Will the up-coming 'Conan Bestiary' be considered essential?

[Hyborian Apeman]

Raphael,

I think you are on the right track. Conan was the exception to the Hyborian world in that facing the supernatural was not done by 99.9% of the known world. He was the archetype, because every story of Conan and the whole Sword and Sorcery genre involves encountering the supernatural of some type.

In my opinion, the key to emulating :lol: Conan is to have the supernatural be rare in the world, but still allow your characters to face it as the heroes that they are.

 

[slaughterj]

Raphael,

I think you are on the right track. Conan was the exception to the Hyborian world in that facing the supernatural was not done by 99.9% of the known world. He was the archetype, because every story of Conan and the whole Sword and Sorcery genre involves encountering the supernatural of some type.

In my opinion, the key to emulating :lol: Conan is to have the supernatural be rare in the world, but still allow your characters to face it as the heroes that they are.

Yep, exactly. And that's the problem in games like D&D, where you can buy magic on the street corner. It's important to maintain the appearance of the supernatural as rare in Conan, to maintain the feel of the genre, but Conan PCs as the exception do get exposed to such with far greater frequency than commoners, so it does require some work to keep the "rare" feeling.

Also, I would go further in saying that playing the exception is the archetype in most every RPG, as the lives of the mundane are just that - mundane!

 

[Raphael]

Interestingly, we keep using the term supernatural and sometimes it is correct. However, I would argue that wierd is a better term. I am not versed in the stories enough to cite exapmles by chapter and verse, but there are a number of times when Conan's foes are merely a lost race that has degenerated past the point of being human.

These "monsters" are not supernatural, just wierd (in a
Wierd Tales sort of way). [spelling edited, damn low Dex score]

Raphael

 

[toothill man]

intreasting thread and everyone has made good and valid points which is great so will add my views if I may,

first will I be buying this book yes I will hopefully full of new and wonderfully alien creatures/monsters 8) but the main point is the second I started my roleplaying with a system called dragon warriors that had two sets of monsters one was a every day and conan already has them the other is what I hope this book will be about the saturday night specials the creatures that the players remember but never have in hordes these have history there destruction means some thing for example the death of the cult which worshipped the things and so yes they are rare but do think these are the creatures which make conans world so rich and killing the creature removes something which was there eons before the puny humans came :wink:

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Interestingly, we keep using the term supernatural and sometimes it is correct. However, I would argue that wierd is a better term. I am not versed in the stories enough to cite exapmles by chapter and verse, but there are a number of times when Conan's foes are merely a lost race that has degenerated past the point of being human.

Although it didn't degenerate from humanity and was a sorcerer, the winged ape thing that menaces Conan and Beltit(sp?) in "Queen of the Black Coast" is an example. Conan's race of Cimmerians itself is an example of a degenerate race- they were once the more advanced Atlanteans. The 'beast men' of de Camp's "Witch of the Mists" [and featured in the "Border Kingdoms" chapter in Road of Kings] are degenerated human cannibals and a favourite of mine to spring on new parties. ("You mean that those horrors were once men?") The two feuding factions in the dead city of "Red Nails" weren't completely degenerate but they were getting there. Degenerate Archerons are refered to by Orestes(sp?) in "The Hour of the Dragon". I am sure there are others but that's all to spring to mind without the books in front of me.

Raven

 

[René]

I carry 23 great wounds all got in battle. 75 men have I killed with my own hands in battle. I scatter; I burn my enemies' tents. I take away their flocks and herds. The Turks pay me a golden treasure. Yet, I am poor because I am a river to my people.

Nice quotation, Raphael: IIRC this is from a crusader story of REH? Or am I wrong?

 

[Raphael]

I carry 23 great wounds all got in battle. 75 men have I killed with my own hands in battle. I scatter; I burn my enemies' tents. I take away their flocks and herds. The Turks pay me a golden treasure. Yet, I am poor because I am a river to my people.

Nice quotation, Raphael: IIRC this is from a crusader story of REH? Or am I wrong?

Thanks. I wanted to cite the source, but that would exceed the 255 char. limit.
It's from Auda Abu Tayi, a Shaikh of the Howitat, played by Anthony Quinn in Lawrence of Arabia.
Here is somethingabout the real Auda.
Isn't it something how so many of the actors in LoA actually resemble rather closely the real people they're portraying!

 

[pa11ad1n]

First off, I don't have time to read all of that.

The point about Lovecraftian horror was that most people in that world believe that their world is this one. They don't know about all that weird stuff. Suggesting that it is the archetype is like suggesting that things like that happen to everyone...um...no.

Howard is the father of sword and sorcery. This is true and can not be disputed...(ok, it can be....but that is a completely different discussion).

Sword and sorcery as we know it now has become D&D. This is Ironic...low fantasy has bred high fantasy.

