Conan 321

[Supplement Four]

Why don't you just preroll characters for your players? With all the restrictions you're using, it will save them (and us! :wink: )a lot of time.

What restrictions are you referring to? That I restricted race (to Zamorians) and class choice (to Commoner, Borderer, Soldier, and Thief)?

That's the only restrictions.

I don't see not letting them use the Heroic chargen variant as a restriction since it is a variant (optional) rule.

(BTW, don't read and respond to my topics if it bothers you.)

We knew of a guy like this in our gaming group.
We don't play with him anymore.

My players have been playing with me for 20+ years.

I must be doing something right.

 

[Supplement Four]

Forgive us then wanting to play Conan like characters in a Conan rpg game. Any body worth mentioning in the Conan stories is well above the average dirt grubbing peasant that its pretty obvious that the heroic generation method is intended to create something on par with them.

No...the heroic generation method creates uber PCs.

Note the standard generation method creates characters that are well above average. The rule book says that right there in the description.

And, the book also says that if you want to create PCs outside the laws of nature (uber PCs), then use the heroic generation method.

Heroic Generation + Liberal Conan d20 Stat increases = Super Uber PCs at high level.

 

[Hervé]

It's not the Heroic generation that is Uber, but the D20 system as a whole.
It was just meant that way.

 

[cbrunish]

I understand that the CT design is very realistic. As I am 37, and my life did not go as planned when I was plotting out my life at age 18. But I really don't want to play a game about life but fantasy. If I wanted to play something realistic I would play Cellphones and Cubicles (I apologize if there really is a game with this name). But I play fantasy/fiction to escape from life. Just like reading a good book or watching a good show/movie.

I don't see where there is a problem with letting characters put their stats where ever they want them. You still have to roll those stats up. Thats still random. But if a player wishes to roll up a Conan-like character then let em. He would be putting his best three stats in Str, Dex, & Con. If a player wishes a Thulsa Doom-like character then his main stats would be Int, Wis, & Cha.

In my 20+ years of gaming, players like to have some control over what his character can do. They read about a character in a book or see one in a movie and wishes to recreate them. This does not seem unrealistic to me. I remember the character I had the most fun was a thief in AD&D that was a recreation of Silk from the Belgariad series. He had a high Dex, above average Int and Cha. I actually had a higher Cha then a Str. That was more important for the character than having a high Str just to have an extra bonus.

And with any game the players and DM will find what works best for them in character generation. There is no way to get a perfect character. There is still much randomness with stats and hit points. I have made many characters and dropped them after a few levels because I either became bored or the concept did not work out. Thats part of learning and experience in any game.

And there are rules in the game to let characters have a code of honor (just like the one Conan had), and it even gives bonuses so most characters will have one! And the fear of magic and being baffled by civilization is more role playing (at least in the Conan game).

And why would a soldier want a high cha. This would not make sense. Unless he was going to add Noble levels or wish for the leadership feat. But the player could put a higher score into cha if that is how they envision em. But on the otherhand, he can slowly move up his cha as he gains levels. Which can be an interesting plot as to why he became more of a leader.

And try playing Heritics of Tarantia without those "few cha based skills". You will fail. Out Pirate character with a high cha and cha based skills did wonders.

When it comes down to it these are "role playing games" and it is up to the characters to place themselves into their "role" That's why we play the game.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't see where there is a problem with letting characters put their stats where ever they want them.

I don't have a problem with that, either. Not in the Conan game.

My problem is the dump stat. I want to avoid it. So, Conan 321 provides both player arrangement to taste without creating a dump stat.

As it turns out, the first character in my campaign (and the player chose to use Conan 321 from three options) looks like this:

STR 7

DEX 14

CON 13

INT 15

WIS 12

CHA 11

That's a very interesting character. He's already got a lot of "personality" and we haven't even played with him yet. You wouldn't find stats like that had I allowed total arrange-to-taste or point buy (or even Heroic chargen).

