Defensive Blast Problem / HELP!!
- Thread starter Kincaid
- Start date
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
OGL/ d20 same o, same o. They just added a few tidbits here and there. I've played so many systems, I can just about evaluate whether they will be any good or not just reading the rule book. The damage system that OGL Conan has was already done by David Hargrave back in 1977. Nothing new about killing in one blow. Most other system have been using armor to take damage long, long ago. Class levels are outmoded and need to die, never were any good. Skill level based characters are more realistic and rounded out. They seem far more real, and allows real character development the way you want it. In class level systems, most everyone plays a few games to add levels, before going on a real adventure. OGL Conan tries to get around the class level problem by a process called multi-classing, whereas most of the other games just make you add skills. The combat system most closely resembles miniature war gaming and not RPG. It seems to be a modified Star Wars miniature game to me. You have several resolution systems to use, and they are not even related except you have to roll high. Skill checks are one, Combat hits another, Saving Rolls is again another separate resolution. Just complicated and disorganized. Like a bunch of monkeys got together and put a lot of rules from all sorts of games into one hat and started pulling out some, leaving all the good ones behind.
You can claim this system is good, but I've played so many better ones. But I've been collecting and playing hundreds (maybe not playing hundreds, getting close though) of RPGs since 1978, and I know a smooth system when I read one, and OGL ain't all you crack it up to be.
You can claim this system is good, but I've played so many better ones. But I've been collecting and playing hundreds (maybe not playing hundreds, getting close though) of RPGs since 1978, and I know a smooth system when I read one, and OGL ain't all you crack it up to be.
VincentDarlage
Mongoose
dunderm said:
I probably shouldn't say this, but I am tired of you coming here and bad-mouthing our game and hijacking our threads. It is a subjective opinion, no matter how many games you have played. It is like having a favorite author - no matter how many books one has read, does that really give you the authority to just announce to others which authors they should like?
I played your TSR game, and I didn't think much of it at all. Does that mean a thing to you? I hope not. Well, your continual diatribes about how bad our game is means just as little to us.
So why not let your agenda go, avoid the rules discussions, and hop into the world discussions? Or if you want to discuss the rules, at least stay on topic... this thread is about Defensive Blast, not anything about TSR Conan.
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
Good, I have your attention. I criticise and suggest, but the OGL Conan system is not broke, just jumbled a bit IMO. It is a good system of resolution if done smoothly across the board. Also, the system is overburdened with Feats, many rightfully should have been Skills. Feats, more or less, are geared towards supporting class levels and sometimes racial background. This is not bad in itself, but because of the way you figure Skill bonuses and Feats, this makes it difficult for a player to customize the character as they would like to. Due to the fact that d20 requires you to roll over a figured value for success, the value needed for success must grow exponentially compared to the difficulty of the situation and the number of Feat bonuses allowed by the player. This also restricts adding Skills to your character right off from the start in order for them not to be too powerful at the beginning (otherwise, class levels are meaningless). What happens is that you must increase the difficulty of the situation so as to not make it easy on high powered characters. The limitation on Class Levels is a direct consequence of this. I hope the following suggestions will give an alternative to some of these issues. I think once play-tested, this will work for the system and allow easier play. I wish I had time to present a more detail working of these ideas, some will probably need more adjustment.
First a little note on Level advancement. I think there is justification for using Levels. Particularly as it is a direct reflection on pure living experience that you cannot get any other way. But Skills and such, can have initial ranks unrelated to living experience. Levels are also a way of giving incentive to good role-playing and certain ability advancement. Age is also a factor that should actually limit Level advancement and may actually decrease abilities. So I am not against Levels in itself, as long as they relate to living experience and not to Skill choice. Feats are an entirely different matter, and I will go over that a little later.
Also, a note on Experience Points and Level advancement. I always thought this was way over done. Players tend to get out of hand just to get another bunch of EP so they can advance a level. I would not use direct spending of EP as a requirement for Level advancement by itself. Keep EP awards low, allow less points required for Level advancement, and tie in Levels to Age. If the player wishes to start out at 5th Level, make the age requirement double or more. In other words, let them have extra Levels. but penalize them with age. If they advance during play, let the advancement go easier with less aging.
