Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Discuss Mongoose RPGs here, such as the OGL rulebooks, Jeremiah, Armageddon 2089 and Macho Women with Guns
Spectator
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:02 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Spectator » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:33 pm

I am in agreement.
I guess certain professions lend themselves to advancement more than others, eg: it might be tough to gain levels as a commoner (peasant) if your back hurts so much you can't sew the fields at age 50.

I agree that your mooks should not be more than 2 nd level, or else they aren't mookish enough.
thulsa
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:43 am
Contact:

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby thulsa » Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:32 am

Supplement Four wrote:Thulsa, you keep referring to S4's definition. But, really, I've just repeated what is listed on pages 11-12 of the 2E Core Rulebook where level definitions are given.
I was calling it "S4's definition" because you were paraphrasing from the book, not quoting it directly.

For example, the book says 8th-level characters are "skilled adventurers", you call the same "legendary characters". The book says 12th-level characters are "legendary figures", you call the same "true mythical characters".

In other words, you are using your own definitions, not the book definitions.
Supplement Four wrote:What are your comments, then, about pages 11-12? Is what is written there incorrect while Vincent's NPCs are correct?
In my previous post I wrote that "I'd also like to point out that the Conan RPG had multiple authors, and as we can see their take on what the levels represent are not necessarily consistent."

So nothing is "correct" or "incorrect", it's just different views, which is also an argument against your claim that the game is supposed (by who?) to be played at very low levels.
Supplement Four wrote:And, even the supplement I've used most, Cimmeria (which I should point out is a 2nd edition supplement), has sample NPCs that fall within the guidelines given in the 2E Core rulebook.

Cimmeria provides a ton of NPCs for the game. Many are chieftains of various Cimmerian clans, and these are usually characters that are around 8th level.

That fits with what is maintained in 2E description.
Cimmeria was written by Lawrence Whitaker, not Vincent Darlage. Perhaps that explains why the NPC levels are lower? I don't have the book handy so I can't check if Vincent contributed anything to the book.

But I can look, again, at Vincent's Cimmerian NPCs (http://hyboria.xoth.net/characters/vd_m ... erians.doc and http://hyboria.xoth.net/characters/vd_s ... erians.doc) and see that a "Seasoned Veteran" is a Barbarian 6 and a "Seasoned Veteran Craftsman" is Barbarian 3/Scholar 3. A "Clan Chief" is Barbarian 12, which would make him "truly mythical" according to your definition (you have "clan chieftains" as an example of 8th-level characters).
Supplement Four wrote:EDIT: I've been using published game material, like the core rulebook, to back up my argument. Thulsa, you've used Vincent's non-official list of NPCs.
Is there really a significant difference, though? Do you think that Mongoose had editors that would accept or reject Vincent's work based on his compliance with a couple of paragraphs on page 11-12 of the core rulebook? Or is it more likely that since Vincent wrote the majority of the books, that they just accepted and published whatever he wrote?

In fact, many of the NPCs in those Word documents have been published in the books, too. As an example, look at those "Temple Harlots of Idris", which I've mentioned before; they are level 5 and they also appear on page 149 of the Stygia sourcebook. We also find again the "Stygian Infantry" which are Commoner 3/Soldier 3.

But I can use (more) published game material for my examples, too. Let's look at "Across Thunder River":

* Sample Clerk: Commoner level 1, 5 and 10.
* Sample Laundress: "Laundresses are women who do laundry for the men of the Westermarck". Commoner level 1, 5 and 10.
* Sample Frontier Prostitute: Commoner, Level 1 Doxie, Level 6 Odalisque, Level 10 Madam.
* Sample Settler (female): "Settlers are the common folk slowly populating the Westermarck". Commoner level 1, 5, and 10.
* Sample Soldier: Soldier, Level 1 Private, Level 3 Corporal, Level 6 Sergeant.
* Sample Voyageur: "... a frontier man who is employed by traders as a canoe paddler, bundle carrier and labourer". Commoner, Level 1 Middleman, Level 5 Bowsman, Level 10 Steersman.

Yeah, I know, at lot of these are Commoners, but look at my previous example from the Turanian soldiers. I'm pretty sure that if Mongoose ever had the time to publish a Turan sourcebook before the line ended, those NPCs which Vincent had already written up would be in that book.

