[Rumor] Conan 2nd Ed to use Runequest system?
- Thread starter Ashigaru
- Start date
Darrin Kelley
Mongoose
Bregales said:
The D20 license is a different kettle of fish. One that gives WotC content approval and some amount of control in exchange for the ability to use the D20 logo.
However, Mongoose and many other companies discovered that the logo wasn't worth the trouble they had to endure. And that the game buying public was smart enough to realized that OGL only games largely meant the same thing as having the D20 logo on them. Which effectively made the process of gaining the D20 logo absolutely unnecessary for those companies to endure.
Small point of correction here. The OGL is a license. Several game systems have been released under it. Including the 3.0 SRD, 3.5 SRD, Modern SRD, the Action! System, and a few others. So it is incorrect to refer to the SRD derived games as the OGL system.
Duck, plants, and a few other weird things. Totally wacky.
Darrin Kelley
Mongoose
Bushido said:
Don't believe a word of it until we actually get official word from the company.
But if the rumor should be true, I have very little motivation to re-buy my complete Conan RPG collection under the Runequest system. And from all indications, I'm not the only OGL Conan fan who feels that way.
However, then we have the track record of Matt and the rest of Mongoose to consider with this game line. They have absolutely bent over backwards to please and appease the fans of OGL Conan. From the Sons Of Cimmeria program, to direct author and publisher interaction with us right here. They have proven that the fans matter to them in spades.
So I don't believe for a second that they would betray the OGL Conan audience by doing something as clueless as a system switch.
Fair enough, good of you to correct me. I should have written that the game mechanics are clunky. It felt like a nice change from AD&D Second edition to be able to notice things, wake up early, intimidate someone, etc., when third edition first came out, but with every product release offering yet more feats, optional rules or provisos for existing rules, D&D, Conan, D20Modern, and such games feel VERY rules intensive. One of our GMs quit GMing in frustration over arguments over rules interpretations in every session, and when I was GMing I'd get heckled every game as well over the difference between core rules interpretations vs. Mongoose's Conan rules, confusions over the differences (for example, Attacks of Opportunity, massive damage, etc.).Darrin Kelley said:
I have gamed or GM'd or both in AD&D 1st ed. Conan adventures, the Conan rpg from TSR and Mongoose's version, and enjoy every one, but it can tax one's brain trying to be on top of all things w/out having every single product in the line at immediate disposal to reference, much less remembering from which product a rule or feat or spell or whatever comes from, so at the least I empathize with those beleagured under the current system.
Darrin Kelley
Mongoose
The players should be forwarned that Conan is not D&D. That a great many things do not work the same way as they are familiar with. They should be approaching it as a new game that has commonalities with what they may be familiar with. But they should still treat it as a totally new game.
Such forwarning would prevent the very problem you listed your GM as having above.
Such forwarning would prevent the very problem you listed your GM as having above.
slaughterj
Mongoose
Darrin Kelley said:
Though in the grand scheme of things, anyone can use any of these systems that are out there without a license (since none of these systems are patented), so long as they do not use the other company's trademarks improperly or do not copy their materials. (Of course, WotC may still try to sue someone as the 800lb gorilla, regardless of the legitimacy of their claims.) The license is useful because it allows people to copy & paste descriptions, e.g., of skills, feats, etc., which is a time saver, and some find use in being able to refer to trademarked (or claimed trademarked) terms. But entering some of these licenses creates problems in and of themselves.
Thoth Aw C'mon
Mongoose
AURIKALKO said:
I agree. I've always loved the Stormbringer RPG. And "smooth fantasy RPG" is exactly right. The d20 system is way too clunky, IMHO. But I can certainly understand why many would be upset about this change if this turns out to be true, as many have invested a lot into this current game, and it is still a relatively new game. Mongoose certainly has put out a lot of product for this game, and some high-quality stuff at that. But I gotta agree that IMHO the underlying d20 system is hopelessly flawed.
RMS said:You're blunt, barbaric, and apparently can't read!
Sorry pal - the red mist must have obscured my vision, as I missed that point when reading the posts.
