[Origins rumour] Conan v2 to use RuneQuest! :D

[Azgulor]

Look at the d20 fanboys cry.
I really hope this is true.

Well, I suppose that's a valid viewpoint for the RQ fanboys to take.

As someone who can't stand "out-of-the-box" D&D and who had played GURPS exclusively for six years prior to Conan OGL, I don't consider myself a d20 fanboy.

However...

As a Conan customer who only converted to an OGL system (Conan) due to Mongoose's ability to blend d20 mechanics with true Howard-style Conan goodness, I've come to appreciate the toolbox nature of the system. Conan has become my fantasy RPG baseline which I tweak as needed with other d20 products. I won't be jumping ship anytime soon.

Furthermore, having invested somewhere around $450 in the Conan RPG (with no end in sight if they keep putting out quality Conan books), Mongoose has become my RPG publisher of choice. If they scrap the OGL version of Conan after a mere 2-1/2 or 3 years in favor of a RQ "2nd Edition" they've lost me as a customer - forever.

I have no problem supporting a company that provides good support for a product I've come to love. I've even purchased some B5, ST, and Lone Wolf products based on how impressed I've been with the Conan line. If the Conan RPG gets a "2nd Edition" RQ treatment that ends. The days where I'll buy a new edition just because a publisher decides its time to try out the new toy or jump start sluggish sales are long gone. If the Conan RPG were 10 years old, I'd look at a new system - but this early, forget it. By all accounts I've seen/heard, the Conan line is one of their top sellers.

Also, companies have finite resources. I don't believe both systems can be fully supported simultaneously. Either Conan suffers to bolster RQ or RQ does the minimum necessary to adapt the Conan d20 material.

I hardly view d20 as the "one system to rule them all", but I think it'll have a much longer run than the new RQ will. I think branching out into RQ is a smart move to avoid having all of their RPG eggs in the d20 basket, but Mongoose already protected the Conan RPG by going the OGL route.

Azgulor

 

[andakitty]

I don't really think you have anything to worry about. Mongoose is not likely to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, assuming D20 Conan and the other OGL books are doing that well. :wink:

If D20 sells well and helps Mongoose in a transition to a more playable game system that sells better in the future it's OK by me. However, a Hyboria setting book geared toward RQ probably wouldn't break the bank either. I don't buy D20 at all, not even dual-stated with another game system. I would buy a RQ Hyboria setting, as would others...like a lot of the people who post on this thread. My main point being that I don't want a complete transition to RQ as much as I despise D20, if it hurts the company turning to the better system. Nothing personal here. But there is no need to get upset because some of us are happy to see some light at the end of what has been a long D20 night to many. Like me.

 

[Melkor]

Furthermore, having invested somewhere around $450 in the Conan RPG (with no end in sight if they keep putting out quality Conan books), Mongoose has become my RPG publisher of choice. If they scrap the OGL version of Conan after a mere 2-1/2 or 3 years in favor of a RQ "2nd Edition" they've lost me as a customer - forever.

None of the money you have invested in the game line is going to be wasted...unless, of course, the Conan D20 books you have already purchased somehow spontaneously combust as soon as the rumored RQ Conan is published.

Edit to add: I'm not trying to be snarky, just pointing out that with 25+ products already released for D20 Conan, it is a pretty damn complete game line, and while system support and new product are always desirable, even if the line some how died today (and the end of the D20 Conan line at this point wasn't even part of the rumor that was RQ Conan - and which hasn't even been confirmed yet), there is years and years of play material out for the game right now.

 

[Azgulor]

Furthermore, having invested somewhere around $450 in the Conan RPG (with no end in sight if they keep putting out quality Conan books), Mongoose has become my RPG publisher of choice. If they scrap the OGL version of Conan after a mere 2-1/2 or 3 years in favor of a RQ "2nd Edition" they've lost me as a customer - forever.

None of the money you have invested in the game line is going to be wasted...unless, of course, the Conan D20 books you have already purchased somehow spontaneously combust as soon as the rumored RQ Conan is published.

True. I never said I'd stop playing the Conan RPG.

Spontaneous combustion aside :wink: , the question at hand (for me) is continued support for the game. I assume the RQ fans out there are hoping for more than just a core rulebook. I eagerly await each upcoming Conan supplement - maybe it's just interesting reading but 90% of the time I find something that enhances my game. Active support for a game by its publisher also tends to help draw in new players. If I want to be playing the Conan RPG 5, 7, or 10 years from now I'll probably have a larger group to pull from if the game is still supported than if the RPG is shelved by Mongoose.

For Mongoose, it's about making a profit. If Conan isn't selling but they don't want the Conan license to be wasted or worse, a drain on the company, then yeah a RQ version makes sense. Having invested (heavily) in the Conan RPG, I'm merely expressing my opinion on which option I want supported. As I stated, I don't think they can support the license using 2 systems with the same level of support. One will suffer for it.

Azgulor

 

[Melkor]

Good points...I agree that both would likely suffer.

I would honestly be happy with a RQ Conan rulebook, and then online PDFs converting the D20 material over to RQ. But who knows ? It's all rumor right now, but the rumor of calling it Conan: 2nd Edition would seem to indicate a bigger change.

