[Rumor] Conan 2nd Ed to use Runequest system?

[Taharqa]

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.

Actually I provided the link so as not to go on a tangent here, but since you responded here....

The point isn't whether modifiers are built into the system. The point is how target values and bonus/penalties are defined. They are defined oppositely in BRP and D20. In D20, factors related to the character are bonuses and penalties and the situation defines the target value. In BRP, you have the opposite. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of changing to 5% increments as you suggest. There is a fundamental conceptual difference. IMO the D20 system is the intuitive way.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the resolution mechanic is a small part of the game. It is the driving engine of any system. You can get hung up on hit points, levels and classes if you want, but there are in fact numerous D20 games that have none (M&M and True20 come to mind). What makes them D20 is the resolution mechanic.

In any case I am done with this. I doubt Mongoose will be foolish enough to divorce a successful product from the D20 fan base. If they do, then I will move onto other systems and other companies.

 

[RMS]

Actually I provided the link so as not to go on a tangent here, but since you responded here....

Perhaps I should have posted over there, but that's an old thread and this is the current one.

The point isn't whether modifiers are built into the system.

Perhaps not your main point, but you did complain about RQ/BRP lacking a way to adjust the needed roll without houseruling and you complained that there is no mechanic for resolving skill vs. skill rolls, and I just wanted to point out that both of these are there and have been since the beginning.

The point is how target values and bonus/penalties are defined. They are defined oppositely in BRP and D20. In D20, factors related to the character are bonuses and penalties and the situation defines the target value. In BRP, you have the opposite.

This is just semantics though. The actual math is identical. It's just solving for x first or for y first, to give an analogy. The final solution is identical.

Therefore, it is not simply a matter of changing to 5% increments as you suggest. There is a fundamental conceptual difference. IMO the D20 system is the intuitive way.

Actually it is as simple as I stated above, and if you find the D20 system more intuitive, you can do exactly what I said and substitute the D20 mechanic for all skill rolls in RQ and everything else in the system will hold together just fine. In fact, you can substitute any (reasonable) skill resolution mechanic into it you want and it'll work just fine. If you don't believe me, give it a try and you'll see that it works as I described it.

The reason that I mentioned the 5% increments was to attempt to lead you through the logic of why this works since you claimed to know RQ/BRP quite well. Sorry if it wasn't helpful.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the resolution mechanic is a small part of the game. It is the driving engine of any system. You can get hung up on hit points, levels and classes if you want, but there are in fact numerous D20 games that have none (M&M and True20 come to mind). What makes them D20 is the resolution mechanic.

It's hardly ludicrous. It is in fact, correct. Any robust game system will hold together with a change in resolution mechanics. It is correct that most systems are not robust enough to handle this, but RQ/BRP is one that will. (A strong component of this is obviously simplicity. The more add-ons a system has, the more difficult it is to move resolution mechanics around. RQ/BRP is simple and modular enough to manage this.)

You are correct that there are D20 games without classes. (Aside: I'm pretty sure that True20 does in fact have them. They're just broad.) However, D20 Conan is what is being discussed and it does have classes, levels, feats, and all the other "clutter" that MOST D20 games have. If D20 Conan lacked classes, lacked levels, lacked feats*, had open skill selection, and used the D20 resolution mechanic, it would feel and operate like RQ, not like D&D. Conversely, if you put the D20 resolution mechanic on top of RQ without changing anything else, RQ will feel and operate just like RQ, not like D&D.

I have never once said a negative thing about the D20 resolution mechanic. I like it because it's obviously intuitive for most people. It is also a clean mechanic that works fine. This discussion is not about whether the RQ mechanic is better than the D20 mechanic, but whether the system is different. Mechanics, with certain specific exceptions, are interchangeable.

* There could be an exception for feats and the new MRQ looks like it'll have something with at least a vague resemblence to feats.

 

[Decurio]

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.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Decurio]

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.

I don't mean to be intentionally snarky towards you, but Mr. Kelley, that may be some of the most loaded verbage I've seen outside of a White House press briefing. Wow. Just wow. :shock:

 

[Tegman]

If this rumor becomes a fact, then I for one, wont continue to support the Conan game.

A game that I had supported here in Sweden just recently changed system, and it wasn't old either. I got so tired of it and lost all interest in the game and got Conan instead. Maybe I'll dig out the old rules some day, but I wont buy the new 'improved' rules for that game.

