What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?

[Malcadon]

I do not know you, but I roleplayed with Risus, Rolemaster, Hero Quest (yes, the boardgame!) and with 4e.

You roleplay with HQ too? Awesome! I thought I was the only one! Most people (like the reviewers on BoardgameGeek) scoff at it for being "to complex for a boardgame, to stupid-simple to be a role-playing game", but they lack the creativity to look past their own rule-layering to see that the simplicity of the game makes HQ highly versatile for house-ruling and role-playing! After all, the original version of D&D ('74 white-box booklets) was just a choppy mush-mash of additional rules for the Chainmail wargame, so gamers had to invent most of their own rules, and look what happen - It started the whole dame role-playing industry!

I can't compare 4e with Conan because 4e IS NOT a role playing game it's merely a cooperative board game with a better life span.

I know 4e is far to structured for most gamers to consider a true role-playing game, but like what rabindranath said "RPGing is independent of rules". On the other hand, many gamers do not consider the "Forth Edition" game to be a true incarnation of Dungeons & Dragons because it dont uphold the spirit of D&D, and I totally agree. 4e is made to be a highly-structured "dungeon-punk" RPG that is geared more for tournament-play, and shamelessly use the "Dungeons & Dragons" title a mere brand name when "Magic the Gathering: The Role-playing Game" would have been a way more appropriate title. One of the major failings of WotC is that they dont know what role-playing is truly about: The rules should serve our needs - we should never be a slave to it!

 

[LilithsThrall]

I, for one, do not believe that RPGing is independent of the system anymore than I believe you'll ever find a mosh pit at a folk music festival.
Its all a matter of which parts of the brain you are using. Detailed mathematics is a different part of the brain than immersive free-flowing fantasy.

 

[kintire]

I, for one, do not believe that RPGing is independent of the system anymore than I believe you'll ever find a mosh pit at a folk music festival.
Its all a matter of which parts of the brain you are using. Detailed mathematics is a different part of the brain than immersive free-flowing fantasy.

No iteration of 3.5 edition requires detailed mathamatics. And anyway, you are not using the system while you are doing the immersive freeflowing fantasy bits. I find no difficulty in switching from one to the other.

 

[Demetrio]

Roleplaying is inherently systemless.

Couldn't agree more. in fact one can role play with 'pure' wargames rules if one so desires (generally skirmish systems where one figure = one man but to an extent with any game where a persona can be projected on a key figure like a general or sub commander). Donald Featherstone and Tony Bath were doing so in the 60s and some of Featherstone's ideas for characterisation of individual soldiers in skirmish level games saw print in Advanced Wargames which (just) predates Chainmail. And both Bath and Featherstone had produced 'single combat' rules well before the original Chainmail came to print.

I think it's safe to say that some people find it easier to roleplay when they're not worrying about rules, and that's fine. But that does not mean that is a universal truth. I suspect folk who discovered roleplaying games after or through wargaming are less fussed about more detailed or more complex rules but get more annoyed by slack rules writing (good wargames often having complex rules that necessarily must remain unambiguous).

 

[Oly]

Roleplaying is inherently systemless.

I think it's safe to say that some people find it easier to roleplay when they're not worrying about rules, and that's fine. But that does not mean that is a universal truth.

I'll throw my hat in with that argument.

In games where you have a lot of rules to handle a situation, for example combat or social situations with some games, players can tend to become distracted by working out the mechanics of what they're getting up to rather than the "cinematic" or "roleplaying" elements of it.

So yes I tend to find that combat moments in D20 based games suffer more of a drop in roleplaying than lighter ones such as Pendragon.

However outside of moments that there are mechanics for, which is most of the game, there's really no difference between them.

In fact I would go so far as to say the strict character differentiations in D20 can actually help roleplaying as it gives you a real template for your character.

 

[treeplanter]

Well, the roleplaying is all in the setting. It's true you can roleplay with 4e or Heroe quest if you want, but the state of the game does not favour it.

Even if d20 is "Tactical" to a certain point of view (let say more than good old 2nd edition) you can still represent a pretty detailled character thanks to the deep skills and feat system. That way I can make 2 barbarians character and they will be totally different. Character deepness DOES favor roleplaying.

