What if Conan leaves d20 for anotehr system?
- Thread starter LucaCherstich
- Start date
rabindranath72
Mongoose
:lol: what's strangest is that I do not particularly like 4e, yet I am defending it!flatscan said:
Yes, I definitely botched my SAN check :shock:
Ia! Ia!
treeplanter
Mongoose
"But raising the point that d20 Conan or 3.x are BETTER roleplaying games than 4e is quite ludicrous, considering the sheer amount of rules of both.
And it's not even a matter of having a system which "helps better describe the character", like it has been said of d20 Conan/3.x vs. 4e, since this reasoning would automatically disqualify simpler systems which ARE roleplaying games. One could argue that to roleplay a character no rules are needed to accurately DEFINE said character, but only to make it INTERACT with the setting."
Well i guess it is personnal preference but in my opinion d20 Conan is better thant 3.X wich is better than 4ed.
Why? Simply because in Conan even if it is the same system there is A LOT of emphasis on the world, place, culture, ect. to help you define your character. Also, supplement in Conan are not intended to bring new broken feat or skill or classes but detail kit, region, give hook for classes/races ect.
I remember back in 2nd edition (advenced) how supplement book were bringing broken class and new broken combat style (I hated so much that blade singer, stupid elves)
I think 3.X was a step backward in promoting the Roleplaying and 4ed just go further (The talking about role play in the book are very limited).
Also I think Conan d20 is by far less "crunching number" than 3.X. the fact there is no challenge rating and item magic is HUGE!
Can you roleplay with 4th? No doubt about it! You could roleplay playing chess if you want BUT chess DON'T promote roleplaying! You could still impersonate a pawn and roleplay!
Does 4th promote roleplaying? Not really. Does it make it a bad game? Not necesserly. An experienced gamer don't really need this roleplaying promotion. So he'll just pick the system he like the most. However it'll will clearly change the face of RPG, as MMORPG did
I know personnally, Conan totally revolutionned my vision of RPG. And it has nothing to do with the rules but it was the philosophy of the game and I know for sure I'm not alone in that situation.
So back on topic, I would never buy book for a new system, (specially if its 4ed i just hate it), because my book as now already have all I want for a perfect RPG setting!
And it's not even a matter of having a system which "helps better describe the character", like it has been said of d20 Conan/3.x vs. 4e, since this reasoning would automatically disqualify simpler systems which ARE roleplaying games. One could argue that to roleplay a character no rules are needed to accurately DEFINE said character, but only to make it INTERACT with the setting."
Well i guess it is personnal preference but in my opinion d20 Conan is better thant 3.X wich is better than 4ed.
Why? Simply because in Conan even if it is the same system there is A LOT of emphasis on the world, place, culture, ect. to help you define your character. Also, supplement in Conan are not intended to bring new broken feat or skill or classes but detail kit, region, give hook for classes/races ect.
I remember back in 2nd edition (advenced) how supplement book were bringing broken class and new broken combat style (I hated so much that blade singer, stupid elves)
I think 3.X was a step backward in promoting the Roleplaying and 4ed just go further (The talking about role play in the book are very limited).
Also I think Conan d20 is by far less "crunching number" than 3.X. the fact there is no challenge rating and item magic is HUGE!
Can you roleplay with 4th? No doubt about it! You could roleplay playing chess if you want BUT chess DON'T promote roleplaying! You could still impersonate a pawn and roleplay!
Does 4th promote roleplaying? Not really. Does it make it a bad game? Not necesserly. An experienced gamer don't really need this roleplaying promotion. So he'll just pick the system he like the most. However it'll will clearly change the face of RPG, as MMORPG did
I know personnally, Conan totally revolutionned my vision of RPG. And it has nothing to do with the rules but it was the philosophy of the game and I know for sure I'm not alone in that situation.
So back on topic, I would never buy book for a new system, (specially if its 4ed i just hate it), because my book as now already have all I want for a perfect RPG setting!
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Demetrio said:
No, it wasn't me. So, I wonder who you were responding to.
treeplanter said:
This is not entirely true. The Warrior's Companion promises to bring new feats and skills. It'll probably have some fluff but all accounts from Mongoose say it's 95% crunch.
Warrior's Companion said:
Maybe not intended to, but they bring new feats with monotonous regularity (and some of them are broken - Driven to Win anyone?) and they quite often have new skills, combat manoeuvers and such.
I don't object to this (though I wish some governing brain would have a good look at feats before they make print to avoid the kind of Driven to Win unpleasantness creeping in) but it is the same basic model as pursued by TSR (TM), and other rpg companies and differs only by degree from the new WotC model, as I understand it.
