Non OGL Conan gamers?
- Thread starter Caz
- Start date
I tried different systems with Conan.
Something like twenty years in the past I ran a campaign using the ZeFRS, the original ruleset of the Conan RPG from TSR and it worked pretty well. I had a run using the Swordbearer rules from FGU, used the GURPS supplement (but not the rules) to finally end up using a homebrew version of Chaosium's BRP, the system I used the most in the last thirty years, for any kind of game.
When Mongoose released the OGL version, I launched a new campaign, using the BRP for the first campaign arc. After some time, there was so much material available for D20 (both from Mongoose and fan made) that I (foolishly) decided to use the D20 for my next arc. I spent a looonnng time making up NPCs, studying never ending lists of silly feats and reading stupidly detailed rules.
In the end, it didn't work better than any other system I used before. OGL is too much rule heavy, focused on technical stuff and combos like a video game, NPC creation is so painful and boring, it's full of completely backdated concepts (like classes and levels). The game as an overwhelming amount of unuseful rules that don't bring anything in term of simulation or realism (circumstances bonuses, skill synergy, feats, class abilities... the list just never ends). There's rules and tables for everything but the game falls far from its initial goal: have some fun.
One thing I know is that I'll change system again for the next arc. OGL is just plainly boring... So I'll be as much curious as you are to know what kind of system non OGL players are using...
Something like twenty years in the past I ran a campaign using the ZeFRS, the original ruleset of the Conan RPG from TSR and it worked pretty well. I had a run using the Swordbearer rules from FGU, used the GURPS supplement (but not the rules) to finally end up using a homebrew version of Chaosium's BRP, the system I used the most in the last thirty years, for any kind of game.
When Mongoose released the OGL version, I launched a new campaign, using the BRP for the first campaign arc. After some time, there was so much material available for D20 (both from Mongoose and fan made) that I (foolishly) decided to use the D20 for my next arc. I spent a looonnng time making up NPCs, studying never ending lists of silly feats and reading stupidly detailed rules.
In the end, it didn't work better than any other system I used before. OGL is too much rule heavy, focused on technical stuff and combos like a video game, NPC creation is so painful and boring, it's full of completely backdated concepts (like classes and levels). The game as an overwhelming amount of unuseful rules that don't bring anything in term of simulation or realism (circumstances bonuses, skill synergy, feats, class abilities... the list just never ends). There's rules and tables for everything but the game falls far from its initial goal: have some fun.
One thing I know is that I'll change system again for the next arc. OGL is just plainly boring... So I'll be as much curious as you are to know what kind of system non OGL players are using...
Doc Martin
Mongoose
I've run or am running 3 campaigns in the Hyborian Age using increasingly homebrewed Runequest with strong dashes of Herowars/quest and Elric. I have made several fairly strong changes to the system:
Grouping skills in categories (Combat, Missile, Dexterity, Perception, Stealth, Manoeuvre, Knowledge, Communication) which have %age values that do increase with experience - characters will have around half-a-dozen skills that they specialise in (eg: 1-handed sword, climbing etc) which have a higher %age and generally advance quicker but the category values are used as a default. As a consequence it is possible to have characters that are, for example, capable with any weapon or good at all forms of stealth but also have favoured skills.
In combat anyone can try particular forms of attack eg: a 'Mighty Blow' will be less likely to hit and strike later but do extra damage if it connects.
Trying to emulate Howard's description of armour is tricky - he suggests it is very effective but there are many characters who are good fighters without it. I have opted for armour causing penalties to stealth and perception but especially to manoeuvre skills - eg: jumping, climbing, running and particularly dodging. Dodging I have made a powerful skill (eg a successful dodge avoids all damage whilst a parry may still let some through, particularly a critical hit). This system seems to work as some of my players choose to have lightly armoured characters who generally get through battles as well as the heavily armoured. I'd be interested to hear how anyone else deals with this.
One aspect of Runequest that works particularly well is having hit points for individual locations - you instantly know the location and severity of any given wound (including severed limbs) and visceral descriptions of combat injuries are encouraged - all in the spirit of Howard.
Apologies to non-Runequest/BRP players - the above probably won't make much sense (nor perhaps to anyone else :?). Having used, and tinkered with, the system for years (hang on - decades :shock: where did that time go?) I prefered to stick with it rather than learn a new system.
As with the OP Caz, I'd be interested to hear what others are using?
