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

[andakitty]

I'd say you like a higher level of detail than I do. RQ3 went a little too far for me, I was happier with RQ2 and happier yet with Stormbringer. They both had their flaws too, but I found them to be more fun in actual play. I am acquainted with some of the founders of WOTC, and I think the term 'fishy' as used before fits the bill. The game system is just that, and I probably would have stayed on the bandwagon if it had been a simpler system (without the feats and prestige classes, and the tangled interdependence of everything). I did run a game up to fifth level, enough to make an informed decision. And I read through 3.5. I have to admit that the differences I noticed didn't strike me as improvements, such as the way weapon sizes were handled. All little stuff, though, that from what I could see (with my admittedly limited patience with the game at that point) didn't impact play in a major way. Mostly the game feels too restricting, I'd guess I have a bias against class and level games on an instinctual level of my being. Hard to describe really, I've used the term 'mindset' elsewhere, but that doesn't seem entirely accurate. Call it a matter of taste. Anyway, a heck of a lot of people agreed with you about it being an improvement; but I still don't buy it, Steve. However, I am not attacking it, we should all play whatever we find to be fun. But WOTC and HASBRO make good targets of themselves, and I don't mind raking them over the coals whenever I get an opportunity. As I'm sure you have noticed.

So, I suppose you are still unhappy with the way MRQ seems to be going?
The reviews certainly make it look liked it is getting trimmed down rules wise, especially compared to RQ3. Hope you still like it better than the D&D, though.

 

[SteveMND]

"I'd say you like a higher level of detail than I do. RQ3 went a little too far for me, I was happier with RQ2 and happier yet with Stormbringer. They both had their flaws too, but I found them to be more fun in actual play."

Well, I did qualify my statement that I liked RQIII best of the systems I've come across. I don't forgo the possibility that others may end up tickling my fancy more so. I seem to recall playing Stormbringer way back when, and finding it okay, but nothing extraordinary. Can't speak to revisions since then, of course.

I have to admit that the differences I noticed didn't strike me as improvements, such as the way weapon sizes were handled.

Can't argue with you on that one. I think that the changes to weapons sizes were a step backwards.

Interestingly, you could make a reasonable argument that many of the changes in 3.5 were largely of a 'game balance' issue. This falls right into place with the mindset of WotC as seeing their RPGs as they see their card games -- a series of competitions where in theory, both 'decks' (PCs and NPCs) are perfectly even, and the skill of the player determines the winner.

To a large degree, the game mechanics support that implication, where each little trifling change to a monster can adjust and recalculate it's Challenge Rating through a range of .5 up to 20 or more (as opposed to games like RuneQuest III or MRQ, where you had just a few broad categories to indicate what sort of danger an opponent was). The entire system of classes, templates, feats etc. in d20 are explicitly designed to be modular in that sense, and interlocking to providea very sterile, 'neutral' adversary that you (in theory) can definitive say is a proper challeneg for so-cand-so, because the PCs are built along those same exact lines. In d20, presenting one's player's with an appropriate challenge for their level is a science, in RQ, it's an art. Some players like that sort of 'neutral' game rules stance that d20 has, in which the DM is relegated more to the role of a judge when it comes to stuff like combat.

To be perfectly honest, most of my d20 experience over the last couple of years has been through the RPGA, which is a literal 'tournament' style of RPG. You think the level of detail in d20 is high to begin with, the RPGA makes that paperwork and minutia increased by a factor or 100, since it's designed to be played by anybody, at any time, anywhere they are in a single shared campaign.

It works well in some places, horribly in others.

With regards to the comment about me liking a higher level of detail; I'm not sure that's it. I think I just have a different opinion of what's 'too much' detail. For example, i know a lot of people didn't like the old fatigue system, as it was 'too complicated.' I personally felt the RQIII fatigue system was as simple as anything. Yes, it took a few extra moments to figure out your initial fatigue, but once there, easy as pie. Each round you do something strenuous (like combat), lose a point. You're at -4 fatigue? Your skills are at -4 as well. Super simple.

In contrast, I find the MRQ approach to darkness and low light to be overly complicated and burdensome. Both systems to me seemed more simplistic in RQIII.

So, I suppose you are still unhappy with the way MRQ seems to be going?

You know, not as much as before. I very much based my opinions on expectations. When I first heard about a new RuneQuest, I expected that it would be based on the same rules as all other versions of RQ I had played, just more refined. I was dismayed when that was obviousl not the case as defined by the previews, and so it left a sour tast in my mouth.

However, as time went on, I discovered that Mongoose didn't have the legal right to use the BRP system as the underlying game mechanics, as Chaosium still owned that.

That drastically changed my outlook, as I realized they couldn't possibly provide what i was hoping for, and so I look at MRQ not as I was expecting it to be, but as it is: a new RPG that's trying to be as close to the 'feel' of RQ as they can get without getting into legal troubles.