I really like the game as it is - to me it is the Conan game I always wanted in my youth. After so many years gaming, the Conan adventures with this game have truly been some of the most heroic and high spirited games I've ever been a part of. The mechanics work to promote that type of adventure IMO. Sure another system could work but my shelf space is dominated by the current ruleset and - as I mentioned - it is providing the type of style and game it is advertising - why change?
Can anyone answer that question without including the implication or mention of Mongoose? Cause that is the only reason I could see Mongoose doing it - for some company benefit. And as mentioned above - they don't seem like the company to ransack one product line (Conan) to help promote another (RQ).
Well if you and the d20 fans are the "most people" then you are right. On the other hand I am not happy with it, because its based on a clunky blown up level and character class system which I dont like (I have suffered several years playing D&D ... shrug) And the BRP fans are also not happy with it due to similar reasons. And why do Moongoose release such rumors? Maybe they are also not happy with current conan game? So lets see. YOU and your d20 fans are happy, fine for you. I and the BRP fans are not happy, bad for us. And maybe Moongoose also is not fully happy. So its not clear that it is "most" people like you stated.
Oh is this so? I think you have never read the BRP rules, havent you? Or played? I have played enough d20 to shun this "roleplaying" system but you seem to have a prejudice.
Of course its faster. I have alot of experience in both systems. A turn in MRQ last only several seconds and after 1-3 turns most combats are over, even with very competent characters. And hitlocations are a great contribution to the athmosphere of the brutal conan world. This you can only understand if you feel the adrenaline if your axe decapacitate (I hope this the correct vocabulary) an enemy. (think braveheart hehe)
FYI hitlocations are simple things. You just roll a second dice (d20) to determine where you hit your enemy. Many people roll this second die with the To Hit dice, so not even a slight delay is during combat just because of the hitlocation determination.
You are right. Is a polemical POV. But the basic assumption was that Moongoose dont has to worry that they loose too many customers, because a lot of gamers (maybe not the very vocal d20 fans here in this forum) just like the conan world regardless of the system. They would switch without a second thought. In the long run they would profit from the system change because the conan game experience will improve.[/quote]
Deathdealer
Mongoose
slaughterj said:
For what it's worth, I understand that Frederik Malmberg of CPI is a Runequest fan from way back. I know he is listed as a playtester on some BRP material Chaosium put out years ago. Maybe they won't object to a change after all. :wink:
) Mongoose's customer service has always been second to none, I will bank on them to do the right thing.Enpeze said:
By "most people" I was referring to the people who are buying and using the product and making the product line very successful for Mongoose. Just because fans of X game system want in on the action doesn't justify a switch.
As to my familiarity with BRP, I have done scripting of both the BRP and D20 rules for Call of Cthulhu for a piece of software called KloogeWerks, so I think I can speak with some authority. I don't want to get into a system-comparison feud here, so I will simply put up a link to a prior thread on this issue where I describe the problem with the basic BRP mechanic:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15128&start=45
bc99 said:If I may, what is the big difference between Conan D20 and the runequest system?
D20 is very much a figure-oriented rule set, whereas other gaming systems seem to be more RP or narative oriented.
Thanks for filling in the clueless
While d20 (& Conan) support the use of miniatures, they are not required for play.
I have never used miniatures in my campaign and there is plenty of emphasis on roleplaying. In my 20+ years of gaming I haven't seen where Rules-light = Greater Role-playing focus or Rules-heavy = wargaming without role-play.
My personal experience has been that rules-light systems lead to more disputes over rules resulting in less time for actual role-play. With the Conan RPG, the rules seem fine to me. As for the amount of rules crunch desired by gamers - that is a very subjective matter. I've found it inherently easier to get groups to agree to drop undesireable rules rather than get everyone to agree on what new rule should be added. And I'd rather spend my time playing and developing adventures rather than writing house rules.
The most common example I've seen of rules "getting in the way" (the most common argument against games that aren't rules-light), on either side of the GM screen, is when the GM is unfamiliar with the rules. If the GM knows the rules, the game usually takes care of itself and roleplaying comes front-and-center.