In 4e, well you'll check the book make the strongest possible character. By level 10 everybody will grossly have the same skills and equivalent powers. Thus beside combat, there nothing really you can explore in 4th ed. Why would I play 4th ed when I can let say play world of warcraft online and get graphic as a bonus???

 

[LilithsThrall]

No iteration of 3.5 edition requires detailed mathamatics.

I was referencing 4e, not 3.5 and 4e is a lot more concerned with mathematics than 3x is

you are not using the system while you are doing the immersive freeflowing fantasy bits.

Are you one of those people who believe that, once combat starts, roleplaying should stop?

 

[Demetrio]

In fact I would go so far as to say the strict character differentiations in D20 can actually help roleplaying as it gives you a real template for your character.

Yes, it's swings and roundabouts to a degree.

I don't mind people not liking systems that are 'rules heavy' or 'tactical' in the least. I just find it odd that some people think that more complex rules sets necessarily detract from roleplaying, and then proceed to disparage certain systems because they are 'anti-roleplaying' or whatever (note though I think it's okay to disparage certain systems because they are badly thought out, or even just because you don't like their mechanics).

A question: I don't know anything much about 4th ed. D&D, but what exactly about its combat system reqires much maths? And how does its combat system prevent roleplaying whilst your character is in combat?

 

[kintire]

I was referencing 4e, not 3.5 and 4e is a lot more concerned with mathematics than 3x is

Hardly at all. If you think 4e has complex mathamatics, then I'd flee in panic if you ever see a copy of Hero system or C&S!

Are you one of those people who believe that, once combat starts, roleplaying should stop?

No. I'm one of those people who believe that a system in a roleplaying game works like physics in reality. It ticks along in the background, but it doesn't much affect the plot.

Well, the roleplaying is all in the setting. It's true you can roleplay with 4e or Heroe quest if you want, but the state of the game does not favour it.

You keep saying this, and yet I grow no more convinced with repetition. Why?

Even if d20 is "Tactical" to a certain point of view (let say more than good old 2nd edition) you can still represent a pretty detailled character thanks to the deep skills and feat system. That way I can make 2 barbarians character and they will be totally different. Character deepness DOES favor roleplaying.

In 4e, well you'll check the book make the strongest possible character. By level 10 everybody will grossly have the same skills and equivalent powers. Thus beside combat, there nothing really you can explore in 4th ed. Why would I play 4th ed when I can let say play world of warcraft online and get graphic as a bonus???

... Are we talking about remotely the same thing when it comes to roleplaying? what does a character's stats have to do with his/her personality, style, morals, goals and choices? You seem to be saying that there is nothing in a character of any importance that isn't written on the sheet!

I notice you cite Pendragon with approval. Actually that is an exception: it did affect roleplaying with system. It had a system where you had opposed traits rated from 1-20 (e.g Practical - Honourable, Lusty - Chaste... I'm making these up as examples I can't remember them in detail). So, for example, if you had a chance to cheat in a tournament you would roll against your score on the practical - honourable trait, and depending which side you fell on you would decide accordingly. It was junked by the group I played Pendragon with. Is that what you're after? An RP system? I thought it was the worst idea I had ever come across in Roleplaying games, bar none...

 

[Demetrio]

So, for example, if you had a chance to cheat in a tournament you would roll against your score on the practical - honourable trait, and depending which side you fell on you would decide accordingly

My recollection of the system was that it worked slightly differently to that:

Let's say my character had Lustful 13/Chaste 7 and have the opportunity to be Lustful. I roll. Let's say I get a 9... so his inclination is to be Lustful... if I choose for him to be Chaste instead, I can do that. But he'll lose a point of Lustful and his sheet will read Lustful 12/Chaste 8.

The exception was when a trait was 20+ when it was expected that the character would act 'in character' regardless. it was the penalty for being so 'heroic' in attribute. More than a couple of Traits at 20+ and a character was nigh unplayable but that was intended by the system.

That said one of my friends violently objected to the entire notion of having character traits determined by numbers and so we only played Pendragon sporadically, which was a shame as I rather liked the setting (especially) and the system - particulary the notion of playing through a 'dynasty'.

