is to expect the PCs to be a couple levels higher, especially when dealing with large groups of foes. 5e treats 1st & 2nd levels as tutorial levels to be each completed in a single session, very unlike BX. If you want to run these tutorial levels then you really need a couple sessions of tailored content, with very low threat encounters.
I find this changes at 5th level BTW, which is a tier break level in 5e; suddenly the PCs are pretty badass and can often survive dungeon levels deeper than their level, where 3rd-4th level PCs are sticking to the top two dungeon levels to survive.
Quote from: amacris;1052562As it turned out, most of the problems above could be solved with one change: Instead of translating TSSOS into 5E as a 1st to 3rd level adventure, I translated it as a 3rd to 5th level adventure.
From the 5e/Next playtesting and the WOTC hardback campaigns, I remember a definite 'push' to have PCs start at 3rd level. I find it interesting that converting a dungeon designed for beginning characters needed this particular change to level out the math.
Quote from: Azraele;1052563If you can make my blind investment of $150 into a fifth edition I abandoned entirely for your game into something that actually pays a dividend of fun for me, then you're my personal Christ.
No need to do that! We're actually going to have another four ACKS modules coming out soon. But I am open to becoming a 5E messiah too.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1052583From the 5e/Next playtesting and the WOTC hardback campaigns, I remember a definite 'push' to have PCs start at 3rd level. I find it interesting that converting a dungeon designed for beginning characters needed this particular change to level out the math.
Agreed. I remember the "start at 3rd level" concept and mentally use that as my base when I convert.
So why not make Gnolls in the world of Auran twice as powerful as Orcs. I apologize for picking out just this one point in a things that has multiple levels of decisions. However I see two basic approaches to any "conversion".
One is use the raw 5e stats as is and rewrite the setting/adventure/supplement accordingly.
The other is keep the core 5e engine but supply the elements to make it work like the original conception of the setting in this case the Auran Empire. Guards are 2 HD only because the Guard stat block in 5e sets that way. An Auran Guard is not as powerful and has the same relationship with a 1st level PC as in ACKS. The downside is that you will have to supply the stat block for the Auran Guard.
Adventure in Middle Earth does just this. They don't stop at monsters but rework the classes as well. Their whole package is still D&D 5e but feel and plays more like a Middle Earth RPG than the D&D 5e core set does.
I ran two campaigns using 5e for the Majestic Wilderlands before AiME came out. I didn't go quite as far as they did but especially in the case of monsters, I made my own to reflect the balance I established with the OD&D based Majestic Wilderlands supplement.
And as point of reference, I don't use zero-level even when I was using AD&D 1st back in 1980. Instead I consider 1st to 2nd Apprentices, 3rd a trained professional, 6th a leader of one's profession, 9th an experience, 12th on higher noble prize Olympic caliber skill levels.
The way I see is there always two facts of appeal about ACKS and the Auran Empire. One is the imagination and details the other is the feel of the interplay the former has with the "stuff" classes/items/monsters/etc. By adopting 5e RAW you will losing the second, where the AiME approach allows a player knowledge of 5e to be useful but keeps more of the Auran Empire feel.
Well, given that ACKs is probably 90% a B/X (with some Companion) clone, including prices, it's not exactly shocking that it converts like other B/X clones or prices are similar.
And also given that most classes in ACKs are pretty standard, not much would be lost. But it's sad to see what is essentially a Led Zeppelin cover band become a Fall Out Boy cover band. But chasing that dollar is all that matters to most companies
Quote from: estar;1052618So why not make Gnolls in the world of Auran twice as powerful as Orcs.
Compared to BX or ACKS, 5e actually gives gnolls a similar status, about equal to a 2nd level PC. It's the 5e orc that is boosted - although it's still noticeably weaker than the 5e gnoll despite same CR.
Re the 5e Guard, don't let the 2 hd and 11 hp fool you, with ATT +3 and d6+1 damage it's still weak vs 5e Fighters with ca 12 hp & Second Wind. It has a similar place to the 0th level soldier in 1e AD&D.