Conan aged and acquired wisdom and experience along the way. But his combat skills were incredible from the beginning, unrelated to his age or experience. I keep this in mind, when justifying adding Skills from the beginning of character creation. Make all Skills available at the creation of your character. Limit them as to Class and Race if you wish. This means all class features can be made Skills or possibly Feats. Add Ranks to your Skills and allow them to be improved upon through experience. To figure the bonus needed to succeed against the DC, divide the total Skill rank by 5. This, of course, would give someone with a level 50 Skill a +10 bonus. Make a variety of Weapon Skills and allow a character to improve them as they will. This can be vary restrictive on what weapons a character can use. Not having a weapon Skill can have amazing role-playing consequences. Also this would tie in your class features with Skill use directly, and do away with having separate resolution checks. This means your base attack bonus will now be dependent on your Skill with the weapon or type of attack, and not your Level. Key abilities will add directly to your Skill Rank. An Untrained Skill Rank would equal just your key ability (or abilities if you like) and any Feats applicable.
Take a good look at Feats and evaluate each one as to whether or not it would fit more comfortable as a Skill, such as Acrobatics. Keep the Feats geared toward Level advancement, that’s not a real serious problem. But if you wish, allow further advancement of the Feats through direct experience point spending, but keep the requirements the way they are and make the cost high per each bonus. Some Skills should actually be Feats, particularly those involved with thievery and secretive groups, such as Priests. Somethings are only taught or given as a secret ability, when the person has advanced in Rank in an Order, for example. This would give good reasoning for some skill like Feats, and tie it into the Hyborian Age. All Feats will then be used a modifiers to your Skill Check as usual.
The Base Defenses used in this game, lowers the defenses of the character that has high Skills in weaponry, regardless of his Rank. Obviously, BD is basically a way to figure the DC for the opponent. This might work ok for attacking some creatures or such, and even then I would wonder. If you are being attacked, I would think it stands to reason you would put forth your best effort and your Skill with your weapon to Parry. Part of a Weapon Skill, is being able to shift and dodge, it does not have to be split from the Weapon Skill. If you do not have a weapon, you would use your best unarmed skill and use that. Many weapons are designed to defend as well as attack, if your weapon is not designed to defend, you need to learn to dodge real well and hope your abilities can help you. Dodging becomes a Skill and perhaps a form of Feat. If you do not have Dodge as a Skill, you would then have to use it as an Untrained Skill. Size and such would be a modifier as usual. Defense is not necessarily an automatic feature of combat. Melee Skills are a deciding factor. Those without skills in combat, are at a decidedly disadvantage. To give them a bonus that is nearly equal to those characters that are highly skilled in combat, is unbalanced. Dropping Base Defense, and using Skill Checks, is one less thing you don’t have to bother with.
The way a Skill Check would work is first divide your Skill Rank by 5, this equals your Base Skill Bonus. Roll 1d20 and add to the BSB as modified by adding Feat Bonuses and modifiers dependent on environment. This is your Skill Score. Figure your DC and subtract from your Score. DC for combat would equal your opponents BSB plus defensive Feats and modifiers. Players will really be thinking of how to beat someone of nearly equal Skill. Cultivating Feats would still be a high priority.
Saving Throws should be based strictly on your character’s abilities and Level. A Saving Throw should be a last ditch effort on the character’s part, and would be a Free Action by default. Giving different bonuses based on Class and then allowing summing the bonus by Multi-Classing is problematic. You will Multi-Class, after all, that’s the best option. I see no reason to slight a Class considering the vary nature of having a Saving Throw. Just give bonus based on Levels and Abilities. If this bothers you a great deal, look closely at Skills as a source to add a bonus to your Saving Throw. Some Skills or Feats such as Acrobatics, may improve a Saving Throw. But I would not as a general rule allow this, except if you are in the middle of using a Skill or Feat, and needing the bonus is not the reason you used the Skill or Feat. If in doubt, use Untrained Skill Rank instead.
I have more suggestions on many aspects of this system that I think some people may like. Unfortunately, I have little time or the gaming group I need to work it all out. I know this may seem like a completely new system I am proposing, but it’s not. I gave the above suggestions as a way of showing I am not beating up on the system just out of bias for my home brew system. I feel many systems were lacking when first devised, and later additions may not have been integrated fully. Also, play-testers and designers may have been more eager to get the show on the road, than fully thinking about what they were adding to the game. By integrating, I mean to say that you have one way to resolve all actions, combat or otherwise.