Grouping skills in categories (Combat, Missile, Dexterity, Perception, Stealth, Manoeuvre, Knowledge, Communication) which have %age values that do increase with experience - characters will have around half-a-dozen skills that they specialise in (eg: 1-handed sword, climbing etc) which have a higher %age and generally advance quicker but the category values are used as a default. As a consequence it is possible to have characters that are, for example, capable with any weapon or good at all forms of stealth but also have favoured skills.
In combat anyone can try particular forms of attack eg: a 'Mighty Blow' will be less likely to hit and strike later but do extra damage if it connects.
Trying to emulate Howard's description of armour is tricky - he suggests it is very effective but there are many characters who are good fighters without it. I have opted for armour causing penalties to stealth and perception but especially to manoeuvre skills - eg: jumping, climbing, running and particularly dodging. Dodging I have made a powerful skill (eg a successful dodge avoids all damage whilst a parry may still let some through, particularly a critical hit). This system seems to work as some of my players choose to have lightly armoured characters who generally get through battles as well as the heavily armoured. I'd be interested to hear how anyone else deals with this.
One aspect of Runequest that works particularly well is having hit points for individual locations - you instantly know the location and severity of any given wound (including severed limbs) and visceral descriptions of combat injuries are encouraged - all in the spirit of Howard.
Apologies to non-Runequest/BRP players - the above probably won't make much sense (nor perhaps to anyone else :?). Having used, and tinkered with, the system for years (hang on - decades :shock: where did that time go?) I prefered to stick with it rather than learn a new system.
As with the OP Caz, I'd be interested to hear what others are using?
It sounds like you'd like the one I'm using, but unfortunately it looks like the publisher is floundering and it might be hard to get a hold of the books.
But anyway, it's very visceral, there are no hit-points, but vivid wound level descriptions, hit locations, blood loss, shock and pain mechanics, etc. I'd say it was tailor made for Conan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Riddle_of_Steel
www.trosforums.com
www.theriddleofsteel.net
But anyway, it's very visceral, there are no hit-points, but vivid wound level descriptions, hit locations, blood loss, shock and pain mechanics, etc. I'd say it was tailor made for Conan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Riddle_of_Steel
www.trosforums.com
www.theriddleofsteel.net
Doc Martin
Mongoose
You may be right Caz; I came across TROS after I had started running my Hyborian campaigns with my RQ homebrew so I probably won't change. One of my gaming group keeps threatening to run TROS so I will find out how it plays at some point. Reading TROS (the free download) it strikes me that it may be a little too bloody and dangerous - I get the impression that it is inevitable that someone who gets into as many fights as Conan will get killed/crippled. The reviews of TROS I've seen suggest that combat is so dangerous that one tends to avoid it - realistic I am sure but not emulating the genre. However, I am sure you know better than me as you play the system - how have you found it?
(Another change I made to RQ is adding 'plot cards' that players earn for successful adventures and appropriate role playing - these can be very powerful, guarenteeing critical successes or saving them from otherwise fatal wounds).
(Another change I made to RQ is adding 'plot cards' that players earn for successful adventures and appropriate role playing - these can be very powerful, guarenteeing critical successes or saving them from otherwise fatal wounds).
Well, it certainly sounds dangerous to players, and that's the impression anyone would get from a read, but it has been both my and other's experience that in actual play PCs rarely die. In fact, the violence always tends to be a focus of my games.
But it is realistic enough that the possibility always exists; any fight could be their last. Thus, the players play styles generally change, but not for the worse. They tend to fight smarter, rather than weighing opponents vs. hit points for the inevitable frontal charge.
But it is realistic enough that the possibility always exists; any fight could be their last. Thus, the players play styles generally change, but not for the worse. They tend to fight smarter, rather than weighing opponents vs. hit points for the inevitable frontal charge.
I am using the Castles and Crusaders mechanics but I have kept the Mongoose/ Conan Magic system. I've incorporated some of the sorceror feats as level bonuses for the Scholar.
I used to use the Atlantean edition rules, but the skills and combat became cumbersome and a good fight with an adventuring group would last upt to 40 minutes with all the combat heavy OGL rules.
I used to use the Atlantean edition rules, but the skills and combat became cumbersome and a good fight with an adventuring group would last upt to 40 minutes with all the combat heavy OGL rules.
Alternatter
Mongoose
Hi!
I used Warhammer FRP for 10-12 years until 2nd arrived, now i use that with some houserules. From Mongoose, i only add things from the Road of Kings (and also copied a lot of lines from Tito's Trading Post).
I used Warhammer FRP for 10-12 years until 2nd arrived, now i use that with some houserules. From Mongoose, i only add things from the Road of Kings (and also copied a lot of lines from Tito's Trading Post).