The only reason they switch rules is because they want to earn some $$, but I have so far bought all the d20 Conan books, but I will not buy books for a new rules system. Me and my group has learned the d20 rules and we actually like the Conan d20 rules and are happy with it (with a few house rules, of course ).

Hopefully, this is just a rumor, hopefully...

 

[bc99]

Thanks RMS, runequest sounds like an interesting system too...

 

[Enpeze]

Taharqua - In any case I am done with this. I doubt Mongoose will be foolish enough to divorce a successful product from the D20 fan base. If they do, then I will move onto other systems and other companies.

May I have your conan books?
No seriously. It seems you are playing conan because of the d20 system not because of conan. But I am sure that there are many true conan fans out there which would welcome the change to an easier and deadlier game system. A system which is much better suited to the dark conan athmosphere than d20. (with all its multi-classes and levels or other rule heavy nonsense)

 

[Oly]

Comparison between D20 and BRP may well turn out to be a bit of a red herring. The BRP system is, as far as I know, still owned by Chaosium. In particular they're selling the generic version of it and also the fantasy based Stormbringer game. Whatever Mongoose do it can't be too close to BRP, can it?

However guessing the MRQ will be similar in feel to BRP then I'll add the following....

I play both Stormbringer and D20 Conan and I can see that there is a big difference between the "feel" of the systems. D20 is more tactical and having an accurate map really does help out things that the players want to do like AoO's and working out who's close enough to cleave to while taking a step at the right point in their turn to keep the cleave going.

Stormbringer is a lot lighter, and also a lot deadlier. There's less rules flipping and things do tend to go faster. However sometimes players want to do things that the D20 system has but the BRP system just glosses over to keep it simple. It is more of a narrative thing without the crunch of D20.

Personally I like them both, both have good and bad points. I like my Conan supplements to have as little "crunch" in as possible so as to keep the game simple, I don't want to be learning or teaching new rules/feats everytime I pick up a book. For example I really like the Road of Kings book, lots of information and inspiration. Mongoose changing system really isn't a deal breaker to me. If I can sell the players on a lighter style game then great I'll change over. If not then hopefully there will continue to be rules/crunch light book releases that will still appeal to me.

 

[Trodax]

Hmmm, don't know what to think about all this...
I'm a huge fan of Conan RPG, but I can also imagine that the Runequest system would do a good job, in particular if you wanted a grittier game.

I basically buy all the Conan supplements that come out, but I pretty much buy them only for the fluff; in my game I only use crunch (classes, feats, rules etc.) from the Core Rulebook+Scrolls of Skelos. I like it that way as I think too much crunch just bogs down the game.
So, basically, I just ignore all the new feats, combat maneuvres, multiclassing options etc etc in the supplements (actually I do use the new spells, though). Even published NPCs I usually stat up myself from scratch (I find a perverse joy in doing so).
Therefore, I wouldn't really be all that bothered if new supplements contained Runequest crunch instead of d20 crunch; I could just ignore it and keep playing with the d20 core rules as my mechanical engine.

What would upset me would be if no new supplements were published, but instead just reruns of the ones we already have (Across Thunder River - Runequest!). These I would definitely not buy, for the above reasons.

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:

Fredrik Malmberg is also the founder of Target Games, who used to publish the Swedish game "Drakar och Demoner" (translation: Dragons & Demons), a generic fantasy game based on the Runequest/BRP system. So, yeah; maybe he has a soft spot for the good old d100.

 

[Turloigh]

If this rumor becomes a fact, then I for one, wont continue to support the Conan game.

I still don't get it. If my group can use the OGL Conan books for our RuneQuest 3 campaign, why can't you OGL fans do it the other way round - especially if you already HAVE a great number of books available for your system?

You can still run your game. Your old books will not be eaten by demons. Your player characters will not vanish into midnight smoke. The Hyborian kingdoms will not be overrun by ducks and trolls. What's the outstanding issue?

I basically buy all the Conan supplements that come out, but I pretty much buy them only for the fluff; in my game I only use crunch (classes, feats, rules etc.) from the Core Rulebook+Scrolls of Skelos. I like it that way as I think too much crunch just bogs down the game.
So, basically, I just ignore all the new feats, combat maneuvres, multiclassing options etc etc in the supplements (actually I do use the new spells, though). ... (snip)

That's what I do, too. See? It's that easy.

 

[Turloigh]

What would upset me would be if no new supplements were published, but instead just reruns of the ones we already have (Across Thunder River - Runequest!). These I would definitely not buy, for the above reasons.