First a little note on Level advancement. I think there is justification for using Levels. Particularly as it is a direct reflection on pure living experience that you cannot get any other way. But Skills and such, can have initial ranks unrelated to living experience. Levels are also a way of giving incentive to good role-playing and certain ability advancement. Age is also a factor that should actually limit Level advancement and may actually decrease abilities. So I am not against Levels in itself, as long as they relate to living experience and not to Skill choice. Feats are an entirely different matter, and I will go over that a little later.
Also, a note on Experience Points and Level advancement. I always thought this was way over done. Players tend to get out of hand just to get another bunch of EP so they can advance a level. I would not use direct spending of EP as a requirement for Level advancement by itself. Keep EP awards low, allow less points required for Level advancement, and tie in Levels to Age. If the player wishes to start out at 5th Level, make the age requirement double or more. In other words, let them have extra Levels. but penalize them with age. If they advance during play, let the advancement go easier with less aging.
Conan aged and acquired wisdom and experience along the way. But his combat skills were incredible from the beginning, unrelated to his age or experience. I keep this in mind, when justifying adding Skills from the beginning of character creation. Make all Skills available at the creation of your character. Limit them as to Class and Race if you wish. This means all class features can be made Skills or possibly Feats. Add Ranks to your Skills and allow them to be improved upon through experience. To figure the bonus needed to succeed against the DC, divide the total Skill rank by 5. This, of course, would give someone with a level 50 Skill a +10 bonus. Make a variety of Weapon Skills and allow a character to improve them as they will. This can be vary restrictive on what weapons a character can use. Not having a weapon Skill can have amazing role-playing consequences. Also this would tie in your class features with Skill use directly, and do away with having separate resolution checks. This means your base attack bonus will now be dependent on your Skill with the weapon or type of attack, and not your Level. Key abilities will add directly to your Skill Rank. An Untrained Skill Rank would equal just your key ability (or abilities if you like) and any Feats applicable.
Take a good look at Feats and evaluate each one as to whether or not it would fit more comfortable as a Skill, such as Acrobatics. Keep the Feats geared toward Level advancement, that’s not a real serious problem. But if you wish, allow further advancement of the Feats through direct experience point spending, but keep the requirements the way they are and make the cost high per each bonus. Some Skills should actually be Feats, particularly those involved with thievery and secretive groups, such as Priests. Somethings are only taught or given as a secret ability, when the person has advanced in Rank in an Order, for example. This would give good reasoning for some skill like Feats, and tie it into the Hyborian Age. All Feats will then be used a modifiers to your Skill Check as usual.
The Base Defenses used in this game, lowers the defenses of the character that has high Skills in weaponry, regardless of his Rank. Obviously, BD is basically a way to figure the DC for the opponent. This might work ok for attacking some creatures or such, and even then I would wonder. If you are being attacked, I would think it stands to reason you would put forth your best effort and your Skill with your weapon to Parry. Part of a Weapon Skill, is being able to shift and dodge, it does not have to be split from the Weapon Skill. If you do not have a weapon, you would use your best unarmed skill and use that. Many weapons are designed to defend as well as attack, if your weapon is not designed to defend, you need to learn to dodge real well and hope your abilities can help you. Dodging becomes a Skill and perhaps a form of Feat. If you do not have Dodge as a Skill, you would then have to use it as an Untrained Skill. Size and such would be a modifier as usual. Defense is not necessarily an automatic feature of combat. Melee Skills are a deciding factor. Those without skills in combat, are at a decidedly disadvantage. To give them a bonus that is nearly equal to those characters that are highly skilled in combat, is unbalanced. Dropping Base Defense, and using Skill Checks, is one less thing you don’t have to bother with.
The way a Skill Check would work is first divide your Skill Rank by 5, this equals your Base Skill Bonus. Roll 1d20 and add to the BSB as modified by adding Feat Bonuses and modifiers dependent on environment. This is your Skill Score. Figure your DC and subtract from your Score. DC for combat would equal your opponents BSB plus defensive Feats and modifiers. Players will really be thinking of how to beat someone of nearly equal Skill. Cultivating Feats would still be a high priority.