FailedSpotCheck
Mongoose
Since many of the Conan books are fluffy, I could easily use them in my 1e AD&D campaign, with some discrete homebrewed fixes to the old system. The Barbarian class from Unearthed Arcana could work, IMHO. YMMV.
Big Bucket
Mongoose
I'm in the process of setting up a D6 version of the game, loosely based on the old WEG Star Wars system. (I'm also referencing Age of Enlightenment [http://www.northernmountains.com/hd6/aoe_toc.htm], a free, fantasy-genre version of D6.)
I also find d20 to be so rules-heavy that it interferes with character development and the flow of the game. The D6 version of the game I'm working on is MUCH simpler, which I think will work well with my particular group (although I'm sure others would find it to be too stripped down for their liking). Like some of the other examples listed here, it's class-free and level-free, with every game action listed as a skill which is, in turn, associated with a base attribute.
We haven't started playing yet because I'm still trying to balance the combat system, especially with regards to parry and dodge. I had been considering allowing a "free" (i.e. no multiple-action penalty) melee parry or dodge roll per round which acted as the character's "armor class" for that round. To help balance the game so that a character with a high parry/dodge isn't invincible, I was planning on adopting a d20 rule that gives a cumulative attack bonus for multiple attackers. This would allow even a highly-skilled character to be overwhelmed by a large number of low-skill attackers. However, I am intrigued by Doc Martin's dodge rules above, so I may take a look at that.
I like the magic system that Mongoose developed quite a bit, so I've just adapted it somewhat to work with D6. Each Sorcery Style becomes a skill under a "Will" attribute. To cast a spell, the player just makes a skill roll for the sorcery style he's using, and that acts as the magic attack roll.
That's it in a nutshell. I have several Mongoose books (which I think are quite well done, by the way), and I will continue to use them as references. I just think this system will work better for me.
I also find d20 to be so rules-heavy that it interferes with character development and the flow of the game. The D6 version of the game I'm working on is MUCH simpler, which I think will work well with my particular group (although I'm sure others would find it to be too stripped down for their liking). Like some of the other examples listed here, it's class-free and level-free, with every game action listed as a skill which is, in turn, associated with a base attribute.
We haven't started playing yet because I'm still trying to balance the combat system, especially with regards to parry and dodge. I had been considering allowing a "free" (i.e. no multiple-action penalty) melee parry or dodge roll per round which acted as the character's "armor class" for that round. To help balance the game so that a character with a high parry/dodge isn't invincible, I was planning on adopting a d20 rule that gives a cumulative attack bonus for multiple attackers. This would allow even a highly-skilled character to be overwhelmed by a large number of low-skill attackers. However, I am intrigued by Doc Martin's dodge rules above, so I may take a look at that.
I like the magic system that Mongoose developed quite a bit, so I've just adapted it somewhat to work with D6. Each Sorcery Style becomes a skill under a "Will" attribute. To cast a spell, the player just makes a skill roll for the sorcery style he's using, and that acts as the magic attack roll.
That's it in a nutshell. I have several Mongoose books (which I think are quite well done, by the way), and I will continue to use them as references. I just think this system will work better for me.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
I don't find D20 overly rules-heavy -- I said it before, look at RoleMaster or Hârnmaster or even The Dark Eye and THEN say again that D20 was rules-heavy. However, it could still use some simplification in certain aspects - with Grapple rules being the worst I can think of.
D6 pool games like Shadowrun or West End Star Wars are quite nice, but tend to be rather die-heavy. Having to roll like 15 or even 30 d6 in Shadowrun (at least in 2nd and 3rd) is no rare occasion, especially for advanced characters. And my old SW smuggler character also rolled >10d6 on his primary skills.
Besides, most d6-pool based systems seem to be used for Scifi/modern settings; I don't know why that is, but maybe there is a reason.
(GURPS is a different story, because you don't have dice pools there.)
Also, just looking at the dice and the way they are used can tell you a lot about the system and what kind of game it supports. For example, a system using a single d20 yields a linear distribution of results - it is as likely to roll a 1 or a 10 or a 20. A system using 2d6 (and adding the numbers) has a Gauss distribution; it is a lot more likely to get an average result than an extreme one - the chance of rolling 6-8 is almost 50%! (44,44% to be precise) -- similarly for any system that rolls a number of dice and adds the numbers.
In short, those multiple-dice systems make checks more predictable. "Average" tasks are solved more reliably, but on the other hand, extreme tasks are a lot more difficult and less likely to succeed.