Already Conan 321 has paid for itself in that its delivered "gold" to the game--the character is already becoming a character and not a collection of numbers that we will get to know later in the game.

Daggeri is thin, wiry. He avoids face-to-face confrontation at all costs. He's smart, logical. Thinks things through. He'll be very tactical in combat, quiet, looking to create an opportunity for a quick sneak attack.

Since the character is handicapped in the STR dept., the player has already become interested in poisons. That will be Daggeri's speciality. He's logical (and so is the player), and so, in order overcome his deficiency in face-to-face combat, he need to find ways to take his enemy out quickly.

Defense feats and options will become a priority. And, his interest in poisons led to his interest in herbalism.

Conan 321 is working out nicely. Just as I hoped it would. It's delivering characters...not generic two-dimensional, we've-seen-it-before, PCs that are maximized stat-wise for their particular chosen class.

Daggeri, with his flaws and abilities, feels like a more interesting person.

At least, to us (my group).

When writing in fiction or watching a movie, it's the flaws that makes the character interesting--watching how he deals with those flaws. He'll have other strengths, sure (Conan is strong), but the flaws (Conan being unfamiliar with the Hyborean culture) are what pull us in...make us identify with the character.

I'm a writer in real life, so that type of thing is easy to translate to the game.

Think to yourself, what's more interesting. The old Bond movies, where Bond was invincible (Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan). Or, the newer Bond movies, where Bond can actually get hurt (from Casino Royale).

What happened?

They took Bond from being a two-dimensional super man (heroic chargen) and made him flawed...somewhat flawed. He can be hurt, but he's still a bad-ass.

Conan 321 creates the second type of character.

 

[cbrunish]

Supplement Four you're missing the point. The same can be accomplished with out the "321" rule. All that is being done is forcing the characters to keep their CHA as rolled, and only switching within either their physical or mental attributes. Maybe the player wanted a character that was obnoxious and brash. This equates to a low CHA score! Your forcing your players to base their "weakness" entirely on their rolls. Remember "role playing not roll playing". I know people don't like that cliche but it does fit with some campaigns.

What you do in your campaign is of course entirely up to you. As long as the everyone playing are happy, thats all that matters. But in this forum you seem to be pushing your method as the best and other methods as "misguided" or wrong. I think that is where I have the problem.

 

[rabindranath72]

I guess I am missing something here...
Let us consider:

STR 8

DEX 14

CON 13

INT 15

WIS 12

CHA 10

Well, this character is close to the above (total points), but it has been generated by an arrangement of the "ELITE" scores suggested in the D&D 3.x books. That is, those number are the default pool to build "elite" characters according to D&D 3.x.
This character might be a viable scholar or "jack of all trades" thief.

 

[cbrunish]

This character might be a viable scholar or "jack of all trades" thief.

I would say more of a thief. Unless your not going to be much of a spell using scholar. The low CHA and WIS will really hurt his chances with power points and magical attack. But the high CON will keep him alive and high INT will give him even more skills. And with low STR he would definatly want to be backstabbing than going toe to toe.

 

[rabindranath72]

This character might be a viable scholar or "jack of all trades" thief.

I would say more of a thief. Unless your not going to be much of a spell using scholar. The low CHA and WIS will really hurt his chances with power points and magical attack. But the high CON will keep him alive and high INT will give him even more skills. And with low STR he would definatly want to be backstabbing than going toe to toe.

No, I meant scholar as scholar, not sorcerer. Probably a useless character in a typical Conan game IMO, unless it is more of an "occult investigations" game.

More to the point, the above character is the "average" character one would expect from the "4d6 drop lowest" method, which in D&D is assumed to be an "elite".

 

[Supplement Four]

Supplement Four you're missing the point. The same can be accomplished with out the "321" rule. All that is being done is forcing the characters to keep their CHA as rolled, and only switching within either their physical or mental attributes.

I'm not missing the point. And, what you suggest has already been suggested up thread a bit.

