Re: The Death of Tarkas Brain Lab IV

At 10:14 -0700 1/20/03, Leroy Van Camp III wrote:
>On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 07:36  PM, woodelf wrote:
>>5: for the most part, edition doesn't matter to me--i'm using Ars
>>Magica.
>
>Still, considering the similarities between 3e and AM, I would
>think you would have an easier time converting 3e stuff to AM
>than 2e stuff.

Yes, and no.  A lot of the similarities are illusory, because of
minor differences.  Frex, creature sizes: in D&D3E, they are,
effectively, -4 to +5 (and larger), but they actually function more
like 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16.... And they are much
coarser than the sizes in Ars--for starters, humans run from size -1
to +1 in Ars (without getting really exceptional), while they're all
one size in 3E.  After many attempts to convert, i finally just
ignored D&D sizes, and figured out their Ars size based on
height/length and mass.

I actually started the conversion (high-fantasy version of Ars
Magica) back around '93, so it was pretty firmly AD&D2-based. For the
most part, it's equally compatible with all 3 editions, but i've
decided to include spell lists from both AD&D2 and D&D3E.  Which was
actually one of the bigger headaches--priest spells are not broken
up, for the most part, like they were in 2e. But the biggest way in
which compatibility between D&D3E and Ars is less than between AD&D2
and Ars is in the spells themselves: there are *many* more spells in
D&D3E that tie directly into the mechanics, and thus need significant
altering.  With the AD&D2 spelllist, i ended up with, i think, 5
spells that couldn't simply be used as is.  With D&D3E, there are at
least that many for each spell level.

So, to sum up, while the systems have more underlying similarities
with D&D3E, the differences with both systems are so great that
significant changes have to be made, and those changes are fewer with
AD&D2.  That, and a lot of th e gains with D&D3E (fairly rigorous
magic item creation system, frex) are quite thoroughly incompatible
with Ars, so have to thrown out--so you end up with more headaches
for no appreciable gain.

>The core of my construction system is there, but there was a lot
>of thought put into it to both improve on the concept and make
>it suitable for 3e. I think it is an all around better system,
>regardless of edition.

so, there are changes beyond those necessary for edition
compatibility, because you made improvements while you were at
it--that's what i wanted to know.

>>with no
>>attachment to either version of D&D, if the older one were more
>>complete (due to stuff not having been converted over yet), or the
>>newer one expanded ('cause you added stuff after you stopped working
>>on the 2E version), i'd like to know--the intro to the 3E system
>>didn't make this clear.
>
>Which intro do you mean?

On the web page on BtM linking to the system--it ties into the "why's
it beta?" question.

>It is a beta because it has not been sufficiently tested. I myself
>have not been able to give it a real test, and interest in the
>system by others is seriously lacking, and no one has indicated
>to me that they have made use of it.

So, enough changes have been made that it might actually work less
well than the 2e version? Or did you also consider that "beta", and i
just missed the notice?

--
woodelf                <*>
woodelf@???.net
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/

The Laws of Anime <http://www.abcb.com/laws/index.htm>:
#25 Law of Mandibular Proportionality
The size of a person's mouth is directly proportional to the volume at
which they are speaking or eating.