Of course this is just a small aspect of a system, but together with other points, it can give you an idea whether it supports a heroic style, and _this_ would be my primary concern when looking for a system for Conan.
On another note, while I generally like class-less, level-less systems (like Shadowrun), it just needs to fit well with the game world. Class-based systems have one huge advantage, and that is niche protection. Each class has its unique abilities that can't be taken from it. Class-less systems tend to make everything available to everyone, so in the end, those characters are often very similar.
As for levels or not, that's basically a question of power curve. Level-less systems have a smoother and less steep advancements, whereas level-based systems often have power surges, especially early in the game, and (often) a generally steep advancement.
That being said, I think that a level- and class-based system is ideal for a heroic sword-and-sorcery game like, well, Conan.
D6 pool games like Shadowrun or West End Star Wars are quite nice, but tend to be rather die-heavy. Having to roll like 15 or even 30 d6 in Shadowrun (at least in 2nd and 3rd) is no rare occasion, especially for advanced characters. And my old SW smuggler character also rolled >10d6 on his primary skills.
Besides, most d6-pool based systems seem to be used for Scifi/modern settings; I don't know why that is, but maybe there is a reason.
(GURPS is a different story, because you don't have dice pools there.)
Also, just looking at the dice and the way they are used can tell you a lot about the system and what kind of game it supports. For example, a system using a single d20 yields a linear distribution of results - it is as likely to roll a 1 or a 10 or a 20. A system using 2d6 (and adding the numbers) has a Gauss distribution; it is a lot more likely to get an average result than an extreme one - the chance of rolling 6-8 is almost 50%! (44,44% to be precise) -- similarly for any system that rolls a number of dice and adds the numbers.
In short, those multiple-dice systems make checks more predictable. "Average" tasks are solved more reliably, but on the other hand, extreme tasks are a lot more difficult and less likely to succeed.
Of course this is just a small aspect of a system, but together with other points, it can give you an idea whether it supports a heroic style, and _this_ would be my primary concern when looking for a system for Conan.
On another note, while I generally like class-less, level-less systems (like Shadowrun), it just needs to fit well with the game world. Class-based systems have one huge advantage, and that is niche protection. Each class has its unique abilities that can't be taken from it. Class-less systems tend to make everything available to everyone, so in the end, those characters are often very similar.
As for levels or not, that's basically a question of power curve. Level-less systems have a smoother and less steep advancements, whereas level-based systems often have power surges, especially early in the game, and (often) a generally steep advancement.
That being said, I think that a level- and class-based system is ideal for a heroic sword-and-sorcery game like, well, Conan.
Well, I don't think it gets better than TRoS for Conan, but of course, I've had to work out the magic system a bit to work well in it.
The default magic system in TRoS isn't artificially limited for the most part, but it's balanced by an aging mechanic (the character must resist aging when casting spells). This translates nicely, in that one could consider aging as good a corruption as any, or one could simply say x months aged = x corruption points gained, following the charts in the Mongoose books. Simple enough.
But the one other limitation on magic in TRoS is that "one cannot make something from nothing," which makes a lot of fantasy style magic, and a lot of the spells in Conan, somewhat difficult given the free form spell making system, i.e. how do you make spiders pour out of someone's mouth(?).
The default magic system in TRoS isn't artificially limited for the most part, but it's balanced by an aging mechanic (the character must resist aging when casting spells). This translates nicely, in that one could consider aging as good a corruption as any, or one could simply say x months aged = x corruption points gained, following the charts in the Mongoose books. Simple enough.
But the one other limitation on magic in TRoS is that "one cannot make something from nothing," which makes a lot of fantasy style magic, and a lot of the spells in Conan, somewhat difficult given the free form spell making system, i.e. how do you make spiders pour out of someone's mouth(?).
bloodshadows
Mongoose
I've found Savage Worlds to be a perfect fit for Conan (His picture was on the original book and on one of the cards in the action deck). I've bought most of the d20 Conan books and use them for reference material. Conversion is a snap and can be done on the fly.
The fact that the Solomon Kane rpg uses Savage Worlds is just icing on the Hyborian cake.
The fact that the Solomon Kane rpg uses Savage Worlds is just icing on the Hyborian cake.
shouit said:
Shouit, I still haven't decided between Reign and SW (Solomon Kane in fact) for my next Conan campaign. What do you think about those two systems (for Conan of course) ?
@Clovenhoof: don't mix up rule heavy (d20, working by exception - ie feats) and table heavy (Rolemaster).