 

[Oly]

I notice you cite Pendragon with approval. Actually that is an exception: it did affect roleplaying with system. It had a system where you had opposed traits rated from 1-20 (e.g Practical - Honourable, Lusty - Chaste... I'm making these up as examples I can't remember them in detail). So, for example, if you had a chance to cheat in a tournament you would roll against your score on the practical - honourable trait, and depending which side you fell on you would decide accordingly. It was junked by the group I played Pendragon with. Is that what you're after? An RP system? I thought it was the worst idea I had ever come across in Roleplaying games, bar none...

I believe that it was I that brought up Pendragon as an example of a game with rules light combat.

The way you describe the system isn't quite right. Yes there are opposed traits (e.g. Honest & Dishonest) but you're not forced to act in accordance with them unless you've chosen for them to become a high value, and it's always a choice to take on that high value.

Why take a high value? Well there's rewards for doing so, you become famous for that trait, Sir Conan the Valorous if you will.

Why not take a high value? Well you may not want the choice as to whether to be brave or not taken completely out of your hands.

Basically the game enforces that if you want to claim glory for being so famous a personification of a trait that you will act in accordance with that trait.

In many ways I actually found it to be very similar to negative traits in game like 7th Sea, the GM can force you to act a certain way or do a certain thing if you choose to take the trait.

Do I like it? Yes, I think it capture the source stories well.

Do I want it for Conan? No, I want D20 for that.

 

[kintire]

I believe that it was I that brought up Pendragon as an example of a game with rules light combat.

You're quite right, my mistake.

Basically the game enforces that if you want to claim glory for being so famous a personification of a trait that you will act in accordance with that trait.

But it also means that you can never fall from grace, or lose that reputation, or indeed gain the glory illicitly. Or to be exact, and worse, it means you can do that, but whether you do or not is decided by the dice, not the player.

In many ways I actually found it to be very similar to negative traits in game like 7th Sea, the GM can force you to act a certain way or do a certain thing if you choose to take the trait.

I'm not a great fan of those, either. My experience has been that if the player roleplays it, it never need s to be invoked, and if he doesn't its very jarring when it is.

If you enjoy them, that's fine, but I've always seen it as trespassing where dice should not go.

 

[Demetrio]

Generally though in the 'negative trait' systems, the player is encouraged to invoke them because he'll get a small reward (and will also get the reward if the GM invokes the trait) and is encouraged to take them because usually he can buy more positive traits with them.

 

[Oly]

But it also means that you can never fall from grace, or lose that reputation, or indeed gain the glory illicitly. Or to be exact, and worse, it means you can do that, but whether you do or not is decided by the dice, not the player.

A player can choose to reduce the value of a trait if they want to, so they can take control back or steer their character away from being so honest, they can cause a fall from grace if they so wish. They can also force the trait to change by acting a certain way thus accelerating things.

As with all things Pendragon though it takes time, a slip from being a paragon of honesty to one of deceit make take a fair few adventures, which at least avoids the "Hey I'm Anakin Skywalker and I'm good, ooops, I'm evil now!" about face.

I'm not a great fan of those, either. My experience has been that if the player roleplays it, it never need s to be invoked, and if he doesn't its very jarring when it is.

If you enjoy them, that's fine, but I've always seen it as trespassing where dice should not go.

Well a good Pendragon Roleplayer will hardly ever roll anyway and will rapidly accelerate their traits the way that they want them to be by that roleplaying.

I view it as a source of drama. In 7th Sea a player has chosen a trait that I can activate or in Pendragon they choose to become a legendary example of a trait. In return they receive mechanical rewards and I get some real strings on their characters that I can tug as and when I feel it helps the story.

Neither mechanic is forced on anyone who doesn't want it.

Thinking of it it's surprising how "new wave", well "new wave" from a 90s point of view, something like Pendragon was.

Anyhow disliking such mechanics is perfectly reasonable, as with all other aspects of RPG mechanics.

Personally I had some real doubters about the "loss of control" in Pendragon but all of them actually swung in with it and in the end took on a number of legendary traits.