Saving Throws should be based strictly on your character’s abilities and Level. A Saving Throw should be a last ditch effort on the character’s part, and would be a Free Action by default. Giving different bonuses based on Class and then allowing summing the bonus by Multi-Classing is problematic. You will Multi-Class, after all, that’s the best option. I see no reason to slight a Class considering the vary nature of having a Saving Throw. Just give bonus based on Levels and Abilities. If this bothers you a great deal, look closely at Skills as a source to add a bonus to your Saving Throw. Some Skills or Feats such as Acrobatics, may improve a Saving Throw. But I would not as a general rule allow this, except if you are in the middle of using a Skill or Feat, and needing the bonus is not the reason you used the Skill or Feat. If in doubt, use Untrained Skill Rank instead.
I have more suggestions on many aspects of this system that I think some people may like. Unfortunately, I have little time or the gaming group I need to work it all out. I know this may seem like a completely new system I am proposing, but it’s not. I gave the above suggestions as a way of showing I am not beating up on the system just out of bias for my home brew system. I feel many systems were lacking when first devised, and later additions may not have been integrated fully. Also, play-testers and designers may have been more eager to get the show on the road, than fully thinking about what they were adding to the game. By integrating, I mean to say that you have one way to resolve all actions, combat or otherwise.
While that's a well thought-out argument for why you don't like classes/levels and d20/OGL games in particular, it's still just an opinion and not a collection of universal truths. What do you hope to gain by bashing an OGL game on the forum dedicated to it? The vast majority of the people posting here like/love the game, not just Conan-material. They're not going to change their minds just becaue you keep posting how "inferior" the Conan RPG is since it's an OGL game.
Is it perfect? No, but neither is any other RPG I've played for the last 20 years. But for my and my group's tastes for sword-n-sorcery goodness, it's the closest thing to perfection we've encountered.
You also might want to look up the definitions of the following words:
FACT
OPINION
FUTILE
Azgulor
Is it perfect? No, but neither is any other RPG I've played for the last 20 years. But for my and my group's tastes for sword-n-sorcery goodness, it's the closest thing to perfection we've encountered.
You also might want to look up the definitions of the following words:
FACT
OPINION
FUTILE
Azgulor
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
I bash all RPGs, even my favorites. All RPGs use levels, just in different ways. A vast majority use Classes, they just don't always call them such. I like Classes, I developed 77 for use in my own game, as was pointed out, classes can help develop characters. RQ/ BRP uses classes, they just don't call them that. I think OGL is not integrated enough and overuses level progression. Level progression can be used in ways that doesn't overly restrict characters. Levels should be a tool to develop characters, not a barrier to jump through. Levels can show experience, as reflected by Feats, that skills may not readily show in other games. So the use of Feats is something new and useful OGL brings to the RPG experience.
I may criticise and bash, but in the end, I support all RPGs. Why else would I collect hundreds of them, and actively try to play as many of them as possible?
All of you need to step back relax and consider you ultimate goal towards the RPG experience. My goal is not only to have fun, but to look for ways to improve all RPGs. As the man just said, no games perfect.
I may criticise and bash, but in the end, I support all RPGs. Why else would I collect hundreds of them, and actively try to play as many of them as possible?
All of you need to step back relax and consider you ultimate goal towards the RPG experience. My goal is not only to have fun, but to look for ways to improve all RPGs. As the man just said, no games perfect.
dunderm
What it seems that you fail to realize is that nearly all of your criticism here (level vs point build, feat bloat, dice mechanics, etc) is not a "problem" with the system, they are system design features. Each of them gives the game a certain shape, a certain flavor.
Lets take Classes for example. Class/Level based systems have many advantages: they enforce the particular flavor of a gameworld by guiding the players towards iconic roles, they also give palyers the satasfaction of distinct character progress for level-gains. Point-Buy systems lack both of these things. However point buy is strong in areas where class/level systems are weak: they allow greater levels of player freedom in designing characters and a greater variety of character types.
A truly mature game designer understands that there is no such thing as a mythical "perfect system" that supports all play styles. A game desigener with the experience of hundreds of game systems ought to understand that different play styles and different game worlds require systems designed to support those objectives. I happen to think that for the play style that OGL Conan is trying to achieve that its game system is well designed and well balanced. Matter of fact I think that it is damn near perfect for this sort of easily-accessable, combat oriented, heroic swords 'n sorcery gameplay.
In other words what I'm saying is you are comming around telling us all that apples taste like crap and we should be eating oranges instead. Problem being that we rather like the taste of apples thank you very much, and it is getting annoying having to listen to your rants.
Have you ever tried visiting The Forge? They love talking about this kind of stuff. I'm sure that you could chat them up about your homebrew all day.
Later.