If you actually wanted 5e orcs that feel like BX/ACKS orcs you should take the guard stat block and apply the DMG Orc template:
Orc +2 Str, +1 Con Aggressive; darkvision 60 ft.; speaks Common and Orc
This gives:
Orc Guard
Armor Class 16 (chain shirt, shield)
Hit Points 11 (2d8 + 2)
Speed 30 ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
15 (+2) 12 (+1) 13 (+1) 10 (+0) 11 (+0) 10 (+0)
Skills Perception +2
Senses passive Perception 12
Languages Common, Orc
Traits Aggressive; darkvision 60 ft.
Challenge 1/8 (25 XP)
Actions
Spear: Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, reach 5 ft. or range 20/60 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (1d6 + 2 piercing damage, or 6 (1d8 + 2) piercing damage if used with two hands to make a melee attack.BTW a bunch of 5e monsters did get nerfed - hyenas, fire beetles , incorporeal undead - and some are suitable for 1st level PCs. But you can't do a straight convert of a BX or ACKS adventure with large numbers of 1-2 hd humanoids without it getting a lot tougher.
Quote from: JeremyR;1052630Well, given that ACKs is probably 90% a B/X (with some Companion) clone, including prices, it's not exactly shocking that it converts like other B/X clones or prices are similar.
And also given that most classes in ACKs are pretty standard, not much would be lost. But it's sad to see what is essentially a Led Zeppelin cover band become a Fall Out Boy cover band. But chasing that dollar is all that matters to most companies
The original ACKS rulebook that came out in 2011 was certainly based on B/X - it was a 181,000 word retro-clone with some additional material. Since then we've released the Player's Companion, 99,000 words; Domains at War: Campaigns, 69,000 words; Domains at War Battles, 83,000 words; Heroic Fantasy Handbook, 156,000 words; Lairs & Encounters, 130,000 words. Even if every word of ACKS was merely a clone of B/X with nary a change whatsoever (e.g. Labyrinth Lord), we've still released 530,000 words of material unrelated to B/X - which is to say, enough new rules to write a game the size of ACKS three times over.
If you want to analogize the ACKS Core rules to a Led Zeppelin cover album, fine. But then our "band" did six other "albums" of our own material. And we've made literally 3-4 times per product from the later books as we did from ACKS. So we're a band that started as a cover band and went on to bigger success from there. (The Rolling Stones released three albums consisting primarily of covers before recording one with their own original material so I'm in good company, metaphorically speaking.)
All that being said, even your assessment that ACKS prices are BX/BECMI prices is wrong. In BECMI's Minrothad Guilds gazetteer, grain is priced at 150gp per 800lbs. In ACKS, grain is priced at 10gp per 800lbs - it's 93% less expensive. In 5E, grain comes in at 8gp for 800lbs - they just rounded to 1cp per lb whereas I based mine precisely on the Assize of Bread & Ale using a conversion from pound sterling. In BECMI, a skilled laborer costs 2gp per month. In ACKS, a skilled laborer costs 6gp per month. In 5E, a skilled laborer costs 6gp per month. Across the board, 5E prices are compatible with ACKS prices; neither ACKS nor 5E have prices compatible with BECMI.
There are certainly still some prices that are similar between ACKS & BX/BECMI but I systematically went through and changed many of them. BX and BECMI's prices were often absurd. Under BECMI, a skilled laborer can't even afford to buy the grain he needs to live (2 lbs per day x 30 days = 60 lbs; 60lbs x 150gp/800lbs = 11.25gp, or more than five times his income!) Conversely, in ACKS a skilled laborer will need (2 lbs per day x 30 days x 10gp / 800 lbs) or 0.75gp for bread. That means that he can pay for bread for himself, a spouse, and three children (.75 + .75 + .75 + .5 + .25 = 3gp) on 50% of his disposable income. So the suggestion that ACKS prices = BX or BECMI prices is simply wrong. The cost of food and the wages of workers - that is, the very core of the whole economy - are different. Wages are 200% higher and food is 93% cheaper.
