I have a question...

[sacerd]

I was wondering how many of you guys have long running Conan games in a traditional D&D campaign style, as opposed to the game style suggested in the Conan Core rule book?
For the sake of clarity let me explain my definitions of "Traditional" D&D style campaigns and the Suggested "Conan Style" Campaign.

D&D Style:
A campaign in which one adventure is carried over into the next via a ongoing storyline with a cohesive and logical progression of events.

Conan Style:
A Campaign in which an adventure is not carried over into the next, but rather the campaign is treated as a collection of "one shot" short stories with the protagonists becoming progressively more powerful as the individual stories are unveiled.
(I base this assumption on the suggestion given in the core book that GM's should often times have the characters lose or gain both wealth and equipment "off camera" in between adventures, without much in the way of explanation other than
"Well you live like an adventurer so stuff happened, and now you lost your armor but gained a War Horse."

Which of these campaign models do you prefer, and why?

 

[Oly]

I prefer, and I went for, the "Conan Style" option.

However there was a core theme running through it all and there were enemies and allies who would re-occur, often with their own change in status due to the passage of time.

As to the why, well it did feel in keeping with the stories and it let me move them around the game world or reset their equipment so as to make a good tale.

I've nothing against the "D&D Style" of game, I've run many RPG campaigns including one concurrently with Conan in that fashion. There's nothing wrong with it, I just fancied trying something different.

 

[Der Rote Baron]

Losing Equipment and wealth between adventures and the "high living"-rule are not very popular with my group. But since my Warhammer-campaign in which their character got srewed, very screwed and screwed again (that was an ongoing DD-style campaign) they do not expect anything else from me ... :twisted:

Well, but Conan is Conan: So I opted for the One-Shots-in-a-row-approach which is much easier if you want to toss the characters around in the Hyborian kingdoms and change adventure-sttings (pirates, desert, mountains, dark dungeons, dark forests of Pictland, pirates again).

But I started with the Pictish camapign outlined in Vincent's superb setting-book - that's pretty ongoing D&Dish.

 

[Ichabod]

Wouldn't it be easier to use more standardized terms like episodic campaigning and serial campaigning given that you could easily play either D&D or Conan as either?

For the most part, we use a serial campaigning philosophy where events are in a chronological order and where someone's situation carries over. There's some episodic sessions as side adventures when not everyone can show up to a game.

 

[High Lord Dee]

Check out Trial of Blood and let us know your opinion. Best of both worlds?

HLD

 

[sacerd]

what is that?
I must have missed a memo.

 

[flatscan]

what is that?
I must have missed a memo.

Trial of Blood is the first mega-campaign for the Conan Roleplaying Game Second Edition, placing a group of young adventurers in the path of prophecy and potentially disastrous events that could change Hyboria forever. Taking the characters from their roots as young men and women and hurling them through a series of linked scenarios that will pit them ultimately against the fate of Hyboria itself.

or so the copy reads.

 

[rabindranath72]

Wouldn't it be easier to use more standardized terms like episodic campaigning and serial campaigning given that you could easily play either D&D or Conan as either?

QFT. D&D games need not be as the OP describes. Actually, all old-school scenarios were more of the Conan-type than serials.

Back to topic. Both styles have their merits.

Since these days I do not have much time to play, I cannot plan any campaign at all. So, most of the games I setup must be episodic; at most two sessions. Another reason why I am shifting towards rules-light games: I cannot afford to waste two hours to generate PCs which will probably not last two sessions...

 

[sacerd]

Thanks for the link flatscan.
Am I too assume then that you own this 2nd edition I have been reading about?
How is it in your opinion? Better than the Atlantian edition?
(The edition I currently own.)

 

[flatscan]

Thanks for the link flatscan.
Am I too assume then that you own this 2nd edition I have been reading about?
How is it in your opinion? Better than the Atlantian edition?
(The edition I currently own.)

You're welcome.

Yup, I've got the 2nd edition. It's compatible with 95%+ of the material with the Atlantean edition, in fact, you could probably run Trial of Blood with the AE rules with little to no problems. For specific changes, check this page out. I dig it, but I've been buying every book in the Conan line as they come out. YMMV

 

[Jeffreywns]

The schedules of the group in our games decided which style I used. We try to set aside every Sunday, and when most of us could play it was an ongoing story. On other day's I used the Conan "Style" so we could all play. I've never been a fan of "play my character " .
I think the Conan game mechanic is great for a large group (4-6) of players and enjoy running it that way.

 

[Violetsaber]

I'm personally running a long, extended storyline that will take my players from level 1-20, with tons of side stories and quests. I'm going to add lots of hints about the main story that they probably won't realize the true import of until much later. Therefore, thier adventures will take them all over Hyboria, much like Conan - except they'll at least be able to show up for a day of RP'ing and have half a clue of where they'll be and why.

