What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?

[Demetrio]

but the beauty of it was that you HAD to roleplay to differentiate your character from the other fighter in the party.

Just like 4th ed. then, (according to Treeplanter) surely?

 

[treeplanter]

Yeah it's kind goind back to old AD & D time but complicated for nothiing then?

I don't know AD&D but I played 2nd edition for a long time and the biggest change I vomited when I saw 3.X was the availibility of magical item and the need to have it. At 10th level you'd better had a sword shooting ligthing bolt and a bunch of +X item otherwise you would not match the bestiary. It was lot better in 2nd were a magic sword was fine.

With 4th it is even worse! Every class is a freaking magician calling a special power every round! Damn it this system would be good for an Harry Potter campaign!

IMHO

D20 Conan > 2nd ed > 3.X > whatever > 4th ed

 

[Demetrio]

But we agree that anyone can roleplay with any of those games if they have the mind, yes?

The mechanics or methodology of some or all of them may be poorly constructed and/or not to our liking either for some settings or generally. Yet all of them can be used to role play.

 

[treeplanter]

Well you don't need mechanics to roleplay

If I want I could roleplay now in my kitchen without any mechanic i'll just look stupid

However roleplay can be clearly be favorised, promoted ect...

 

[Demetrio]

So you (like me) just don't like the smell of 4th ed. D&D, Treeplanter. That's fine.

 

[Saxon]

After I posted back on page 20 or so that my experience playing in a 4e group was like a strategy board game, I got some input that system is no matter…its all about the players at the table. So I posed it to the 4e group in e-mail. It resulted in a good game...ie...more role-playing than just a couple words to string combat encounters together.

The next day I sat on my couch with a couple buddies, grabbed a few random dice and ran an impromptu system-less collaborative role-play session. It was great! Just like the good ole days.

It's definitely all about the players!

 

[Bygoneyrs]

You know I guess the biggest thing that bugs me, is I just don't want to be bothered with 4ed D&D at all. I bought all the AD&D stuff, I bought darn near all the 2.5 D&D stuff, then bought a huge amount of 3.5 D&D d20 stuff...and I just cant stand to relearn to ride this new 4ed D&D bike again. Nor do I want to spend anymore money on D&D either.

Oh I have most if not all Traveller stuff that has come out for all versions of that game, and am buying all the new stuff as well too. I will keep buying that stuff, but D&D just pissed me off and I will not buy their new style of wheel again. I for one just loved D&D v2.5 the best, heck AD&D was awesome too for pure roleplaying. I am not just fed up with D&D, I am also fed up with Hero's System too. I have all there is out for v5 Hero's System and will buy the remained of that version stuff, but starting this may/june v6 of HS comes out and I will stop buying Hero's stuff.

After 32+ yrs of gaming/GMing/collecting I have a huge library of stuff, and maybe I am just getting older and can't see waisting the money on rebuying D&D v4 or HS v6 stuff again. For some reason Traveller, BRP, and Conan seem to draw my attention. Well the first two have always drawn my attention, but Conan seems to me be a greater interest to me now as well. Thus I will absorb and buy it all to fill my library now with items from those three lines...the newest one being Conan.

I guess I am just a old gamer, and a die hard RPGer too. D&D v4 and HS v6 are just to much for this old dog to learn a new system again and have to rebuy it all again. I am lucky that my two sons have turned into gamers and like dad's gaming hobby.

Oh well...just my 2 cents worth!

Penn

 

[flatscan]

Wow, I think we've hit a breakthrough!

Kidding aside, I get where you're coming from about not wanting to invest hundreds of dollars into a new edition, Bygoneyrs. You've already done that with a system you are comfortable and familiar with, there's no reason to do it again. Hell, the only 4e book I've bought is the PHB and that's the only one I'm likely to buy. But I can see the potential for good, even great games with the system. I think we're on the same page now anyhow. Conan beats 4e hands down in my book too!!! :twisted:

 

[LilithsThrall]

With all due respect, I think the reason we -haven't- come to an agreement is fairly simple.
Regardless of what anyone else says, you are unshakeably convinced that you are engaging in roleplaying in a math heavy game just as much as you are in a game which isn't so math heavy. You can give no objective proof that you are doing so, rather you rely on subjective feeling.
I am absolutely convinced that you are not some special exception to the princples of structuralism and that subjective feeling can be untrustworthy.
I can, however, give no objective proof that you aren't some sort of special exception.
Given that, I see no way that we can cross this difference of opinion between us.
So, should game design be based on your particular subjective opinion or should it be based on well recognized theories of anthropology and sociology? You'd, no doubt, argue that your particular subjective opinion is just as valid as the collective opinion of academics.
Again, no way we can cross this difference of opinion.
So, the best thing is probably just to agree to disagree.

 

[Demetrio]

Game design should probably be based on what seems like a good idea to the designers rather than referring to psychological theory, or even sociological or anthropological theory.

You say one is either engaged in immersive fantasy, or one is engaged in maths. And I agree that our brains have the tendency to seperate the imaginative from the analytical. Yet in all games, mathematical or not, one will often step outside one's character and leave the imaginative realm for the analytical.