As an aside, I'm a big fan of the D20 Conan line as well (I am currently playing in two campaigns using the system). It's my favorite D20 system game by far.

Continued support is always nice for a game line, but over 20+ years of gaming, I have found that I can do a lot with game lines that are considered 'dead', and I think the material currently available for D20 Conan is first rate, and darn-near complete - In fact, I have played some 'dead' game lines that were far less complete than D20 Conan is now.

 

[Azgulor]

Fair enough. Conversion docs and RQ PDFs that didn't invalidate the Conan line I could stomach. As you stated, the Conan:2nd Edition tag indicates a much larger undertaking.

This and the fact that the rumor says it came from Mongoose, combined with the absence of confirmation or denial from Mongoose is contributing to the elevated sense of concern on my part. Yeah, it's just a rumor. However I'm not willing to risk hearing a year from now that the Conan RPG and line are dead because all Mongoose heard were people gushing over a RQ edition that ultimately tanked. (Note - I'm not saying it will tank if it happens.)

These forums give me a chance to voice my opinion as a customer. I've been very vocal here, at Enworld, and at RPG.net in support of the Conan RPG. Rumor or not, I'm entitled to express my opinion in support for the Conan RPG staying the Conan RPG.

Later.

Azgulor

 

[MongooseMatt]

These forums give me a chance to voice my opinion as a customer. I've been very vocal here, at Enworld, and at RPG.net in support of the Conan RPG. Rumor or not, I'm entitled to express my opinion in support for the Conan RPG staying the Conan RPG.

And, as always, your opinion is noted.

 

[andakitty]

As are we entitled to express our hope for what we want. OGL Conan is a waste of paper to me. So. Mongoose will do what is profitable, I guess. Meanwhile what someone else wants or hopes for doesn't really matter, one way or the other. Let us speculate happily and in peace, if you don't mind. Or if you do mind. It's not hurting anything.

 

[Azgulor]

These forums give me a chance to voice my opinion as a customer. I've been very vocal here, at Enworld, and at RPG.net in support of the Conan RPG. Rumor or not, I'm entitled to express my opinion in support for the Conan RPG staying the Conan RPG.

And, as always, your opinion is noted.

Thanks, Matt.

Azgulor

 

[MongooseMatt]

Thanks, Matt.

Azgulor

To add to that, no firm decision about Conan has been made at all yet. However, one way or another, we'll see you right

 

[Melkor]

Thanks, Matt.

Azgulor

To add to that, no firm decision about Conan has been made at all yet. However, one way or another, we'll see you right

And that gives me faith that no matter what happens, both camps will probably end up with some good.

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

Let's not forget other certain rumors flying about such as that of a looming 4th edition D&D from Wizards. If this happens anytime soon, then all the d20 material out there will become obsolete (or nearly so) anyway. I think it would be a smart move on Mongoose's part to strike out with their own system for Conan and not keep it tied to the whims of a completely different company.

I can appreciate the fact that many gamers (most gamers?) seem to love d20, but I miss the 'good ol' days' when each company actually had a house system with different moods and mechanics. Sure, d20 Conan is better than D&D 3.5, but it's still the same system and suffers the same drawbacks.

I think d20 works for D&D powergaming, but for very little else, including Conan. Wizards tried shoehorning d20 onto Star Wars and looked what happend there. Ditto for d20 Modern (have they officially stated that line dead yet?). I feel that the MRQ rules, if they are similar enough to BRP, will reflect the more 'realistic' world of Howardian brutality than d20. Sure, Conan was able to take a lot of punishment, but he usually avoided attacks, instead of standing there and taking blow and after blow as warriors seem so able to do in D&D. Also, Conan often used only a knife to kill even supernatural beings. Good luck trying that in d20! Hell, you couldn't even kill a 2nd level thief, sorry, rogue, with a dagger in d20!

 

[Melkor]

Conan is OGL, right ? Not D20 ?

That being the case, I don't think it's tied to the D20 license, and due to the nature of the OGL, it could continue on as is without being affected by any changes Wizards of the Coast makes to D&D or the D20 license.

Once the 'cat is out of the bag' with an OGL game, Wizards would have a hard time getting it stuffed back into the bag.

 

[andakitty]

Good points. Especially regarding the 'whims of another company'. I guess Conan would have a high Dodge and Resilience(?) roll in MRQ terms. IF I understand how it's supposed to work.

4th ed. D&D? :shock: O my God. :roll:

 

[andakitty]

But, Melkor, if D&D became a game with very different base rules that *nearly* everyone moved on to, that would leave companies like Mongoose in the very same position in relation to which system they use. The 'crossover' familiarity might be gone, so why is the present Conan system any different than the RQ house system as far as sales go? They would both be different than a 4e OGL, right? It might continue as Conan, but in that case Mongoose might be better off with their house system for any future RPG material. A 4th ed. might be different enough to end the crossover, people going to Conan from the similar 3.5. If this makes any sense. I'm very tired.

In any event, if the 4e rumor is true I think Mongoose just might as well put more eggs in another basket. In any case, at this point I for one am planning to support MRQ with my wallet. MRQ Conan would be nice, but so is what Mongoose already has planned for the new RQ line.