What's better, saying that CHA has to be rolled as-is, but you can arrange all the other stats? Or, giving the player the power to choose which stat is rolled as-is and which stats can be swapped. Conan 321 is more flexible because it allows that choice.

Your forcing your players to base their "weakness" entirely on their rolls. Remember "role playing not roll playing".

A good role player can play a different role, based on his character. If his character has high INT but the character constantly makes illogical or non-intelligent choices, then the character isn't being played properly.

But in this forum you seem to be pushing your method as the best and other methods as "misguided" or wrong. I think that is where I have the problem.

Well, I do think my method is the best, otherwise, I wouldn't be using it! :shock:

But...I'm not pushing or asking anyone to use the stuff I write. You're "wrong" there. In fact, I think I've been the victim of the same thing you accuse me of doing. I posted, saying I was going to do things this way, and one or two vocal responders attempted, over and over, to convince me that my method was no good....that I should use Heroic Character generation and otherwise use rules straight out of the book.

What you might read as my "push" are my responses to those one or two responders.

 

[Supplement Four]

More to the point, the above character is the "average" character one would expect from the "4d6 drop lowest" method, which in D&D is assumed to be an "elite".

I agree. You're making the point of why I don't think Heroic Chargen is needed. Daggeri, the character above from my game, is above average in every category except STR and CHR (and he's average in CHR).

That's a good character to start with at 1st level. He's +1 or +2 on most of his skills.




This may shock some of those using Heroic Chargen, but my player actually asked to use the first stat method from the book--the one where you roll 4D6, drop the lowest, and have no arrangement at all!

Yep. He sure did. He said, "Let's roll this guy and see what the dice tell us about him."

That's just the way we play. I know (especially from reading a couple of the responses on this forum) that some players would get angry if their GM forced them use a "no arrange to taste" stat creation method.

The guys I game with will play anything. They'll take the character and turn him into something memorable--no matter if his stats are high or low or mediocre or fantastic.

I actually convinced my player to use Conan 321 so that he'd have a little room to arrange to taste. I said he'd want to do that since this is a "fantasy" game and not the realistic games we're used to playing.

He agreed (I wouldn't have forced him), and the character above, Daggeri, is what we came up with.

 

[cbrunish]

Well, I do think my method is the best, otherwise, I wouldn't be using it! :shock:

:lol:
Yeah you're right. All you did was give an alternative. You'll GM with your method and I'll GM with my method. As long as the players are happy and you're enjoing yourself, that's all that matters.

Truce.

 

[Supplement Four]

Truce.

Truce it is! But, I didn't know we were at war! :shock:

 

[kintire]

Truce it is! But, I didn't know we were at war!

Oh you didn't? Well you shouldn't have started it then.

SF, I have to confess, I'm disappointed. I thought you were putting forward your system for critique, and that the discussion over design versus random roll was quite interesting. Then I go away from the weekend and find you turning into the worst kind of elitist before my eyes. I hope it was just a reaction, But I have to doubt it.

In my opinion, heroic generation is for munchkin gamers.

Munchkins, on the other hand, (according to this web site: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/society/glossary.html) are gamers that are more interested in personal power than roleplay - the word comes from a description of the behaviour of 12-year-old D&D players. Specific exanples include vastly optimising a charactersheet to create unrealistic characters, and using metagaming to figure out aspects of plot.

So...since the official rule book, itself, states that Heroic Character Generation "creates heroes with high scores to simulate the characters' positions as exceptions to both the laws of nature and common humanity", and that this method "can result in more powerful characters than any other generation variant". I think it's fair to say it's a variant for munchkin gamers (those who want to min/max and have incredibly statted heroes).

well, excuse me for daring to violate your self righteous position, SF, but actually there are those of us who have serious reservations about random generation systems which are based firmly on game and fun concerns thank you very much: If you didn't think dismissing all that as "munchkins" wasn't insulting, you are fooling yourself.

I don't know if it will help, but I didn't mean to insult you. I do think the Heroic Generation is for munchkin gamers, but I didn't mean that as a direct insult towards you.