Quote from: estar;1052618So why not make Gnolls in the world of Auran twice as powerful as Orcs. I apologize for picking out just this one point in a things that has multiple levels of decisions. However I see two basic approaches to any "conversion".
One is use the raw 5e stats as is and rewrite the setting/adventure/supplement accordingly.
The other is keep the core 5e engine but supply the elements to make it work like the original conception of the setting in this case the Auran Empire. Guards are 2 HD only because the Guard stat block in 5e sets that way. An Auran Guard is not as powerful and has the same relationship with a 1st level PC as in ACKS. The downside is that you will have to supply the stat block for the Auran Guard.
Adventure in Middle Earth does just this. They don't stop at monsters but rework the classes as well. Their whole package is still D&D 5e but feel and plays more like a Middle Earth RPG than the D&D 5e core set does.
I ran two campaigns using 5e for the Majestic Wilderlands before AiME came out. I didn't go quite as far as they did but especially in the case of monsters, I made my own to reflect the balance I established with the OD&D based Majestic Wilderlands supplement.
And as point of reference, I don't use zero-level even when I was using AD&D 1st back in 1980. Instead I consider 1st to 2nd Apprentices, 3rd a trained professional, 6th a leader of one's profession, 9th an experience, 12th on higher noble prize Olympic caliber skill levels.
The way I see is there always two facts of appeal about ACKS and the Auran Empire. One is the imagination and details the other is the feel of the interplay the former has with the "stuff" classes/items/monsters/etc. By adopting 5e RAW you will losing the second, where the AiME approach allows a player knowledge of 5e to be useful but keeps more of the Auran Empire feel.
I'm familiar with Adventures in Middle Earth because I used it as a source for my current "LOTR ACKS" Middle Earth campaign. And I'm familiar with 5E because I ran a campaign from 1st to 20th level using 5E for over two years. I simply wanted to do what Frog God does - offer up a version of one of our adventures in 5E. Nothing more ambitious than that. If I decide to write an Auran Empire campaign supplement for 5E, perhaps I will do what AiME did. But I haven't even published a full Auran Empire Campaign Supplement for ACKS yet, so doing so for 5E is a low priority at the moment.
Quote from: estar;1052618So why not make Gnolls in the world of Auran twice as powerful as Orcs. I apologize for picking out just this one point in a things that has multiple levels of decisions. However I see two basic approaches to any "conversion".
One is use the raw 5e stats as is and rewrite the setting/adventure/supplement accordingly.
The other is keep the core 5e engine but supply the elements to make it work like the original conception of the setting in this case the Auran Empire. Guards are 2 HD only because the Guard stat block in 5e sets that way. An Auran Guard is not as powerful and has the same relationship with a 1st level PC as in ACKS. The downside is that you will have to supply the stat block for the Auran Guard.
Adventure in Middle Earth does just this. They don't stop at monsters but rework the classes as well. Their whole package is still D&D 5e but feel and plays more like a Middle Earth RPG than the D&D 5e core set does.
I ran two campaigns using 5e for the Majestic Wilderlands before AiME came out. I didn't go quite as far as they did but especially in the case of monsters, I made my own to reflect the balance I established with the OD&D based Majestic Wilderlands supplement.
And as point of reference, I don't use zero-level even when I was using AD&D 1st back in 1980. Instead I consider 1st to 2nd Apprentices, 3rd a trained professional, 6th a leader of one's profession, 9th an experience, 12th on higher noble prize Olympic caliber skill levels.
The way I see is there always two facts of appeal about ACKS and the Auran Empire. One is the imagination and details the other is the feel of the interplay the former has with the "stuff" classes/items/monsters/etc. By adopting 5e RAW you will losing the second, where the AiME approach allows a player knowledge of 5e to be useful but keeps more of the Auran Empire feel.