What it seems that you fail to realize is that nearly all of your criticism here (level vs point build, feat bloat, dice mechanics, etc) is not a "problem" with the system, they are system design features. Each of them gives the game a certain shape, a certain flavor.
Lets take Classes for example. Class/Level based systems have many advantages: they enforce the particular flavor of a gameworld by guiding the players towards iconic roles, they also give palyers the satasfaction of distinct character progress for level-gains. Point-Buy systems lack both of these things. However point buy is strong in areas where class/level systems are weak: they allow greater levels of player freedom in designing characters and a greater variety of character types.
A truly mature game designer understands that there is no such thing as a mythical "perfect system" that supports all play styles. A game desigener with the experience of hundreds of game systems ought to understand that different play styles and different game worlds require systems designed to support those objectives. I happen to think that for the play style that OGL Conan is trying to achieve that its game system is well designed and well balanced. Matter of fact I think that it is damn near perfect for this sort of easily-accessable, combat oriented, heroic swords 'n sorcery gameplay.
In other words what I'm saying is you are comming around telling us all that apples taste like crap and we should be eating oranges instead. Problem being that we rather like the taste of apples thank you very much, and it is getting annoying having to listen to your rants.
Have you ever tried visiting The Forge? They love talking about this kind of stuff. I'm sure that you could chat them up about your homebrew all day.
Later.
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
So it's ok for the creators and current designers on the payroll of Mongoose or WotC to upgrade and improve their system, but if the rest of us want to try to do the same, we are wrong? What do you think d20 4.0 is going to be about? How do you think OGL came about? You have OGL Conan in your hands today because some people felt the game could be improved, and then did so. They play tested, changed things, threw things out that didn't work for them, and eventually had to settle for some design that may not have been perfect, but fit the bill for publication. They knew they could fix problems later. You are going to find out that you will eventually, if you stick with the game, need to upgrade to a more better refined system. Look at most of the games around, hardly any of them are the same as when first developed. Paranoia went through 3 incarnations of rules, and the last version bears little resemblance to the first one.
I see not reason why I can't attempt to improve the game, or even modify it to suit my fancy. Lots of people do that. I also see no reason why I can't post my ideas on this forum. I buy the books like everyone else, so I'm entitle. I also see no reason why I can't bash on a system I find has problems, FOR ME! If someone likes my ideas, even if it's only one person, I've accomplished something. You don't have to read my posts, you can simply skip my post. I can't make you read what I type, that's your choice. That goes for everyone else here. If I don't like what someone types, I ignore it. What's wrong with you guys? Do you have to oppose every idea just because you can? If your arguement is superior to mine, post it. Explain to me how. If you don't care, don't post.
Don't cry about. Don't say "oh he's saying such bad things about our game, he should be shot" or something along that line. Stand up and defend if you can or ignore me. Don't cry.
I see not reason why I can't attempt to improve the game, or even modify it to suit my fancy. Lots of people do that. I also see no reason why I can't post my ideas on this forum. I buy the books like everyone else, so I'm entitle. I also see no reason why I can't bash on a system I find has problems, FOR ME! If someone likes my ideas, even if it's only one person, I've accomplished something. You don't have to read my posts, you can simply skip my post. I can't make you read what I type, that's your choice. That goes for everyone else here. If I don't like what someone types, I ignore it. What's wrong with you guys? Do you have to oppose every idea just because you can? If your arguement is superior to mine, post it. Explain to me how. If you don't care, don't post.
Don't cry about. Don't say "oh he's saying such bad things about our game, he should be shot" or something along that line. Stand up and defend if you can or ignore me. Don't cry.
even if it won't make any sense to discuss this with you because you don't read any comments from other people very carefully...
"So it's ok for the creators and current designers on the payroll of Mongoose or WotC to upgrade and improve their system, but if the rest of us want to try to do the same, we are wrong? "
yeah you're right...but have you heard / read a designer from WotC rant about other systems ? has anyone said things like "hey...rulemaster is crap. too many rules...this or that is unrealistic..blablablah..my D&D 3.656whatever sourcebook is much better!" ???? i think not
"Don't cry about. Don't say "oh he's saying such bad things about our game, he should be shot" or something along that line. Stand up and defend if you can or ignore me. Don't cry."
we don't have to defend anything to you...just OUR oppinion or OUR taste (for RPGs)...and it is a matter of fact and can't be discussed. and the "he's saying such bad things about our game..." oh...come on. your posts sound like "that car is crap...to expensive...no cd player...my car is much better....your house is crap too....the garden is too small...the rooms are not big enough...my house is much cooler....look at your wife...she's not very pretty...my wife is so hot.....".
