Feelers: Old-school modules

I still don't understand a lot of the 4e hate.  The system is solid even if Wizards of the Coast is very skeezy about their marketing tactics, this latest blunder to say the least.  But I suppose that's neither here nor there.

I am pleasantly surprised to see a lot more interest than I expected, though I'm still considering what to run, if anything.  So...lemme look at some of the comments posted and address them!

If I do this, then PHB2 will be fine.  

I take this to mean that you've already read most, if not all of the modules? ;)  The reason you suggest is exactly why I don't want to run these in 3.x.  I have no knack for making solid 3.x monsters at the appropriate CR, mostly because the monster creation "rules" are obnoxious and vague. 4e is much easier to manage.  Anyway, an assistant GM would be quite helpful if I do run this because I'm doing several games off and on right now.

Maps would be a great help!  I make some on my own but if I can get help from folks, that'd make life a lot less busy for me and would further guarantee I can keep a game running.

So it looks like at least four or five folks are interested in playing 4e versions of the old modules?

All right, how's this sound?

I've got a pretty busy April and May coming up.  Between performances, final papers (curse graduate school), a teeny tiny gaming con, and assorted other things I'm going to be quite swamped.

Once the semester's over and I don't have to worry about school for a while, I'll start up a 4E game using at least one of the older modules.  I won't tell you which one it is.  That's something you'll have to figure out in the game itself.  

I'll put starting information up later, but those of you that are interested can use this thread to come up with character ideas.  To get you started, be advised that all official Wizards products that are out and that are to be released will be acceptable source material for this game.  I will make some cosmetic and flavor changes to certain things (the 4E "eladrin" player race, for example) to make the ideas fit within the Planescape setting in a way I feel suits it better.  For you Factioneers, I don't think it needs to be said but I'll say it anway Most, if not all of the modules occur before Faction War, so the Factions are in Sigil.  If you are going to align your character to a Faction (and I have no preference either way), then make sure you use Factions before the Faction War, not after.

There's one other thing I believe bears mentioning.  In my games, the fluff presented by WotC can be waived.  For example, just because you are playing an Invoker mechanically does not mean you have to adhere to how PH2 describes Invokers.  You can flavor your character however you like as long as the re-flavor causes no functional or mechanical change.  To me, the classes are just a list of abilities.   How you come by those abilities and what they mean to your character is open to great interpretation.  

Probably the most striking example is Tamara Voidborn in my Facets game.  Mechanically, she's an Eladrin, but conceptually, she's more of a human with weird teleporting powers.  Does that make sense?

Anyway, if you are interested, it's never too soon to come up with a concept

The faction training feat sounds fine to me, so people can go ahead and use that if they wish.

The "Gloom" Tiefling should be okay, but I'll have to go look it over again to double-check.

Eldersphinx beat me to the genasi bit.  However, there is one thing I would like to say about 4e genasi in my Planescape games.  I don't do the extra manifestation thing.  If you are a genasi, then you are one element, period.  If you plan to do a paragon path or something that would require you to take multiple manifestations, then we'll work something out.  However, I don't feel that the ability to change elements virtually on a whim meshes with the Great Wheel cosmology.  The 4e concept seems based on the 4e cosmology where there is an "Elemental Chaos" that mashes all the elements together.  In that context, extra manifestations make perfect sense.  In the Great Wheel, where each element has its own very distinct plane, that kind of mishmash genasi makes much less sense.

That being said, I am certainly willing to entertain ideas for para-elemental, quasi-elemental, and energy genasi.  I always refer to the Roaming Genasi Tavern for information and background.  If you want to make an off-element genasi, please use that site as the basis for your concept, then talk to me and we'll work out some mechanics for you to use.

To all those interested in playing and/or participating in some form or another (as map-maker, assistant DM, other resources), I have a request.  Please tell me what, if any modules you've read or played through.  This will give me an idea of what modules to prepare both for the players and for anyone I'll be working with to run the game.  Thank you!

Oh!  One other important matter before I go review posts again.  This one pertains to character concept.

I greatly prefer a party that can work together and hopefully likes to work together, especially when I'm running a module.  While there's room for interpretation in most modules, they tend to be more story-oriented than character-oriented.  As a result, most character development needs to be done during the course of the story.  Furthermore, while the characters may all have different motivations for doing what they do, the end goal for all characters in a module tends to be the same.  Thus, I find it saves me as a DM a lot of headache if I enforce the idea that the characters ought to all have backgrounds that will at least make them neutral toward each other, if not amiable.  So, for example, it is preferred that we have no Athar if someone is going to play a divine spellcaster unless that divine character doesn't gain power from a god.  A character currently an Anarchist is less preferable to a character of most other factions because the Anarchists exist strictly to work against other factions.  Ultimately I've found that when the characters aren't willing to work together, then it seriously derails the game. 

In short: No PC should be so antagonistic to another PC (or PCs) that he cannot work with them, or is compelled to work against them.

That's not to say clashes are completely forbidden, but I seriously urge everyone to carefully consider their own character's balance and position within the group.  Talk to the other players and see what ideas are popping up.  If a conflict seems unavoidable, communicate and find a way to get your characters to at least tolerate each other.  While an Athar would never, ever, ever travel with a group that harbors a priest, an Indep and a Hardhead could learn to live with each other.  The road would be bumpy and full of argument, but they could always learn to approach the same end with different means that they each find acceptable, if not agreeable. 

In short: Your characters need not get along, but I require adaptability in the character concepts so that even characters of two opposing philosophies or backgrounds can manage to work together as a party toward the same goal.

To that end, here's a quick list of things I'd like to avoid.  The list is likely to be updated if I come up with other issues I consider major barriers.  I'm also including some "exceptions" as ideas to work with if the situation comes up.

• Athar and Divine characters mixing.  The conflict is far too volatile for two characters of these respective backgrounds to work together effectively.  Exceptions: The divine character is not drawing power from a deity; or the Athar is doubtful of his conviction to the faction philosophy and wants to learn more from someone who experiences divine power firsthand.
• Anarchists in general.  Anarchists in general tend to be too directly antagonistic, especially when other Factioneers are in play.  Exception: A former Anarchist who no longer seeks to bring down the establishment is fine.
• Factioneers too stuck in their faction philosophy to be a decent party member.  This includes things like Xaositects who act so randomly as to be overtly destructive or derailing (the same goes for Sinkers, too).  Character development is fine as long as it's not throwing the game onto a completely different track because one player has to monopolize the spotlight.
• Githyanki and githzerai.  Do I really need to explain?

I think you can get the gist.  Basically, inter-character conflict is fine.  In fact, it's great and I have no problem with it (and even encourage it in some situations).  However, when the inter-PC conflict gets to a point where it's game-stopping or game-derailing, it becomes a major problem.  So if you are playing a potentially provocative character type, talk with me and with the other players to find a nice resolution where your character can work with the others.

Lastly, no evil-aligned characters allowed!

Make sense?  Any questions?

Hahaha, that's all right It's even okay if you use scramblespeak.  I just want to throw it out there so that people can understand that I do draw a line.