Anyway, this is becoming a somewhat pointless discussion, as I think that each DM is free to choose/define whatever level ranges he wants to use in his game world. I'm just objecting to your assertion that the Conan RPG was supposed to be (just) about low level play.

- thulsa
Image

The Hyborian Age d20 Campaign Site
http://hyboria.xoth.net/

The Spider-God's Bride and Other Tales
http://xoth.net/publishing/xp1/
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:28 pm

thulsa wrote:For example, the book says 8th-level characters are "skilled adventurers", you call the same "legendary characters". The book says 12th-level characters are "legendary figures", you call the same "true mythical characters".
I'm happy to use the words straight out of the 2E definition, then. Otherwise, we're just going to go off into a debate about "what is a skilled adventurer", "what is legendary", and so on.




So nothing is "correct" or "incorrect", it's just different views, which is also an argument against your claim that the game is supposed (by who?) to be played at very low levels.
So, basically, you're ignoring the level descriptions and character examples in the 2E Core rulebook.

Sure, it's a game, and the GM can play at any level he wants. What I've been pointing out is that the game, that is the 2E Core rule book, has secections that define levels to give GMs an idea of what an abstract level means in character experience. The book plainly states that 1st level characters are novices; 4th level characters are a "cut above" most people; that 12+ level characters are extremely rare; and so on.

The space wasn't provided to define each level specifically, and it my opinion, it wasn't needed. Enough information is provided to the GM to interpolate. When the book says 4th level characters are more established than average men, that might as well say that the average man is below 4th level, which, of course, is level 1-3.

Then, when you turn to the Beastiary and EVERY human example backs up these definitions, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the game was intended to be played with the definitions as outlined for the GM.

Thus, although the GM is free to play his game any way he wants, I think the evidence is strong that the Conan RPG in intended to be played at a lower level than most other d20 game. I think of it as an E10 game with exceptions that allow levels 11+.

When I first looked at the Beastiary, I expected to see 4th, 5th, or 6th level Pict warriors, and when I saw that they were only 1st level--and that most of the characters presented were 3rd level or less--I was a bit curious until I read the level definition section of the 2E Core Rulebook.




Cimmeria was written by Lawrence Whitaker, not Vincent Darlage. Perhaps that explains why the NPC levels are lower?
Or...perhaps Cimmeria is a 2E supplement which follows the level description clarifcation put forth in the 2E rulebook?

Is there really a significant difference, though?
I think there is a a significant difference. Most gamers of any RPG agree that the Core Rulebook provides the primary set of rules for a game while supplements provide options.

In seeing the 2E level descriptions and character examples, I'm also starting to think that the level description section was added for clarity, along with additional character examples, maybe to correct earlier edition level problems. I mean, someone had to purposefully put that section into the 2E rulebook, and that 2E book is meant as the ultimate revision of the Conan RPG rules.

We get level definitions. We get examples in the Beastiary. And, the 2E sourcebook follows those guidelines.

All published evididence is pretty strong that the 2E edition of the game intended to reinforce that the game was meant to be played at the lower levels.




Do you think that Mongoose had editors that would accept or reject Vincent's work based on his compliance with a couple of paragraphs on page 11-12 of the core rulebook? Or is it more likely that since Vincent wrote the majority of the books, that they just accepted and published whatever he wrote?
I know for a fact, from personal discussions with Vincent, that your second sentence is not true. I've seen where he was edited and "corrected" (usually with his idea being better) and ignored.




In fact, many of the NPCs in those Word documents have been published in the books, too. As an example, look at those "Temple Harlots of Idris", which I've mentioned before; they are level 5 and they also appear on page 149 of the Stygia sourcebook. We also find again the "Stygian Infantry" which are Commoner 3/Soldier 3.
....Which is a 1E sourcebook. As I've been saying, the lower level POV seems to have come about with the 2E revision (though Beastiary exampes in 1E and AE both feature very low level character examples).


But I can use (more) published game material for my examples, too. Let's look at "Across Thunder River":
What do you have in the 2E supplements?