 

[Melkor]

Good points andakitty...

To be honest, I never really considered the fact that D&D 4E might be quite a bit different from 3E/D20.

I would think that with the popularity of D20, it might take several years for what was once the flagship D20 product (D&D) to shift focus away from the D20 system with a 4th edition (which could be quite different from D20). That being the case, the D20 Conan game would probably have run it's course before things became so different that mainstream D&D 4E players would no longer recognize the D20 system, and that D20 crossover would no longer benefit Cpmam.

All that taken into account, I know just as many people that won't touch a product associated with D20 as I do those that love the D20 system...It seems to be a pretty polarizing set of rules. I do think it's a good thing to not put all of your eggs in one basket with D20. By example, I was happy to see Green Ronin have so much success with the new edition of the Warhammer Fantasy RPG, and start branching out (at least a little bit) with products like True20.

In the end, I think Mongoose would do well to keep the D20 Conan line going strong, but also promote their own 'house system' (if that is indeed what the new edition of Runequest is going to be) for future products.

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

It's true that a possible 4th edition of D&D won't be too different from 3.5, but the fact that 3.5 exist at all worries me. There wasn't a drastic change in the mechanics from 3.0 to 3.5, but enough to warrant that annoying PC game moniker. I mean, they could have called it Revised but it was a heavy overhaul. Personally, I think Wizards is most concerned about dollars and of course every game company needs to be profitable but to release what amounts to three new necessary core books (PH, DMG, and MM) just a couple of years after 3.0 came out is just plain fishy. I think that if Wizards sees profit in it, and most of the fans come along with them, they'd change the rules enough for 4th edition to make the others obsolete so we have to buy them all over again.

Personally, unless this possible 4th edition is just the best thing since sliced bread, I'm through playing ball with Wizards.

 

[SteveMND]

just a couple of years after 3.0 came out is just plain fishy

Eh, not really. v3.0 was a major change from the previous edition. They essentially created a new game; sure, some terms were the same (the stats, for example), and the basic concept of levels and a d20 roll being used was retained, but virtually everything from a game-mechanics standpoint was brand new. From that standpoint, 3.5 was needed, because there were a LOT of problems that arose when the game -- like any new game -- hit the shelves. Let's face it: an in-house playtest team of even a hundred or more cannot hope to ever duplicate the effort of millions of commerical players.

3.5 had extensive changes, but they were mostly minor and spread out across ALL of the rules, unfortunately. That meant even fans of the game didn't notice a lot of the changes in 3.5 until they happened across some obscure passage and went "Huh. That was changed? I didn't know that." While necessary, the 3.5 changes certainly could have been handled better, though.

As to a v 4.0? Well, in theory, we're looking at 2007 or 2008 at the earliest. That's seven or eight years between this version and the next (3.5, while the changes were extensive, didn't really change many mechanics). I think that's actually pretty good for most RPGs. Heck, MRQ is at least the fifth or sixth incarnation to come along in almost as many years as D&D has been around.

 

[andakitty]

I don't quite follow you. Although I do not care for WOTC or their ways, I was on the 3.0 bandwagon...at least until I had some experience running it. I can't see 3.5 being an improvement in any way. Not that I'm trying to be argumentive or anything, I just don't see it. What I do see are things like Privateer Press re-printing the Monsternomicon for no other reason that is apparent to me than updating from 3.0 to 3.5. I honestly don't think WOTC sees anything other than dollar signs. Just the way I feel, and I assure you it is a gut feeling more than a logical conclusion. Mostly I don't even look at WOTC material any more. Sometimes I consider OGL stuff, but rarely buy it and that IS a result of thinking things through. The game system just doesn't work for me, but I plain don't like WOTC. The way they do things is, as stated by someone else earlier in the thread, fishy. If I were Mongoose or any other game company I would not utilize the OGL for any reason other than to build up my company. I surely wouldn't consider them and their OGL any sort of stable base from which to build up my own group of products. As it seems many have learned the hard way. All of this in addition to the simple desire to see Conan paired with what I perceive to be a better game engine. MRQ or BRP, that would be.

 

[SteveMND]

Although I do not care for WOTC or their ways, I was on the 3.0 bandwagon...at least until I had some experience running it. I can't see 3.5 being an improvement in any way.

Well, if you didn't play 3.0 regularly (which you imply that you didn't, based on your apparent dislike of the rules and jumping "off the bandwagon"), then you probably wouldn't notice the differences. As I said, they were widespread, but subtle. Heck, it took some of us experienced d20 players months to notice some of the more obscure rule changes.

Like I said, the changes might not have been handled very well, but that doesn't mean they weren't needed. That also doesn't mean you can't play a perfectly serviceable game of 3.0 either, just like you can play a perfectly serviceable game of AD&D, RQII or any number of earlier incarnations of a game. Just that each incarnation has problem areas, and each later incarnation (hopefully) tries to address those problem areas. 3.5 was no different.

Mind you, even though I find myself sort of "defending" d20 here, it is by no means the favorite system I've come across. RQIII still retains that spot.