Conan Plans Unveiled - Deepest Apologies

[Demetrio]

Yes but actually it doesn't matter because Conan is not in fact key. It is the setting that matters more than the character. The other games rely on the character for most of the necessary flavour.

 

[flatscan]

Yes but actually it doesn't matter because Conan is not in fact key. It is the setting that matters more than the character. The other games rely on the character for most of the necessary flavour.

I've admittedly not read the Batman rpg so I can't say what is or isn't in it. But I'd imagine an RPG company would realize that the majority of players won't be playing Batman. As such, you could still make an excellent dark supers game in Gotham city. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. <shrug>

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

flatscan

The point was the strength of a setting such as the Hyborian Age. The Conan rpg plays quite happily without Conan, in fact, he isnt really relevant in a lot of cases. And, whilst, Gotham may be a 'cool' setting, it just seems futile to play a 'Batman' rpg without a Batman. It seems pretty stoopid, in fact. I think its a case of, 'Yeah, got the Batman licence, now how do we make an rpg out of it?'.

Thats the thing about strong settings as opposed to strong characters and stories.

I agree, yes, with your point about a RQ Conan being moot. I think I said the same thing earlier. Would I buy 4th ed Conan? Truth be told, I dont think WotC would produce a game like that. So that is a pretty moot point too. Considering that the guys who own the rights to Conan seem pretty keen on the rpg products being good, I would think the chances of a 4th ed Conan are remote.

Come to think of it, I wasnt seduced by GURPS Conan, so it doesnt follow that I would buy just any version of a Conan rpg. I think the criteria would have to remain whether its a quality product or not. Not every company is going to be able to do it justice, but I certainly would reserve judgement until I saw the thing.

And, I get that you dont like any aspect of RQ. Im mystfied as to why, to be honest, there are some neat design features in it. I get the feeling that you have your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears when it comes to other systems and their good points. As I say, its mystifying to me.

 

[Demetrio]

Yeah, in MERP I could go to Rohan, visit Moria, Mordor, Minas Tirith, a whole host of great locales. Same with the Hyborian Age (and the galaxy far, far away if I ever played a Star Wars rpg).

But if I have Jones adventures without Jones, I'm playing generic 30s pulp. So the setting adds nothing. Does Gotham City have the depth or breadth of the larger worlds? Is it as immersive? I don't think it is.

Now Solomon Kane and CoC are a bit different. Their settings are essentially historical, I think it's a slightly different thing in their case. Not quite sure what.

 

[flatscan]

I agree, yes, with your point about a RQ Conan being moot. I think I said the same thing earlier. Would I buy 4th ed Conan? Truth be told, I dont think WotC would produce a game like that. So that is a pretty moot point too. Considering that the guys who own the rights to Conan seem pretty keen on the rpg products being good, I would think the chances of a 4th ed Conan are remote.

Why wouldn't WotC produce a game like that? Star Wars Saga Edition was a precursor to D&D 4e using essentially the same rules system and is a larger license than Conan. Also, D&D always has been and still is the big dog in the RPG market. The market share filled by D&D alone is HUGE. Larger than any other RPG out there. If profit is the motivation, and Wizards bids on the license, combining the 2 (D&D + Conan) makes perfect sense. Also, as I said, it was a hypothetical situation.

I get the feeling that you have your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears when it comes to other systems and their good points. As I say, its mystifying to me.

Let me run you through a list of RPGs I've played through the years:

Rifts, Cyberpunk 2020, Vampire: the Masquerade (other than Conan this is the line I have the 2nd most books in), Werewolf: the Apocalypse, Mage: the Ascension, Wraith: the Oblivion, Dark Ages: Vampire, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e (4th most books in my collection though I rarely played and haven't played 3.5), D&D 4e, HackMaster, Call of Cthulhu, Call of Cthulhu d20, Serenity, Fading Suns (3rd most books), Champions, Heavy Gear, Conan, Deadlands, Exalted, Street Fighter (heh, yeah, I actually bought and ran that game. fun campy martial arts goodness).

Those are just the games I've actually played (that I can recall off the top of my head), I own many, many more. So no, it's not that I haven't/won't play any system other than d20, it really is that nothing in RQ attracts me.

 

[SnowDog]

Yes, I think it's the setting that often makes a great rpg (and can lift even a mediocre one to playability, occasionally). That certainly applied to Star Wars too. But the setting has to be a wide one. A city (Gotham say) doesn't really cut it.

I agree that it is usually pretty hard to make an RPG where characters are part of the lincenced material since in most cases the property is about a single iconic character. Star Wars, Middle Earth and Hyboria are settings strong and wide enough that you can create similar stories than the originals without even mentioning the original characters.

Having said that not all settings have to be really large to allow extended play. MegaCity-1 comes to mind that has worked surprisingly well as an RPG setting and I would think that Sin City would, too.