Anyway, this is becoming a somewhat pointless discussion, as I think that each DM is free to choose/define whatever level ranges he wants to use in his game world. I'm just objecting to your assertion that the Conan RPG was supposed to be (just) about low level play.
I think the conversation is fine. Nobody's mad at each other. Niether side is being snarky. We're just disucssing two different points of view on the subject. I think it's a healthy discussion. Do you think otherwise?

And, I think I've provided a lot of "proof" that my assertaion is correct.
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:52 pm

Someone mentioned that the d20 System has been criticised to fall apart at the higher levels. One person said that WotC made a statement to the effect this was the reason for 4E. I'm not sure if that's true, but if it is, then maybe the attempt to keep the Conan RPG at the lower levels was in response to this claim on the d20 system.

As I said in my reply to Thulsa above, I look at the Conan RPG as an E10 with exceptions for occasional characters level 11+.
Spectator
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:02 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Spectator » Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:31 pm

To Paraphrase Rodney King: "Can't we just get along?"

After the LA Riots burnt 1/5 of the town to ashes in 1992.
rabindranath72
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby rabindranath72 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:16 pm

Nice to see the Conan RPG is still discussed!
I only have the Atlantean Edition, but the snippets about the distribution of character level in the 2E book are intriguing, since those are more or less the guidelines I have applied in my games; in particular, there have never been, nor there will ever be, 10th level commoners.
Next Sunday I am going to start a new Conan campaign after a few years of hiatus, and I have been re-reading the core book to re-acquaint myself with the material, and indeed, I still agree with what Malcadon said about the game being exceedingly convoluted. But this time I am not going to sweat it. I will simplify NPC creation, creating only the basic stats and giving only the feats and skills that they need for the role they play in the scenario. I am also ditching attacks of opportunity, using simpler mechanics; same goes for the grappling rules (two pages?!?!)
I am also evaluating whether to remove DR, AP etc. and return to plain old AC (DR -2 should be a good approximation to AC bonus, IMO.)
I have also recently acquired MRQII new for a dime and a song (together with Elric and Lankhmar books,) and I really really like what I see; the Hyborian Age would have literally shined under this rules set :cry: As soon as I am fed up again with d20 Conan I might try and port the interesting elements over to MRQII

Anyway, glad to see some of you guys are still here :D
--------------------------------------------------
Williams and Holland law:
"Everything can be demonstrated by statistical methods if you have enough data"
Sir Hackalot
Stoat
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Sir Hackalot » Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:08 am

I think one reason why combat in Conan D20 is faster then say D&D or Pathfinder is because there is little to no combat magic. Because you don't have that you don't have a lot of book flipping in them middle of combat looking up spells. I have found even mid level combat to progress rather fast and exciting.
"You can not escape me!" he roared. "Lead me into a trap and I'll pile the heads of your kinsmen at your feet! Hide from me and I'll tear apart the mountains to find you! I'll follow you to hell!"
The Frost Giant's Daughter
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:07 am

rabindranath72 wrote:Nice to see the Conan RPG is still discussed!
I wish there were more of us!
I only have the Atlantean Edition, but the snippets about the distribution of character level in the 2E book are intriguing, since those are more or less the guidelines I have applied in my games; in particular, there have never been, nor there will ever be, 10th level commoners.
Yes, I think the game plays well that way, too. If you need an NPC, it's much easier to create a 3rd level character than it is an 8th level one. As I learn the game it gets easier and easier. I could create a Barbarian by memory, I think.




Next Sunday I am going to start a new Conan campaign after a few years of hiatus, and I have been re-reading the core book to re-acquaint myself with the material, and indeed, I still agree with what Malcadon said about the game being exceedingly convoluted.
Well, it is. That's a function of its d20 roots. D&D has always been the most complicated RPG in existence, no matter what edition or era to which you're referring. I remember back in the 80's, looking at AD&D and AD&D 2E, then looking at just about any other game of the day: my favorites were Fasa's Star Trek, WEG's Star Wars, the original Traveller, Top Secret/SI, James Bond, and a few others. ALL OF THEM are easier games to master than ANY of the D&D versions to date.

So, yes, the Conan RPG is convoluted requiring a long, long learning curve to master. I've been playing the game for over three years now, and I've still got a lot learn. In no way do I have the game mastered yet (not like I did AD&D back in the day, when I could quote you just about anything you needed to know, on the spot, without opening a book).