So no, I'm not 'unhappy' aymore with the way MRQ appears to be; that was my own assumptions of what a game with the name "RuneQuest" would be. Taken as a seperate, unrelated game system, it doesn't seem all that bad, but I'm still not convinced that it's something I want to spend my hard-earned cash on. I'll wait for the SRD for that final determination now.

 

[andakitty]

Makes sense to me. I just want a game I can play out of the box. The most adjustment I want to have to do is maybe ignore a rule. So far it looks like this game possesses two very important qualities for me. One, the combat, magic and skills rules all look like they will be playable as they are. Two, the game looks modular enough to ignore any rule I don't like without breaking the rest of it. Playable and modular.

Of course, at this point I've been burned so many times that like many here I'll make my final judgement when I see the book. There is still BRP, which I've played around with so much it does what I want a game to do. But I do want a playable-out-of-the-box game that is also being supported. Hmmm. So I am looking for three things, then. Anyway, I remain optimistic.

 

[Cobra]

You know, not as much as before. I very much based my opinions on expectations. When I first heard about a new RuneQuest, I expected that it would be based on the same rules as all other versions of RQ I had played, just more refined. I was dismayed when that was obviousl not the case as defined by the previews, and so it left a sour tast in my mouth.

However, as time went on, I discovered that Mongoose didn't have the legal right to use the BRP system as the underlying game mechanics, as Chaosium still owned that.

That drastically changed my outlook, as I realized they couldn't possibly provide what i was hoping for, and so I look at MRQ not as I was expecting it to be, but as it is: a new RPG that's trying to be as close to the 'feel' of RQ as they can get without getting into legal troubles.

So no, I'm not 'unhappy' aymore with the way MRQ appears to be; that was my own assumptions of what a game with the name "RuneQuest" would be. Taken as a seperate, unrelated game system, it doesn't seem all that bad, but I'm still not convinced that it's something I want to spend my hard-earned cash on. I'll wait for the SRD for that final determination now.

Nicely said (again) and expresses my feelings, too.

Cobra

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

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,

Is there such a thing as a "serviceable" game of AD&D? :wink:

 

[andakitty]

Hey, at least you get me to play it, which you cannot D20. It was sort of fun, and it didn't give me heartburn. And I could get through the chargen without throwing up or having a temper tantrum.

 

[SteveMND]

Is there such a thing as a "serviceable" game of AD&D?

There are thousands of players out there that still play only AD&D, so presumably there is.

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

Oh, no doubt there are many who still enjoy AD&D, and more power to them! I cut my teeth on that system growing up, as I'm sure many of us here did, and I have fond memories. However, the THACo system alone is enough to make me not want to ever play that again!

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

Returning to the subject of this thread, a possible MRQ Conan, are there any areas of d20 Conan that players here find lacking. Could RQ fix these problems? I've had the d20 Conan for months now and haven't managed to run a game yet. Anyone else having this problem?

 

[Turloigh]

Returning to the subject of this thread, a possible MRQ Conan, are there any areas of d20 Conan that players here find lacking. Could RQ fix these problems? I've had the d20 Conan for months now and haven't managed to run a game yet. Anyone else having this problem?

As my group has played both systems, maybe I can help. What specific problems are you referring to?

Frex, my biggest problem, withd20/OGL is the class/level system (especially when combined with a thick maze of interdependent feats). With RQ, all that stuff falls completely away. RuneQuest neither has nor need any of it, as it is a completely skill-based system.

Another problem is the escalating number of hit points. RQ doesn't have this either.

IMHO, it's a realistic, intuitive system that nicely fades into background during play. Have I mentioned RuneQuest is the best fantasy RPG ever? :wink:

 

[Halfbat]

...are there any areas of d20 Conan that players here find lacking. Could RQ fix these problems? I've had the d20 Conan for months now and haven't managed to run a game yet. Anyone else having this problem?

I found that the d20 Conan is probably one of the best d20 implementations yet out and is strangely RQ-like in its implementation (armour gives DR vs blows, the ability to use a dodge rather than parry, etc). The main things which slows down our games are AoO, free 5' steps and levelling up (which feat, what am I qualified for, which feat did I need to get that?). It's worth running.

You could add things like feats to RQ as specialised skills but the combat system was nicely gritty without too much detail (RQI/II) that it was generally never needed.

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

quote]Frex, my biggest problem, withd20/OGL is the class/level system (especially when combined with a thick maze of interdependent feats). With RQ, all that stuff falls completely away. RuneQuest neither has nor need any of it, as it is a completely skill-based system.[/quote]

I agree with this. Feats can be very interesting and add diversity, and it appears MRQ may be employing special abilities much like feats. However, they also lead to horrible min/maxing and endless ruling sessions.

