Would you like to see Vincent write more sourcebooks?

[MGBM]

In a previous thread Vincent Darlage stated that he hadn't been hired to make any Conan project for Mongoose at the moment. Since I have bought every single Conan book I truly appreciate Vincent's works and it would be a waste to see him not work on Conan anymore, as I'm sure others would agree.

Hence this poll to ascertain the level of interest we have about having Vincent write more sourcebooks. Voice your opinion, no matter what it may be, so that Mongoose can hear us.

So, would you like to see more Conan sourcebooks penned by Vincent?

 

[Supplement Four]

Absolutely!

I might not have liked Ruins very much, but that's because of the style of the book, not the writing. And, Vincent has written several other outstanding Conan books.

Count me as one of the first three positive votes.

 

[Spectator]

I voted NO, because I feel that too many sourcebooks take away the mystery of a world. I hate having to GM and then run a campaign in Stygia and tell my characters that they came across an oasis and hav one of them say; OH WOW the OASIS of whatever (since they read the sourcebook). I like a lot of mystery and unknown in my game.

Number two, I am unhappy with how the 'Goose treats its talent.

Nmber three, I am unhappy with the edits the 'Goose made in regards to the numerous things V.D. has put forth.

I own 3 items from VD; Shadizar, Thunder river, Stygia, Ruins, and Road of Kings; ok 5 things. I like his works and this should not be considered an attack on V.D., either.

 

[Supplement Four]

I voted NO, because I feel that too many sourcebooks take away the mystery of a world. I hate having to GM and then run a campaign in Stygia and tell my characters that they came across an oasis and hav one of them say; OH WOW the OASIS of whatever (since they read the sourcebook). I like a lot of mystery and unknown in my game.

I'm real lucky in that department. My players don't read rule books. They just rely on me.

Typically, I'm the only one who knows the rules. I teach it to them as we play. And, I don't have to worry about them reading adventures and scenarios.

It also helps me keep the game "story-centered".

 

[Vortigern]

I get rather annoyed and frustrated if I'm the only one who bothers to read up on the game and learn it.

 

[Supplement Four]

I get rather annoyed and frustrated if I'm the only one who bothers to read up on the game and learn it.

There are pros and cons.

If every body reads, there is a better understanding of the game, so it runs smoother.

OTOH, if they rely on me, that's golden (imo). They're focussed on story, not rules. In the classic GM/Player sense, they tell me what they want to do, and I put it in game terms.

I've played both ways. I believe I prefer being the only one with the knowledge of the rules (not that I'd ban a player from reading the rule book if he wants).

 

[Sting52jb]

I also voted no for some of the same reasons as Spectator but also for the following reason.

I own all of the Conan books minus Bestiary of the Hyborian Age, The Conan Compendium, Secrets of Skelos, Return to the Road of Kings, and all of the adventures.

While I do believe Vincent has done some really good work i would like to see a book done by someone who does not automatically dismiss aspects from a book because he does not like the style that it was written.

I wish someone would research every story for the area they were going to wright about and even if they might not personally like that part of the established world include it for those of us that do like that part of the established world.

If anybody is writing a book and needs information from a certain book let me know as i own all of the original lancer books minis two books, the first and i believe 7th book, and i own about 75% of the Tor books, and all of the new Ace, Age of Conan books.

While some of the stories are not as well written then other i do not automatically dismiss them as Conan stories, I just kind of see them as a historical account about Conan that is not necessarily 100% factual or may not have been researched properly.

I do hope that Vincent does wright more books, but i would rather see books that include all available information.

Wow that became quiet long winded and i don't want to upset anyone as this is just my take on it, and i mean no offense to Vincent.

 

[Hervé]

Yes, I'd like to see more stuff from Vincent,even though I think the regional sourcebooks fall a bit off target, focusing on too many mundane details (clothing, sexuality, marriage...) when they should focus on adventure gaming (more on political intrigues and coteries, an expanded gazetteer, adventures like The Fall of the Westermarck, some sample "mystery places" à la Ruins of Hyboria and so on...)

 

[tcherban]

though I think the regional sourcebooks fall a bit off target, focusing on too many mundane details (clothing, sexuality, marriage...) when they should focus on adventure gaming

I disagree with this (though I respect your opinion Hervé) since such mundane and cultural details are one of (might be the one) the things who made me open my eyes for the CONAN RPG. Having worked with some game development myself I appreciate this level of detail since CONAN is about culture and not shivering elves and laughing orcs or have I got it wrong?

 

[The King]

How I dislike these everything-or-nothing pools. Thus I had to vote no.

My reason is simple: whatever the astounding knowledge Vincent may have about the Hyborian Age, I think it is also good to receive a disintrested look from other writers (like it is being made for regional sourcebooks) because I don't think a monopolistic situation (i.e. a one-sided view) is good.
My main reproach to Vincent is that he links too many things to d20 rules and I feel a bit like reading these old MERP modules (less the map quality of course), that is with tables everywhere and the fantastic background merged in with the rules rather that the other way around. For instance, the now definitly dead "Lord of the Rings" from Decipher had a "light-rules" approach and could thus better transmit the ambiance of this specific setting than MERP ever did IMO (even though the authors then also knew the setting very well). I feel the same with Conan and much pleasure is thus wasted.

 

[Father_of_knives]

I voted NO, because I feel that too many sourcebooks take away the mystery of a world. I hate having to GM and then run a campaign in Stygia and tell my characters that they came across an oasis and hav one of them say; OH WOW the OASIS of whatever (since they read the sourcebook). I like a lot of mystery and unknown in my game.

In our group we have one gamemaster for one game. So when I gamemaster Conan, the B5 GM sits down and plays his character. Ever GM stays to his books and his books only, and if he wants people to read up on certain parts to know the world better we make copys of a few pages or have a presentation outside the gametime.

Gamemaster allowing players full access to the sourcebooks usually learn this after a while, and becomes better gamemasters for it.

Players are to be kept in the dark as much as possible.

 

[Hervé]

Father_of_knives wrote:

Players are to be kept in the dark as much as possible.

That's also what we trying to do. Only one of my players has some hyborian knowledge, though he isn't overusing it. Most of the books are labelled "GM only". We also do this with most games we play.

Part of the fun of a RPG is the discovery, in my mind at least. In my long years of gaming I've seen too many a player spoil games with their f*****g "rules knowledge". ("Hey I know this critter! it's got 6 HD and fire vulnerability, let's scorch it!").

 

[Vortigern]

though I think the regional sourcebooks fall a bit off target, focusing on too many mundane details (clothing, sexuality, marriage...) when they should focus on adventure gaming

I disagree with this (though I respect your opinion Hervé) since such mundane and cultural details are one of (might be the one) the things who made me open my eyes for the CONAN RPG. Having worked with some game development myself I appreciate this level of detail since CONAN is about culture and not shivering elves and laughing orcs or have I got it wrong?

I also like culture and and historical descriptions. The more depth you can give to the setting the better everything gets all the way around as far as gameplay. It may up the learning curve for players a bit, but it makes everything have a lot more believability and emotion to it.

 

[warzen]

Players are to be kept in the dark as much as possible.

Which is completly uncompatible with the d20 system where every players are supposed to have a complete knowledge of all feats and prestige classes...

W.

 

[Vortigern]

Father_of_knives wrote:

Players are to be kept in the dark as much as possible.

That's also what we trying to do. Only one of my players has some hyborian knowledge, though he isn't overusing it. Most of the books are labelled "GM only". We also do this with most games we play.

Part of the fun of a RPG is the discovery, in my mind at least. In my long years of gaming I've seen too many a player spoil games with their f*****g "rules knowledge". ("Hey I know this critter! it's got 6 HD and fire vulnerability, let's scorch it!").

I expect everyone at the table to know the stuff related to their characters and general combat / skill usage etc. without too many problems. If I have to stop and explain things about the rules and present them with their options/capabilities mechanics-wise, that is time taken away from everyone else and the story. I can't stand that as a GM. I'll tell them if they are really serious about wanting to play this game they should consider buying at the very least a copy of the core rules and reading over it during some spare time.

As a player I still want to know as much as I can... and I usually have a larger collection than the GM of whatever game I'm in. Or I do soon after getting into the game. At that point the GM often borrows my books, and/or, I'm suggesting things for them to read based on what I see in the game.

On the one hand I can understand people not approving of the classic complaint of 'rules lawyers', for a variety of reasons. On the other hand I've played with GMs that really didn't know the game they were running very well and would make 'gut' calls that ended up being inconsistent rather often. Only something that can happen without spurring a mutiny with players who do not know the game they are playing.

Also, as a player, I have often felt benefited by the effort I've put into learning the material by having knowledge of more options to take advantage of with my characters... in any system. Knowing there are rules to do X, Y, and Z goes a long way, if you are interested in X, Y, or Z.

I have trouble seeing player ignorance as anything other than a 'Bad Thing' tm.

 

[Style]

I also like culture and and historical descriptions. The more depth you can give to the setting the better everything gets all the way around as far as gameplay.

I wanted to put in another vote for this opinion. The better I understand the culture, the better I can portray the setting.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that I genuinely enjoy reading about that sort of thing. I'm an anthropologist at heart, and I love to study cultures, both real and fictional.

Concerning player ignorance, player ignorance of the rules is a bad thing. Player ignorance of the setting, which includes monsters, is a good thing. Player ignorance of modules is pretty much essential.

 

[Supplement Four]

Concerning player ignorance, player ignorance of the rules is a bad thing. Player ignorance of the setting, which includes monsters, is a good thing.

That seems backwards to me.

I'd prefer my player to know the setting and not the rules, if I had to pick between the two.

It mucho OK with me if players know both rules and setting.

But, I don't think players knowing rules but not the setting is disireable. I wouldn't hate it, and I'd deal with it. It just wouldn't be my preferance.

 

[Sting52jb]

I have to agree with Style as i prefer my players to understand the basic rules, they are always allowed to use the player guide but only have limited access to regional books if they are from that region, and no access to the dungeon masters guide. Or in the case of Conan limited access to the core books, usually only for class and character creation and leveling.

On the other hand if you do have some one who really knows the rules in you game it can be both a blessing and a curse, I some times stumble and those who are knowledgeable catch me and help guide us back on path. The curse is if you want something to happen but the rule lawyer keeps screwing up your plans by saying that's not in the rules dude.

I have played with both types and the good ones will never let their knowledge of the rules ruin the story for those others and will help you privately.

Just my two cents.

 

[Supplement Four]

The curse is if you want something to happen but the rule lawyer keeps screwing up your plans by saying that's not in the rules dude.

Which is why I would prefer players knowing setting over the rules.

I hate taking game time to look things up. I try to be as familiar as I can be with the rules, but I am only human. And, these are dense rule books. So, if I want to have someone throw WIS or less on a d20 to determine if a character has heard a specific rumor--I don't necessarily want a rules lawyer to make me stop the game and read the Knowledge (rumors) rules.

What I'll typically do is run it from the gut, but look it up between sessions so that I run it correctly next time.

You are right, though. It all depends on the players. I'm lucky in that, with my greater gaming group, we stopped arguing with the GM years ago. Everybody knows the GM is doing the best he can (no matter which of us is GMing). If he makes a call we're not happy with, we'll suggest an alternative. But, if the GM is adamant, we respect that he's the GM and keep playing.

Our play time is too valuable to spend it arguing about something silly.

 

[Father_of_knives]

My precious statement about keeping players in the dark did ofcourse not concern things as feats, combatrules and that stuff. This is imperative that the players learn.

My post was only concerned with players being kept out of the secret lore. I want none of it. I've played D&D sessions where all players involved knew the Monster Manual from cover to cover, for instance. I really hate that, when you are trying to play an immersive kind of roleplay. Its all well and fine to know the monsters when you powergame and pit the players 100% against the GM, but its really bad when you are trying to keep a mystique.

I do not want my Conan players to know all about the political situations in Ophir or Shemtish provinces without rolling a very high score on knowledge-checks. I do not want players to know "Oh its a Ghoul, those are vulnerable to this and have this much HP". I do not want my players, again without the knowledge-check, to start talking about the old dusty tomb that lies nearby, just because they know there is one close to a particular city.

Stuff concerning these things, are what I meant when I said players should be kept out of it. I think that should have been pretty obvious. Its self-explanatory that they should know about feats and prestige-classes.