CONAN MRQ

[Swordmonger]

Hi there, Filip here from Austria.

Now that I'm really happy with my running Glorantha MRQ campaign, I keep thinking of which setting will be our next. I love Conan, I love MRQ, but I hate D20.

You already own the Conan License, why don't you produce a campaign-setting to MRQ then?

Best regards,
Filip

 

[The King]

Welcome aboard.

There was some plans to do it but there was a massive reject by the Conan fans. So the idea was cancelled.

However (and once again), Conan has OGL rules (and not D20) and many points are very similar to the old Runequest rules (magic, armor, etc.). So it shouldn't be too difficult to convert into MRQ.

 

[Magistus]

Actually it wasn't canceled because of being rejected by fans. From what I gathered it was canceled because the license did not allow it to be published under more than one rule set.

 

[The King]

The licence problems concerned Hyborian empires and the minis.

 

[Strom]

The licence problems concerned Hyborian empires and the minis.

That's the first I ever heard about the license getting in the way of the miniatures game. Were did you hear that, King? The 'Goose has been tight lipped about it since they pulled the forum.

 

[The King]

If I can recall correctly Matt wrote it casually in a post (or was it Old Bear?).
I also deducted from an ealier discussion with Old Bear that Conan Properties wanted specific dressing/uniform for each Hyborian armies, such as how they wanted the Aquilonian cavalry to look like.

 

[Strom]

If I can recall correctly Matt wrote it casually in a post (or was it Old Bear?).
I also deducted from an ealier discussion with Old Bear that Conan Properties wanted specific dressing/uniform for each Hyborian armies, such as how they wanted the Aquilonian cavalry to look like.

Really? So CPI's demands were rather unreasonable.

We were so close King....so close.

Matt has posted before that the issue isn't dead. Maybe more alive than MRQ Conan...

 

[Mage]

Maybe they talkof it in secret. I dislike d20 alright, but I do have some books, and I would get conan as RQ. They could do a generic Barbarian setting where most work is done, and with the second monster manual coming out it would not require that much work to do if you were to run conan with the system.

 

[The King]

Really? So CPI's demands were rather unreasonable.
...

Not necessarily. I remember a thread with Old Bear (it should trace back to 2005), where he told that it was difficult because Hyborian armies had much similarities with ancient empires but you couldn't just present Aquilonian as Bysantine cavalry.

Matt has posted before that the issue isn't dead. Maybe more alive than MRQ Conan

Yes, I read his post.
But I am not so much interested in the minis as I don't have the space nor the time to play tabletop (or to paint them).
Hyborian Empires though would interest me a lot.

 

[Swordmonger]

They could also use an alternative - for example, that would be a dream-come-true though, a licensed campaign setting for the KANE short stories done by K. E. Wagner. They are similar in style and fit perfectly to the other Mongoose Games, such as Elric and Conan.

 

[The King]

They could also use an alternative - for example, that would be a dream-come-true though, a licensed campaign setting for the KANE short stories done by K. E. Wagner. They are similar in style and fit perfectly to the other Mongoose Games, such as Elric and Conan.

A Kane setting is already developped by Pinnacle Entertainment and Vincent Darlage wrote on the Conan forum that he would write 3 books for that game.

 

[Axerules]

Hey King ! KEW's Kane and REH's Solomon Kane are different characters.

Pinnacle edited a Solomon Kane book, based upon the works of R. E. Howard. Solomon Kane is a Puritan who fought against Evil in all guises during the XVIth century.

Karl Edward Wagner's Kane is a barbarian/sorcerer that he created himself, who lived in his own Sword & Sorcery setting. BTW Swordmonger, he wrote three Kane novels, not only short stories.
KEW also wrote pastiches about some REH characters (namely Conan: The Road of Kings and Bran Mak Morn: Legion from the Shadows), but not Solomon Kane.

 

[The King]

Thanks for the precision Axerules. I know Solomon Kane of course and thought the K.E. Wagner's character was another pastiche as he did with Conan.
I remember a Kane short story with Elric of Melnibone in some authors' tributes to Moorcock and couldn't figure out that the Kane pictured there was the same as Howard's puritan.

 

[Swordmonger]

It wasn't the puritan, Wagner wrote a tribute Elric Story in which his own S&S hero Kane met with Elric.

 

[Axerules]

It wasn't the puritan, Wagner wrote a tribute Elric Story in which his own S&S hero Kane met with Elric.

I haven't read it, was it good ?

BTW King, KEW's Kane stories are IMO really well-written (I'm currently reading one), better than his Conan pastiche TRoK (which wasn't bad). He's considered as one of REH's "literary heirs", Two-Gun Bob was his main influence. The Kane saga was his masterpiece, IMO far superior to the overrated S&S books written by D. Gemmel.

To not derail this thread further and get back on topic: I'm not interested by Conan MRQ and wouldn't buy it.
It is not that I'm hostile to another ruleset for Conan, but I don't like MRQ.

 

[The King]

I haven't read it, was it good ?

It is essentialy a matter of taste but I consider it as good (or bad) as Alien vs. Predator.
I am no fan of these hero mixtures unless they all come from the same author (e.g. Moorcock and his Multiverse heroes).
I remember that the issue with Elric and Conan in Conan the barbarian (Dark Horse reprint) was quite uninteresting.

BTW King, KEW's Kane stories are IMO really well-written (I'm currently reading one), better than his Conan pastiche TRoK (which wasn't bad). He's considered as one of REH's "literary heirs", Two-Gun Bob was his main influence. The Kane saga was his masterpiece, IMO far superior to the overrated S&S books written by D. Gemmel.

I didn't read Gemmel and I don't think I'll ever read Wagner's Kane as I have already a lot of books that I should read.

To not derail this thread further and get back on topic: I'm not interested by Conan MRQ and wouldn't buy it.
It is not that I'm hostile to another ruleset for Conan, but I don't like MRQ

In fact, I believe Conan with Stormbringer's rules (from Chaosium because I don't know MRQ yet) would have been excellent.

 

[Strom]

[

BTW King, KEW's Kane stories are IMO really well-written (I'm currently reading one), better than his Conan pastiche TRoK (which wasn't bad). He's considered as one of REH's "literary heirs", Two-Gun Bob was his main influence. The Kane saga was his masterpiece, IMO far superior to the overrated S&S books written by D. Gemmel.

I didn't read Gemmel and I don't think I'll ever read Wagner's Kane as I have already a lot of books that I should read.

Axerules is spot on King. (What's up Axe? )

Honestly King, if your a fan of sword & sorcery you should drop all books from your reading list and find Wagner's Kane. There are so few great Sword & sorcery books/stories available and Karl Edward Wagner's Kane is deserving of a spot along side Conan, Kull, Elric, Fahred and Corum.

Run! Don't walk! You can't be King if you haven't read Kane! :lol:

 

[The King]

Honestly King, if your a fan of sword & sorcery you should drop all books from your reading list and find Wagner's Kane. There are so few great Sword & sorcery books/stories available and Karl Edward Wagner's Kane is deserving of a spot along side Conan, Kull, Elric, Fahred and Corum.

Run! Don't walk! You can't be King if you haven't read Kane! :lol:

In fact, I am fan of RPG setting, Sword and Sorcery being only a part of it.

 

[Strom]

I understand. I just can't recommend Kane enough - especially for inspiration for any Sword & Sorcery/Fantasy RPG. I don't think D & D - or RPG's - happen without inspiration from authors of fantastic prose. They go hand in hand.

 

[The King]

I will read Wagner's Kane after I've read his Conan pastiche (provided I liked it).