Oh that's SO much better. Its not an insult only to him, its to ALL of us. Well, thats all right then!

It doesn't help, either, that you don't seem to be grasping, much less meeting, the actual objections to it.

That's right...some stats will be higher. Some will be lower. The mean will be 13.

That's the spice of life.

It seems to me that some Conan players think it's a sin if one of the PCs has a stat that has a negative modifier (9 or below).

That's not a bad thing. Everybody doesn't have to be a superhero in every area covered by every stat.

The problem, as I have said several times now, is NOT low stats in one character, it's balance within the party. Yes, the mean will be 13, but six rolls is too small a sample to get reliable clustering on the mean. I have rolled a number of 4d6 drop 1 characters, and they are extremely variable. I have seen an 18,18,17,15,14,12 array, and I have had a 12, 10,9, 9, 8, 6. The GM, not being quite as enamoured of random rolls as you, let me reroll that particular array, but what kind of fun would it have been for me, being in the same party as mr hero over there?

If you've got a group of 1st level PCs, and every stat is at least 10 or better, I'd say group is truly "special".

Unbelieveably special.

Non-realisticly special.

The strong but believeable Conan is gone, only to be replaced by the two dimensional, infalible, characture that is Wulfgar from the Ice Wind Dale trilogy.

You mean... heroes?

Conan's problems stem from lack of experience in the early tales, and weight of numbers or demons in the later ones. He is strong, tough, smart and extremely charismatic. And yet believeable, because people in his position would be like that. Unlike your silly Dex 6 soldier, who is about as realistic as a moon made of cheese.

Conan, to me, is the epitome of a hero in the Hyborian Age. He's THE Hero.

When characters start out in Star Wars, they can't whip Darth Vader's arse. And, characters who start out in the Hyborian Age shouldn't be able to whip Conan's butt at similiar level either.

First rule of RPGs... the players are the heroes. This is their tale. having them gratuitously upstaged by NPCs is poor. Yes, there should be more powerful people out there, higher level, more resources, but condeming them from the word go to being second rate Conans whatever they should do is poor.

As I said, the average dude in this game has Stat 10.

The average hero, starting out, should be around 13.

That still makes him a pretty outstanding hero when compared with average folk.

No, it doesn't.

You seem to have a highly inflated idea of what these stats actually mean. Someone with a 13 in a stat has a plus 1 modifier. Given the rolls are D20, that's 5%. Someone with a 13 is 5% better than someone with a 10. Someone with an 18 is 20%. I don't know about you, but I would expect the average peasant village to have rather more than 5% difference in their population! Most people will have at least one 12 or more, and any village will have some 14s. The blacksmith will be 14 strength, for example. 16s, 17s and 18s are noticeable and impressive, but scarcely superhuman. A 15% superior performance is well worth having, but not exactly superhero levels yet.

I've mentioned this before, but it's been my experience in my 20+ years of gaming with several different gamers over the years that self designed characters--where the player has total control--actually turn out less interesting characters than if there are some constraints on the creation.

Well, its been my experience in 20 years of gaming that letting the player imagine the character and produce the stats to match is far the better way, and that wildly varying power levels in the party leads to the players of weak characters getting bored.

When the player has total control, we get a character that is "perfect" for whatever role he is meant to play (or, as close to mechanically perfect at the player can get him). His stats are optimized for his class, and his background, although maybe somewhat interesting, usually turns out to be fairly generic.

Ironically, it seems that YOU are the one playing with mini maxers.

But at that, given the selection proceedures that exist, in world, for the PC classes this is far better than the wildly unsuited PCs you prefer.

When you're arranging stats, you've got to prioritize. STR, DEX, and CON are obvioulsy more important to a Soldier character than CHR. Then, INT gives you more skills.

That takes it down (usually) to either WIS or CHA. And, since WIS is used for a Save, where as CHA is only used for a few skills, CHA typically becomes the placement of the lowest stat the Soldier throws.