The problem with emulating Conan in your game (not necersarily a bad idea) is that you miss all the bits inbetween. The bits that Conan would have experienced, that your players' characters would experience, but won't make it into the game because thay are not interesting enough.

Look at "The Frost Giant's Daughter" (as just one example) starts where the mundane events are just ending.

This is where D&D came from. Emulating the adventures of characters like Conan...but somewhere along the line they have lost the plot and changed genres. I feel it is very important that the Conan game has a very different feel to D&D.

I try to accomplish this by making the inbetween stuff just as interesting as the weird stuff. So that the players will still react in a similar way to Conan. Rather than the D&D "Ah, another sea serpent..." Every monster should be special, unique and scary. Very definately out of the ordinary.

If you want monsters at ever corner (they are not in the 'Hyborian age') then they are going to lose the impact and you might as well play D&D.

Ok, so you want your heroes to emulate Conan? What is the point if they are not going to react as Conan would because the players don't have the feel of the game right? The setting is important. If you lose the feel of the setting are you really emulating Conan?

NO YOU ARE NOT.

well those are my views on the subject. I have tried to articulate them properly...don't know if I have.

I hate reading long posts....so I'm not going to re read it....sorry.




For the person citing the super hero reference, have you ever actually played in a superhero game that has felt right? All the players I know personally (and that is allot) refuse to believe that it is possible.

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

First off, I don't have time to read all of that.

I hope you are not referring to other peoples posts. That would make the point of discussion forums somewhat moot.

This is where D&D came from. Emulating the adventures of characters like Conan...but somewhere along the line they have lost the plot and changed genres. I feel it is very important that the Conan game has a very different feel to D&D.

I try to accomplish this by making the in between stuff just as interesting as the weird stuff. So that the players will still react in a similar way to Conan. Rather than the D&D "Ah, another sea serpent..." Every monster should be special, unique and scary. Very definately out of the ordinary.

I think we have had very different experiences with D&D. My D&D campaigns and the ones I have played in have had an exorbant amount of time spent on the mundane and in between adventures details.

One of the pluses about reading Howard of Tolkien is that Howard spends most of time on the exciting adventures while Tolkien spends a lot of time on the details in between. My D&D campaigns mirror Tolkien, my Conan campaigns mirror Howard.

If you want monsters at ever corner (they are not in the 'Hyborian age') then they are going to lose the impact and you might as well play D&D.

Agreed. The onus is on the DM to make sure and convey the right feel for the Hyborean world. If the only way to do that is run a lot of mundane sessions, then I would agree that is the best way to go.

Ok, so you want your heroes to emulate Conan? What is the point if they are not going to react as Conan would because the players don't have the feel of the game right? The setting is important. If you lose the feel of the setting are you really emulating Conan?

NO YOU ARE NOT.

Again, the responsibility is on the DM to run the game right.

 

[The King]

I think Sword & Sorcery is just an adaptation of our ancient Heroes of old to a fantastic and fictive setting.
Conan is exactly that: a hero like a Greek Heracles or Achilles or whatever with 2 major differences:
1) he is a mere mortal (i.g. not even a demigod).
2) he doesn't stem from a noble familly (as most Greek heroes are) and become king as an usurper, reaching steadily the top of the social hierarchy.

However his feats and his life are heroic in the Greek meaning. He performs deeds that only heroes could do and battles monsters which could destroy great armies and his military skills are like those of Alexander.
And though he doesn't have godly blood his fate seems already written, as if it was already determined right from the beginning that he would become king.

I believe that PC's must be regarded as potential Greek-like heroes that are fated to perform great things too (they don't need to become kings, but the Argonauts of Jason - his crew - were also heroes of their own right.
So what is important in a Conan game is that PC's must have the feeling that all of their actions will have great consequences and impact in the Hyborian world even if these actions are not immediately obvious.

 

[The King]

BTW could we have some hints at the contents of the bestiary?

I would appreciate the possibility to create my own critters (as it was done in the Scrolls of Skelos for the creation of aberrations).

 

[slaughterj]

Interestingly, we keep using the term supernatural and sometimes it is correct. However, I would argue that wierd is a better term. I am not versed in the stories enough to cite exapmles by chapter and verse, but there are a number of times when Conan's foes are merely a lost race that has degenerated past the point of being human.

These "monsters" are not supernatural, just wierd (in a
Wierd Tales sort of way). [spelling edited, damn low Dex score]

Raphael

I used the supernatural/arcane/weird statement above, because sometimes it is fantastic monsters (demons, statues, skeletons), nearly extinct monsters (dragons, sabertooth tigers, etc.), degenerate races, sorcerors and magic, or even weird science (magnetic stones, alien races, etc.), so it's hard to describe the "extraordinary" aspect over the mundane with a single term, but pretty much any Conan adventure should have something extraordinary in it along those lines.

 

[pa11ad1n]

I think Sword & Sorcery is just an adaptation of our ancient Heroes of old to a fantastic and fictive setting.
Conan is exactly that: a hero like a Greek Heracles or Achilles or whatever with 2 major differences:
1) he is a mere mortal (i.g. not even a demigod).
2) he doesn't stem from a noble familly (as most Greek heroes are) and become king as an usurper, reaching steadily the top of the social hierarchy.

However his feats and his life are heroic in the Greek meaning. He performs deeds that only heroes could do and battles monsters which could destroy great armies and his military skills are like those of Alexander.
And though he doesn't have godly blood his fate seems already written, as if it was already determined right from the beginning that he would become king.

I believe that PC's must be regarded as potential Greek-like heroes that are fated to perform great things too (they don't need to become kings, but the Argonauts of Jason - his crew - were also heroes of their own right.
So what is important in a Conan game is that PC's must have the feeling that all of their actions will have great consequences and impact in the Hyborian world even if these actions are not immediately obvious.

I don't necersarrily think that the heroes need to feel that at all.

The argonauts may have been heroes but only a few were acceptional heroes eg. Jason and Hercules.(the way that Conan is.)

Conan didn't set out to be a hero, but yes he did perform tasks that the greeks might have regarded aas heroic.

Having said that you do have a point. Doesn't change my point though.

Monsters are simply not everywhere, you have to take that into account.

I think that that is the most succinct that I have been.

BTW could we have some hints at the contents of the bestiary?

Good question. I would actually like to know what is in there.

 

[Raphael]

Nice Point!
And Pa11id1n, If you don't read the posts, whats the point?

"Low Fantasy Bred High Fantasy" What? "High Fantasy" really has its antecedents in Tolkien and his emulators. High Fantasy being a created universe noticeably different from our own in terms of intelligent races, magic, and monsters.

Most DnD settings, published and home-brew, that I am aware of have much more in common with Middle Earth than Hyboria. One of the distinctions I notice between Tolkien (whom I love) and REH (whom I also love) is that Howard's settings are much more realistic in that they are very human stories--blood, betrayal, politics, sex, violence. Its probably due as much to the difference in the type of story each was telling as anything.

Anyway, sorry pa11ad1n, but I don't really understand what you're arguing here.

And since you hate long posts you probably wont read this anyway...sh*t.

Raphael

 

[The King]

Monsters are simply not everywhere, you have to take that into account.

Yes but so are monsters of the mythology. They are greatly feared, some are even almost invicible, but you don't meet them at every corner of a street.
The location of most is known and is the source of rumors and nobody (common people) dares to go there.
Because such monsters are rare and powerful they can also only be defeated by heroes who are also rare and powerful.

The motivation of a hero comes from the fact that his name is remembered in songs long after his death so that his name is carried over the ages. This is a kind of immortality for someone whose body dies.
I remember the movie Troy where the mother of Achilles predicted his death if he goes to war:
"if you stay there, you will live a happy life will marry and have happy children and happy great children. You will die of old age but nobody will ever recall your name. If you go to Troy, however, you will die but your name will be remembered and sung for ages afterward".Thus Achilles made his choice.

The fact is that still today we know through legends and poetry the story of a great warrior who performed great deeds more than 3200 years ago. This is not written history, so are the Nemedian Chronicles of the Hyborian Age: a collection of tales and legends retold to us by Howard.

And then in all the stories of these heroes, they do battle monsters even if these critters aren't common. But this is the life (and the fate) of any hero: monsters of the Greek mythology are only known because they killed or were defeated by heroes.
In fact, heroes exist as long as monsters exist and heroes disappear when monsters and gods retire.

 

[The King]

Nice Point!

Thank you.

One of the distinctions I notice between Tolkien (whom I love) and REH (whom I also love) is that Howard's settings are much more realistic in that they are very human stories--blood, betrayal, politics, sex, violence. Its probably due as much to the difference in the type of story each was telling as anything.

Tolkien's stories are based on the Northern (Scandinavian) mythology which is possess a higher magical setting as many others (trolls, elves, giants, dragons and the twillight of the gods - Ragnarok).
Westerners history (Central Europe and the USA) is mostly based on Greek myths (again!) which is less fantastical in its setting (all people are humans and some monsters exist).
But if you remember the Two Towers, the story appears also as very realistic and human to us because this is a Celtish setting (but you have betrayal, politics, blood and violence - only sex is absent because I guess it wouldn't have appeared as politically correct at that time that a (English) professor would talk of sex. But it is still hinted at when Grima tried to seduce Eowyn.

 

[Raphael]

Monsters are simply not everywhere, you have to take that into account.

I think that that is the most succinct that I have been.

Isn't that what the rest of us are saying?

 

[pa11ad1n]

And since you hate long posts you probably wont read this anyway...sh*t.

Raphael

That wasn't a long post.

I said I didn't read all of them. Just too many in one go. that is why I appologised about it before hand.

Tolkien's stories are based in Saxon mythology. Guess what his PHD was in-saxon english. More Germanic than scandinavian.

High fantasy. A setting filled with incredible magic and monsters, heroic deeds on an epic scale and a magic item for every eventuallity. Everything is larger than life. Standard D&D settings like Greyhawk or forgotten realms fit into this catagory.

Low fantasy. A setting of (rellatively) reallistic fantasy. Limited monsters and magic. Gods that don't get involved too much, or when they do are not too obvious about it. The kind of things that happen in more fantastical settings might happen but thy tend to be more low key and the subject of myths and rumours more than anything else. Conan fits in here.

(Middle earth is somewhere in between, and yes there is a lot of ground inbetween.)

One of the distinctions I notice between Tolkien (whom I love) and REH (whom I also love) is that Howard's settings are much more realistic in that they are very human stories--blood, betrayal, politics, sex, violence. Its probably due as much to the difference in the type of story each was telling as anything.

I agree with this apart from the reasoning. It is as much the setting as the story. The whole LOTR sittuation simply wouldn't have happened in the hyborian age to start with. See my comments on high and low fantasy for why.

Monsters are simply not everywhere, you have to take that into account.

I think that that is the most succinct that I have been.

Isn't that what the rest of us are saying?

Then why did people disagree with me in the first place?
I stated that Monsters do not lurk around every corner....

Some people felt differently. I was...discussing...with those people.

Read everything before you decide what side of the....discussion....you are on.

Um. Kicks self.

But I didn't aim anything at the people who's arguments I had not read, unless they attacked my points first.

 

[Raphael]

Pa11ad1n,
First off, nothing I said was meant as a personal attack and I'm glad you didn't take it as such.

As far as Tolkien goes, Yes based on Saxon mythology. Also, and I think more importantly, he was attempting to create a myth cycle for England. Howard, otoh, was writing historical fiction (admittedly in a created universe). I think this, as much as anything, is why they are both "fantasy" yet so vastly different in tone.

I think the point on which this whole argument hinges is the question of Conan as Archetype/Exception, not monsters around every corner.
Slaughterj said

The adventures of Conan are the archetype, not the exception. Yes, his encounters with mythical/supernatural/etc. creatures are the exception for those in the Hyborian world, but not for bold adventurers such as Conan. But yes, as you noted, it is "important that the players feel that monsters are out of the ordinary not the norm." The way to do this, while including them in many adventures, is to have the adventure have enough encounters.

That is, Conan's adventures are the Archetype of SnS stories. The Weird element retains its weirdness, but is part of nearly every story. Key to this is that Conan doesn't face a single monster type over and over. Every time he encounters the weird it is something new and terrifying.

Perhaps we need you to define how you are using the term archetype.

You said

That is like saying that Lovecraftian horror is the archetype not the exception.

But it is the Archetype for Call of Cthulhu adventures! That's the point of playing CoC.
and

Certainly they are what other sword and sorcery ideas are based on, but most of those are high fantasy. Most adventurers won't become kings. They won't meet aliens with god like abilities and kill them. They won't be given the opportunity to kill frost giants (well, ok they might do). Conan is an exceptional character, get over it.

Yet, it seems to me this is the very essence of a Conan adventure. Facing the weird overcoming your terror and defeating it. If I am not going to face ape-men, Frost Giants, Giant Talking Snakes, Antediluvian Sorcerers and their bizarre henchmen, why play Conan? Seriously, that's not a rhetorical question. Hyboria is a wonderful setting and could be played in such a way that Conan is truly the exception, but I play Conan to emulate him, to have some good SnS adventures of my own.

Hyborean Apeman, in responding to you, wrote

The supernatural should feel 'wrong' and extraordinary, and PCs should never truly become accustomed to it. That is the onus of the DM to maintain the proper feel for the setting.

Which seems to line up nicely with your assertion that monsters shouldn't lurk around every corner.

I still don't really understand what you are objecting to. Guess I am just being dense.

Anyway, is this a long post?

 

[Hyborian Apeman]

Then why did people disagree with me in the first place?
I stated that Monsters do not lurk around every corner....

Some people felt differently. I was...discussing...with those people.

We were not arguing with you on that point. Your initial premise was that not every Conan adventure should have supernatural or weird monsters. Your reasoning is that they are rare in the Hyborean world and Sword and Sorcery should have a different feel than High Fantasy.

I understand Raphael’s point in questioning where you are coming from.

We all agree that monsters are rare and the feel of Conan should be preserved.

We disagree on whether these points are consistent with having a brush with the supernatural in every gaming session.