 

[Demetrio]

One thing about the 'loss of control' is that there are a surprising number of occasions in real life when we act in a way that we do not desire and have to live with the consequences. So long as an rpg doesn't overdo it, I think introducing a little bit of 'instinct' to a character does no harm, and in fact adds quite a lot to the experience. But it's not everybody's cup of tea.

 

[kintire]

As with all things Pendragon though it takes time, a slip from being a paragon of honesty to one of deceit make take a fair few adventures, which at least avoids the "Hey I'm Anakin Skywalker and I'm good, ooops, I'm evil now!" about face.

Which is good if you think that a bad thing...

Well a good Pendragon Roleplayer will hardly ever roll anyway and will rapidly accelerate their traits the way that they want them to be by that roleplaying.

That's my experience as well... so why have the system at all?

One thing about the 'loss of control' is that there are a surprising number of occasions in real life when we act in a way that we do not desire and have to live with the consequences. So long as an rpg doesn't overdo it, I think introducing a little bit of 'instinct' to a character does no harm, and in fact adds quite a lot to the experience. But it's not everybody's cup of tea.

that is true, but I think pendragon overdoes it, and I am wary of the negative trait systems. as you say, there are benefits to taking them, which means that players who don't want to do so are penalised.

 

[Demetrio]

That's my experience as well... so why have the system at all?

Partly because in a situation where a player isn't certain about how his character might react it allows a simple mechanism to let him make a choice. For instance if my character had to choose whether to be seduced by his Lord's wife and I wasn't sure whether I wanted him to or not I could roll Loyalty versus Lustful and go with the roll. Like flipping a coin but taking my idea of the character, as expressed by the values into account.

I grant you some players will always know what their characters will do in any given situation. But sometimes I find I'm slightly uncertain.

Another reason for the system was the 'reward' system - you accrued Glory for having Traits at 16+ and more for having a trait at 20+. Glory was a nice perk that granted long terms minor bonuses. Nothing would make anyone who lacked traits at 16+ feel hard done to (and they'd av more freedom of action anyway, which might net them some Glory too).

As I say, I think it was quite a nice idea- and was actuall pretty useful for the GM - he could run minor npcs entirely almost entirely by dice which meant they had a certain 'independence of mind'.

 

[rabindranath72]

I do not know you, but I roleplayed with Risus, Rolemaster, Hero Quest (yes, the boardgame!) and with 4e.

You roleplay with HQ too? Awesome! I thought I was the only one! Most people (like the reviewers on BoardgameGeek) scoff at it for being "to complex for a boardgame, to stupid-simple to be a role-playing game", but they lack the creativity to look past their own rule-layering to see that the simplicity of the game makes HQ highly versatile for house-ruling and role-playing! After all, the original version of D&D ('74 white-box booklets) was just a choppy mush-mash of additional rules for the Chainmail wargame, so gamers had to invent most of their own rules, and look what happen - It started the whole dame role-playing industry!

You bet! One of the best campaigns I ran, was an Hero Quest campaign! (which later evolved into a Warhammer Fantasy campaign).
I allowed the characters to improve their characteristics over time, allowed a wider range of equipment, and we roleplayed all the interactions when they went in town to resupply and to interact with the NPCs who gave them their missions. Nothing very different from basic D&D adventures. I had heard that Warhammer Quest was more geared towards RPGing than Hero Quest, but I never bought it, so I do not know how it worked.

 

[Bygoneyrs]

You know what is so sad about D&D, it seems to have lost it's roleplaying for mechanics and extreme defining of this or that to make it look real. having RPG'd now for 32+ yrs, AD&D was awesome game, and the best was D&D v2.5. Now D&D v3.5 d20 is still ok but that started to become too heavy with rules to define anything and everything. Now with D&D v4 that has gone even farther away from it's roots and I have had enough of that game system. I might buy 4e resouce books, but I will never GM D&D 4e. If Conan goes the 4e way, I will be sadly disapointed but might still buy some books as resource mining material.

Maybe Conan should consider if they must change, using BRP Basic Role Playing system ruleset:

http://basicroleplaying.com/

Have a look at them, I have data mined that system for alot and feel that it would work well for Conan!

Penn

 

[Hervé]

It does indeed. I've run BRP campaigns for years...