On 12/29/2025 4:46 PM, Justisaur wrote:

I played to 13th level as a tempest cleric in 5e in my friend's game on roll20, 2 hours a week.  I don't remember how many sessions.

At least it's converted 1e/basic modules.  The Lost City, When a Star Falls, Beyond the Crystal Cave, Pharoah, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth

Hmm. I have the feeling that never is really that good a shift either. I
think 5e is fundamentally a different game than what these modules were written for.
I don't care for the actual playstyle 5e has going, but I think it works
the best if you don't try to force 1e stuff into that.

Of course in your case that would mean not playing any of that stuff at
all, so it's not like there's a choice there.

On 12/29/2025 12:16 PM, Gottfried Neuner wrote:

On 12/29/2025 4:46 PM, Justisaur wrote:

I played to 13th level as a tempest cleric in 5e in my friend's game
on roll20, 2 hours a week.  I don't remember how many sessions.

At least it's converted 1e/basic modules.  The Lost City, When a Star
Falls, Beyond the Crystal Cave, Pharoah, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth

Hmm. I have the feeling that never is really that good a shift either. I think 5e is fundamentally a different game than what these modules were written for.
I don't care for the actual playstyle 5e has going, but I think it works
the best if you don't try to force 1e stuff into that.

Of course in your case that would mean not playing any of that stuff at
all, so it's not like there's a choice there.

I play it more to virtually hang out with a couple friends and their
kids and kids friends. I don't like 5e, but it's what most people want
to play. When I had run it in it's early days I had pretty good results
with some old modules. Zenopus (but that's always good) and C3 Lost
Isle of Castanamir which was actually better than when I ran it in
1e/2e. B2 I ran in 5e was meh, but that's always been hit or miss.

Unfortunately I find most of the modules written for 5e not very good
(either playing or running) I did run the playtest Phandelver which was
pretty good, though the vampire (and how easy it was in the original not
yet 5e game) wasn't great. I also found the free level 1-5 into to
storm king's thunder very good (although extremely deadly in bits.)
Good enough I'd consider running that part in old school D&D.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:09:52 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Unfortunately I find most of the modules written for 5e not very good >(either playing or running) I did run the playtest Phandelver which was >pretty good, though the vampire (and how easy it was in the original not
yet 5e game) wasn't great. I also found the free level 1-5 into to
storm king's thunder very good (although extremely deadly in bits.)
Good enough I'd consider running that part in old school D&D.

I can't say I'm an expert on 5E adventures; I've read some, skimmed
others, and (AFAIK) played none of the official modules. But my
general impression was that it wasn't so much the adventures that were
bad as that they had an entirely different tone and style. Classic
AD&D (and to some degree, 3E) adventures were much more open; they
offered you the world and while there was a suggested path to get
through, it was really up to the players to find things out for
themselves. 4E and 5E adventures always felt much more directed and
linear, leading you from one encounter to the next, with little
opportunity to fuck about along the way.

Neither method is wrong. The modern way tends to offer better paced
and --from a player perspective-- superficially more satisfying
adventures. You face off the against the threat and -after some light
puzzling and lots of combat-- come out victorious. I think it's also
more palatable fare for gamers who grew up playing computer games.

But I prefer the old style, where fucking up was almost the EXPECTED
outcome... and when you did succeed, despite it all... now THAT was
satisfying! ;-)