Your objection to maths heavy games was that they reduce roleplaying. Well maybe for short periods they do. Yet it is not necessary in fact to analyse a skirmish tactical game (like d20 with counters) as one would a chessboard, one can simply move one's model and declare one's attacks - in appropriately heroic language if one wishes. there's really very little interference with roleplaying.

Compare that to an 'immersive, freeflowing game' that does not involve counters.

I say 'Cranjar screams his defiance and charges toward the nearest two Turanians, aiming a sweeping slash at the legs of the first and attempting todisembowel the second.'

The GM then responds, 'Erm hang on, they're not close enough together, sorry - you can attack one this round but the other will be able to act before you can tackle him.'

We are briefly thrown out of the immersive world because it did not adequately describe the phyical relationship between the characters - the difference between the GM's vision an the players created the problem. Wth miniatures and a 'maths heavy' approach, that situation wouldn't arise. the player could move his counter saying, 'Cranjar screams his defiance,' resolve the first attack (and you have to break from your 'immersive game' to do that anyway) and 'hack the legs from beneath the taller Turanian. He moves another two squares: 'Gathering himself he starts toward the second soldier' and we don't have the break caused by the 'maths light' system.

 

[LilithsThrall]

Game design should probably be based on what seems like a good idea to the designers rather than referring to psychological theory, or even sociological or anthropological theory.

You say one is either engaged in immersive fantasy, or one is engaged in maths. And I agree that our brains have the tendency to seperate the imaginative from the analytical. Yet in all games, mathematical or not, one will often step outside one's character and leave the imaginative realm for the analytical.

Your objection to maths heavy games was that they reduce roleplaying. Well maybe for short periods they do. Yet it is not necessary in fact to analyse a skirmish tactical game (like d20 with counters) as one would a chessboard, one can simply move one's model and declare one's attacks - in appropriately heroic language if one wishes. there's really very little interference with roleplaying.

Compare that to an 'immersive, freeflowing game' that does not involve counters.

I say 'Cranjar screams his defiance and charges toward the nearest two Turanians, aiming a sweeping slash at the legs of the first and attempting todisembowel the second.'

The GM then responds, 'Erm hang on, they're not close enough together, sorry - you can attack one this round but the other will be able to act before you can tackle him.'

We are briefly thrown out of the immersive world because it did not adequately describe the phyical relationship between the characters - the difference between the GM's vision an the players created the problem. Wth miniatures and a 'maths heavy' approach, that situation wouldn't arise. the player could move his counter saying, 'Cranjar screams his defiance,' resolve the first attack (and you have to break from your 'immersive game' to do that anyway) and 'hack the legs from beneath the taller Turanian. He moves another two squares: 'Gathering himself he starts toward the second soldier' and we don't have the break caused by the 'maths light' system.

I've ran immersive systems which are largely systemless and I think you are very strongly misrepresenting them - either that or you had a GM in an immersive system and that GM, well, sucked.
In an immersive system, the GM doesn't look at things like how close the two guys are to one another. The GM looks at what will make the better story.
But this is beside the point because we are not discussing whether Conan should be an immersive game system or a tactical sim. We are discussing, if Conan were to change, should it become more of a tactical sim, more of an immersive system, or aim to remain where it is.
My position is that it should not become more of a tactical sim and that, if it were to adopt 4e, that's the direction it'd go.

 

[LilithsThrall]

sftd

 

[LilithsThrall]

sftd

 

[flatscan]

With all due respect, I think the reason we -haven't- come to an agreement is fairly simple.
Regardless of what anyone else says, you are unshakeably convinced that you are engaging in roleplaying in a math heavy game just as much as you are in a game which isn't so math heavy.

No, I am unshakeably convinced that you CAN role-play with D&D 4e (in response to those posters who claimed you can't), which is all I've argued this entire time. Compare your experience role-playing with the Adventure Log for a D&D 4e game I played in. I played the character of Syler, the halfling rogue. You can also read the character journal for that particular session here. If this doesn't satisfy you that we were honest to goodness role-playing in D&D 4e then nothing will.

 

[Sutek]

No...YOU can role play with D&D 4. Treeplanter nailed about fifteen nails on the head, so I won't quote every one of his last few posts and just try to sum up our take on 4e: It's the same list mechanic regardless of the class you choose, and that dilutes the variety of the types of characters within each class. Newbies are given Roles as a "tool" to help them make characters by somehow directing them to where they think they want to go, but I've tried it and every newbie player argues with the other newbies at the table about "who gets to be leader" and I have to explain that it isn't really a "leader" but just a label for...

Then I sigh heavily, and say, "Look, just skip it. Here's a Fighter...," and things get moving.

By the time we get to Paladin, all players are looking at the "powers" concept multi-laterally, realizing that every power gets an "even and balanced power" at a given experience level. Everybody scales evenly. They get it. They start picking powers and realize that about 50% are lame, leaving most characters being created with the other 50% of the listed powers.