Well, if Cha is that unimportant in your campaign, why not just leave it out? its vital in the ones we play.

What restrictions are you referring to? That I restricted race (to Zamorians) and class choice (to Commoner, Borderer, Soldier, and Thief)?

That's the only restrictions.

Oh those are the "only" restrictions? So, no social classes at all, no learning, no magic.. just melee fighters. Well, that's fine if that's the game you want, but don't complain that with a setup like that Cha gets dumped! And I pity the fool who uses your random generation system and gets 6,8,9 for his first three rolls...

And yes, I've seen that happen too.

That's a very interesting character. He's already got a lot of "personality" and we haven't even played with him yet. You wouldn't find stats like that had I allowed total arrange-to-taste or point buy (or even Heroic chargen).

Already Conan 321 has paid for itself in that its delivered "gold" to the game--the character is already becoming a character and not a collection of numbers that we will get to know later in the game.

Oh please. Abiltiy to produce an interesting character has nothing to do with random rolls. FYI, we produce the interesting character first, before a single number is known. The mechanics fit the concept, not the other way round.

They took Bond from being a two-dimensional super man (heroic chargen) and made him flawed...somewhat flawed. He can be hurt, but he's still a bad-ass.

Conan 321 creates the second type of character.

But that's just the point... It DOESN'T, not reliably. With a point buy system you can do this... just set the number of points you give the PCs appropriately. With random generation, mr 18,18,17,15,14,12 is just around the corner.

Well, I do think my method is the best, otherwise, I wouldn't be using it!

But...I'm not pushing or asking anyone to use the stuff I write. You're "wrong" there. In fact, I think I've been the victim of the same thing you accuse me of doing. I posted, saying I was going to do things this way, and one or two vocal responders attempted, over and over, to convince me that my method was no good....that I should use Heroic Character generation and otherwise use rules straight out of the book.

What you might read as my "push" are my responses to those one or two responders.

Because calling everyone who uses design systems munchkins is, of course, not pushing at all.

I'm sorry, you posted your system for comment. I commented, politely. I have serious reservations about random generation systems, which do NOT stem from not wanting an uber elite character thank you very much. Random generation systems are not realistic for a normal conan game, they produce characters that are wildly different in power causing under involvement and boredom for some PCs and encounter balance headaches for the GM, they ram players into characters they may not have wanted. They do produce characters with a different array of stats than point buy systems prodcue, but in my opinion the downs outweigh the ups.

If you would like to discuss any of the above, I'll be happy to. If you wish to wax lyrical about how you are a superior roleplayer and person than those munchkin point buy types because of your dedication to random generation, don't bother.

 

[DigitalMage]

In my opinion, heroic generation is for munchkin gamers.

Munchkins, on the other hand, (according to this web site: http://www.srcf.ucam.org/tt/society/glossary.html) are gamers that are more interested in personal power than roleplay

I don't know if it will help, but I didn't mean to insult you. I do think the Heroic Generation is for munchkin gamers, but I didn't mean that as a direct insult towards you.

Supplement Four, I feel that your posts are coming across as a a little patronising - this may not be the intent but it is the feeling I get reading your posts.

You seem to be stating that the use of point buy and the heroic roll method are only used by Munchkins - despite your protestations above, "Munchkin" is usually used an insult.

Also I feel you are wrong in your statement, sometimes players want to play at different power levels - but not for the purposes a munchkin would. Munchkins tend to want to be the best out there - better than the other players and able to easily best the foes the GM puts against them.

Sometimes the whole campaign is meant to be of a higher power level - where every player and every foe is adjusted appropriately. Yes, a player may have sufficiently high stats that he can easily best the normal 1st level foes, but the foes he is facing are actually tougher than normal.

Sometimes people want to explore and enjoy playing an "above the norm character". If wanting to play a powerful character automatically makes you a munchkin then I must be the bigger munchkin out there as I own New Gods of Mankind where the players get to be gods!