 

[SnowDog]

Rolemaster had this mechanic. If you were outclassed and had to wait for your mates, you could add your atteck onto your defense value. Like 'hiding behind your shield and weapon'. In fact, Iron Crown said if you use all your attack % for actual attack, youre crazy. This is a great idea and not too clunky. I use it as an option in my game, but, surprisingly, players always use their full attack bonus to attack. I think maybe I should ask them every round about how much they are going to defend for a little while, just to promote the benefits of the rule. Players have even more combat options, for very little complexity or bookeeping.

I have parry rolls for both my pcs and npcs. I think it works well. I also have overall hit points and variable armour values, (as in Stormbringer, and now BRP). Its a bit bloody, and theres a bit of dice rolling, but it works really well, theres never any argument and combat moves surprisingly quickly.

Yes, I know that Rolemaster uses similar system (I have played and run it quite a lot back in the day). All those things seem to add quite a bit overhead to combat but if it works for you, I would only imagine that how much fun the extra effects are!

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

If profit is the motivation, and Wizards bids on the license, combining the 2 (D&D + Conan) makes perfect sense. Also, as I said, it was a hypothetical situation.

Let me run you through a list of RPGs I've played through the years:

it's not that I haven't/won't play any system other than d20, it really is that nothing in RQ attracts me.

I suppose I doubt the probability of a 4th ed Conan partically because CPI have said that profit is not the major driving factor, its quality of product. This isnt a 4th E bash, because, frankly, I think its pretty good game design, just not very good at describing settings other than D&D core worlds. IF it happens, I may reject it, but, if it looks as good as that Star Wars stuff, I may be tempted.

Ok, so you play other games, but thats not the issue. What mystifies me is that you say you find absolutely nothing of worth in the RQ system! I find that hard to believe. Especially considering RQ uses similar stats to D20, uses those stats in the same way D20 does for mods to abilities, uses a magic point method which the designers of D&D were originally going to go for, has hit points, has a similar amount of skills, has similar names for the skills, etc., etc..

AND, if youve played Call of Cthulhu, youve played BRP. Did you hate it?

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Yes, I know that Rolemaster uses similar system (I have played and run it quite a lot back in the day). All those things seem to add quite a bit overhead to combat but if it works for you, I would only imagine that how much fun the extra effects are!

Do you think Rolemaster is clunky? I found it not as bad as people say. Obviously, theres a bit of needless complexity, (I never used the encumberance rules as written), for instance, but, mostly, it ran fairly well. I think it was a good trade; a little slower for almost infinite variety. I loved Shadow World as well as running a Middle-earth campaign. Shadow World was great for high level adventuring.

 

[flatscan]

I suppose I doubt the probability of a 4th ed Conan partically because CPI have said that profit is not the major driving factor, its quality of product. This isnt a 4th E bash, because, frankly, I think its pretty good game design, just not very good at describing settings other than D&D core worlds. IF it happens, I may reject it, but, if it looks as good as that Star Wars stuff, I may be tempted.

But you're not a game designer. WotC have used a variation of the same system for hi-fantasy (D&D) and space opera (Star Wars). What leads you to believe they couldn't adjust it to work with sword & sorcery? But you know what, I wouldn't buy into a 4e based Conan game myself.

Ok, so you play other games, but thats not the issue. What mystifies me is that you say you find absolutely nothing of worth in the RQ system! I find that hard to believe. Especially considering RQ uses similar stats to D20, uses those stats in the same way D20 does for mods to abilities, uses a magic point method which the designers of D&D were originally going to go for, has hit points, has a similar amount of skills, has similar names for the skills, etc., etc..

Rifts uses similar stats to d20 and I wouldn't play that game again unless forced to at gunpoint. And when you speak of D&D designers going for something are you speaking of d20 designer or original D&D designers? Because if it's the latter, I wouldn't play AD&D 2e (or older) again either. Just because there are some similarities isn't enough to compel me to change to a system when I already have a perfectly workable system to use. I still don't understand how that mystifies you.

AND, if youve played Call of Cthulhu, youve played BRP. Did you hate it?

For horror role-playing it's a great system. But even a min/maxed physical character is still weak as hell compared to a mythos creature. I'll turn your generalization of D&D 4e back on you with this. Just because it does horror well doesn't mean it'll do anything else well. And the low-survivability of the system won't work with sword & sorcery. Conan went through major sh!t and didn't die. Of course you can modify rules, but again, I already have a system that works perfectly for my sword & sorcery needs.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

flatscan.

Youre pretty specific in your tastes!
Well, if you play RQ a bit, you get to see the subtlties in the system, because, competent characters can survive, pretty well, in fact. Yes, its true they are in constant danger of slipping up and suffering some kind of damage, but, thats combat, isnt it? I dont think anyone could make a good case for D20 combat being somewhat thrilling, especially at high level. And, before you jump down my throat, I understand that D20 has strong points in other areas.