Of course you don't have to use any of the new Conan stuff, but then again you don't have to use any of the new 4th ed stuff either...
rabindranath72
Mongoose
Well, 3.x and 4e cannot bring much in terms of setting, since by default they should be usable with any fantasy setting, from FR to Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Eberron etc. So, comparing d20 Conan (born with a setting) with "core" 3.x or 4e is not fair nor correct.treeplanter said:
Same goes for magic items: you are not expected to see lots of magic in the Hyborian Age. Hence the system scales differently. But try killing a D&D dragon with the d20 Conan rules!
RE: Challenge Ratings: the dynamics of adventuring are different than in D&D, and nowhere it is implied even in 3.x that the DM cannot overrule assigning XPs. I always did it with whatever version of D&D.
And 4e HUGELY simplified this aspect.
So, all your points are mostly metagaming aspects, they do not relate directly to the rules, which is the argument we are discussing. The "core" of the rules is the same, which is what "kills" d20 Conan and 3.x (and 4e) for me: feats, skills, overly tactical combat etc. I do not like how they work or are implemented.
That's also why I find really strange when people say that they love d20 Conan but not D&D 3.x, or that d20 Conan rules are "easier" :? ; they mix the "generic fantasy" feel of 3.x with the implied setting of d20 Conan. Comparing apples and oranges, really.
Finally, as others have pointed out, LOTS of d20 Conan supplements introduce (broken) feats, and classes etc. etc.
Anyway, happy gaming
LucaCherstich
Mongoose
Hervè, this topic is so long because it is populated by both kinds of people (Conand20 Lovers and Conan d20 Haters).
No rpg system is perfect. Some people are fanatics for one system or another and will prefer that system in almost any setting. Others pick and choose between imperfect systems depending on the setting. To my mind Conan, ideally with a bit of tweaking, is well suited to games set in the Hyborian Age because it has a strong focus on combat and allows heroes to survive larger than life combats more easily than many other systems. If I wanted a more realistic game with heroes who struggle to deal with more than a couple or three foes at a time, I'd pick a different system. But neither would be perfect - or even close. Just better suited to my way of thinking.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
LucaCherstich said:
Actually, it's been so long because it has been focusing on the pros and cons of 4e and some people simply refused to accept my offer to agree to disagree.
treeplanter
Mongoose
in response to Rabindranath
old DnD has not setting. There was magic item and magic too wich was really heavy. However, it had A LOT of emphase on the Roleplaying aspect in the core rulebook. Also both the race and the Class section where focusing on HOW to play an elf. It was not like the 4nd style:
Elf:
+2 Dex +2 Cha
bunch of power
Play an elf if you want to...
Be tall
Be slim
Be a man but look like a girl
I agree tough a core Dragonlance or Greyhawk DnD would have like Conan a bigger section on the world and his poeple ect, but I doubt that with half the book already dedicated just to classes and their power there would be that much...
Weither the book has broken feat or Prestige class, it is clear that the book is not FOCUSED on that. Just take Hyborias Fierciest, 90% is about:
- Race and class breakdown by region
- How the Fiercest get along in the wild or accomplish surhuman feat like pushing big rock
- Multiclass kit
Of course we have not seen many 4ed supplement but I bet it would be new classes/feat/power and crap like this. Boring if you want my opinion.
"So, all your points are mostly metagaming aspects, they do not relate directly to the rules, which is the argument we are discussing. The "core" of the rules is the same, which is what "kills" d20 Conan and 3.x (and 4e) for me: feats, skills, overly tactical combat etc. I do not like how they work or are implemented."
Well it's subjective weither it "kills" it or not.
Skills: Maybe I'm alone but I really like the 3.x skills systems. And I hate the 4ed one. To much simplified. I admit it's take longer to create your character but other than that it is quite simple and allow a lot of personnification wich I like.
Feats: Well i like feats. And Conan have lots more cool feat that DnD 3.X. Sleep mastery, Carouser, all the skill pumping feat i really like. Feats in 4th are all combat oriented except for the skill training/focus.
Overly tactical combat: Here I agree and don't agree. 4ed is 100 x time more tactical intensive than 3.X!! Everything is counted in square, every power have precise range and area. Your character have tons of power to choose from, there is tons of side effect, tons of life, surge , and each character have a role in combat. Combat are not intended to be part of the game, the game is intended to be a succession of combat!!!
Again some poeple might like it. Myself really liked Warhammer fantasy battle a purelely tactics game. But I was not pretending playing an RPG.
I don't know the Drive to win feat what it does?
So for the most broken thing I saw in Conan supplement were the Reckless attack feat and the Master archer variant rule from Finest.
old DnD has not setting. There was magic item and magic too wich was really heavy. However, it had A LOT of emphase on the Roleplaying aspect in the core rulebook. Also both the race and the Class section where focusing on HOW to play an elf. It was not like the 4nd style:
Elf:
+2 Dex +2 Cha
bunch of power
Play an elf if you want to...