I also try to keep my group of players low, between 2-3 players, because Conan really is a Heroic fantasy. The Conan the Destroyer movie proved that Conan does not work with a DnD-style group tromping around stealing the big guy's glory. I want my players to feel like uniquely powerful heroes in a world of normal people, just like Conan, and keeping the party size down really helps that in my opinion. Sure, I wind up with two seperate groups of 2-3 players to GM, but everyone knows thier character is more than the resident magical door-closer. *Shudders.*

Just my two cents worth.

 

[GamerDude]

Mine will be similar to Violetsaber's, with a few differences.

For me, Conan The Destroyer (CtD) was more of a joke. The thief who was the cowardly comic relief, Grace Jones at the height of her very short time of popularity as a really dumb character, etc. It's like the scriptwriter and director didn't understand the setting or material. Conan did spend time as a pirate and a merc, so there were times where he was part of a larger group and not out on his own.

For the purpose of my game, characters like Conan are iconic, larger than life, what every adventurer/merc/etc. aspires to be. My game will be about 5 characters in my game. Each important and powerful, but also part of something a little greater than themselves. Events out of sight in the background may quietly sweep them along but in the end THEY are the heroes.

 

[sacerd]

I have to tell you guys, I plan to run mine with an ongoing storyline.
(Cliff Hangers one game leading into the next kinda thing)
But in attempt to make the players know I mean it when I say you are the heroes now not King Conan I have reverse engineered "Conan the Thief" (Because they will begin at first level before the first Attribute increase) and assigned the point buy based on his numbers. (I know allot of folks hate point buy but it works for us.)
All I can say is Wow he has a bazillion points.
The only player in our group to make a character thus far was astounded at the sheer number of points he has to spend. (Its like 60 or 70 some odd points)
Has anyone else tried this?
How did it go?

 

[Ichabod]

Only used point buy for D&D. I pretty much hate both point buy and random stats in d20.

Heroic generation can lead to pretty high stats with possibly unfortunately high variance between PCs, btw.

The problem with making everyone a Conan is that RPGs are typically predicated upon a party of roleplayers [ha ... ha ha - specialists] where much of fantasy fiction is the one badass. A party of badasses doesn't need each other. Well, the GM can just up the power level to where they do, but there's something useful to having characters with defined strengths and weaknesses that is far more powerful working together where they can cover each other's weaknesses.

Now, that paradigm can get old. I'm quite partial to the idea that PCs should completely outclass mundanes, myself. On the other hand, when everyone oozes greatness, it can be hard to feel great. It's why you tend to see in groups in fiction with severe differences in attributes - the superstrong dude, the genius, just slightly faster than lightning. Even if everyone in the group totally outclasses mundanes, they need to have their own identities. Single protagonist can be defined simply by being better than "everyone" at "everything" as there's no need to share a spotlight.

And, it's not just stats that define characters. Though, with limits on stats and enough points to go around, there's a sameness that develops in characters.

So, a party of superheroes isn't out of the question. Should just keep in mind that they need to differentiate from each other and face opposition that requires working together (unless you don't want them working together).

 

[Trantor]

... we had some single adventures in the past, but next tuesday, we are going to start a new campaign (Trial of Blood of course) and I guess it will have a continuing story-arc, maybe with one or two small jumps in it ...

 

[Clovenhoof]

Though I had forewarned my players that episodic jumps may occur, i.e. sudden changes of location, equipment or resources, I haven't pulled that card yet in the actual game. It's a great ace to have up your sleeve if you have an idea about an adventure in Iranistan when the characters just completed a quest in Nordheim, but generally I do prefer sequential campaigns.

To be more precise, so far we didn't even play a _campaign_, it's just been world exploration and general adventuring, not a single storyline. The party met somewhere near the Vilayet Sea and travelled westward to Argos.
I do use Scene Framing, a technique that essentially means "cut to the chase". You don't play out every single freaking, boring day of a three-week journey through the wilderness, instead you jump from one event of interest to the next with just a little narration in between.

One point that goes against episodic playing is that normally, travelling long distances in such a dangerous world would involve hardships that should also result in Experience gain. I mean, you're also willing to have the characters lose or gain equipment, so how is that all supposed to happen without events that also increase your experience?

 

[Style]

Both styles have their merits.

What are the pros (and cons) of each style? Thanks!

 

[pasuuli]

I've never played the Conan-style game before, but I think it sounds like a refreshing break from our traditionally interminable campaigns (which sometimes feel like we're trudging from scene to scene -- even though of course campaigns don't have to be like that and really ought not).

 

[kintire]

They don't have to be and ought not, but if there is no coherent plot, it's terribly easy for them to do just that. I find that campaigns work better with a structure. It doesn't have to be a driving, Trial of Blood style plot and it doesn't have to apply to every scenario, but it does help if there is some sort of overplot.