Could a game of Conan focus too much on miniatures? Only if the GM and players let it happen. Can a game of Conan consist of large amounts of role-playing with little or no combat? Yes - it happens regularly at my gaming table. But when combat or action sequences break out - I'm glad the rules are there.
Azgulor
Enpeze said:
I use a critical hit location table and a critical fumble table in my Conan RPG games and do not think it slows combat up or anything. The tables were put on this site years ago by Iron Chef from http://www.dndadventure.com.
Since Stormbringer I have always used a hit location table for gaming - really adds to the game. Loved the tables in Warhammer Fantasy as well.
My point being - no need to add that to the game. It's already available if you want it. I should say I would not be against - and would actually be interested in an article or articles converting the game to RQ rules but only as a S & P article. keep the supplements and adventures with the core rules as written - D20.
bc99 said:If I may, what is the big difference between Conan D20 and the runequest system?
D20 is very much a figure-oriented rule set, whereas other gaming systems seem to be more RP or narative oriented.
Thanks for filling in the clueless
Two pages later this question is unanswered, so I'll give it a quick shot. Since we only have a few pages of previews for the new RQ, I'll answer this from the point-of-view of older versions of RQ.
RQ has no classes or levels. Characters in the game are defined only by their characteristics (Strenght, Intellifence, etc.) and a list of skills. All characters have access to the same skills. Everything needed to play is on the character sheet. There's no need to reference the rules during play, generally. There are no experience points or anything similar. Characters improve skills by using them in play or by training them during "down time". A character can easily choose to specialize in anything, but it's also fairly common for someone to be a good combatant, a good rogue sort, etc. Also, it's fairly easy to mix newbies with little experience with experienced characters and have a lot of fun. RQ never got hung up on artificial game balance and in play it's never seemed to detract from the fun. We've had experienced warriors, kids newly off the farm, scholars (with no "practical" skillls), and merchants all mixed together and it just works. In theory you could do this with any system, but it just works much better than with any game (not just d20 derivatives) that spends a lot of time attempting to balance things from a tactical point of view.
Characteristics generally don't change, and neither do attributes derived from them, such as hit points. An experienced warrior won't have any more HP than a newbie. They depend on their skills (and perhaps superior weapons and armor) to make the difference. This allows typical city guards to be a real menace, the tavern keeper to actually knock out someone by hitting them on the head with a bottle, etc. There's no excess HP to absorb things. OTOH, the game can handle gifted humans (like Conan) quite well by simply allowing them to have superior characteristics, superior skills, and quality weapons. Don't expect to wade through hordes of mooks (not in genre anyway), but a superior warrior can take on several at a time...but will frequently look for another way out, or tactical ways to reduce the numbers brought to bare.
Combat in RQ is a nice balance. It can be supported with mini's and battlemaps as written, but also works quite well without them. Also, it's very fast compared to any d20 derived combat that I'm aware of. A typical battle will only last a few rounds: 15-30 minutes of real time in my experience.
A general note here: while I think RQ is a much better match for Conan than d20 Conan, I actually think the simpler BRP derivatives of RQ, like Stormbringer, would be an even better match. They're a bit quicker and seem to mesh with a pulpy setting pretty well. RQ (old versions anyway) are just enough grittier to be better for more realistic settings, or settings like Glorantha where magic is omnipresent so aren't overwelmingly deadly. Note: I'm pretty sure that MRQ will support a bit more heroic play than older RQ did out of the box.
The irony is that d20 Conan reads very much like a RQ fan who's forced to write a d20 game. There's a lot of RQ things (like parries, damage reducing armor, some ability to do immediate death, tactical advantages to numbers, etc.) that are fitted into the d20 backdrop, but due to the inherent clunkiness of the base d20/D&D system these never quite get to where I sense the authors wanted to go with it.
Then it make sense. I for my part was referring to the people who are buying the product in the future and will continue to make the line very successful for Moongoose. And I was of course referring to the game creators themselves.
I would not say that we are fans of a "X game system". Firstly, we are fans of one of the best and most intuitive game system out there. And secondly, Moongoose, seems to be also very fond of it. At least it has at the moment a very high priority on their product release schedule. And they liked their version, MRQ, so much that they want to establish it as further OGL near d20 and maybe replace one or more of their d20 product (say MRQ Conan) lines with it. So please dont call it "X game system". This description would better suited to the release of MRQ X-men in 2008.