But, if you think about it, the complexity of the various D&D versions, and thus, Conan as well, is a blessing and a curse. It does take longer to learn, but the complexity also adds an intriguing layer to the game. In Classic Traveller, you go through the character generation process and you're done. In WEG's D6 Star Wars game, you build a character by assigning dice to your stats and skills, and you're done. Not so with d20 and Conan. There are all these neat options to explore. Gaining levels, and thus, new abilities, is....fun! Players like going up a level and finally getting a new feat, or more skill points, more hit points, more BAB bonuses, etc, etc.

That reward aspect of the game is quite convoluted, but it also brings a neat, intriguing, addicting aspect to the game as well, where players, after gaining a new level, ponder over, "What! Am I going to do with my character now! Which combination of choices will I enjoy playing?"

Two edged sword. Frustrating and Addicting at the same time.




But this time I am not going to sweat it. I will simplify NPC creation, creating only the basic stats and giving only the feats and skills that they need for the role they play in the scenario.
Absolutely! That's exactly what I do. Did you see my post on that earlier? Only create what you need. If you need to flesh an NPC out later that you created on the spot, well, you can do that in-between games, keeping the choices you made in-game. There's no reason to developed full NPC stat blocks when the majority of that info will never be used.

Many times, I don't worry about stats at all. I just describe the character I see in my head.

"There's big, strongly built, ruffian type sitting at the table. The bangs of his deep black hair looks like it was ripped off or cut with a rock, and you guess it would be a thick, unkept mess if the man hadn't pulled the corase stuff behind his skull and tied it with a strap of leather.

"His hands are big. They lay on the table like two raw chicken carcases. A leathern jack of beer sits in front of him, but it remains untouched. In fact, you notice that the man isn't moving at all--he seems to be staring at the entrance, intent upon the thick oak door."

There you go. There's an NPC, ready to play and interact with the characters--and I haven't created a single stat for him.

If, as the game progresses, I do need stats, I'll either assign them or roll them, editing the outcome to comply with what I've already established about the character.

For example, if I do put stats on this guy, I won't be putting his lowest stat into STR. And, although I haven't played him yet, I don't think I'd put his highest stat into CHR.

But, I'll never do either until I need stats for the character, and in game, I'll be quick about it.




I am also ditching attacks of opportunity, using simpler mechanics; same goes for the grappling rules (two pages?!?!)
What is it about Attacks of Opportunity that makes people think it is so complicated? It's very simple, really. Characters threaten the space 5 feet around them (which using non-reach weapons). For example:

ABC
DXE
FGH

Conan is in square X holding a broadsword, fighting a Pict warrior who occupies square B. If another Pict moves through ANY of the squares where Conan can attack (Conan "threatens" squares A,B, C, D, E, F, G, H), then Conan can attack them for free (an attack of opportunity).

Let's say another Pict, starting the round behind somewhere north of the C square, runs through squares C, E, and H, on Conan's right hand side, tring to attack Valeria, who is behind Conan. Technicaly, Conan is allowed THREE free attacks (AoO's), because an AoO is triggered every time a threatened square is left. So, this new Pict that is running to attack Valeria, has triggered three attacks by Conan against himself: It happens when the Pict leaves square C, when the pict leaves ssquare E, and when the pict leaves square H.

But...

A single character can only take advantage of a limited number of AoOs in any one round. Characters can take advatage of only 1 AoO per round unless the character has a feat that says otherwise.

Thus Conan, with no Feat that increases his AoO's, can only attack the Pict that runs by him once. Since Conan has 3 opportunities, the player can choose which attack Conan does take.

The Pict moves, and Conan's player decides to attack the Picts as it leaves the last square H. Resolve that attack then resume the fight between Conan and the Pict in square B as normal.

It's pretty simple.

There are a few more technicalities, here and there, but that's the gist of it.