Feats for d20 are very much geared toward power gaming, but Conan does not strike me as such. Sure, Conan takes a few hits now and again and is infrequently crucified, but typically he avoids being hit. Sure, you can parry and dodge in OGL Conan, but if you're a mid to high level, what's it matter? In RQ, you feel it!

 

[andakitty]

We all know what I think :roll: , so I shall refrain from further D20 bashing. :wink:

 

[AikiGhost]

I suppose its entirely possible that mongoose could release an equivalent of the ogl d20 conan book for MRQ (just to test the waters) and keep the mainstay of Conan stuff d20 statted if MRQ fails to sell very well.

 

[andakitty]

I'd pick up two of those immediately.

 

[wartorn]

I'd pick up two of those immediately.

Seconded. RuneQuest people are made of sterner stuff - we do not fear 'conversions'

 

[Maximo]

As I've picked most of the sourcebooks from Mongoose d20 Conan version, I do not fear this conversion.

I just hate it.

First, consider the economic factor. Would you like to have to convert all your books to continue picking the Conan MRQ version? What if after a year they change from MRQ to d6, would you be happy? I bet not.

Secondly, one of my regular players for sure will never play as long as the words Rune Quest are on this. He remembers the duck character nonsense (in fact he said his GM allowed gorilla characters) and told me this was his worst experience in the RPG field. Perhaps it was the GM, but I have no way to know.

And BTW, if the combat rules are similar to those on Elric, I do not think they can portray the Conan world much better than the Conan d20 version. It has its shortcomings, but I remember how few hit points there were in Elric or Cthulhu (never played RQ directly), and a few kicks from a pathetic nobody could send you to your grave. Not very Conan like, IMHO.

If Mongoose wants to make the change to gain $$, then good luck, but don't say nonsense about improving the system and the like.

Only solution would be to have a MRQ version and a d20 version simultaneously. This way, people who like MRQ only or d20 only will be pleased. The text in the books could be the same, save for rules-related things.

 

[wartorn]

As I've picked most of the sourcebooks from Mongoose d20 Conan version, I do not fear this conversion.

I just hate it.

First, consider the economic factor. Would you like to have to convert all your books to continue picking the Conan MRQ version? What if after a year they change from MRQ to d6, would you be happy? I bet not.

Secondly, one of my regular players for sure will never play as long as the words Rune Quest are on this. He remembers the duck character nonsense (in fact he said his GM allowed gorilla characters) and told me this was his worst experience in the RPG field. Perhaps it was the GM, but I have no way to know.

And BTW, if the combat rules are similar to those on Elric, I do not think they can portray the Conan world much better than the Conan d20 version. It has its shortcomings, but I remember how few hit points there were in Elric or Cthulhu (never played RQ directly), and a few kicks from a pathetic nobody could send you to your grave. Not very Conan like, IMHO.

If Mongoose wants to make the change to gain $$, then good luck, but don't say nonsense about improving the system and the like.

Only solution would be to have a MRQ version and a d20 version simultaneously. This way, people who like MRQ only or d20 only will be pleased. The text in the books could be the same, save for rules-related things.

What I was saying was: Give us the Conan Roleplaying book in an RQ version and let us deal with converting all of the existing and future D20 supplements - something the D20 people seem to be terrified of.

Conan isn't about being invincible in combat, its about being strong willed enough to face battle regarldless of your chances. Conan's indomitable will, wits, physicality and training make him a superior fighter - all very human attributes. With hit points and levels he gets to hide behind an abstract safety net; hardly something Conan would do.

 

[andakitty]

You know, as shitty as some of the supporters of D20 are about any mention of this, they DO have a point or two. I remember some of the stories where Conan was almost literally torn to shreds (Shadows in Zamboula), even crucified once (A Witch Shall Be Born). The stories support the high hp model sometimes, don't you think? As much as I hate to admit it, because I think BRP style games capture the feel of Hyborian combat better than any other. Maybe dual-stat would be the best solution for Mongoose, although I personally would not buy them. My interest in MRQ is high enough that I would like to see the company stay healthy, though. So there would be some things being published I can keep interested in too. They are right that I wouldn't like it if the rumor were of a reverse situation.

 

[Mac V]

Other than space and legal issues, I can't see going wrong by adding in multiple stats blocks. Who cares what you play with? D20 is a logical secondary do to market share though. Hell, I would like it if there were PDF's available for each book with Runequest, D20, HERO, and whatever systems are out there. It seems to me that the more rule sets a book is compatable with, the larger the possible market share, meaning more books sold. Bottom line is the story and the fun, not what dice you roll when. My problem with Conan wasn't the rules, it was the fact that the original book was so poorly edited, they needed to release a second edition. I'm praying the RQ doesn't suffer the same issues.