I don't think the current books will be re-published under a new system unless they are long OOP and customers specifically ask for them (supposing the rumour has any substance). The background material will still be usable.

 

[Melkor]

The only reason they switch rules is because they want to earn some $$, but I have so far bought all the d20 Conan books, but I will not buy books for a new rules system.

I haven't seen more than the previews on the new RQ system, so it's hard to say - but judging from the way Mongoose has handled things in the past, I would think that any switch to RQ would be because RQ is a better fit for the Conan setting, and a better rules system.

You risk alienating your current fan base by switching systems, so I doubt it's an attempt at a 'money grab'....That's too risky without some kind of reward...and the reward would have to justify the risk. That said, the 'reward' would probably only be worth the risk if it actually tied the Conan setting to a system that was better suited for the genre, and fealt closer to Howard's work than D20 Conan does.

Just because D20 has saturated the market (thanks in a large part to D&D brand recognition), it doesn't mean it's the pinnacle of roleplaying system achievement, or the best system for the Conan setting.

That said, and I am repeating myself here because I have posted this statement quite a bit, as far as I am concerned: D20 Conan IS the BEST version of the D20 system out there - so any version of RQ Conan would have to be a better fit for the setting, and a better set of rules, or I would just continue to play D20 Conan.

 

[Azgulor]

So let me get this straight. Conan fans should be satisfied because we already have SO many books? We shouldn't care that RQ fans might get their books too?

It's not about that. You can have RQ books from now to Armageddon - but preferably not at the expense of OUR game of choice. It's also not a debate about whether D20 is better than RQ (which should really be Conan vs. RQ since Conan is not like other D20 games) - that's an entirely subjective argument.

So how many books is the right number? Let's say 30. So if three years from now and 30 books later, Mongoose says they're adapting the Conan license to say an OGL-version of HARP or Powered by GURPS or their new house system, you're not going to be dissapointed? Perhaps even upset? Spare me this BS argument.

While you still have your existing books and can continue to play, you won't miss the anticipation of new published material and feeling like a kid at Christmas with a new toy when you get a new supplement? I find it difficult to believe that all of the passionate pro-RQ fans posting to this thread would be ok with an announcement that their Conan RQ was migrating to another system.

Also, for clarity's sake, please note that the following statements are subjective and not the statements of fact that the RQ-fanboys seem to be imlying:

1. Class and Level systems are "clunky"
2. RQ is grittier and therefore better suited to Conan
3. D20 sucks
4. Conan OGL is rules-heavy
5. There are already "enough" books for Conan OGL

With regards to #1 - I could make the statement "Point-based systems are cumbersome" and it wouldn't make it any more true than the anti-class/level statements. I've played both kinds and they both have their own merits and flaws. The Conan supplements have demonstrated via the multi-classing combos that classes and levels aren't the straightjackets they were back with AD&D.

With regards to #2 - Conan is Pulp fantasy. Gritty is not necessarily better. Conan fought off Belit's pirates (hero vs. superior numbers) in Queen of the Black Coast. In Conan OGL, I can do that but not without significant risk. In a "gritty" system, a lucky hit could not only incapacitate him - it might cripple him. I've played gritty fantasy using GURPS and other systems. Gritty games have a complete different tone than what I get when I read Howard's Conan. Gritty is more applicable to G. Martin's "Game of Thrones". Conan is not D&D nor standard d20 games, so if you're thinking D&D-style combat look down at your feet - you're standing squarely in the "Don't know what I'm talking about" square.

Azgulor
(A Conan OGL fanboy.)

 

[Turloigh]

Interesting discussion! Here's some 2 cents more from me.

So let me get this straight. Conan fans should be satisfied because we already have SO many books? We shouldn't care that RQ fans might get their books too?

No, not at all. I'm already using "your" books, so you can use "ours", too. It's not mutually exclusive.

So if three years from now and 30 books later, Mongoose says they're adapting the Conan license to say an OGL-version of HARP or Powered by GURPS or their new house system, you're not going to be dissapointed?

Disappointed, maybe. I'd still buy them, just like I do now. Upset? Not in a million years. It's just a game, for god's sake. 8)

My point is: Most of the content is the same, no matter what system the book is written for. (Granted, the class splatbooks like Hyboria's Fiercest/Fallen are an exception.)

While you still have your existing books and can continue to play, you won't miss the anticipation of new published material and feeling like a kid at Christmas with a new toy when you get a new supplement?

Not really. If that's your problem, then I got nothin'. A lot of the games I've played were out of print at the time: RuneQuest, Warhammer, 2300 AD... But then, my group is switching systems all the time, so maybe I'm weird.

1. Class and Level systems are "clunky"

Pass. That's a topic for an entirely different discussion. For now I'll just agree that it's subjective.

2. RQ is grittier and therefore better suited to Conan

Despite being on the "RQ fanboy" side, I actually disagree with that statement. Conan defeating a few dozen mooks and walking away with a few nicks and bruises is very "Conan", but almost impossible to simulate with RQ. In that respect, I admit that OGL Conan fits the source better. But, see below.

3. D20 sucks

See 1. above.

4. Conan OGL is rules-heavy

Subjective now, will have to wait until we can make a fair comparison.

5. There are already "enough" books for Conan OGL

Of course, it's never enough. :wink:
I said it before, it bears repeating: I'll continue to support the Conan line even if it stays OGL forever. I can still use it for my RuneQuest games.

With regards to #1 - (snip) The Conan supplements have demonstrated via the multi-classing combos that classes and levels aren't the straightjackets they were back with AD&D.

I wholeheartedly agree that OGL Conan is a great improvement from D&D*. This has been accomplished by making it, maybe accidentally, more similar to RuneQuest. Perhaps Mongoose will go all the way, perhaps not. Fine with me either way.

With regards to #2 - Conan is Pulp fantasy. Gritty is not necessarily better. Conan fought off Belit's pirates (hero vs. superior numbers) in Queen of the Black Coast. In Conan OGL, I can do that but not without significant risk. ... (snip) Gritty games have a complete different tone than what I get when I read Howard's Conan.

Very good example, and absoutely true. No argument from me. Problem is, I like gritty. I don't really want to simulate Howard's writing in my games - but that's just me.

*For further improvement, I recommend looking at True20. But that's off-topic.

 

[FailedSpotCheck]

.....So how many books is the right number? Let's say 30. So if three years from now and 30 books later, Mongoose says they're adapting the Conan license to say an OGL-version of HARP or Powered by GURPS or their new house system, you're not going to be dissapointed? ......

After 30 Conan RPG books I will be happy and sated. Then Mongoose can do whatsoever they want. 8)

 

[RMS]

Comparison between D20 and BRP may well turn out to be a bit of a red herring. The BRP system is, as far as I know, still owned by Chaosium. In particular they're selling the generic version of it and also the fantasy based Stormbringer game. Whatever Mongoose do it can't be too close to BRP, can it?

BRP is owned by Chaosium. Runequest is owned by Mongoose (or is it leased to them via Issaries - something like that). As I understand it, specific game mechanics really can't be protected. The previews are enough to show that MRA will at least have a very strong family resemblence to RQ and other BRP products, but Mongoose has definitely made some changes. We just don't have enough info yet to judge those changes: sign of a good preview I suppose.

I play both Stormbringer and D20 Conan and I can see that there is a big difference between the "feel" of the systems. D20 is more tactical and having an accurate map really does help out things that the players want to do like AoO's and working out who's close enough to cleave to while taking a step at the right point in their turn to keep the cleave going.

Stormbringer is a lot lighter, and also a lot deadlier. There's less rules flipping and things do tend to go faster. However sometimes players want to do things that the D20 system has but the BRP system just glosses over to keep it simple. It is more of a narrative thing without the crunch of D20.

RQ is the most complex of the BRP systems and does cover tactical combat. Combat can easily be run in it just like Stormbringer. However, it has rules that cover battlemap movement. Everyone has a movement rate and can move so far every strike rank during the combat round. Spells cost strike ranks to prepare and cast. Weapons have a strike rank that determines when they can act, etc. The SR system can easily be used just like an initiative system for a quick combat, or can be drawn out into a full tactical combat. How much of this is preserved in MRQ is yet to be seen, and none of the previews give any hints.

 

[C. Chapman]

Comparison between D20 and BRP may well turn out to be a bit of a red herring. The BRP system is, as far as I know, still owned by Chaosium. In particular they're selling the generic version of it and also the fantasy based Stormbringer game. Whatever Mongoose do it can't be too close to BRP, can it?

Technically, it can, IIRC. You can't actually copyright the mechanics of a system, which is why so many games over the years have been so similar mechanically, with what amounts essentially to tweaks, additions, subtractions, and renamings.