At least you know the rules. Thats good. I recommend you to try it out with your group. Maybe the new ed. of stormbringer which shows the best introduction for newbies. But be cautious. Its VERY deadly, especially if you used to play d20. In lethality it is in par with games like Gurps (well-to a certain extent) and Harnmaster. Of course its simpler and easier to learn than any of the two latter games.
Thanks for the link. I read through it and I would recommend you to read also through it once more, especially the 3rd page. Regarding your mathematical contribution in the thread I can just say "good work".
RMS,
Well in rare circumstances they change. (eg. magic, illness, permanent wound effects etc) And of course the attribute POWer (which stands for magical sensibility) can change during the game due to successful magic rolls the whole life of a character.
We also used an interesting rule variant of BRP which allows for attribute changes once at the end of every adventure (5-10 evenings). The characters (those who survived) have been able to increase the characteristics they used most in the preceding adventure.
I am also sure that MRQ WILL allow for a steady stat increase during a characters life. I assume this because in one of the previews they mention AFAIK a veteran character profile which has +1d3 or so characteristic points more than the standard character. This would IMO just make sense if there is an ingame increase of characteristics.
Well in rare circumstances they change. (eg. magic, illness, permanent wound effects etc) And of course the attribute POWer (which stands for magical sensibility) can change during the game due to successful magic rolls the whole life of a character.
We also used an interesting rule variant of BRP which allows for attribute changes once at the end of every adventure (5-10 evenings). The characters (those who survived
) have been able to increase the characteristics they used most in the preceding adventure.I am also sure that MRQ WILL allow for a steady stat increase during a characters life. I assume this because in one of the previews they mention AFAIK a veteran character profile which has +1d3 or so characteristic points more than the standard character. This would IMO just make sense if there is an ingame increase of characteristics.
Taharqa said:
There's a couple of things you miss there btw. Adjustments to rolls (or target, depending on how you look at it) are built right into RQ from the beginning, so are not something that GM has to houserule or improvise - beyond interpretation which a GM always has to do. Also, in opposed skill checks in RQ, the best level of success "wins" in most cases. If both sides have a similar level of success (both successes, both specials, or both criticals), then whoever makes their roll by the most "wins". There are some special cases where the passive participant rolls first and subtracts the level of their success from the skill of the active participant. This has all been there since RQII in 1978 btw, and is not a houserule that I or anyone else came up with.
Now, out of fairness, one issue that can be had with all of the above is that different rules apply to similar situations, and a modern take on game design would be that one universal rule is best for all situations. Also, many of us houserule everything down to some universal rules.
One other thing here that should be mentioned. You're only complaining about the resolution system for RQ. That's only a minor part of the system and one that can easily be changed to something that suits your fancy without affecting the rest of the system. After all, it obviously derives from a d20 roll under system: early RQ has skills move up only in 5% increments and skill category modifiers are also in 5% increments. Pendragon moved back to a d20 roll under system, and Heroquest uses a modified d20 roll under system also. You can graft either of those directly onto RQ with essentially zero effort. You could also use the exact same deal and use the d20 roll over mechanic or the Omni (Talislanta, etc.) d20 roll over mechanic. None of those would change the way that BRP works at all and none of them would take any kind of significant effort to implement.
You've gone on a tangent here on something that's minor and has nothing to do with BRP working better than d20 as a system. The resolution mechanic is really a separate issue and of only marginal relevence to this discussion, especially considering how simple it is to switch it around if you so desire.
One thing I didn't see mentioned here was the introduction of 'feat-like' abilities in Mongoose's RQ (see P.4 of the 4th Runequest Preview linked below):
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqpreview4.pdf
If I remember correctly (and it's been years since I played RQ), this is a new feature of MRQ. Past editions of BRP games did not contain 'edges' or 'feats' or anything like that, correct ?
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqpreview4.pdf
If I remember correctly (and it's been years since I played RQ), this is a new feature of MRQ. Past editions of BRP games did not contain 'edges' or 'feats' or anything like that, correct ?