"I see not reason why I can't attempt to improve the game, or even modify it to suit my fancy. Lots of people do that. I also see no reason why I can't post my ideas on this forum."
you can improve your game as much as you like...and perhaps you can even post it...but the question is HOW you post it and which words you use. you want an example from one of your posts ? how about that: "But then again, since you can barely read, it's no wonder you don't know they are still supported by thousands of players worldwide."
you demand we should discuss YOUR oppionion....but we don't want to. it's a matter of different taste. accept that fact. and we just don't want to read in any of your post how great and fantastic YOUR taste is...and how bad and crappy our taste is.
but you have told us the ultimate thing to do....
"You don't have to read my posts, you can simply skip my post."
thank you...that is the first good thing you post...i think i will give it a try
:lol:
"So it's ok for the creators and current designers on the payroll of Mongoose or WotC to upgrade and improve their system, but if the rest of us want to try to do the same, we are wrong? "
yeah you're right...but have you heard / read a designer from WotC rant about other systems ? has anyone said things like "hey...rulemaster is crap. too many rules...this or that is unrealistic..blablablah..my D&D 3.656whatever sourcebook is much better!" ???? i think not
"Don't cry about. Don't say "oh he's saying such bad things about our game, he should be shot" or something along that line. Stand up and defend if you can or ignore me. Don't cry."
we don't have to defend anything to you...just OUR oppinion or OUR taste (for RPGs)...and it is a matter of fact and can't be discussed. and the "he's saying such bad things about our game..." oh...come on. your posts sound like "that car is crap...to expensive...no cd player...my car is much better....your house is crap too....the garden is too small...the rooms are not big enough...my house is much cooler....look at your wife...she's not very pretty...my wife is so hot.....".
"I see not reason why I can't attempt to improve the game, or even modify it to suit my fancy. Lots of people do that. I also see no reason why I can't post my ideas on this forum."
you can improve your game as much as you like...and perhaps you can even post it...but the question is HOW you post it and which words you use. you want an example from one of your posts ? how about that: "But then again, since you can barely read, it's no wonder you don't know they are still supported by thousands of players worldwide."
you demand we should discuss YOUR oppionion....but we don't want to. it's a matter of different taste. accept that fact. and we just don't want to read in any of your post how great and fantastic YOUR taste is...and how bad and crappy our taste is.
but you have told us the ultimate thing to do....
"You don't have to read my posts, you can simply skip my post."
thank you...that is the first good thing you post...i think i will give it a try
:lol:
No, I think you missed my point. Let me try and rephrase.dunderm said:
This is a fourm for OGL Conan. Talking about what parts of the game work for you is one thing, talking about house rules is one thing. Thats not what you're talking about. You are attempting to discuss some very high level game theory. You are attempting to break the system down to its basic elements and rebuild soemthng from the ground up. You are talking about non-OGL systems like runequest and even old out-of-print systems like the TSR Conan game which I doubt that most people on this board have played. That is something completly different.
And guess what? You are just about the only person on this board intrested in having this conversation. Which is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is when you but in to other conversations trying to change it to your conversation about designing your homebrew. Thats rude.
Yeah, I don't buy that argument for one second.
The truth is you walked into a room where everyone was having a nice conversation and tried to change the topic. And when everyone did try to ignore you and keep having their conversation you just start talking EVEN LOUDER until everyone else either has to pay attention to you or leave. I mean, look at this thread. The title is "Defensive Blast Problem/HELP" so how did we wind up talking about your homebrew and the relative merits of Class Based systems vs. Point Buy systems? Thats quite a stretch. You say that people ought to ignore you but when they do you just get more and more aggressive until they have no choice but to deal with you. Thats you acting like a first-class Ass.
The least you could do is start your own thread where you post your theories on game design instead of hijacking other people's threads. Raven did this with her homebrew and her thread is quite successfull. Or you could try a forum where homebrew game design is the topic (you never did answer my question, have you ever visited The Forge?).
I really hope this makes some sense to you. I'm trying to be nice about all this.
Later.
Colonel_Jenkins
Mongoose
dunderm said:
Indeed. I checked out your website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll
People skills, man. People skills.