Be tall
Be slim
Be a man but look like a girl
I agree tough a core Dragonlance or Greyhawk DnD would have like Conan a bigger section on the world and his poeple ect, but I doubt that with half the book already dedicated just to classes and their power there would be that much...
Weither the book has broken feat or Prestige class, it is clear that the book is not FOCUSED on that. Just take Hyborias Fierciest, 90% is about:
- Race and class breakdown by region
- How the Fiercest get along in the wild or accomplish surhuman feat like pushing big rock
- Multiclass kit
Of course we have not seen many 4ed supplement but I bet it would be new classes/feat/power and crap like this. Boring if you want my opinion.
"So, all your points are mostly metagaming aspects, they do not relate directly to the rules, which is the argument we are discussing. The "core" of the rules is the same, which is what "kills" d20 Conan and 3.x (and 4e) for me: feats, skills, overly tactical combat etc. I do not like how they work or are implemented."
Well it's subjective weither it "kills" it or not.
Skills: Maybe I'm alone but I really like the 3.x skills systems. And I hate the 4ed one. To much simplified. I admit it's take longer to create your character but other than that it is quite simple and allow a lot of personnification wich I like.
Feats: Well i like feats. And Conan have lots more cool feat that DnD 3.X. Sleep mastery, Carouser, all the skill pumping feat i really like. Feats in 4th are all combat oriented except for the skill training/focus.
Overly tactical combat: Here I agree and don't agree. 4ed is 100 x time more tactical intensive than 3.X!! Everything is counted in square, every power have precise range and area. Your character have tons of power to choose from, there is tons of side effect, tons of life, surge , and each character have a role in combat. Combat are not intended to be part of the game, the game is intended to be a succession of combat!!!
Again some poeple might like it. Myself really liked Warhammer fantasy battle a purelely tactics game. But I was not pretending playing an RPG.
I don't know the Drive to win feat what it does?
So for the most broken thing I saw in Conan supplement were the Reckless attack feat and the Master archer variant rule from Finest.
treeplanter
Mongoose
Well ok, I just won't buy it. It's still juste one book on what? 35+?
Sutek
Mongoose
I think I can sum up the last nine pages thus:
Role Playing = water
Role Playing game rule = glass
D20 = 20oz glass
4e = shot glass
There's more opportunity for loads of controlled role playing within the d20 model, but there are also more opportunities for spillage creating a bigger mess (splat books, prestige classes, feats, etc.)
There's LESS opportunity for controlled role playing within the 4e model, because there's less variability in the mechanics for the different classes, but this can be an asset for those who prefer to free-form role play un-hindered by too many complex rules.
8)
Now, personally, I prefer more control that confines more strict role playing opportunities (20oz). I like the shot glass, too (GURPS would fall into the shot glass model IMO also), but for campaigns that have a very specific focus, more rules and more mechanic control is better (20oz).
Role Playing = water
Role Playing game rule = glass
D20 = 20oz glass
4e = shot glass
There's more opportunity for loads of controlled role playing within the d20 model, but there are also more opportunities for spillage creating a bigger mess (splat books, prestige classes, feats, etc.)
There's LESS opportunity for controlled role playing within the 4e model, because there's less variability in the mechanics for the different classes, but this can be an asset for those who prefer to free-form role play un-hindered by too many complex rules.
8)
Now, personally, I prefer more control that confines more strict role playing opportunities (20oz). I like the shot glass, too (GURPS would fall into the shot glass model IMO also), but for campaigns that have a very specific focus, more rules and more mechanic control is better (20oz).
I think I had more fun playing ADD inthe 80s as a young teeneager thanI ever did having palyed something else.
I remember the ADD conan scenarios and we did just fine w/o skill checks.
If you wanted to climb a rope and you weren't a "thief" the DM could always roll a dice behind a screen and proclaim "Your fighter-Cleric named Bruiser, struggles but eventually climb the rope after much hardship. Your character needs to rest a couple minutes since his arms are tired.
It made "railroading the PCs" a lot easier. After all there were no such things as SPOT checks, search checks, or any other esky things that prevented my PC from going forward in the adventure.
I remember the ADD conan scenarios and we did just fine w/o skill checks.
If you wanted to climb a rope and you weren't a "thief" the DM could always roll a dice behind a screen and proclaim "Your fighter-Cleric named Bruiser, struggles but eventually climb the rope after much hardship. Your character needs to rest a couple minutes since his arms are tired.
It made "railroading the PCs" a lot easier. After all there were no such things as SPOT checks, search checks, or any other esky things that prevented my PC from going forward in the adventure.