Its just the absolute rejection by you, of one specific system, that you refuse to accept has any merit whatsoever. I find that mystifying.

But thats ok, you dont have to like it, I just think your total rejection of it has more to do with what you see as a kind of D20 vs RQ competition. It is possible to, at least, respect the good points in both. It doesnt have to be a war.

Look, if WotC come out with a Conan game, based upon 4th ed., I'll have a look at it. I wont reject it out of hand, before its even been made.

 

[flatscan]

I dont think anyone could make a good case for D20 combat being somewhat thrilling, especially at high level. And, before you jump down my throat, I understand that D20 has strong points in other areas.

I haven't played Conan at high levels yet. I'll let you know how it goes in a few years. :wink:

Its just the absolute rejection by you, of one specific system, that you refuse to accept has any merit whatsoever. I find that mystifying.

It's essentially BRP with some extras. I don't use BRP for anything than Cthulhu and have no interest in expanding that. There's no need to.

But thats ok, you dont have to like it, I just think your total rejection of it has more to do with what you see as a kind of D20 vs RQ competition. It is possible to, at least, respect the good points in both. It doesnt have to be a war.

I'll admit, the comments and vitriol the RQ fans have leveled against d20 have not endeared me to their system of choice. I'm generally turned off by fanboys of a system saying another system sucks in order to promote their system of choice. Instead of trying to sell with vinegar, use honey. Tends to work better. But it's a lost cause with RQ. I'm already knee deep in game books and don't want to add onto it with another game I know I'll never play (also partially because in the entire city of Austin I've not heard of a single person interested in it, BRP gets way more love than RQ here).

Look, if WotC come out with a Conan game, based upon 4th ed., I'll have a look at it. I wont reject it out of hand, before its even been made.

I would, because I already have a system that works perfectly for my gaming needs. That's my main resistance to switching to some other system, even if it has "Conan" at the top in big shiny letters. Stopping my current campaign is not an option and converting it is more work than I want to spend.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I haven't played Conan at high levels yet. I'll let you know how it goes in a few years. :wink:

I'll admit, the comments and vitriol the RQ fans have leveled against d20 have not endeared me to their system of choice. I'm generally turned off by fanboys of a system saying another system sucks in order to promote their system of choice. Instead of trying to sell with vinegar, use honey. Tends to work better. But it's a lost cause with RQ. I'm already knee deep in game books and don't want to add onto it with another game I know I'll never play (also partially because in the entire city of Austin I've not heard of a single person interested in it, BRP gets way more love than RQ here).

I already have a system that works perfectly for my gaming needs. That's my main resistance to switching to some other system, even if it has "Conan" at the top in big shiny letters. Stopping my current campaign is not an option and converting it is more work than I want to spend.

Well, I wasnt talking specifically about Conan, I was talking generally about D20, and the same goes for lower level combat, its just that its more noticable at higher levels. By that, I mean the predictability of combat. And it is predictable, Ive had a fair number of years experiencing its predictability.

I get a similar feeling from you about RQ, flatscan. You talk of RQ fanboys, but you dont seem to open your mind to the possibility that you have been wrong about some other rpg. As I say, there is no competition, you may prefer D20, but, maybe you should have an open mind about other systems, perhaps?

Maybe you could be the first guy in Austin to introduce the Austinians to a great new game called Runequest? Maybe they would love you for it, rather than cuss about having to play something else.

You dont have to stop your current campaign or even convert. You dont even have to try Runequest. All you should do, in my opinion, is have a more open mind about other systems in general, and the BRP family in particular.

I remember you singing the praises of 4th ed not so long ago too. Why would you be so against a 4th ed Conan game? It could be good.

And, as people have said, what if Mongoose DO keep the licence, produce a MRQ version, and their first supplement is Turan? Maybe you might weaken, and buy it, with a view to converting it. No one is going to point at you in the street and say, 'There goes Flatscan! He said he would NEVER buy ANYTHING RQ! Ho! Ho! What a hypocrite!'. Thats just not going to happen. We dont have to just like one thing, we can SIMULTANEOUSLY like different things!

Radical, huh?

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

flatscan

Ah, and you admit that BRP is good for Cthulhu. Well, I would say, and a good number of others would too, that the engine is quite versatile. In fact, it has been cited as one of the most versatile and venerable systems around. Its won awards and stuff.

Just like Savage Worlds and GURPS, BRP (or RQ), is a good engine, adaptable to most genres. Now, I wouldnt say it was perfect, in fact I quite often get pissed at it, but, Im sure you would agree that no system is perfect.