VincentDarlage
Mongoose
argo said:
Right on! Let's go back to talking about Defensive Blast.
(on a side note, I noticed he got aggressive again with his "agenda" post - one that totally missed the point that he had sidetracked this thread with his own agenda and that he had stopped discussing Defensive Blast as soon as he went into TSR Conan at the bottom of page 4 of this thread)
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
Strom said:
My post was in response to Strom mentioning "natural superstition and distrust." Which I felt having weaknesses addressed. No reason why anyone cannot add a weakness to their character.
I apologize for not referencing his post. I did not intend to go off subject, I responded to a previous post. You assumed I was intentionally trying to side track the thread. I wouldn't exactly consider Strom's post side tracking, but tying in natural superstition and distrust to DB as a reason for it's existence may not IMO be DB's intended purpose.
I will do better referencing my posts as I see this will be a continued issue on this forum (about my so called side tracking and bashing).
Be that as it may, I don't feel (another way of saying IMO) that DB is representative of Conan, but some mechanism to protect low level Scholars needs to be in place, and DB seems to be it.
GimpCowKing
Mongoose
oooohhh, so this is why defensive blast went on for five pages, its not a complicated topic so i couldnt see why there would be a heated discussion about it
this is why i ignore him
oh, and heres the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
this is why i ignore him
oh, and heres the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
Perhaps because I saw DB as a stop gap to correct the ease in which the Scholar could be taken out so easily during combat. D&D had some of the same difficulties, and gave the magic user more melee spells. In past posts I had mentioned that while reading Conan, particularly Hour of the Dragon, the Priests seemed quite able to engage fairly successfully in combat. The Scholars Base Defenses are very low, and perhaps as Scholars this makes some sense. But if you short them at low levels, why give them a defensive weapon that makes them more formidable at low levels? Perhaps by giving them more access to Combat Skills early on, but not at higher levels, will give a more smooth progression upwards to more scholarly or priestly pursuits or sorcery, without having to force them to use a potentially harmful spell on themselves. This would eliminate the need for DB, except perhaps as a spell to be learned at the behest of the player.
I regret I got carried away with how messed up I perceived OGL Conan is. I would like to play a game that catches my conception of Conan. The image in my mind does not jive with most everyone elses and most likely you own image is not the same as all your friends. I want to play the OGL Conan my way. I feel the game does need improvement, and I think DB is not a good thing to have in the game. But currently as the game is designed, I feel the Scholar needs it.
You want me to play the game as read. Let me quote from the source, page 11 of the Conan PE. "The first and most important rule of Conan the Roleplaying Game is that if you do not like it, change it. Games Masters and players should work together to create involving, exciting and, above all, fun stories. As such, you do not have to memorise every rule in this book in order to enjoy playing Conan the Roleplaying Game."
Amen to that.
I regret I got carried away with how messed up I perceived OGL Conan is. I would like to play a game that catches my conception of Conan. The image in my mind does not jive with most everyone elses and most likely you own image is not the same as all your friends. I want to play the OGL Conan my way. I feel the game does need improvement, and I think DB is not a good thing to have in the game. But currently as the game is designed, I feel the Scholar needs it.
You want me to play the game as read. Let me quote from the source, page 11 of the Conan PE. "The first and most important rule of Conan the Roleplaying Game is that if you do not like it, change it. Games Masters and players should work together to create involving, exciting and, above all, fun stories. As such, you do not have to memorise every rule in this book in order to enjoy playing Conan the Roleplaying Game."
Amen to that.
Sutek
Mongoose
Yes, it says "change it if you don't like it". Every RPG does so nerf-herders like you can (A) ply the game anyway you like except as written or (B) you can reference that bit of text when your argument or dispute with the game crashes to the ground under the weight of logic.
Bottom line is two fold:
1) the Conan RPG is the best version of the OGL varients, in my opinion anyway
2) If you want to discuss whenther I'm right or not, do it in another thread please - this one is about the Defensive Blast and has no place for generic OGL veracity blathering.
Thank you.
Bottom line is two fold:
1) the Conan RPG is the best version of the OGL varients, in my opinion anyway
2) If you want to discuss whenther I'm right or not, do it in another thread please - this one is about the Defensive Blast and has no place for generic OGL veracity blathering.
Thank you.
Mark Dunder
Mongoose
Then, Sutek, this Nerf-herder needs help (no not nerf herding silly). If you really want to help, go to my thread "So why not let you agenda go?"