I am also evaluating whether to remove DR, AP etc. and return to plain old AC (DR -2 should be a good approximation to AC bonus, IMO.)
I wouldn't do that, either. I think that stuff gives Conan it flavor, separate from other d20 games and Pathfinder. I love the Combat Maneuvers as well.
rabindranath72
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby rabindranath72 » Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:00 am

I am fully aware of how attacks of opportunity work, and there is nothing complex about them. But they are convoluted, and to be done any justice, require a map. I plan to replace with a mechanic similar to what is found in AD&D, i.e. AoO apply only in a few instances, like using a ranged weapon in melee range, or when a character disengages from combat hastily. I am also going to use the simple rules in d20 Call of Cthulhu, i.e. when someone enters into melee range of a creature, he is considered engaged and cannot move further. Feat and class abilities which rely on AoO simply allow disengaging, or moving past an opponent without having to stop.
--------------------------------------------------
Williams and Holland law:
"Everything can be demonstrated by statistical methods if you have enough data"
Spectator
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:02 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Spectator » Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:50 pm

I have to agree to do AOOs correctly you really should be playing with miniatures and hex/ graph paper. I have not done that in years.

Great to see you back Rabindrath!
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:42 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:I am fully aware of how attacks of opportunity work, and there is nothing complex about them. But they are convoluted, and to be done any justice, require a map.
Oh, absolutely. The mechanic is designed for use on a map. I assumed you were using a map, graph paper, or some type of grid for your gaming since d20 3.5 (and thus, Conan) is designed for such play.

If you're going with the map-less approach, then I wouldn't allow AoO's either. That would be asking for a fight with the players, I think.



[/quote] I plan to replace with a mechanic similar to what is found in AD&D, i.e. AoO apply only in a few instances, like using a ranged weapon in melee range, or when a character disengages from combat hastily. I am also going to use the simple rules in d20 Call of Cthulhu, i.e. when someone enters into melee range of a creature, he is considered engaged and cannot move further. Feat and class abilities which rely on AoO simply allow disengaging, or moving past an opponent without having to stop.[/quote]

Without a map, you could use the neat rules in the Codex Martialis where each weapon has three types of modifiers: the first for when a character enters melee, and even in melee, he keeps some distance away from his foe (almost like a reach weapon). This is where longer weapons have better modifiers. Then, there's a second modifeir for standard melee. And, a third modifier for the weapon used as defense (such as it being harder to hit a target who is swinging a great sword than it is a target who is using a small knife).

But, I haven't used these rules, as intrigued as I am with them, because I know I'd have to do a lot of revampoing the Conan RPG. I like playing it Rules As Written. Plus, the Conan has special rules to cover most of these topics in another way mechanically.
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:56 am

I'm actually glad that the AoO's sans the map was brought up because I've been thinking about introducing combats without maps in my game. I thought it might be more visual and immersive. Up until now, I've been using a large cork board, big sheets of graph paper, stick pins, colored dots, and a sharpie black marker.

For many of the AoO's, I do think a map is necessary, so that throws a wrinkle in my plans to try out the map-less encounters.
Spectator
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:02 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Spectator » Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:45 pm

Give it a shot, it definitely speeds things up and as a GM you have more artistic license to describe a combat encounter by elaborating on positions and outcomes.
For Example:

"Tommy swings wildly his sword, slips on a mossy stone, falls down, slides 5 feet forward due to the inertia of his swing, whilst doing so, his sword, unintententionally, but fortunately, suts through the sinew and tendon of the bad guy's unarmored leg."

With that example, you made a "to hit" roll changed the dynamic of the fight (one person is prone, the other immobile), and your PC has changed position (was in front, and now behind hamstrung badguy). Compared to the standard guy still standing in front of the guy, swing a sword.
Like I said this is artistic license in extremis, so it should be used carefully.


Supplement Four wrote:I'm actually glad that the AoO's sans the map was brought up because I've been thinking about introducing combats without maps in my game. I thought it might be more visual and immersive. Up until now, I've been using a large cork board, big sheets of graph paper, stick pins, colored dots, and a sharpie black marker.