I've mentioned this before, but it's been my experience in my 20+ years of gaming with several different gamers over the years that self designed characters--where the player has total control--actually turn out less interesting characters than if there are some constraints on the creation.

My players have been playing with me for 20+ years.

It seems that you are trying to extrapolate your experiences to the whole hobby - and I think that is what is annoying some people on these forums. You are stating thinks like using using point buy results in 2d characters. Maybe that is true with your players, but don't tar everyone else with the same brush.

I have made many characters with non-random character creation - some games don't have a random method of creation - and yet most of my characters have been interesting, with weaknesses, backgrounds and motivations.

I sometimes go against the usual dump stat, and sometimes go with it - it depends on what fits my characters concept. But in neither case do I feel my character is more or less interesting.

For example, a character I created for Mongoose RuneQuest (which does have random stat rolling) I imagined as a large burly but gentle character somewhat retarded in his social and mental development, a carpenter by trade who actually does not like violence and tries to avoid it. Almost a Frankenstein's monster type character.

His highest stats were Strength and Size and his "dump stat" was Power because it fit the concept (he was naive and easily bullied), his Charisma was actually 13, the same value I put in Constitution and more than I put in Dexterity and Intelligence. His weapon skills were poor but his shield skill was significant (I imagined him picking up tables to shield himself from kids throwing rotten fruit at him).

If I had been asked to use a method similar to 321 (322 as there are 7 attributes) I would have found it an extra hurdle to get over to fulfil my character concept.

For example I would likely have had to have put Strength, Power and Constitution together so that I could put the worse roll in my desired "dump stat" and ensure Strength had a high stat, and put Size and Intelligence together so that I could ensure Size was high and Intelligence wasn't too high, and that would leave Charisma and Dexterity to swap between.

But what if I rolled a 15 and 16 for both Size and Intelligence, 16 would go in size but then I would be left with 15 to put in Intelligence - something that directly goes against my concept - he shouldn't be smart!!!!

So to summarise, I think you need to realise that Conan 321 may be exactly what you need to get your players making interesting characters, if your 20 years of game play with them has shown you that they always make "less interesting characters than if there are some constraints on the creation".

However, please do not make sweeping generalisations about how everyone else plays. Please don't brand anyone who uses Heroic Stat Rolling a "munchkin". Please don't imply that anyone who uses Point Buy systems cannot make interesting characters, or characters who are not realistic.

Seriously, Supplement Four, I like the idea and can see how it can work for some groups, but those who use the methods you dislike are not having BADWRONGFUN.

 

[DigitalMage]

And now I feel like I have been a bit too harsh, especially with kintire posting a very similar argument just before I got to submit mine.

Oh well, please don't take it too badly Supplement Four - I have tried to be objective and in other threads have felt criticism aimed at you was harsh and unfair; here however, I feel it is justified.

 

[rabindranath72]

I have found that using the standard roster of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 gives good starting characters without any problems, and makes players happy since they can have the character they want *shrugs*

 

[Supplement Four]

Oh well, please don't take it too badly Supplement Four - I have tried to be objective and in other threads have felt criticism aimed at you was harsh and unfair; here however, I feel it is justified.

No problem, Dig. I started to read your post and the one kintire wrote, but just skipped them after a few sentences when I saw what kind of posts they were going to be. I'm not of a mind to get into those types of arguments. No body wins. It drags way off topic. And sometimes it goes on for pages and pages in the thread.

It's sometimes best just to skip those types of things and stop "feeding the fire" so to speak.

No worries to either of you.

 

[DigitalMage]

I started to read your post and the one kintire wrote, but just skipped them after a few sentences when I saw what kind of posts they were going to be.

Its a shame you didn't read the post as I believe I made some salient points that may help you and others avoid such heated debates in the future.

It also may highlight some problems you might encounter with using the 321 system with your own group (but then again it might be just what you and your group need).

Cheers!

 

[kintire]

DM, I don't think he cares. I think he wanted a cheer squad, not a critique. But maybe I'm just cynical!