Remember, these are new players, or at the very least verry inexperienced role players.

Usually, at this point I have at least on person ask if they can choose different skills too. I have to say no...because you can't. You can get different skills later. They usually look mildly puzzled, but roll with it.

By the time everyone gets the exact same amount of money without asking why, and buying their equipment the spell casters start wondering why they have so much cash left, and I have to remind them to buy a spell book. Then I get rituals, and everyone starts wanting rituals. We debate if it's worth it to dump feats and start over...maybe tweak things a bit here and there to do it eventually...

a) Not easier to roll up characters.
b) Obvious lack of flexibility and variability even to the novice
c) confusing terminology that leaves newbies wondering even more what they are supposed to do with things on their sheet.

The only daunting thing to ever come up in a 3.X game is, "Dang...there's a lot of feats to choose from." That's really not that big a deal, but at least players have the change to pick things that they want to accentuate their character and bring out the personality that they want to play (or not) rather than being as limited as 4e makes things.

Until one buys into the 4e methodology of "more books expand the list of powers to select from." Yes, it's the same thing as adding books full of prestige classes that nearly killed 3.0 and stood to do the same with 3.5. But, WOTC have deliberately marketed the game to behave that way, so that additional books will seem more essential. With Conan, this isn't the case; additinoal books are clearly supplementary, adding back to the base book. It's a very different approach in marketing and in game design.

 

[Saxon]

In an immersive system, the GM doesn't look at things like how close the two guys are to one another. The GM looks at what will make the better story.

This is the essence of it. When I was a DM I interviewed players and found those I felt would best contribute to my campaign concept...i.e. role-players. Then after a long pause for life, I met an already established group who are a bunch of number crunching power gaming strategists.

Its the same set of rules! Some groups emphasize the strategy. Some group emphasize the story.

To me it seems alot like the Conservative Republicans and the Liberal Democrats in the USA. Both parties are working within the same system...but their views of government couldn't be farther apart.

I watch the TV and wonder how the heck these two parties can warp the same issue so far to the extreme of opposite viewpoints.

 

[treeplanter]

I can t figure out if Sutek agree with me I need to revise my english

I think I could Roleplay during a game of settler of Catan (What farmer are cool no??) so I guess that make Settler of Catan a RPG right?

 

[Demetrio]

The GM looks at what will make the better story.

Yes, I should have been clear - it is essential for reasons of plot that the two cannot be killed in one round. The point is that lacking the visual aid of a map/grid and movement rules, the 'freeform' game will often have instances where the GM will have to correct a player's misunderstanding of what has been said or misunderstanding of what his character can achieve in a round (or whatever). At those points the immersion will be broken. And I'll reiterate, there is no reason why anyone need calculate moves in an rpg that uses a tactical map like one would calculate a difficult move in chess. You can just move your character his number of squares, whilst if you like, describing his swift, pantherish progress across the blood be-spattered flagstones toward the wolfish foe.

And anyway you still have to break off to do all the hard maths stuff like rolling to hit and suchlike.

My position is that it should not become more of a tactical sim and that, if it were to adopt 4e, that's the direction it'd go.

And mine is that you have actually presented no evidence that is so. It seems to me that 4th ed. has the same tactical elements as 3.5 but has simplified many of 3.5's complexities (and that's one reason that it's being attacked!). And also that the argument has become confused because just when I think we're talking about whether 4th ed is more tactical than 3.5 someone says that you can't roleplay with 4th ed or that tactical games are not immersive, or 4th ed is too simple, or too complicated, or both, or somesuch. I don't want it to go to 4th ed. either. But just because I think they'd be better further refining what they have rather than switch.

 

[Sutek]

I can t figure out if Sutek agree with me I need to revise my english

I think I could Roleplay during a game of settler of Catan (What farmer are cool no??) so I guess that make Settler of Catan a RPG right?

Your English is fine. :wink:

We both agree fully. But to put it in the context of your Settlers of Catan example, Settlers is a neat game, and fun in and of itself, but it doesn't have the frame work or good mechanics to support say.... a Conan role playing game. You can, as much as upi like and as much as your fellow players can deal with you, play Settlers with the mentality of a barbarian from the icy north with a byrning hatred of witches and magic carrying an heirloom sword passed down by your father, but Settlers rules aren't going to help you and the fun will probably diminish for eveyone pretty quickly.

4e is, to me, like Settlers in that it doesn't have a framework to supposrt a good role playing experience. It's a fine game if you don't want to think about persoanlity or character backstory or deep role playing in a fantasy world...you can do those things, but it's totally on you, and there isn't enough enriching material or mechanic to promote doing so beyond the effort you can generate yourself.

I think it's a lousy system and would in no way suit a Conan role playing experience adequately.

 

[LilithsThrall]

In any discussion, but especially one on the Internet, there is a small minority of people who will not, under any circumstances, change their position. They'll probably ask for different kinds of 'proof', but on being given proof, will ignore it.
The sane course of action is to agree to disagree with these people and not waste your time trying to change someone's opinion who is deadset on -not- changing their opinion.