Please help me understand Conan RPG

[conan75]

As for the AD&D vs DD3 debate, I personnaly think that DD3 was an huge improvement of AD&D. It went out of hand with too many books from too many publishers but any DM can reduce that to what he's thinking is enough.
W.

I think a lot depends on how old you are and, consequently, on how many editions you could see, especially which one first you played with.

All our fondest memories are linked to that edition through which we came to know ad&d.
Nonetheless, as for me, i would like - sooner or later- to read 1st edition ad&d, just to understand if i missed something and, in that case, in what this something consisted.

Moreover, there is the illusion of numbers: we have the apparent sensation that anything- whatever- comes with an higher number, is better than what precedes it.
Thus, i'm sure that if suddenly a tenth edition of d&d (AD&D 10th edition) was published tomorrow, far too many people would cry at the miracle without even reading it first.

I really can't believe there's no one in this forum who maintain that ad&d 2nd edition was better than 3rd or, at least, that it was enough.


By the way, no one replies to my previous question about "dragon magazine"?

 

[zozotroll]

My first edition was old DnD, that came in a white box with 3 books. Nobody I knew had seen anything like it. We where all wargamers, and the whole RPG thing was stunning. But, we where used to complete game systems, and DnD had holes you could drive tanks through.

AD&D closed a lot of those. But 2nd ed just looked like a money grab to me, without makeing major changes for the better. I understand that if you consider about half way through to be a sort of 2.5, there where changes for the better. But I miied those because I never bought much 2nd ed stuff at all.

I think 4.0 is terrible, so doubt that I am waiting for 10.0.

 

[jolt]

My first edition was old DnD, that came in a white box with 3 books. Nobody I knew had seen anything like it. We where all wargamers, and the whole RPG thing was stunning. But, we where used to complete game systems, and DnD had holes you could drive tanks through.

AD&D closed a lot of those. But 2nd ed just looked like a money grab to me, without makeing major changes for the better. I understand that if you consider about half way through to be a sort of 2.5, there where changes for the better. But I miied those because I never bought much 2nd ed stuff at all.

I think 4.0 is terrible, so doubt that I am waiting for 10.0.

My experience is the same (still have my old White Box too; signed by both Gygax and Arneson). The only concept that I liked about 2E was the idea of specialist magic-users but the implementation was, IMO, terrible because no attempt was made to balance out the schools of magic.

I don't think 4.0 is a bad game but I think it's a bad rpg (YMMV). I think the Descent boardgame by FFG gives a better play experience with a similar style of play than D&D 4.0 (all IMO of course).

jolt

 

[zozotroll]

My biggest problem with 4E is that it was less than 4 years after 3.5 cme out that they started working on it. And that it is a complete break with the last system. So if you want to play the new version, you have to completely rebuy everything you want.

I dont buy Gammes Workshop books, and for the same reason.

 

[flatscan]

I don't think 4.0 is a bad game but I think it's a bad rpg (YMMV). I think the Descent boardgame by FFG gives a better play experience with a similar style of play than D&D 4.0 (all IMO of course).

jolt

Ugh, Descent is boredom in a box. The whole time I was playing I kept thinking, "I'd be having more fun playing an RPG."

As to 4e, I've said it before and I'll say it again. D&D 4e, like any RPG, gives as much role-play as the DM and players are willing to put into it. Look here for a write-up of one of the sessions I played in D&D 4e and tell me there's no RP in there. 8)

I'm sorry, but those that say you can't have RP in D&D 4e haven't tried or were playing with a lame DM/group.

 

[LucaCherstich]

As for the AD&D vs DD3 debate, I personnaly think that DD3 was an huge improvement of AD&D. It went out of hand with too many books from too many publishers but any DM can reduce that to what he's thinking is enough.
W.

I think a lot depends on how old you are and, consequently, on how many editions you could see, especially which one first you played with.

All our fondest memories are linked to that edition through which we came to know ad&d.
Nonetheless, as for me, i would like - sooner or later- to read 1st edition ad&d, just to understand if i missed something and, in that case, in what this something consisted.

Moreover, there is the illusion of numbers: we have the apparent sensation that anything- whatever- comes with an higher number, is better than what precedes it.
Thus, i'm sure that if suddenly a tenth edition of d&d (AD&D 10th edition) was published tomorrow, far too many people would cry at the miracle without even reading it first.