Sure. I'm familiar with Adventures in Middle Earth because I used it as a source for my current "LOTR ACKS" Middle Earth campaign. And I'm familiar with 5E because I ran a campaign from 1st to 20th level using 5E for over two years. You're not wrong that I could have approached this differently. But I didn't want to try to match what Adventures in Middle Earth did. I simply wanted to offer up a version of one of our adventures in 5E. Nothing more ambitious than that. If I decide to write an Auran Empire campaign supplement for 5E, or otherwise dive more deeply into 5E, perhaps I will do what AiME did. But I haven't even published a full Auran Empire Campaign Supplement for ACKS yet, so doing so for 5E is a low priority at the moment.
Quote from: amacris;1052648I simply wanted to offer up a version of one of our adventures in 5E. Nothing more ambitious than that.
Fair enough. Sorry if I sounded overly critical. The stuff is Autarch makes is very good and has a distinctive vibe. I would hate to see some of that lost in a conversion. However there many reasons one might do a particular project and that is as good as any.
Quote from: amacris;1052648If I decide to write an Auran Empire campaign supplement for 5E, or otherwise dive more deeply into 5E, perhaps I will do what AiME did. But I haven't even published a full Auran Empire Campaign Supplement for ACKS yet, so doing so for 5E is a low priority at the moment.
Looking forward to seeing that if you ever have the time or interest. The main issues I run into for the Majestic Wilderlands is having coming up with 20 levels worth of stuff. It isn't really 20 bullet items but definitely more than what I have to do for Swords & Wizardry. This also includes the monsters.
Quote from: JeremyR;1052630Well, given that ACKs is probably 90% a B/X (with some Companion) clone, including prices, it's not exactly shocking that it converts like other B/X clones or prices are similar.
As the man said himself, categorically not the case when you're talking about the economic model in ACKS. I found this when I did my own conversion for a historical setting, the numbers required only a simple multiplication to map very easily to a real currency (silver drachmae) without producing silly values. Say whatever else you like about ACKS derivation from B/X, but the economy isn't one of them.
Quote from: Kiero;1052721As the man said himself, categorically not the case when you're talking about the economic model in ACKS. I found this when I did my own conversion for a historical setting, the numbers required only a simple multiplication to map very easily to a real currency (silver drachmae) without producing silly values. Say whatever else you like about ACKS derivation from B/X, but the economy isn't one of them.
Many ACKS prices are straight from BX. IME it keeps the bits that work, which are often close to something like a 200 BC to 200 AD Mediterranean economy.
Quote from: S'mon;1052740Many ACKS prices are straight from BX. IME it keeps the bits that work, which are often close to something like a 200 BC to 200 AD Mediterranean economy.
That was the entire philosophy. Don't change what isn't broken. In numerous places I retained legacy B/X rules simply because they were legacy rules and neither historical research nor actual play led me to make a change in my home games. That meant that some rationalizations that appear in other retro-clones don't show up in ACKS - we didn't rationalize saving throws (like S&W did) nor cleric spellcasting progression (like LL) for instance. If I ever do a Second Edition of ACKS I will fix some of this material, and perhaps make some other changes I was reluctant to make then, since I've had another seven years of both play and game design experience in the interim.
I would theorize it's easier to convert from OSR to 5e than from OSR to 3e.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1053468I would theorize it's easier to convert from OSR to 5e than from OSR to 3e.
I've done both - indeed I'm currently running an adventure written for 1e AD&D (1987's GMP #4
The Awakening) in 5e D&D, which I previously ran in 3e D&D, 15 or 16 years ago. I came across some of the old 3e conversion notes and yes converting to 5e is somewhat easier I think, though in both cases it's mostly just plugging in that edition's version of the appropriate monster stats. Sometimes 5e raises problems that don't arise in 3e, eg for some reason 5e Ankylosaurus stats are pathetically weak, and there are a few other 5e monsters like that, eg fire beetles and hyenas. But it's not hard to create suitable replacement stats.
Overall 5e is a much more robust system than 3e at higher level, you rarely get a situation where the PCs are easily squashed or can trivialise the adventure, as happens commonly in 3e.
Not having to worry as much about feats and some of the other details are what I think would make 5e easier to convert.