Im not a fanboy of the system, I just think that RQs engine is pretty slick. Ive done Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, an Aliens game, Hawkmoon, Glorantha, etc., Ive even used it for Middle-earth, Harn, 'Wilderlands', and for a sci fi game based upon the universe of Druillets 'Sloane', amongst a host of other stuff that escapes me for the moment, through the years. And I can tell you, from one gamer to another, flatscan, its been a blast.

I like D20 too though. Ive had great times with it also.

 

[flatscan]

I get a similar feeling from you about RQ, flatscan. You talk of RQ fanboys, but you dont seem to open your mind to the possibility that you have been wrong about some other rpg. As I say, there is no competition, you may prefer D20, but, maybe you should have an open mind about other systems, perhaps?

Here's the difference. I, unlike you and Herve, don't go on a RuneQuest board and spend post after post saying the system sucks and everybody should be playing d20 (I know you claim to like d20 too, I just don't buy it). In fact, I never commented on RuneQuest before in my life until yours and others posts pissed me off enough to have an opinion on it. Otherwise, I'm willing to try any system once.

Maybe you could be the first guy in Austin to introduce the Austinians to a great new game called Runequest? Maybe they would love you for it, rather than cuss about having to play something else.

I'd rather not. I'll leave it to you Europeans to enjoy.

You dont have to stop your current campaign or even convert. You dont even have to try Runequest. All you should do, in my opinion, is have a more open mind about other systems in general, and the BRP family in particular.

As said above, I have an open mind about most games. Except for the ones which have fans such as yourself and Herve that slag one RPG to promote another. That instantly turns me off on that game because if you're the typical type of player who plays and posts on message boards about that game then I don't want to get involved with it. That's not meant to be offensive, btw, I have nothing personal against you but from your posts I know you and I would not be compatible gamers.

I remember you singing the praises of 4th ed not so long ago too. Why would you be so against a 4th ed Conan game? It could be good.

D&D 4e is a solid game. I'm not currently playing it though. I already explained why I wouldn't buy it. I have a long-running group of gamers that are currently completely satisfied with OGL Conan. Why change?

And, as people have said, what if Mongoose DO keep the licence, produce a MRQ version, and their first supplement is Turan? Maybe you might weaken, and buy it, with a view to converting it. No one is going to point at you in the street and say, 'There goes Flatscan! He said he would NEVER buy ANYTHING RQ! Ho! Ho! What a hypocrite!'. Thats just not going to happen. We dont have to just like one thing, we can SIMULTANEOUSLY like different things!

Uhm...that's not my concern at all. I don't give a rat's ass what you or some on this board think of me. I do care about delivering a solid, and fun experience for the people playing in my games. And I do like more than one thing, I've already given you a list of games I've played. Some I didn't like, but most I thoroughly enjoyed enough to buy a ton of books for.

Anyhow, enough derailing of this thread. I have 0 interest in RuneQuest. Nada, zip, zero, zilch. I don't understand why you invest so much time in trying to convince me to play it. It's not going to happen as I have 4 shelves of game books, some of them I've never had a chance to play and really really would like to (Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane, Tribe 8, Ars Magica, to name a few).

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

flatscan

Well, youve got me wrong, then. We dont have to be best buddies to be civil and listen to each others viewpoints. Im not proud where I get ideas for my campaigns from. And I dont think Ive ever poured vitriol on your favourite game, have I?

It seems strange that you dont 'buy' the fact that I play and like D20. I was one of the people who preordered Pathfinder from Amazon UK, and they screwed up and never got ANY copies! (I managed to get my copy elsewhere). I think its great, it even halfway convinced me that a D20 fantasy campaign with elves and dwarves was a good idea again. I like what theyve done, and I will buy the creatures supplement.

My Conan campaign is going pretty well too, after a false start.

You can say, if you like, that we wouldnt see eye to eye over a game table, well, probably not, but what difference does that make?

You seem needlessly suspicious of other gamers who sometimes disagree with you. Ive no idea why.

 

[flatscan]

I've taken the exchange to PM Prince as we've derailed this topic for pages now. Respond there if you care to.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Deep joy.

 

[howardfanatic]

I grieve the loss of a MRQ Conan! I have been bleeding for one. I mean, if you like D20, then that is great for you. I like MRQ.
I hope that Mongoose can still get Conan out in a variety of formats. I think the character desrves wide spread exposure!

 

[SnowDog]

Do you think Rolemaster is clunky? I found it not as bad as people say. Obviously, theres a bit of needless complexity, (I never used the encumberance rules as written), for instance, but, mostly, it ran fairly well. I think it was a good trade; a little slower for almost infinite variety. I loved Shadow World as well as running a Middle-earth campaign. Shadow World was great for high level adventuring.

I have never understood why people are bashing Rolemaster so badly. Sure, there are lots of tables to look at but they are actually quick references, especially when players have copies of their weapon tables.

We never used encumbrance rules, either

But would I use it for Conan? I don't know. It could work...