W.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
I heard a lot of good things about Savage Worlds, but I still only have a very vague idea of how the system actually works. If I ever get the chance I'm going to look at it, but after some 8 years of D20, I'm quite used to the system and reluctant to switch to something new. "The idiot doesn't eat what he doesn't know", as we say.
On the other hand, I did look at TRoS several months back and dropped it pretty quickly. Number one, the key axiom of the system - i.e. that all combat deploys neatly in one-on-one duels - doesn't stand the reality check for a second. At least in the "Lite" version, the system immediately breaks down as soon as more than two combatants are involved.
Apart from that, the whole hit location system is just a useless bunch of ballast. You have to announce where you want to strike, and if you hit, you roll on a table to see if you hit where you aimed or some other place, and then the opponent is dead or disabled.
@warzen:
yeah good point, but in fact there's nothing I hate more in a game system than having heaps of tables to roll on. Any game that effectively comes down to table resolution is immediately off my list (I used to play MERP once and that sucked quite enough).
On the other hand, I did look at TRoS several months back and dropped it pretty quickly. Number one, the key axiom of the system - i.e. that all combat deploys neatly in one-on-one duels - doesn't stand the reality check for a second. At least in the "Lite" version, the system immediately breaks down as soon as more than two combatants are involved.
Apart from that, the whole hit location system is just a useless bunch of ballast. You have to announce where you want to strike, and if you hit, you roll on a table to see if you hit where you aimed or some other place, and then the opponent is dead or disabled.
@warzen:
yeah good point, but in fact there's nothing I hate more in a game system than having heaps of tables to roll on. Any game that effectively comes down to table resolution is immediately off my list (I used to play MERP once and that sucked quite enough).
I have the SW rule book, but I've never tried it. I didn't know there was a Solomon Kane setting out. I'll have to check that out.
You're definitely being over critical of tRoS. I haven't tried the lite version, but those problems don't exist in the regular.
Multiple opponents are common in most people's games and it runs smoothly. As for rolling to see if you hit where you were aiming; say you were aiming a cut to the neck. If you make it, you make the roll to see where it landed -not a random area- but the area of your intended target, i.e. upper shoulder, lower face-same area, not a random location. This is also offset by "accuracy" gifts, the RoS version of "feats."
That's realistic; I doubt yourself could hit exactly where you were aiming on a stationary piece of wood with an axe, much less on an unwilling, combative opponent trying to do the same to you.
As for the effect on the opponent, that has to do with your success, skill, and the opponent and his defense, with wounds ranging from a scratch to a lethal maim. As opposed to a hit point system where a good thrust with a greatsword could knock down some points, often without even the possibility of death or long term injury, removing strategy and tension. In real life, if you shove a sword in someone's face, it doesn't take well, and that's how some people like to play it (people didn't invent armour for nothing).
Anyway, you're probably better off with a more gamist system.
You're definitely being over critical of tRoS. I haven't tried the lite version, but those problems don't exist in the regular.
Multiple opponents are common in most people's games and it runs smoothly. As for rolling to see if you hit where you were aiming; say you were aiming a cut to the neck. If you make it, you make the roll to see where it landed -not a random area- but the area of your intended target, i.e. upper shoulder, lower face-same area, not a random location. This is also offset by "accuracy" gifts, the RoS version of "feats."
That's realistic; I doubt yourself could hit exactly where you were aiming on a stationary piece of wood with an axe, much less on an unwilling, combative opponent trying to do the same to you.
As for the effect on the opponent, that has to do with your success, skill, and the opponent and his defense, with wounds ranging from a scratch to a lethal maim. As opposed to a hit point system where a good thrust with a greatsword could knock down some points, often without even the possibility of death or long term injury, removing strategy and tension. In real life, if you shove a sword in someone's face, it doesn't take well, and that's how some people like to play it (people didn't invent armour for nothing).
Anyway, you're probably better off with a more gamist system.
slaughterj
Mongoose
There is a fantasy D6 book available, which may be helpful. I really like SW D6 (running it tomorrow actually, having dusted it off after over 10 years of not running it). It is a very easy system, intuitive to run things on the fly (in contrast to NPCs in Conan/DnD), but has a few flaws (namely, creatures use their STR to hit and for damage, so large creatures will autohit and autokill characters - fantasy D6 may have fixed this, and the rancorpit.com forums have some suggestions for this).
(Related to this thread, I used to play and run Lanhkmar using the Hero system, Fantasy Hero specifically, and that worked well.)
(Related to this thread, I used to play and run Lanhkmar using the Hero system, Fantasy Hero specifically, and that worked well.)