I have a question about the imbalance of combat. Can you tell me what I did wrong?
Oh, yeah. "DB good for Scholar, bad for Barbarian."
I have a question about the imbalance of combat. Can you tell me what I did wrong?
Oh, yeah. "DB good for Scholar, bad for Barbarian."
Well, now that we're back on topic...
I think that this is a fruitful line of inquiry. There has been a lot of talk in this thread about "offensive" uses of DB and how that might be a problem. But although REH made it clear that sorcorers were more defensive than offensive he also made it equally clear that sorcorers were some scarry-ass mo-fos. Its just that usually all the nastiest things happened "off camera" and were only aluded to as horrible fates for the poor fools who got in the sorcorer's way. I've really got no problem with a sorcorer of any level casually walking up and killing at least a couple of soldiers.
The way I see it there are only two "problems" with DB
1) The "Recursive Loop" where the scholar exploits opportunistic sacrafice to use DB multiple times over a short time-frame. And
2) The "Fireball Syndrome" where the tone of the game is disrupted by the sorcorer imolating himself
I've mentioned this before but I really do think there are two simple solutiouns to these two problems.
Solution 1) Classify DB as a Mighty Spell. This ought to put the brakes on any attempt to use multiple DB's. And it has the added benefits of not reducing the effectiveness of any single use of DB and integrating an existing system mechanic rather than trying to add new mechanics.
short aside
I really like the Mighty Spell rules and think they have been sorely under-utilized thus far (are you listening Vincent?). I want an excuse to roll on the Runaway Magic chart sooooo bad
/short aside
Solution 2) Just change the flavor. Seriously, one of the first tricks they teach you in GM school is that it's pointless to design new mechanics when you can file the serial numbers off the old ones and slap on a fresh coat of paint. Don't like fireballs? How about a sorcorer who starts to intone words of power in the Black Speech and all the warriors around him fall to their knees screaming with their brains leaking out their ears? Or sorcorer who throws out his arms and a swarm of venomous spiders leaps from his sleves to swarm over everyone surrounding him? Or how about if oily black smoke starts to boil out from under the sorcorer's robes enveloping the soldier's who are menacing him and choking the breath from them? Each scholar can have his own distinctive DB. Just use the mechanics as written and swap in a more appropriate theme.
Anyway I'm starting to ramble now. Hope that helps.
dunderm said:
I think that this is a fruitful line of inquiry. There has been a lot of talk in this thread about "offensive" uses of DB and how that might be a problem. But although REH made it clear that sorcorers were more defensive than offensive he also made it equally clear that sorcorers were some scarry-ass mo-fos. Its just that usually all the nastiest things happened "off camera" and were only aluded to as horrible fates for the poor fools who got in the sorcorer's way. I've really got no problem with a sorcorer of any level casually walking up and killing at least a couple of soldiers.
The way I see it there are only two "problems" with DB
1) The "Recursive Loop" where the scholar exploits opportunistic sacrafice to use DB multiple times over a short time-frame. And
2) The "Fireball Syndrome" where the tone of the game is disrupted by the sorcorer imolating himself
I've mentioned this before but I really do think there are two simple solutiouns to these two problems.
Solution 1) Classify DB as a Mighty Spell. This ought to put the brakes on any attempt to use multiple DB's. And it has the added benefits of not reducing the effectiveness of any single use of DB and integrating an existing system mechanic rather than trying to add new mechanics.
short aside
I really like the Mighty Spell rules and think they have been sorely under-utilized thus far (are you listening Vincent?). I want an excuse to roll on the Runaway Magic chart sooooo bad
/short aside
Solution 2) Just change the flavor. Seriously, one of the first tricks they teach you in GM school is that it's pointless to design new mechanics when you can file the serial numbers off the old ones and slap on a fresh coat of paint. Don't like fireballs? How about a sorcorer who starts to intone words of power in the Black Speech and all the warriors around him fall to their knees screaming with their brains leaking out their ears? Or sorcorer who throws out his arms and a swarm of venomous spiders leaps from his sleves to swarm over everyone surrounding him? Or how about if oily black smoke starts to boil out from under the sorcorer's robes enveloping the soldier's who are menacing him and choking the breath from them? Each scholar can have his own distinctive DB. Just use the mechanics as written and swap in a more appropriate theme.
Anyway I'm starting to ramble now. Hope that helps.