I really can't believe there's no one in this forum who maintain that ad&d 2nd edition was better than 3rd or, at least, that it was enough.


By the way, no one replies to my previous question about "dragon magazine"?

Age can be a factor deciding which system you like and there is also this "illusion" of new editions which seem to improve things...but I do not think it is my case...

I'm 31 and I've played all those editions from "old" D&D of the early 1980s which here in Italy was translated only in the late 1980s, when I started playing it.
I've never said the first edition I played was the best system I ever found.
There is plenty of reasons why I loved A&D2 more than 1st edition...and many more reasons why I loved 3rd edition more than 2nd...
On the other hand I do not like 4th edition since I do not like the whole ideological system/framework on which that system was built...
Furthermore I think that others non-d20 systems have details which d20 lacks (e.g. I always liked Shadowrun 3 Initiative system more than the "multiple attacks" which is the base of d20 combat at higher levels)...but considering the systems as whole entities (and not just in one or few details9 I think that Conan d20 works well for playing the Hyborean Age and that other systems (AD&D and old D&D included) did not give all the playing options offered by Conan d20.

 

[Scorpion13]

I was looking at the newest BRP rules, and they seem like you could do a good Conan game with it. And the new Wizards and Warriors Mutants and Masterminds supplement came out and it looks pretty good. Ive really never heard anyone have any bad stuff to say about M&M. Its pretty universally respected and loved.

 

[Malcadon]

All our fondest memories are linked to that edition through which we came to know ad&d.
Nonetheless, as for me, i would like - sooner or later- to read 1st edition ad&d, just to understand if i missed something and, in that case, in what this something consisted.

I'm an active member of the old-school D&D community, and I see a lot of people interested in the roots of the hobby. D&D has a rich history full of odd characters. Is started off as a friendly hobby, but the sudden success really changed things.

The old rules are no longer in print, but a number of fans found a legal loop-hole with the copyright laws, and made "simulacrum" (a slightly altered copy) versions of the classic editions. Swords & Wizardry is Original D&D (OD&D), Labyrinth Lord is Basic/Expert D&D, OSRIC (Old School Reference and Index Compilation) is 1st ed AD&D, and Basic Fantasy is B/E D&D with some 3rd ed elements. They are available as a free download, and their "dead tree" editions are available on Lulu.com.

OD&D is the most crude and patchwork of any edition, as it was a major work in progress. That is not a bad thing, as it has a lot of room to customize. In other words, it like an old-ass computer that requires users to write their own operating system. A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming has a lot of good advice on old-school gaming. Most of it is about letting go of tight rules, and rolling with punches.

As for the d20 rules, they are good if you like a structured rule set (in development, it started off as trying to be a vary user-friendly game, but things got really complicated as they added rules to it). Saving Throws are knock down to 3 types - Fortitude, Reflex & Willpower. Defense scores improves by counting up, and is the number needed to hit (no more THAC0). Ability adjustments are more uniformed. It got a skill system that gets complicated at higher levels, but is usable. Feats started off as combat options for Fighters (when 3e was being made), but was expanded to round out characters. The 3.5 expiation added a ton of junk feats that has no other effect then to add skill bonuses. There is a lot of options with combat, but combat really grinds down at higher levels. The Conan rules add a number of good stuff to the 3.5 rules. The Dodge/Parry Defense and Armor Damage Deduction rules make player less dependent on magic defense. Initiative rolls get better, as Reflex save goes higher. Lots of special combat maneuvers (when the right circumstances are met). The Sorcery rules really has a good Sword & Sorcery flavor to it (I strongly recommend the Savant rule variant).

I dont see how you cant use Conan with older D&D rules. The Fighter (or Fighting-man) class started off as a catch-all for a wide range of warrior types. If a player wish to play a Soldier, then you could have him play a Fighter with a special bonus for Formation Fighting. If he wish to play Barbarian, then you could rule that he gets a bonus for Improvised Weapons. The Defense system used in Conan could easily be tacked on the AD&D rules. The Sorcery rules could be vary playable when the rule mechanics get cut back a bit. Its a bit of work, but it could be worth it.

1st ed AD&D had a lot of Sword & Sorcery style to it, which got lost by the time 2nd ed came out. By the time 3e came out, S&S is largely forgotten. I always tell people that the Conan RPG is full of great S&S ideas that goes above and beyond rule mechanics. Once you read Conan, you might never play D&D the same again! :wink: