Sidebar: Forked from "EoHA what happened to it"
- Thread starter Azgulor
- Start date
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Azgulor said:
Oh, we are bordering on the weird here. It's pretty obvious that we are speaking of subjective ideas (of superiority or whatever); I did not think I had to point out to you that what you expressed was your opinion. :? :shock: Or should have I? At this juncture I believe that perhaps you would be better served applying your advice to yourself :lol:
What's not an opinion of course is the simple count of how many basic pieces of D&D can be found within d20 Conan. You will be surely perspicacious enough to see that I was never speaking of superiority or inferiority of D&D vs. d20 Conan, or d20 Conan vs. RestOfTheWorld. You will also be relieved to know that when we were handed the playtesting documents, we were referred to look at D&D/SRD for the parts which were missing (that famous 90%).
From the vantage point of my PhD in mathematics I can guarantee you that I applied all the discern and learning I was capable of in the analysis of d20 Conan (with an healthy dose of computer simulations, where I deemed those were needed). The game you are now enjoying so much owes a bit to me, too (some rules are still there in the 2nd edition I guess).
At the time the d20 game seemed like a good idea, and I surely lent my hand to the simplification of the game according to my sensibilities (and sometimes I even succeeded!)
But age brings wisdom, so I saw I was headed in the wrong direction :wink:
BTW I wonder where the other playtesters are now; it seems only Vincent is around :?
I assume thats a typo: basic d20 is broken at mid to high levels, not low.
D20 operates on a set of fairly simple basic rules, which a series of special powers then allow you to more or less ignore. However, any given person will only be worried about a handful of these exceptions: the ones they can do. The GM will be handling a few more, but not many at any given time, and they are all quite clearly explained.
That may not be to your taste. But that doesn't mean its a bad system to run Conan in. It isn't: the assumptions that the system makes are appropriate to the Conan universe (quality beats quantity, wounds are flesh wounds until you finally go down, Stereotypes abound). That makes it easy to convert to running Conan, which largely involves adding the missing assumption (magic is rare). RQ, on the other hand, makes completely different assumptions (Quantity beats quality, wounds are serious, you can't stereotype people). That makes it a much less suitable match.
Of course, it doesn't matter how good a match it is, if you don't like the system to that degree, you'll be better playing something else. I'd still recommend FUDGE or even Feng Shui ahead of RQ, but that's up to you. But that does not mean d20 Conan is a bad match, or that Mongoose are wrong to stick with it
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Yeah that's a typo. IME d20 games work fairly well at low to middle levels. Actually, that was part of the design decisions, to keep d20 Conan at a maximum of 20 levels (IIRC 10 levels was also evaluated as a possible solution, but then compatibility with other D&D and d20 sources would have been drastically reduced). It was also decided at the time that the game did not need prestige classes, but evidently the top brass decided on the contrary later.
As I said, I do not like the core on which d20 Conan is built. And sure, that's just me; my evaluations are not about a lack quality of d20 itself nor of d20 based games; it's simply that the core is too convoluted for my tastes.
But I would immediately buy a race and class based d20 Conan, if the core was closer to how Castles & Crusades work.
As I said, I do not like the core on which d20 Conan is built. And sure, that's just me; my evaluations are not about a lack quality of d20 itself nor of d20 based games; it's simply that the core is too convoluted for my tastes.
But I would immediately buy a race and class based d20 Conan, if the core was closer to how Castles & Crusades work.
I've only briefly flicked through the Castles & Crusades core book and it came across as Hackmaster without all the fun. What are some of the things that C&C does for a fantasy rpg that you like?
Just to jump in, i like the D20 engine. I mostly dont like what they did with it for D&D but for Conan i love it. I've never found the d20 rules to be convoluted or difficult to grasp and have never had anymore trouble introducing new players to it than any other rpg. Even the dreaded and much loathed grapple rules i find to be alright. As for how the other players in my gaming group feel about D20 a couple are just burnt out of it from an epic campaign that took 4 years to get from level 1 to 30+ and a couple of the others really love Conan aswell. Feats are something myself and my other players have always liked, customisability is always fun and the only real problem with skills was that some needed to be merged and that in D&D most classes got a ridiculously small amount of skill points.
One of the ways i use to measure how well a game system works for me, especially for an action oriented setting is how well i can play out scenes from a movie without having to fudge the whole way through it and D20 Conan does a pretty damn good job of it with its feats and combat maneouvers.
Just to jump in, i like the D20 engine. I mostly dont like what they did with it for D&D but for Conan i love it. I've never found the d20 rules to be convoluted or difficult to grasp and have never had anymore trouble introducing new players to it than any other rpg. Even the dreaded and much loathed grapple rules i find to be alright. As for how the other players in my gaming group feel about D20 a couple are just burnt out of it from an epic campaign that took 4 years to get from level 1 to 30+ and a couple of the others really love Conan aswell. Feats are something myself and my other players have always liked, customisability is always fun and the only real problem with skills was that some needed to be merged and that in D&D most classes got a ridiculously small amount of skill points.
One of the ways i use to measure how well a game system works for me, especially for an action oriented setting is how well i can play out scenes from a movie without having to fudge the whole way through it and D20 Conan does a pretty damn good job of it with its feats and combat maneouvers.
PrinceYyrkoon
Mongoose
Azgulor said:
Ok. Well, you start by saying that you do not wish to offend, but by the end its certain that you have been offensive and patronizing, though, be assured, that I dont mean to be patronizing. I suppose a thread such as mine, could be construed as polemic by someone who wishes it to be so.
Im not going to go through all of the points you raise, as Im certain, weve been through them before (the fact that you say I dont know the truth, countered by me saying that you dont know the truth either, ad infinitum).
However, I have to say that you seem to dismiss my statement when I say I DO NOT HATE the OGL. I confess that I have played and enjoyed both D&D and the OGL, and am not really interested in teasing out the differences between the two, suffice to say, that there is a family resemblance, and its not neccessarily, a bad thing. The OGL is old school, no doubt about that, it displays certain features common to old frps, namely, character classes, levels and all that baloney. NOT, neccessarily a bad thing, but not to everyones taste. I will say again, Runequests lack of character advancement is a pain as well, as is the poor way it simulates easy or difficult tasks. Its deadliness in its combat system is also, a royal pain in the ass.
Again, however, dont patronizingly direct me to another thread where you think my attitudes may be more 'at home'. If you dont like what some people may say about the OGL, you can sod off instead, ey? (No offence). I reserve the right to pee in the Conan pool, just as you have the right to go to the RQ thread and say that Glorantha should utilise the D20 system, (which is what one recent post postulated, no one got offended by it, strangely).
Im a customer, Ive played and ran the Conan rpg a good few times now, obvioiusly, not as much as Ive played and ran RQ games, but, actually, Ive played D&D probably more than anything, and the things Im not keen on in the D20 system are also in the Conan rpg, (even though Mongoose have done a good job with it).
You dont want to hear about my thoughts on that though, do you? You just want to hear the good stuff. The only way youre going to get that, however, is to set up your own forum, with you as the only member. No one can bore/offend/test your patience/or offer you any kind of alternative opinion then. Sound good?
Apologies, PrinceYyrkoon. Upon re-reading the post you cited, what I had written didn't clearly deliniate when I stopped responding to your post specifically and was addressing the anti-OGL crown generally.
As a result, I can see how that post must have read as "we don't need your input", which was not my intent. My point was that I don't understand certain individuals need to slam Conan OGL every time they are stating an opinion on Conan, or RQ, or whatever.
Just so it's clear I'm not lumping you into the following, while I have the right/ability to go to the RQ forums and interject into any thread, I would not feel compelled to slam RQ while putting in my 2 cents. I'd view it as peeing in the pool, as you put it.
If someone has a question about running a Lankhmar campaign using RQ, I might share campaign or GM ideas from my long-expired campaign I that used the old AD&D Lankhmar supplement. I wouldn't focus on game mechanics (as the AD&D mechanics wouldn't be relevant to the RQ GM) and I wouldn't trash RQ (or any other game for that matter).
Yet that scenario frequently plays out here in the Conan forum. Someone talks about the Conan line, a particular supplement, and adventure, a character, etc. and someone from the "I wish Conan were RQ-based" camp comes along and slams the Conan RPG and touts the superiority of RQ.
It's ok that the person likes RQ. But do they have to slam the Conan RPG? On the forum FOR the Conan RPG? Can't we just have some constructive dialogue and idea sharing? That was the point I was attempting to make in the latter half of that post.
I don't think the OGL or the Conan RPG is perfect. It's a RPG and there will never be a perfect system. I don't expect everyone to like the Conan RPG. I DID expect to be able to come to the forum for the game and exchange ideas about the game without having the game slammed or being attacked for supporting it. Clearly, there are certain individuals (still not referring to PY) that feel differently.
As a result, I can see how that post must have read as "we don't need your input", which was not my intent. My point was that I don't understand certain individuals need to slam Conan OGL every time they are stating an opinion on Conan, or RQ, or whatever.
Just so it's clear I'm not lumping you into the following, while I have the right/ability to go to the RQ forums and interject into any thread, I would not feel compelled to slam RQ while putting in my 2 cents. I'd view it as peeing in the pool, as you put it.
If someone has a question about running a Lankhmar campaign using RQ, I might share campaign or GM ideas from my long-expired campaign I that used the old AD&D Lankhmar supplement. I wouldn't focus on game mechanics (as the AD&D mechanics wouldn't be relevant to the RQ GM) and I wouldn't trash RQ (or any other game for that matter).
Yet that scenario frequently plays out here in the Conan forum. Someone talks about the Conan line, a particular supplement, and adventure, a character, etc. and someone from the "I wish Conan were RQ-based" camp comes along and slams the Conan RPG and touts the superiority of RQ.
It's ok that the person likes RQ. But do they have to slam the Conan RPG? On the forum FOR the Conan RPG? Can't we just have some constructive dialogue and idea sharing? That was the point I was attempting to make in the latter half of that post.
I don't think the OGL or the Conan RPG is perfect. It's a RPG and there will never be a perfect system. I don't expect everyone to like the Conan RPG. I DID expect to be able to come to the forum for the game and exchange ideas about the game without having the game slammed or being attacked for supporting it. Clearly, there are certain individuals (still not referring to PY) that feel differently.
warzen said:
Out of genuine curiosity, please direct me to the post where I was discussing rules and misread them. I can't think of a post where I weighed in on game mechanics.
I would think I would have to written such a post in order for you to make the assessment necessary to provide such biting insight on my rule-reading skills.
rabindranath72 said:
Um, thanks?
[That's from the vantage point of my MS in Physics through the lens of nonlinear optics coupled with years of technical writing if that makes you feel any better.]
Gee, I think Paizo said the Pathfinder RPG had one of the largest playtests in RPG history. Guess I better start on my Thank You cards now.
Kidding aside, I appreciate your efforts and contribution as a playtester. However, being one doesn't automatically convey an assumption of impartiality. All things being equal, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but the fervor in which you've bashed anything related to OGL or d20 games kinda tips the scale the other way in my eyes. Yours (and others) mileage may vary.
warzen said:
Then I submit that it's being run/played incorrectly. My experience has been the opposite. Conan strips out all of high-magic elements of D&D. It has a significant impact on play.
I'll agree that having similar core mechanics helps decrease the learning curve for players coming from D&D to Conan, but I've yet to have a player say the end result played close to D&D RAW.
PrinceYyrkoon
Mongoose
To Azgulor
Thanks, your later post is appreciated.
As far as rpgs are concerned. Im not a 'die-hard' anything, and I'll be picking up Paizo's Pathfinder soon.
And, actually, someone raised a good point, can't remember who, sorry, that, because RQ is quite deadly, players in sword & sorcery campaigns using the RQ rules, may be less likely to enter combat. I think a 'mook' rule is beneficial to D20 games to simulate 'epicness', and to speed up the combat process, maybe making it more cinematic.
Thanks, your later post is appreciated.
As far as rpgs are concerned. Im not a 'die-hard' anything, and I'll be picking up Paizo's Pathfinder soon.
And, actually, someone raised a good point, can't remember who, sorry, that, because RQ is quite deadly, players in sword & sorcery campaigns using the RQ rules, may be less likely to enter combat. I think a 'mook' rule is beneficial to D20 games to simulate 'epicness', and to speed up the combat process, maybe making it more cinematic.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Azgulor said:rabindranath72 said:
Um, thanks?
[That's from the vantage point of my MS in Physics through the lens of nonlinear optics coupled with years of technical writing if that makes you feel any better.]
Gee, I think Paizo said the Pathfinder RPG had one of the largest playtests in RPG history. Guess I better start on my Thank You cards now.
Kidding aside, I appreciate your efforts and contribution as a playtester. However, being one doesn't automatically convey an assumption of impartiality. All things being equal, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but the fervor in which you've bashed anything related to OGL or d20 games kinda tips the scale the other way in my eyes. Yours (and others) mileage may vary.
Neither did I discuss rules or their interpretation (so there is nothing to understand); and partiality has nothing to do with it, for the simple reason that mine was just an enumeration of the bits in common between D&D and d20 Conan (simple text matching, really), and which form about 90% or more of the core system mechanics. Unfortunately, the relevant mechanical parts I do not like in D&D ended up in d20 Conan. That's all, more or less.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
rabindranath72 said:
It is a Conan d20 rule. Not somethting I cooked up on my own.
I don't know about the 3E DMG, but all you have to do is look at the adventure modules to see the scaling.
Then, compare Conan adventures. Published adventures for Mongoose Conan don't reflect the scaling you see in standard D&D modules.
I guess we use different modules. But then, I dont use that many mods anyway. Besides, unless you only play mods, lots of stuff doesnt need to scale.
For a game setting, I use Wilderlands of high Fantasy. Things in it do not scale although I dont have all the mods for it.
it comes down to DMs decision. No matter what the setting you can make that choice yourself. Dont just be a screen monkey, run the game.
For a game setting, I use Wilderlands of high Fantasy. Things in it do not scale although I dont have all the mods for it.
it comes down to DMs decision. No matter what the setting you can make that choice yourself. Dont just be a screen monkey, run the game.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Supplement Four said:
I suppose you should first read the DMG to make valid comparisons. You will see the difference between rules and campaign options. Nowhere is it implied that the level of NPCs should follow the level of PCs. Given a community size, you will have X NPCs of level range Y-Z. You have options to build a community, but if you either change or modify them, the rules of the game are the same.
If you base what you know of D&D on adventure modules...well, in every edition of the game have been written crappy adventures.
Actually, you can write an adventure in which all of the commoners in a city are 10th level (and in theory you could do it even in d20 Conan since it allows 10th level commoners). What do you think are 10th level commoners needed for? That's an example of a holdover from 3e which d20 Conan could have done well without.
Supplement Four
Mongoose
rabindranath72 said:
It surely is. Look at the gaming material. When something, such as an adventure module, is labeled as "suitable for characters level 1-3", it will have lower level npcs in it than an adventure module labeled "suitable for characters level 10-14".
That's scaling to the PCs, whether it actually says that in the DMG or not. It is implied by the way official adventures are produced.
Not so with Conan. You can easily pick up a Conan adventure labeled "for use with characters level 1-3" and see a level 16 NPC in it.
Why? Conan doesn't scale. Or, better yet: The entire universe is on the same scale.
But, instead of belaboring that point, I'll give you another area where Mongoose Conan excels over standard 3.5 D&D. EXPERIENCE POINTS!
In Conan, GM's don't feel as if its tax season when it time to figure experience. There's not XP per monster, no challenge ratings, and a GM doesn't feel as if he needs to become a CPA in order to keep up with all that bookkeeping.
Nope, Conan has a much better system that is based, solidly, on the GM's opinion, the role playing the players do, and the adventure goals present in the story.
In Conan, you don't get X amount of XP per kill. You get points when the GM thinks you deserve them, and you typically deserve them when you accomplish a major adventure goal or story point.
That's a much better system than that required in standard 3.5 D&D.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
The "point" is worth belaboring for a number or reasons. I may be wrong, but I get the impression you are not very familiar with D&D 3e. Anyway.
First, it all depends on which kind of play you want to put emphasis on. If it's all or even partially combat based, d20 based games use levels for a purpose: to gauge the challenge for an average party.
Second, why do you think even Conan adventures have a recommended level range for PCs? I am GMing Heretics of Tarantia now, and the most numerous adversaries are EXACTLY in the level range suggested by the adventure. There are one or two NPCs with which the players may have to fight, but they number just one in an encounter, so the players have a chance to fight them as a group. And there are also NPCs which they might fight but it would be STUPID doing it, and not only for the fact that they are an higher level. Obviously, if you or your players have an habit of killing everything that moves, it will appear that the modules are not "balanced" with respect to a party level, and it will also appear that the whole world is "on the same scale".
The following is from the adventure itself:
The same is true with other Conan adventures I have GMed: Lurking Terror of Nahab, The coming of Hanuman, Dark Altar of Katar, Horror in Numalia. I also started reading The Trial of Blood, and there is the same mechanism: the thugs which the player fight at the start of the campaign, chapter 1, are all 1st-2nd level. The Zuadi warriors which they fight towards the end of the campaign, are 6th-7th level. Are players supposed to "skip forward" to the end chapter and STILL have a chance at victory? I don't think so, at least, not following the "script" of the adventure.
Draw your own conclusions.
Now, I don't know which D&D adventures have you GMed or read or played in, but the same goes with d20 D&D adventures. I have got D&D 3e adventures in which the players are not supposed to fight all their enemies but use deception or stealth or diplomacy ("Three days to kill" is the name of this module). Also the Freeport series of modules are nearly impossible to finish if the players simply go fighting. And the same with Crucible of Freya, or Caverns of Thracia.
Now, if you take time to read the DMG and the campaign creation guidelines, there is no suggestion that NPCs in the campaign must be of the same level of characters. And that's the point of it all. When you build a campaign, you build a world with annex demographics. If the players want to pick a fight with the 10th level baron, well, it's in their freedom. Players always should get what they deserve, for good or bad. This has always been true for EVERY edition of D&D (and for d20 Conan also, it seems).
The topic of experience is something which should always be left to the GM, in every game. Even in the DMG they give you guidelines to build balanced encounters, IF YOU WANT TO. Nowhere it is written that you have to (in fact, I never followed the guidelines therein). And just to show that they are not vital, d20 Conan skipped them, while retaining the same system of monster/NPC creation, so the only stat missing w.r.t. a D&D game is the CR.
Now, all the above 3e adventures DO NOT follow the guidelines where combat is not supposed to happen (or if there is a reasonable chance of avoiding the fight).
In the end, both for D&D and d20 Conan, the world DOES "change on scale" but not necessarily where adventures are concerned. If an adventure requires a fight "by design", it will typically imply that there is a fighting chance. If you think that the encounter might be solved in more than one way, you need not necessarily take into account fighting abilities.
First, it all depends on which kind of play you want to put emphasis on. If it's all or even partially combat based, d20 based games use levels for a purpose: to gauge the challenge for an average party.
Second, why do you think even Conan adventures have a recommended level range for PCs? I am GMing Heretics of Tarantia now, and the most numerous adversaries are EXACTLY in the level range suggested by the adventure. There are one or two NPCs with which the players may have to fight, but they number just one in an encounter, so the players have a chance to fight them as a group. And there are also NPCs which they might fight but it would be STUPID doing it, and not only for the fact that they are an higher level. Obviously, if you or your players have an habit of killing everything that moves, it will appear that the modules are not "balanced" with respect to a party level, and it will also appear that the whole world is "on the same scale".
The following is from the adventure itself:
However, the first encounter in the adventure, in which it is highly probable that the players will have to fight, is with 4th level mercenaries.
The same is true with other Conan adventures I have GMed: Lurking Terror of Nahab, The coming of Hanuman, Dark Altar of Katar, Horror in Numalia. I also started reading The Trial of Blood, and there is the same mechanism: the thugs which the player fight at the start of the campaign, chapter 1, are all 1st-2nd level. The Zuadi warriors which they fight towards the end of the campaign, are 6th-7th level. Are players supposed to "skip forward" to the end chapter and STILL have a chance at victory? I don't think so, at least, not following the "script" of the adventure.
Draw your own conclusions.
Now, I don't know which D&D adventures have you GMed or read or played in, but the same goes with d20 D&D adventures. I have got D&D 3e adventures in which the players are not supposed to fight all their enemies but use deception or stealth or diplomacy ("Three days to kill" is the name of this module). Also the Freeport series of modules are nearly impossible to finish if the players simply go fighting. And the same with Crucible of Freya, or Caverns of Thracia.
Now, if you take time to read the DMG and the campaign creation guidelines, there is no suggestion that NPCs in the campaign must be of the same level of characters. And that's the point of it all. When you build a campaign, you build a world with annex demographics. If the players want to pick a fight with the 10th level baron, well, it's in their freedom. Players always should get what they deserve, for good or bad. This has always been true for EVERY edition of D&D (and for d20 Conan also, it seems).
The topic of experience is something which should always be left to the GM, in every game. Even in the DMG they give you guidelines to build balanced encounters, IF YOU WANT TO. Nowhere it is written that you have to (in fact, I never followed the guidelines therein). And just to show that they are not vital, d20 Conan skipped them, while retaining the same system of monster/NPC creation, so the only stat missing w.r.t. a D&D game is the CR.
Now, all the above 3e adventures DO NOT follow the guidelines where combat is not supposed to happen (or if there is a reasonable chance of avoiding the fight).
In the end, both for D&D and d20 Conan, the world DOES "change on scale" but not necessarily where adventures are concerned. If an adventure requires a fight "by design", it will typically imply that there is a fighting chance. If you think that the encounter might be solved in more than one way, you need not necessarily take into account fighting abilities.
rabindranath72
Mongoose
LOL right, Elminster is the prototype uber NPC. If at all, there is people who laments that in the Forgotten Realms there are too many NPCs of too high levels! The important thing is that PCs may one day reach their levels.warzen said:
In my campaigns, at all levels of play, I have kept a "realistic" demographics. From that starting point, for every two or three levels the PCs advanced, the other leveled NPCs gained one level (not the commoners, though!) so after some time, the PCs could compete with the other NPCs. It gives a good sense of "progression", and makes the PCs feel as part of a growing world.
That's the problem and advantage of all leveled systems: they require some thinking on the part of the GM, but they are very flexible. Not even in 3e, with all it's flaws (commoners with 20 class levels :shock: ), was ever stated that the world had to be at the same level as the PCs. It's patently ludicrous.