Edit: Oops, just noticed RMS made the same point earlier.

cheers!
Colin

 

[RMS]

Therefore, I wouldn't really be all that bothered if new supplements contained Runequest crunch instead of d20 crunch; I could just ignore it and keep playing with the d20 core rules as my mechanical engine.

Maybe they'll make published supplements all fluff, and provide crunch as free downloads. This is a business model that I'm suprised hasn't happened yet. It makes a lot of sense to me. Then you could support both systems without making people pay for pages they won't use. Writeup the NPCs in the supplements, but provide stat blocks as downloads. Then you can just download it and mark up the sheet as hit points are lost, etc.

What would upset me would be if no new supplements were published, but instead just reruns of the ones we already have (Across Thunder River - Runequest!). These I would definitely not buy, for the above reasons.

If Mongoose knows their RQ history, this won't happen. That's part of how Avalon Hill managed to kill RQ off in the 80s. Half the supplements were just reprints of earlier RQII supplements with updated statblocks for the new version of the game.

 

[C. Chapman]

This bears repeating (and to be honest I should have said something like this myself earlier ) Mongoose's customer service has always been second to none, I will bank on them to do the right thing.

This is very true. Of course, what the "right thing" is, is a very loaded and subjective element. Ultimately, I see this thread as being very much like, hell, practically every single reaction I've seen when just about ANY rpg has ever changed system or otherwise been significantly updated or revised. You will always have folks upset by a change, just as you'll always have folks embracing it. Heck, as far back as AD&D1e changing to AD&D2e, I remember folks decrying it, saying how they thought 1e was perfect, etc. along with all the old accusations of, "X company is only creating a new edition to milk us of money!" (as if a company trying to make some money in an industry known for being hideously underpriced in the main, with slim profit margins, is some kind of sin; never mind that such attempts at "milking" fans are far rarer than some gamers would have you believe)). The negative emotional reaction ("I'll never support them again!" "I would never even look at anything they produced, even if unrelated!" "It's just foolish!", etc. which are typically subjective viewpoints, sometimes given a veneer of objectivity) is pretty much par for the course in rpg circles, and is very much part of human nature, neither good nor bad, though as is normal in the human condition, we tend to dwell more on the bad than the good.

My thoughts? I think Mongoose will do the "right thing" as *they* see it (and a vocal minority on a messageboard, whether in support of a change or against it, is likely are only a tiny part of their overall picture). They're the only folks with any real idea as to just how well the Conan rpg is selling, or how the outlook for the line is doing, or how much they're willing to support and push MRQ, and how any of it ties together, if at all. I think some folks on both sides need to take a step back, take a breath, relax, and wait and see instead of braying in kneejerk dismay, or crowing in premature triumph.

As regards to my thoughts on the potential creation of a RQ-based Conan, I'd personally welcome it, because I just don't find the OGL Conan system to my personal tastes, BUT that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean I must somehow want Mongoose to ditch the OGL system either. I am not so selfish that I would begrudge anyone having a favourite setting produced in a system they like, regardless of whether it's one I personally like, providing such is profitable for the publisher, and no dip in quality results (and I am not so cynical as to assume a dip in quality until it actually occurs). Also, if it actually leads to more cross-pollination, more folks trying systems they otherwise might not try, and more publications being created to fulfill a greater demand (even if dual-statted) all the better, as it increases the health and longevity of the publisher, enabling them to flourish, produce more games, and diversify their fanbase. Indeed, I can see more multi-system rpgs and supplements being produced as the rpg market shrinks (as it has done recently), or indeed, systemless settings and supplements being created, such as Green Ronin's newly stated approach to Freeport, S. John Ross' revised "Uresia" setting, etc.

cheers!
Colin

 

[C. Chapman]

Maybe they'll make published supplements all fluff, and provide crunch as free downloads. This is a business model that I'm suprised hasn't happened yet.

It's just starting to happen, with Green Ronin deciding to produce the next version of Freeport as a completely crunch-free, pure setting book. S. John Ross is also doing the same with his Uresia setting, and I know a few other publishers considering this route. It'll be interesting to see if it'll take off. I've often heard gamers note, "I love X setting, but hate the system/converted it!", but such anecdotal evidence doesn't necessarily mean the model will work. I hope it does, but I guess time will tell. I imagine that if GR are successful with their approach using Freeport (one of their major "brands"), you'll see many more publishers trying that route.

cheers!
Colin