For many of the AoO's, I do think a map is necessary, so that throws a wrinkle in my plans to try out the map-less encounters.
rabindranath72
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby rabindranath72 » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:26 pm

Consider also how it's done in AD&D, where adversaries tend to fill the ranks in front of a character before being able to surround him, since the assumption is that one does not stand in one place, barring special circumstances. Playing on a fixed grid locks you in one place, which is quite unrealistic.
--------------------------------------------------
Williams and Holland law:
"Everything can be demonstrated by statistical methods if you have enough data"
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:35 pm

rabindranath72 wrote: Playing on a fixed grid locks you in one place, which is quite unrealistic.
I've pondered for years about how to bring "battlefield shift" to the grid. I haven't come up with anything I like yet.
Spectator
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:02 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Spectator » Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:20 am

As someone who has done some MMA and boxing when younger and been in a few brawls. I can honestly tell you that you never start and finish in the same place, the "jockeying for position" or getting your ass knocked over will always change things up.
Supplement Four wrote:
rabindranath72 wrote: Playing on a fixed grid locks you in one place, which is quite unrealistic.
I've pondered for years about how to bring "battlefield shift" to the grid. I haven't come up with anything I like yet.
rabindranath72
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby rabindranath72 » Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:29 am

Supplement Four wrote:
rabindranath72 wrote: Playing on a fixed grid locks you in one place, which is quite unrealistic.
I've pondered for years about how to bring "battlefield shift" to the grid. I haven't come up with anything I like yet.
Yeah that's not easy to accomplish, unless one resorts to abstract positioning like it's done in some recent games (e.g. The One Ring, or Dungeon Hack.)
Even AD&D 1e had a sort of abstract positioning system, as it was assumed that one was engaged in melee with everybody in a 10' radius. I think I am going to use this or a similar abstraction in my next Conan game. Besides, and slightly related, Conan AE has opportunity attacks as optional (just re-read yesterday.) This would make abstraction even easier.
--------------------------------------------------
Williams and Holland law:
"Everything can be demonstrated by statistical methods if you have enough data"
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:41 pm

I would probably take AoO's out completely, if I played a gridless/mapless game. The reason: If you minimize the effect AoO's have on the game, some of the Feats and such lose their purpose. In Conan 2E, a character could be built (high DEX, focus on particular Feats) to use AoO's as his main advantage in a fight. This type of character would be gutted of his advantage in a story-based game that doesn't use a map.
Fyrdraka
Cub
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:41 pm

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Fyrdraka » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:43 pm

Long time lurker, first time poster here.

Must admit I didn't read the entire thread, but here are my thoughts.

In my group of four players, the three of us takes turns as GM's with each campaign lasting about a year’s time in real life. My campaign has been Conan D20 the last three times and will remain so. In my opinion, the game is fun and combat is violent and dangerous (as it should be), but once you progress beyond a certain point (usually a few levels after the 10th level) it gets really difficult to balance opponents in a way that continues to make combat fun. It becomes a VERY hit or miss affair - either the players quickly kill the bad guys or they don't stand a chance. That is intense, yes, but when winning the combat comes down to who wins the initiative, it's just not as fun as the more tactically challenging mid-levels.

Now, you might argue that 12th level is legendary or whatever, but I think it is a real shame that many feats and abilities require high level characters. I don't intend to run any games where the characters reach higher levels than around 12, so that basically means a lot of feats and stuff that they'll never be able to have. I've considered a few ways to fix this unfortunate "power creep" so a 20th level character might have the power level of, say, a current 13th level character (or something to that effect) while keeping open all the available feats and abilities, but I think that would require a massive system revision, not to mention what to do with all the monsters' stats.

Another balance/game design issue: I have had to implement a lot of house rules/rulings and clarifications, especially in regards to how certain feats and class features works in conjunction, as it is often unclear whether two feats can be used in conjunction etc.

In short: Broken? Not at the lower levels. At higher levels? Yeah, I'd say so, as in less fun to play.

Completely off-topic, I'd like to thank Thulsa for all the great Conan-related resources he's supplied through the years :)
Supplement Four
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3827
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:28 am

Re: Conan RPG Broken? Really? I'm not convinced.

Postby Supplement Four » Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:49 am

Fyrdraka wrote:Long time lurker, first time poster here.
Welcome!
Now, you might argue that 12th level is legendary or whatever, but I think it is a real shame that many feats and abilities require high level characters. I don't intend to run any games where the characters reach higher levels than around 12, so that basically means a lot of feats and stuff that they'll never be able to have.
Have you considered that these 12+ Feats are meant for legendary characters and not your average joe?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests