TheRPGSite

I blew a wad on the kickstarter for Modiphius Conan and as a lifetime avid fan of REH cannot wait for the first hardcopies to arrive.

Ive heard quite a bit of negative chat on the system however and read through some older posts here on the forum but Im wondering if through development any of that negative hype has changed?

I played the quick start rules a bit and found them engaging, not perfect by any means but fairly suitable for the genre and from what I hear they have only improved with play testing.

Whats your take?

Oh, this should be interesting...

Was not impressed by the Quickstart, it wasn't very Sword and Sorcery, more like playing a novel, which is not what I want in a game.

"Negative Hype" - Yay, more "accidental" trolling.

No, the core criticisms of the system were never intended to be addressed through development.  It's a highly narrative system requiring OOC decisionmaking and remains so.

I imagine most of my bugs are your features, so I expect you'll love it.

I can see how the die mechanic helps to emulate the Conan genre. But I didn't care for the die mechanic. GURPS makes playing Conan feel like you are playing GURPS still, rather than playing Conan. I already have REH's books and some of the best Conan coffee table books out there. So have skipped the Modiphius take on him.

Quote from: rgrove0172;940073I played the quick start rules a bit and found them engaging, not perfect by any means but fairly suitable for the genre and from what I hear they have only improved with play testing.

Whats your take?

I downloaded the demo rules from the kickstarter and read them, but have not made any attempt to play with them.  Although the system itself did not interest me, I still backed the project to get access to the supplemental materials (setting information, old Conan game books, etc.) that were made available alongside the 2d20 system stuff.

I'm sure that playtesting has improved the game in the sense of making it a truer and more playable realization of the designers' intent.  However, the issues that people here had with the system were matters of design philosophy, so I expect that they will be unchanged, if not (to our tastes) "worse", in the released product.

Quote from: rgrove0172;940073I blew a wad on the kickstarter for Modiphius Conan and as a lifetime avid fan of REH cannot wait for the first hardcopies to arrive.

Ive heard quite a bit of negative chat on the system however and read through some older posts here on the forum but Im wondering if through development any of that negative hype has changed?

I played the quick start rules a bit and found them engaging, not perfect by any means but fairly suitable for the genre and from what I hear they have only improved with play testing.

Whats your take?

I imagine the final rules will be a better realization of the authors' intent and design philosophy the dislike of the game here appeared by more a fundamental difference in desires from that intent. So its unlikely the final product will be better received by its detractors here unless its a radical departure from the original. That said, if you enjoyed the playtesst then it might be worth looking into. I admit the discussion did make me curious but I'm a pretty casual fan of the genre.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;940084Was not impressed by the Quickstart, it wasn't very Sword and Sorcery, more like playing a novel, which is not what I want in a game.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940112I can see how the die mechanic helps to emulate the Conan genre.

Can you elaborate on what gave you that impression?

It's unlikely that development has changed things towards appeasing the people here who didn't like it. It would take changing the system, or at least removing it, to achieve that:).

That said, I wait for my KS files to arrive, and then we're going to see if I'd want to use the system, or use Mythras and add the setting material;).

How do the Conan quickstart rules compare with the 2d20 system as presented in Mutant Chronicles 3e? Lighter? Crunchier? Same shit?

I played in a friend's MC3 campaign for a while - until he gave up GMing it, in disgust. Too many annoyances with zone rules, and the adversarial nature of Dark Symmetry Points. I wasn't that fond of the rules bloat that came along what I'd refer to as over-complicated abstraction.

Is Conan the same kind of rules mess?

The problem is that Modiphius is focused on a game to create stories about adventuring in Hyboria where most gamer want to focus on being a character in Hyboria adventuring.

Quote from: K Peterson;940154I played in a friend's MC3 campaign for a while - until he gave up GMing it, in disgust. Too many annoyances with zone rules, and the adversarial nature of Dark Symmetry Points. I wasn't that fond of the rules bloat that came along what I'd refer to as over-complicated abstraction.

Is Conan the same kind of rules mess?

I refer you to the quote that CK preserves in his signature.

Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use.

Modiphius designers are no less obsessed and as consequence the rules for Conan appear no different in fiddleness and complexity compared to their other games.

Most baffling is that they claim that their John Carter game will be a "rules light" version of the 2d20 engine. How the fuck can one come to the conclusion that a game based on REH Conan should not at least get the same effort if they are stuck with the system? Then it would seem as they actually tried working with what they had.

A purly personal speculation would be that maybe a certain mr Malmberg is very infatuated with the idea of having Conan tied to his precious Mutant Chronicles universe on some kind of meta-level.

Or just the crew working on it being so desperate to establish their own house system as an universal engine and damned the consequences. With a heavy dose of hybris. Could explain the hyperbole purist angle they use to pimp the game. But on some level maybe they know how bad fit it is. Thus putting the focus on how purist the game will be , Howard-experts, the artists credentials and what not. Anything not putting the focus on the actual game. Like the playtesting film from the Howard house. The one hour-ish long slow sluggish combat encounter Pathfinder/3,5/4e style. They knew that did not look great so they clipped it down to about 20 mins highlighted instead as promotional material. Continuing spreading hyperbole about how fast, easy and casual the system is on forums.

It is like making a music album. Good lyrics, good looking cover and higly expensive studio equipment cant make up for it if the music is shit or doing something vastly different than what you try to persuade the world it is.

Eventually, a franchise will make Modiphius' die mechanic a hit.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940169Eventually, a franchise will make Modiphius' die mechanic a hit.

Eventually, the universe will die.

Quote from: estar;940160The problem is that Modiphius is focused on a game to create stories about adventuring in Hyboria where most gamer want to focus on being a character in Hyboria adventuring.

Chatting up your players isn't most gamers.

Quote from: estar;940160I refer you to the quote that CK preserves in his signature.

Even the the "cutting edge" storygamers for all their talk of narrative, plot, and drama are fucking obsessed with the god damned rules they use.

Modiphius designers are no less obsessed and as consequence the rules for Conan appear no different in fiddleness and complexity compared to their other games.

Is this where I poke at you about old schoolers for all their talk about immersion, choice, and surprise are fucking obsessed with the +mods they can get?

Quote from: K Peterson;940154I wasn't that fond of the rules bloat that came along what I'd refer to as over-complicated abstraction.

That's my problem with the system. I'm pretty easy going with with the whole trad/narrative divide. I can play games on either side of the divide if I like the design,  but I have an aversion to narrative games that double down on crunch.

There are so many types of rolls and ways to modify the rolls, adjusting the odds and adding dice to your pool. I'm spending so much time min-maxing my rolls that I don't get into the narrative. I had the same problem with Cortex Plus.

When I read the first couple of pages of the 2D20 system I thought it reminded me of a simpler version of Cortex Plus, and I was intrigued. Then the rules went on. And on. And on.

I'm not saying I want my narrative games to be freeform, but there are much lighter, functional systems out there. They have a Star Trek game coming up. Star Trek works well in a narrative system as it relies on a certain amount improvised technobabble. Still, I can handle that with GUMSHOE using Ashen Stars with the occasional quick point spend, rather than stopping the story to carefully construct the optimal dice pool.

Quote from: Sommerjon;940172Is this where I poke at you about old schoolers for all their talk about immersion, choice, and surprise are fucking obsessed with the +mods they can get?

If the game is well-designed or the referee is good then there would be no difference in trying to qualify for various modifiers than trying to place yourself at a tactical advantage as if you are really there.

Quote from: estar;940180If the game is well-designed or the referee is good then there would be no difference in trying to qualify for various modifiers than trying to place yourself at a tactical advantage as if you are really there.

So when the +mod is good enough, you have zero issues making up a story as why your toon wants it.

Some real good twisting there fella

Ive never taken issue with OOC narrative mechanics, we were using "Fate Points" with AD&D back in the 80s to allow changes to the environment, NPC intervention etc. Our take was, and still is, that heroes tend to have things go their way more often. If that means we are storytellers or whatever I wont argue too much against it but can honestly say we don't see it that way, its just another element of the game.

Some of the resource management stuff in RPGs makes the "Game" part of the experience more involved and to some more fun I guess. Im pretty centered on the roleplaying first and game aspect second but I can deal with it if its done right.

Quote from: Sommerjon;940191So when the +mod is good enough, you have zero issues making up a story as why your toon wants it.

Some real good twisting there fella

A longbow is not going fire an arrow ten miles regardless of bullshit you give the referee. If a guard is taking a piss in the wood and managed to position behind him it going get a better chance to hit than if he was actively defending against me.

It about using your fucking common sense as to how the setting works and the referee being fair enough to give you a bonus when you done things right. And too penalize you when you put your character in a bad situation.

Quote from: rgrove0172;940216Ive never taken issue with OOC narrative mechanics, we were using "Fate Points" with AD&D back in the 80s to allow changes to the environment, NPC intervention etc. Our take was, and still is, that heroes tend to have things go their way more often. If that means we are storytellers or whatever I wont argue too much against it but can honestly say we don't see it that way, its just another element of the game.

It a spectrum, there is no bright line that divides one from the other. In general, you have to look at the group as a whole. Is about creating a story? Or the experience of being the character you created. Even then it be a mix of both.

And from refereeing 30 years, the general trend is to use meta gaming mechanics to one's advantage. I rarely see it a player use it to complicate the lives of their own character. It often used a magic jelly bean to help the player get his character out of a jam.

Sorry to rain your narrative parade but you want to make stories together there are better ways. As an activity collaborative story telling dwarfs tabletop roleplaying. There are thousands of sits devoted to it, and people have come up with all kinds of ways of streamlining it into a enjoyable activity. Just google it.

Using a wargame, which a tabletop RPG is, as a engine for creating collaborative stories is cumbersome, slow, and often just plain doesn't work due to players trying to compete with each other for control. Note it does work for some.

In contrast it a much better use of the time to treat tabletop RPGs has a pen & paper virtual reality. Focus on pretending to be a character within the setting of the campaign. Picture things as if you are there. Note this is not the same as acting as a different personality. It work even if you roleplay a version of yourself with the abilities of the character as most do.

On the referee side the same thing applies, run the campaign with a focus on presenting it as if the setting really existed. And again this has nothing to with realism, if you don't care how feudal lords acted and instead go hollywood medieval that fine. It just a setting where the lords act like they do in hollywood movies.  

If your vision of King Arthur is Sean Connery's version in his film then by all means use that. But run the campaign as if the players are really standing before his character, don't try to replay the movie. Will this play out the movie, of course not, but if you roleplay well the players will come away feeling like they experienced dealing with that version of King Arthur. That what you are shooting for.

The same with a Conan RPG, it is tool to experience what it like to have interesting adventures in world of Hyboria like Conan did. It not a tool for generating new stories in Hyboria.

Quote from: estar;940221It not a tool for generating new stories in Hyboria.

Not according to Modiphius. :D

Quote from: rgrove0172;940216Ive never taken issue with OOC narrative mechanics, we were using "Fate Points" with AD&D back in the 80s to allow changes to the environment, NPC intervention etc. Our take was, and still is, that heroes tend to have things go their way more often. If that means we are storytellers or whatever I wont argue too much against it but can honestly say we don't see it that way, its just another element of the game.

Some of the resource management stuff in RPGs makes the "Game" part of the experience more involved and to some more fun I guess. Im pretty centered on the roleplaying first and game aspect second but I can deal with it if its done right.

Its definitely a spectrum of preference. I tend to see rpgs as creating an immersive unfolding story. IOW, the story is what takes place during the game hut I prefer that story resemble the sort of stories you'd see in fiction of the same nature. Narrative mechanics are one way of helping acheive that. Buy in and getting everyone on the same page are others. I prefer a certain degree of OOC mechanics but its not a hard line with a definite too much. I'm generally okay with "Hero points" and similar bennies since they reflect a basic premise of heroes (in the sense of primary characters) uaually  being less suscpetible to the dumb luck and similar things. Beyond that its a case by case basis.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940224Not according to Modiphius. :D

And for me, as someone who didn't know about the 2d20 system before the Quickstart, is not what I wanted in a GAME.

Quote from: rgrove0172;940073I blew a wad on the kickstarter for Modiphius Conan and as a lifetime avid fan of REH cannot wait for the first hardcopies to arrive.

Ive heard quite a bit of negative chat on the system however and read through some older posts here on the forum but Im wondering if through development any of that negative hype has changed?

I played the quick start rules a bit and found them engaging, not perfect by any means but fairly suitable for the genre and from what I hear they have only improved with play testing.

Whats your take?

I have found that this game is the only PnP RPG that I actually enjoyed playing solo, yes completely solo, as I tested out the game.  I can definitely see using it this way to write my short stories, using my character(s) going through various game situations.  

The one thing I pointed out quite some time ago, was that I misinterpreted the display system and I thought my use of the system was more cinematic than the way the developers planned for the system to be used.  

I can't wait to get my hands on the completed system and then I will run some one-shot mini scenarios on Google Hangouts and I'll upload them to YouTube for others to appreciate the game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940224Not according to Modiphius. :D

Or players and GMs wishing to use it that way.

Quote from: Bluddworth;940298I have found that this game is the only PnP RPG that I actually enjoyed playing solo, yes completely solo, as I tested out the game.  I can definitely see using it this way to write my short stories, using my character(s) going through various game situations.  

The one thing I pointed out quite some time ago, was that I misinterpreted the display system and I thought my use of the system was more cinematic than the way the developers planned for the system to be used.  

I can't wait to get my hands on the completed system and then I will run some one-shot mini scenarios on Google Hangouts and I'll upload them to YouTube for others to appreciate the game.

No need to clarify solo play, as has been picked apart at length here I am an avid solo roleplayer. In all likelihood Conan will be expressly enjoyed this way as I don't have players available that are interested. Not an issue for me however as it will allow a more thoughtful, contemplative and slower approach to the game where I can concentrate on the details of the setting.

Please post the Conan solo play reports when you do them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;940314Please post the Conan solo play reports when you do them.

I seem to be over complicating a combat action, or perhaps it is that complicated.  Here is the relevant information:

My character is attacking an NPC with a broadsword.  NPC has same weapon.  

My character relevant stats:

Brawn = 13
Melee = 15 with a Focus and Expertise of 4.

Bandit stats:

Brawn = 9
Melee = 10 with Focus / Exp of 1
Vigor = 5
Resolve = 4
Armor = 1 to all

My first attack:

Hit Location = Torso
d20 result = 3
d20 result = 4

Both are at or below Focus so 4 success, where only 1 need = 3 momentum

Damage Dice (x 8 / 5 for weapon + 3 for Brawn)

D1 = 2 for 2 pts
D2 = 6 for 1 pt + effect (parry)
D3 = 4 for 0
D4 = 4 for 0
D5 = 2 for 2 pts
D6 = 1 for 1 pt
D7 = 5 for 1 pt + effect (parry)
D8 = 1 for 1 pt

Total = 8pts + 2 effects of parry + Traits = 9pts + 3 effects + Momentum = 9 pts + 1 Wound + 3 effects ( 3 x Parry, 1 Vicious)

Traits:

No Mercy - Reroll CD = to total of Melee traits + Trait levels (3)
Blood on Steel = Add 1 Vicious effect for cost of 1 momentum
Killing Strike = add 1 Wound at cost of 2 Momentum

Rerolling CD:  Questions

Do I have to reroll all three?
Do I pick which three?
Do I have to decide how many I reroll before rolling?

For argument sake, I reroll three (3)  

D3 = 3 for 0
D4 = 6 for 1 pt + effect
D8 = 1 for 1 pt

Momentum Spend = 3 points

Vicious +1 pt damage
Killing + 1 Wound

Attack total before Opponent Soak / Defense:

9 pts + 1 Wound + 4 effects (Parry) + 1 Wound  - 1 for Armor

8 points of Damage to Bandit with 5 Vigor

Bandit has -3 Vigor (incapacitated) 1 wound from hit + 1 wound from trait

If Bandit could withstand only 1 wound = Dead with second wound
if Bandit could withstand 2 wounds, then would be at 0 wounds + additional -3 vigor (still dead?).

Note -  I used a Dice rolling app to simultaneously roll the 3d20 + 8d6 but this seemed to be quite a bit of calculating for one attack, and I did not even get to look at the NPCs response because I suspected this would be a one shot incap or even kill.  

Did I miss anything?






no plus ones
44 comments
44
no shares
Shared publicly•View activity
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
+1
Looking at the Bandits Vigor, he's a minion so he is dead at the first Wound.
Looks like you did everything right except you have a 2 as equaling an Effect on one of your [CD]

And you can reroll up to the three, you don't have to reroll all three if you don't want.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
oh sorry that was a typo
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
well I used the Pict stats so I don;t think should be a minion, which is why I gave 2 Wound Points.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
On the reroll, reroll all 8 dice up to three times or reroll just a specific die up to three times?
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
The Picts you used are Minions.

Nope, reroll up to three of the Dice, but each one only once.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
ok, that is how I did it.....  Calculating their attack:

There are 3 bandits left, their attacks:

Bandit 1:

Hit Location = 17
D20 Result = 12 = miss

Bandit 2:

Hit Location = 3
D20 Result = 5

D1 = 1 for 1pt
D2 = 1 for 1pt
D3 = 6 for 1pt + effect (parry)
D4 = 3 for 0
D5 = 6 for 1 pit + effect (parry)

Total = 3 pts Damage to R. Arm (SOAK 2) = 1 pt of Vigor loss

Bandit 3:

Hit Location = 18
D20 Result = 10

D1 = 4 for 0
D2 = 3  for 0
D3 = 3 for 0
D4 = 5 for 1pt + effect (parry)
D5 = 2 for 2 pt

Total = 3 pts Damage to L. Leg (SOAK 2) = 1 pt of Vigor loss

28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
That looks correct, but don't forget that the "Parrying" Quality on your sword lets you Parry once for free.

(The Minions don't get Reactions, even though they also have the Parrying Quality... at least that's what we were told during the Kickstarter)
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
My second Attack:  

Hit Location = Torso
d20 result = 11
d20 result = 8

Damage Dice (x 8 / 5 for weapon + 3 for Brawn)

D1 = 6 for 1 pt + effect (parry)
D2 = 3 for 0
D3 =6 for 1 pt + effect (parry)
D4 = 4 for 0
D5 = 3 for 0
D6 = 6 for 1 pt + effect (parry)
D7 = 6 for 1 pt + effect (parry))
D8 = 1 for 1 pt

Total = 5pts + 4 effects of parry + Traits = 6 pts + 5 effects

Traits:

No Mercy - Reroll CD = to total of Melee traits + Trait levels (3)
Blood on Steel = Add 1 Vicious effect for cost of 1 momentum
Killing Strike = add 1 Wound at cost of 2 Momentum

No Mercy Rerolls:

D2 = 3 for 0
D4 = 5 for 1 pt + effect
D5 = 4 for 0

Attack total before Opponent Soak / Defense:

6 pts + 5 effects (Parry)  - 1 for Armor

5 points of Damage to Bandit with 5 Vigor

Bandit has 0 Vigor (incapacitated)
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
There are 2 bandits left, their attacks:

Bandit 1:

Hit Location = 20
D20 Result = 20 critical miss

Bandit 2:

Hit Location = 7
D20 Result = 3

D1 = 6 for 1pt + effect (parry)
D2 = 1 for 1pt
D3 = 6 for 1pt + effect (parry)
D4 = 3 for 0
D5 = 6 for 1 pit + effect (parry)

Total = 4 pts Damage to L. Arm (SOAK 2) = 2 pt of Vigor loss

28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
My third attack / spend 2 Momentum for Swift Action

Hit Location = Torso
d20 result = 14 success + momentum
d20 result = 1 success + 2 momentum

Damage Dice (x 8 / 5 for weapon + 3 for Brawn)

D1 = 3 for 0
D2 = 5 for 1 pt + effect (parry)
D3 = 3 for 0
D4 = 5 for 1 pt + effect (parry)
D5 = 4 for 0
D6 = 1 for 1 pt
D7 = 6 for 1 pt + effect (parry))
D8 = 2 for 2 pts

Total = 6pts + 3 effects of parry + Traits = 7 + 4 effects

Traits:

No Mercy - Reroll CD = to total of Melee traits + Trait levels (3)
Blood on Steel = Add 1 Vicious effect for cost of 1 momentum
Killing Strike = add 1 Wound at cost of 2 Momentum

No Mercy Rerolls:

D1 = 3 for 0
D3 = 5 for 1 pt + effect
D4 = 3 for 0

Attack total before Opponent Soak / Defense:

6 pts + 4 effects (Parry)  - 1 for Armor

5 points of Damage to Bandit with 5 Vigor

Bandit has 0 Vigor (incapacitated)

Momentum / Swift Action Spent 2 Momentum prior to first attack:

Final Bandit being attacked:

Hit Location = L Leg
d20 result = 19 unsuccessful
d20 result = 3 success + 2 momentum

Damage Dice (x 8 / 5 for weapon + 3 for Brawn)

D1 = 2 for 2pts
D2 = 4 for 0
D3 = 1 for 1 pt
D4 = 1 for 1 pt
D5 = 5 = 1 for 1 pt + effect
D6 = 4 for 0 pt
D7 = 1 for 1 pt
D8 = 2 for 2 pts

Total = 8 pts + 1 effect of parry + Traits = 9 + 2 effects (parry) effects

Traits:

No Mercy - Reroll CD = to total of Melee traits + Trait levels (3)
Blood on Steel = Add 1 Vicious effect for cost of 1 momentum
Killing Strike = add 1 Wound at cost of 2 Momentum

No Mercy Rerolls:

D2 = 3 for 0
D6 = 6 for 1 pt + effect
D2 = 4 for 0

Killing Strike:  2 Momentum spent for 1 Wound

Attack total before Opponent Soak / Defense:

8 pts + 2 effects (Parry)  + 1 Wound - 1 for Armor

7 points of Damage to Bandit with 5 Vigor

Bandit has -2 Vigor, 2 Wounds  (Dead)

 
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
In Summary it took my character 3 combat rounds to kill or incapacitate four minions ( 2 x kills, 2 x incaps) and the entire action scene cost me 3 Vigor, suffering no Harm (wounds) and expending a total of 7 Momentum (all gained during action scene).

My question is:  What does all that parrying effects do if you never need it?  I suppose against minions with a Soak of 2 and Vigor of 16, never need to come into play.
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
+1
I don't think you're using parry correctly.
If a weapon has Parrying Quality it means that you may Parry once for -1 Doom (so basically free).
If it's the only Quality a weapon has, then the Effects only add 1 damage, as it doesn't need to be rolled to work.

Also, normally you would place those minions in a Mob, (I think it's called a Horde in the full game), and any damage & Wounds you had left after killing one would go towards killing others... so you could have killed all of them in one or two rounds.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
Oh, so I could have done a Parry roll for each of their attacks for every Parry Effect I gained.

I wasn't really treating them as Minions because I allowed for them to take 2 Wounds before death and 1 wound + - Vigor left them incapacitated.  

I did notice the Momentum spend of 2 points that would have allowed for me to hit One Target for full damage and a second one for half of that damage, which might have dispatched them faster as well.  

Overall it was kind of fun to run the quick scene and the use of the Dice Rolling App on my Ipad was very useful.
28w
Johannes “Waldgeist” Rebhan's profile photo
Johannes “Waldgeist” Rebhan
+1
You mean a brodesode? (Couldn't resist) https://youtu.be/Cx8sl2uC46A
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
+Johannes Rebhan that was the best 6 minutes I spent all day.  Well, maybe not, but it was good.
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
+1
+Captain Bluddworth​
Nope, Parrying Quality is entirely detached from rolling Effects.
Instead, if your weapon has it, that means that the Doom cost for Parry is reduced by 1.
This means your first Parry is free, and your second Parry only costs 1 Doom.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
But don't you have to roll your Parrying skill check to see if it is successful?  Secondly, what if you have multiple effect results of Parry, as I did?  

If for example I have 4 x effects results of Parry.

I get to use one party attempt at no Doom cost.

If I want to attempt to parry a second attack, I could spend two additional party effects to still not cost Doom.

A third attempt would cost 3 effect  

But, I believe rolls should have to be done for determining success or failure,  
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
+1
Yeah, you still have to roll your Parry test, in a Struggle vs the attacker.

Once again, Effects mean absolutely nothing when it comes to the Parrying weapon Quality. It's a passive Quality that is always active. Just pretend you didn't roll any Effects when it comes to Parrying, because they are only good for the +1 damage (or activating other Qualities if the weapon has more).

Are you using the rules from the chapters that have been released?
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
Yes I'm using the Parry Effect rule from Chapter 6.  All it says is that if you gain the Parry Effect you can Reduce the amount of Doom by 1 to get the extra action of a Parry.  Normally, if you wanted to add an extra action you would have to add 1 Doom or 2 Momentum.  
28w
Luc Pouet's profile photo
Luc Pouet
Parrying is a reaction, not an action. You choose to do it on the opponent turn, and it cost you one doom for the first, two for the second, three for the third..
If you're weapon have the Parrying quality, the doom cost is one less ( So 0 for the first parry. one for the second..)
It is not related with the effect ( as David told you)  it's a passive quality.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
Yes I understood that, but a roll of your Parrying skill is still needed.  It is not automatic success, and not truly "passive" like for example Vicious adds 1 to damage is passive.
28w
Luc Pouet's profile photo
Luc Pouet
But the roll of your parrying skill have nothing to do with the Parrying quality. You can parry with a weapon without parrying quality, it's just gonna cost you more. And when you roll a parry you do not roll damage dice so no effect involved. Parrying quality just allow to pay one doom less for parrying, and do nothing when you attack with the weapon and roll damage dice if you hit.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
+Luc Pouet yes I understand it is a reaction, it is like a counter punch just that instead of doing damage it blocks the opponent's Attack.  

28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
+1
+Captain Bluddworth​​
Vicious is not a passive Quality. It requires an Effect to be rolled to activate. It's an activated Quality.
Parrying is passive, in that it does not require an Effect to activate. It is always on. It lowers the Doom cost of Parrying with that weapon by 1. It never gets better than that.
You then still have to roll the Parry test. 
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
I thought that any weapon quality needs for the effect to be rolled for (5 or 6)?  

I think we are getting hung up on semantics, otherwise the rules don't make sense; I'm not making sense of them, or you are not using the correct terminology and explaining it in contradictory terms.  

If I have an Axe with a quality of Vicious, how is that any different from a Broadsword with the quality of Parry?  The Axe does or does not automatically get Vicious?  I believe it has to be rolled from the CD roll of a 5 or 6.  

Where Vicious is passive is that it grants a flat +1 damage, automatically.  Even if you roll a 5 or 6 for the Parry effect, you then have to roll a skill check based on your Parry skill.  
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
Dude, p.155 bottom right:
"Not all Qualities trigger on the roll of one or more Effects — some provide passive or ongoing benefits, while others inflict alternative Harms — but the majority of Qualities are tied to Effects rolled."

Intense, Parrying, Thrown, and Volley are examples of the Passive Qualities.

I honestly can't explain it any more.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
+1
They should not use the word "passive" even if the quality has an effect on a skill that must be rolled.  The required skill roll in my mind makes the whole thing Not Passive.  

Vicious is passive because it adds a flat bonus of +1 damage and requires no skill roll for it to be applied.  It is automatic, therefore passive.

"some provide passive or ongoing benefits, while others inflict alternative harms - but a majority of Qualities are tied to Effects rolled"

Does British English have a different definition of "Passive"?  Passive does not mean the same thing as "On Going", or at least not typically so.  

Passive means automatic or without any effort.  Its opposite is obviously "Active" or requires effort.  

"On Going" is like saying "Damage over Time" or that a benefit will continue for some X amount of time or even permanently.  

Again, we may be getting hung up on semantics.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
I wish to apologize if a negative tone is being read into my words, there is no intent on my part of that.  It is just getting late and I am really play testing the combat system for the first time (using the newly released chapters).  
28w
Luc Pouet's profile photo
Luc Pouet
No problem, lets try with a quick example.
I have a sword with parrying quality. A pict attack me and go first because the gm pay one doom.
I décide to take a reaction ( because it's not my turn). I décide to parry with my sword. Because of its parrying quality, it cost me one doom minus one doom= 0 doom.
The pict roll a flat D20 and get one success. I roll 2D20 ( because i'm a PC)  and get two sucess. I win the struggle, so i sucessfully parryied the pict attack ( and banked one momentum)
End of the story. I never rolled any CD. And i do not need it to use the passive quality of my sword, parrying.
If i had a hatchet instead, i do exactly the same, but i pay one doom to get a reaction parry, because hatchet do not have the passive parrying quality, but the active one vicious, witch activate when i roll an effect ( 5 or 6) on my CD.
Is that more clear this way?
28w
Luc Pouet's profile photo
Luc Pouet
( sorry for possible english mistake. Non native speaker. :) and btw thank you everybody for this Google group, very helpful for me when i gm this game.)
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
+Luc Pouet I will have to re read the rules but I'm under the impression that qualities are earned from the CD, and the difference between passive and active is whether or not they require a skill roll to be made in order for the quality to be successful.  Parry requires a skill check, there is no doubt of that.  Vicious does not require a skill check, it applies the +1 damage every time you roll a CD result of 5 or 6.  

This is why I believe we are getting hung up on the semantics.  I would reverse the terminology of Parry and Vicious if this is the case.  Parry is more active and not really passive, because of the skill check and struggle associated with it.  Vicious is not active, but passive, because once it is earned from the CD (5 or 6) it is automatically applied to damage, no skill check and no struggle.

Also in your scenario you give the impression that the sword has inherent to it the first parry opportunity before and CD have been rolled by the player.  I did not treat it that way in my example, because my character attacked first and had several parry effects earned before the NPC's turn.  

What I will do in my second running of that scene is use parry properly, as I did not the first time.  I will also dual wield an axe to show how different Vicious is from Parry from the source of weapon qualities.  

By my calculations, considering I use 8 CD with my Broadsword, I could earn as many as 8 qualities of parry effect.

First parry use one effect to negate doom cost = minus 1 effect
Second parry cost 2 effect results to not cost doom = minus 2 effects
Third parry cost 3 effects ......  = minus 3 effects

I can not get a 4th doom free parry, because I only have two effects remaining, but my 4th would only cost 1 doom.  

On the added benefit side the parry skill rolls will produce 6 more opportunities to gain momentum for use during the NPC action turn or to be spent in preparation (declared expenditure) before my second turn.  
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
+Phil Garrad I believe it is a 1:1, then 2:1, then 3:1,,etc expenditure.  Example:

First parry uses one effect to negate doom cost = minus 1 effect
Second parry cost 2 effect results to not cost doom = minus 2 effects
Third parry cost 3 effects ......  = minus 3 effects

I would not call this "on going" because it requires an ever increasing cost to not contribute doom to the doom pile.

28w
Phil Garrad (Venomous Filigree)'s profile photo
Phil Garrad (Venomous Filigree)
I believe it's ongoing as it's always there every round. Yes it only knocks off the total for that round, but next round it's there again...
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
+Captain Bluddworth​​​
Parrying doesn't cost Effect results. It never costs Effect results. That's why it's called Passive, it's not ever based upon Effect results. It also never gets better than the -1 Doom cost.
If you roll 0 Effects, you still get Parrying. If you somehow roll 443 Effects results with your swords damage, Parrying still only reduces Doom Parry cost by 1.
If you have your sword in your second hand, and instead attack with your Battle Axe this turn, you can still use your sword Parrying to reduce Doom by 1 for a Parry.
If all you are doing is standing there in the middle of combat holding a shield and attacking nothing at all, you can still use the shield's Parrying to reduce Doom for a defend reaction to Parry by 1.

28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
I ran the scene again, this time dual wielding, Broadsword and Throwing Axe.

It still took 3 rounds to kill 2 and incap 2, but the Vicious quality overall did more damage even though the BS gets 2 more CD than the axe.

In this scene I did manage to effectively parry 2 attacks, both the only 2 hits that NPCs scored on me, so that was better than the first run through.

Taking on 4 Picts solo and walking away unscathed is not bad.

As for there not being an Effects cost, than what is the benefit of rolling multiple 5's and 6's on CD?

I thought it was to offset the escalating doom cost of multiple Parry attempts?
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
There is no benefit for rolling Effects with a weapon that only has Parrying (or any other Passive Quality) except for the 1 damage the 5 or 6 is worth.
However, that doesn't make them worthless because there are Talents (like Blood on Steel) that add Qualities (like Vicious) to those Effect rolls.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
+David Thomas yes I am aware of the Blood on Steel trait, I have it and that is why I found the axe to be superior to the broadsword for that reason.  I'm looking at my character build now to reduce Parry expertise and focus and spend those points elsewhere.  

Dual wielding axes plus spending 4 momentum, two for Swift Action and two for Secondary Target, looks like this will be my go-to tactic for second round (assuming I don't start first round with 4+ momentum).  
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
Even better, if you are dual wielding, Swift Action only costs you 1 Momentum.
28w
Benn Graybeaton's profile photo
Benn Graybeaton
To be honest, you've got a great melee build going on.  Melee builds such as this one will Kill minor NPCs all day every day.  Its nemesis fights that make these characters lives interesting.  
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
Ah, +Benn Graybeaton​ is here. I pass over explanations of Parrying Quality to him.
28w
Benn Graybeaton's profile photo
Benn Graybeaton
+1
Parrying Quality.  If you have a weapon with the parrying quality and you parry the Doom cost is discounted by 1.  Its called passive because the degree at which the effect functions is static and requires no test.  Its always a discount at the same uniform rate.

Other qualities might activate on effects but Parrying doesnt.

Hope that helps.
28w
Captain Bluddworth's profile photo
Captain Bluddworth
+Benn Graybeaton thank you, I've finally gotten it past my struggle with the use of the word "passive".  As for the character build, yes it is pretty awesome and even better with dual wielding a battle axe / broad sword.  
28w
Benn Graybeaton's profile photo
Benn Graybeaton
I like axe/short sword myself. :)
28w
David Thomas's profile photo
David Thomas
Short sword's are cool in this game!

I included the comments from other players who addressed some of my misapplication of parrying mechanic, and I stayed with the somewhat stronger "minions".  This was a play test quite a few weeks or even months before Displays were added.  

Displays are "actions" that you can perform if you have acquired the prerequisites and cost a full action, and return only a small benefit (morale breaking in some circumstances).  I used the Display, once earned as an additional action in the same round (usually at the end of the round).  Example:  Cutting the head off the leader and raising it, before wading into the throng of now demoralized minions.

Bludworth:
1. Spoiler that shit.
2. Jesus Fucking WEPT, if you're going to post 18 pages, at least spend a minute to pull all the 28w, Profile Photo and Signature lines out.

That's just unreadable.

Quote from: Bluddworth;940316I seem to be over complicating a combat action, or perhaps it is that complicated.  Here is the relevant information:

My character is attacking an NPC with a broadsword.  NPC has same weapon.  

*ka-snip!*

er... Thats not solo Role playing. Thats effectively solo board gaming.

Can the rules handle talking to NPCs without a DM? Is there an actual built in solo oracle type system?

The best conan system is already out there. It's called CONAN: The Board Game.

Much better at emulating the genre.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;940367The best conan system is already out there. It's called CONAN: The Board Game.

Much better at emulating the genre.

Sorry but I disagree. The Boardgame is pretty fun, sweet presentation but hardly recreates the genre.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940328Bludworth:
1. Spoiler that shit.
2. Jesus Fucking WEPT, if you're going to post 18 pages, at least spend a minute to pull all the 28w, Profile Photo and Signature lines out.

That's just unreadable.

Sorry about that, I was posting from an IPad, but I'll clean it up when I get to my computer.

Most of my complains about the 2d20 system are completely subjective and a matter of personal preference.  I do not like OOC mechanics.  Most of all, I do not like games that force OOC decisions on the players, and I do not like games with big meta-game economies especially if they cannot be removed from the system.  The FATE system has a big meta economy, and is generally considered a "narrative" style game.  However, it can be played IC.  There are no mechanics that force you to play OOC in FATE, but there are mechanics that FORCE you to play OOC in 2d20.  MY point is that 2d20 far more more narrativist and gamist than FATE ever was.  I don't begrudge Bluudworth, rgrove, or anybody else for enjoying it, but it does suck for me that there is a new "ultimate adaptation" of my favorite IP that cannot even be played as a traditional RPG.

However, some of my complaints are that the game, regardless of mechanical preferences, suits the genre poorly.

Quote from: rgrove0172;940440Sorry but I disagree. The Boardgame is pretty fun, sweet presentation but hardly recreates the genre.

2d20 Conan doesn't recreate the genre either.  

In 2d20 you can up your chances of success and do super cool things by tempting the universe (taking extra dice in exchange for doom points).  If your character dares to tamper with the cosmic balance of the universe, he can do super heroic things in exchange for a Karmic backlash that will come to haunt him later.  Hmmm...  Since when is REH about cosmic fairness, karma, fate or balance?  Since when does it make sense for a character to go beyond his own mortal abilities by choosing to take unforeseen repercussions administered by the cosmos?  Never.  It's a stupid meta game mechanic that has nothing to do with the genre.  In fact, it is antithetical.  In Conan, a man takes his skills and resources and pits them against an unfair and uncaring universe.  However, in 2d20 the player is constantly making this bargain with the universe. It doesn't fuckin fit.

In 2d20 you can barrow your friends' successes.  So if one character gets an amazing success sneaking up on the bad guys, the power of that success floats out into the universe as momentum, which I can then snatch out of the air to aid my sword arm in battle, or to help me swim even though my character can't swim.  What exactly does that intrinsic mechanic represent in REH's Hyborian Age?

In 2d20 any PC can succeed at almost any task, regardless of what his strengths and weaknesses on his character sheet are, simply by playing the meta game of momentum and doom.  Besides the fact that it ensures a constant flow of meta game munchkinism and the narrative power of the PCs to always triumph, it removes the sense of mortal struggle, that a man survives by his wits, the strength of his arm and sharpness of his steel, that so pervades REH's stories.

For me it is not just that the mechanics are unplayable as a traditional RPG due to forced OOC metagame mechanics (I enjoy other types of games as well), but that this "ultimate Conan RPG" does an awful job at reflecting Howard's stories and themes.  This is not the fault of Jason D or the many talented writers, artists, and scholars working for Modiphius.  I'm sure they are plying their considerable talent to adapt as best they can.  It is simply that the basic structure of the 2d20 rules, which were chosen non-negotiably as the house system for the "ultimate" Conan game, are a bad fit for REH's Hyborian Age.

I am done ranting.  It seemed obligatory.

...of course, I also bought the entire line via KS. I am hoping for adventures, npcs, monsters, setting details, plots, and general inspiration.  If I don't find any of that (and I think I will), I'll be selling it off in short order.

Quote from: Madprofessor;940471but it does suck for me that there is a new "ultimate adaptation" of my favorite IP that cannot even be played as a traditional RPG

These Conan stories are public domain (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/36031). Of course there is a problem on what you call it as Hyboria, Conan, etc are trademarked for games by other people. But the core is in the public domain.

Unfortunately stuff like fate points isnt new to Conan RPGs. This goes wayyyyyy back to 84 and the AD&D Conan modules. Those introduced Luck points that you could use to do things like make an extra attack, perform some physical feat, KO someone, etc. The trick was the player did not know how many points they had nor how many a given task might need to succeed. Up to and including doing stuff outside the rules or killing an opponent in one blow.

Quote from: Madprofessor;9404712d20 Conan doesn't recreate the genre either.  

In 2d20 you can up your chances of success and do super cool things by tempting the universe (taking extra dice in exchange for doom points).  

And that's the key point:  In a Sword and Sorcery world, the Universe DOESN'T CARE.  You can't affect it in anyone's favour, because you are beneath it, an inconsequential, ambulatory bag of water that can die at any time, and the universe will continue on without ever noticing.

That's a key element, because Howard and Lovecraft ascribed to the same universal ideal and shared letters and ideas.  So this OOC mechanic to manipulate the Universe is pure anathema to a Conan Sword and Sorcery style game.

Quote from: estar;940477These Conan stories are public domain (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/36031). Of course there is a problem on what you call it as Hyboria, Conan, etc are trademarked for games by other people. But the core is in the public domain.

In AUSTRALIA they are by LAW there.  Not in the rest of the world.  Although technically, they should have been public domain since the 1960's (I THINK it's 1964, given my calculations) but Paradox claims otherwise, and their legal department has managed to bully the rest of the world into believing them.

I think I see where some of the difference in viewpoint may be coming from. Id you view the essence of Howard's stories as taking place in a cold uncaring and ultimately materialistic universe where only skill, wits and fickle luck matter then OOC elements for protagonists will probably seem out of place for you. If you view the stories as high octane adventure tales where the protagonist(s) do extraordinary things you survive even succeed to a degree that indicate some meta setting favor like in other pulp fiction then the OOC elements likely work fo you. Unfortunately, they seem to mutually incompatible points of view.

Quote from: Madprofessor;940471Most of my complains about the 2d20 system are completely subjective and a matter of personal preference.  I do not like OOC mechanics.  Most of all, I do not like games that force OOC decisions on the players, and I do not like games with big meta-game economies especially if they cannot be removed from the system.  The FATE system has a big meta economy, and is generally considered a "narrative" style game.  However, it can be played IC.  There are no mechanics that force you to play OOC in FATE, but there are mechanics that FORCE you to play OOC in 2d20.  MY point is that 2d20 far more more narrativist and gamist than FATE ever was.  I don't begrudge Bluudworth, rgrove, or anybody else for enjoying it, but it does suck for me that there is a new "ultimate adaptation" of my favorite IP that cannot even be played as a traditional RPG.

However, some of my complaints are that the game, regardless of mechanical preferences, suits the genre poorly.



2d20 Conan doesn't recreate the genre either.  

In 2d20 you can up your chances of success and do super cool things by tempting the universe (taking extra dice in exchange for doom points).  If your character dares to tamper with the cosmic balance of the universe, he can do super heroic things in exchange for a Karmic backlash that will come to haunt him later.  Hmmm...  Since when is REH about cosmic fairness, karma, fate or balance?  Since when does it make sense for a character to go beyond his own mortal abilities by choosing to take unforeseen repercussions administered by the cosmos?  Never.  It's a stupid meta game mechanic that has nothing to do with the genre.  In fact, it is antithetical.  In Conan, a man takes his skills and resources and pits them against an unfair and uncaring universe.  However, in 2d20 the player is constantly making this bargain with the universe. It doesn't fuckin fit.

In 2d20 you can barrow your friends' successes.  So if one character gets an amazing success sneaking up on the bad guys, the power of that success floats out into the universe as momentum, which I can then snatch out of the air to aid my sword arm in battle, or to help me swim even though my character can't swim.  What exactly does that intrinsic mechanic represent in REH's Hyborian Age?

In 2d20 any PC can succeed at almost any task, regardless of what his strengths and weaknesses on his character sheet are, simply by playing the meta game of momentum and doom.  Besides the fact that it ensures a constant flow of meta game munchkinism and the narrative power of the PCs to always triumph, it removes the sense of mortal struggle, that a man survives by his wits, the strength of his arm and sharpness of his steel, that so pervades REH's stories.

For me it is not just that the mechanics are unplayable as a traditional RPG due to forced OOC metagame mechanics (I enjoy other types of games as well), but that this "ultimate Conan RPG" does an awful job at reflecting Howard's stories and themes.  This is not the fault of Jason D or the many talented writers, artists, and scholars working for Modiphius.  I'm sure they are plying their considerable talent to adapt as best they can.  It is simply that the basic structure of the 2d20 rules, which were chosen non-negotiably as the house system for the "ultimate" Conan game, are a bad fit for REH's Hyborian Age.

I am done ranting.  It seemed obligatory.

...of course, I also bought the entire line via KS. I am hoping for adventures, npcs, monsters, setting details, plots, and general inspiration.  If I don't find any of that (and I think I will), I'll be selling it off in short order.

I dunno, I think its all a matter of perception. I can recall many scenes in REH's stories (Conan's and others) were the "hero slips on a pool of blood" or "barely catches hold with his finger tips" or "has an enemy's blow glance off his armor as he turned" etc. (Quotes are not direct) The action appears to the reader to be a matter of fate, luck or whatever - be it beneficial or detrimental. Nobody is measuring to see if they even out but it seems obvious that sometimes "shit" just happens without the direct influence of the character's ability/skill/desire etc. There is another element there, some other force at work.

Conan's company of mercenaries is fired on by enemy archers and scores drop in the metal rain, but not the Cimmerian, somehow he only takes a shaft in the thigh which he shrugs off. Conan's ship goes down in flames and his crew drown but not him, he wakes up on the shore sun burnt and exhausted but alive. Conan is about he eaten by wild wolves but suddenly an old tomb entrance appears granting him an unexpected and miraculous escape. Howard's stories are full of this kind of stuff and sure, you can explain it any number of ways but who cares? The point is the 2d20 system allows for it to be recreated in the game, which I think was most likely the point.

I can agree that it may well be directed at permitting each game to recreate a Hyborian tale rather than presenting a simulation but personally Im ok with that. Why am I interested in playing a game based on Howard's work? Because I read and enjoyed Howard's work and would like to take part in something similar to it. I get that others may have a different vision of what they want to get out of it but I would think most fans of the genre would be ok with a mechanic that allows the action on the table to more or less imitate the stories.

Quote from: rgrove0172;940494I dunno, I think its all a matter of perception. I can recall many scenes in REH's stories (Conan's and others) were the "hero slips on a pool of blood" or "barely catches hold with his finger tips" or "has an enemy's blow glance off his armor as he turned" etc. (Quotes are not direct) The action appears to the reader to be a matter of fate, luck or whatever - be it beneficial or detrimental. Nobody is measuring to see if they even out but it seems obvious that sometimes "shit" just happens without the direct influence of the character's ability/skill/desire etc. There is another element there, some other force at work.

Conan's company of mercenaries is fired on by enemy archers and scores drop in the metal rain, but not the Cimmerian, somehow he only takes a shaft in the thigh which he shrugs off. Conan's ship goes down in flames and his crew drown but not him, he wakes up on the shore sun burnt and exhausted but alive. Conan is about he eaten by wild wolves but suddenly an old tomb entrance appears granting him an unexpected and miraculous escape. Howard's stories are full of this kind of stuff and sure, you can explain it any number of ways but who cares? The point is the 2d20 system allows for it to be recreated in the game, which I think was most likely the point.

I can agree that it may well be directed at permitting each game to recreate a Hyborian tale rather than presenting a simulation but personally Im ok with that. Why am I interested in playing a game based on Howard's work? Because I read and enjoyed Howard's work and would like to take part in something similar to it. I get that others may have a different vision of what they want to get out of it but I would think most fans of the genre would be ok with a mechanic that allows the action on the table to more or less imitate the stories.

That's just the problem some see with it: Imitating the Stories, literally, as in an OOC, 4th-wall breaking, decision-making process that creates something that Howard could have written.  People for whom roleplaying is really roleplaying plus storytelling will love it I expect.

Hell, my players loved it for what it was, it's just not what they want from a roleplaying game.
Mobs are still totally worthless in the system and Zones are absolute shit, but that crap can be removed.

To be honest, the Solo-play for the purposes of creating a Story makes perfect sense in this system.

Quote from: rgrove0172;940494I
I can agree that it may well be directed at permitting each game to recreate a Hyborian tale rather than presenting a simulation but personally Im ok with that. Why am I interested in playing a game based on Howard's work? Because I read and enjoyed Howard's work and would like to take part in something similar to it. I get that others may have a different vision of what they want to get out of it but I would think most fans of the genre would be ok with a mechanic that allows the action on the table to more or less imitate the stories.

It  can be seen as taking a more of an authorial stance or perspective Not an absolute one, IMO, but more of one and I don't usually feel that way about hero points and similar things. It feels more like nudging probability and other factors to produce something feels like a Howard story or similar pulp fantasy story. But if your goal is something more pure simulation end of the spectrum that might not be desirable.

fucket. I"m gonna flog my brand new thread on Modiphius's Mutant Chronicles. I do imagine a large number of my comments about their take on Conan will be more than applicable.  It'll be like looking in a crystal ball.

In an ironic twist, the 'narrative' mechanics totally work for Star Trek Adventures, but the combat system doesn't.

Quote from: estar;940221Using a wargame, which a tabletop RPG is, as a engine for creating collaborative stories is cumbersome, slow, and often just plain doesn't work due to players trying to compete with each other for control.

Yeah, RPGs aren't a wargame, but we've already had that talk. What's more, the reason players keep competing with each other for control is because they can't get past that assumption.

Quote from: Madprofessor;940471There are no mechanics that force you to play OOC in FATE, but there are mechanics that FORCE you to play OOC in 2d20.

#Bullshit

The same things which keep Fate from being OOC are the same things which keep 2d20 from being OOC.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940603The same things which keep Fate from being OOC are the same things which keep 2d20 from being OOC.

Not quite.  In FATE, unless they've changed things, you don't have to spend FATE points to do ordinary tasks, it must be a pretty serious Stunt for it to have a FATE activation cost.
In Conan 2d20, if I choose to parry, the GM gets a Doom Point.  That's not spending a Momentum, but it is a cost.
Now on the GM side of things, many NPC powers must be activated with a Doom expenditure.  Many things that most systems simply assume the GM will decide through fiat or random roll, are taken out of the GM's hands (because remember, Modiphius thinks GMs need to be restricted or are n00bs who need to be led) and assigned Doom costs for.

To "de-OOC" 2d20 you'd have to...

• Get rid of Fortune, or at least severely curtail it down to "got luckily saved from death without any choice to spend involved" like WFRP1.
• Get rid of buying dice by giving Doom to the GM (which incidentally, makes the highest level of difficulty in the system mathematically unattainable).
• Get rid of "banking" Momentum and restrict it's usage.
• Take the Doom costs off of nearly everything the GM does, because without players putting Doom in, the GM won't have enough Doom generated through Momentum to make happen what logically would.

You can De-OOC Savage Worlds pretty easily, without affecting the system all that much.  It still plays fine, just comes down a few notches on the 1930's Serials Scale.
You can De-OOC FATE with more difficulty, leaving you wonder why not just start with Fudge or Old Fate 2.0 to begin with instead of a hamstrung New Fate?
You can De-OOC 2d20 which will be more complex than Fate (because there are simply more point economies at work here), but I'm not sure the system without the Narrativium is really worth playing.  You take away a One-Trick Pony's Trick, you're left with an Untrained Pony.

If I go to 2d20, it's because I enjoy Roleplaying+Storytelling, I want Players Choosing to be Awesome, knowing that if they keep doing it, Shit.Will.Get.Real because the GM's Doom Pool is growing.  I want that collaborative/competitive give and take that makes me feel like I'm inside a Howard Story as opposed to Howard's World.  

If you don't like Narrative Point Economies, if you don't like OOC decisions as players, if you don't like the GM to be restricted in rules like players are, why in god's name would you even think about choosing this system?  It's like buying a Range Rover for street racing.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940112...GURPS makes playing Conan feel like you are playing GURPS still, rather than playing Conan. ...

This is well put! I think the most natural match with Conan is BRP; really, you wish someone had done a thoughtful mashup of RQ2 and original Call of Cthulhu - that would hit the tone of original stories almost perfectly.

Quote from: Larsdangly;940612This is well put! I think the most natural match with Conan is BRP; really, you wish someone had done a thoughtful mashup of RQ2 and original Call of Cthulhu - that would hit the tone of original stories almost perfectly.

No, you just want Mythras, or, amusingly enough, Tunnels and Trolls for the combat stunts;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;940480In AUSTRALIA they are by LAW there.  Not in the rest of the world.  Although technically, they should have been public domain since the 1960's (I THINK it's 1964, given my calculations) but Paradox claims otherwise, and their legal department has managed to bully the rest of the world into believing them.

In Australia more of Howard's stories are PD. In United States it turned out that many of the original Weird Tales magazines never had their copyright renewed which was the law at the time. So those stories, as published in the 1930s, are public domain. Note all the Weird Tales covers displayed in the link.

What complicates things is that Conan is primarily known threw the Ace book series which not only had original Howard stories but patisches written by Carter and de Camp. Along with other stories from Solomon Kane, Kull, etc that were re-written as Conan stories by the two. Plus that series came up with the Conan timeline of his life which is followed more or less by the dozens of novels and stories written afterward. All that is very much under copyright.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940603The same things which keep Fate from being OOC are the same things which keep 2d20 from being OOC.

My point, which I didn't clarify very well, is that most of the narrative mechanics of FATE can be removed and the game can be played as a traditional IC RPG.  I just basically run the skill and damage system with aspects limited to characters (no more tagging the fire aspect of the building zone, etc.).  Aspects and compels just become a sort of free-form feat/advantage/disadvantage system for a very course grained skill based RPG.  At it's heart, if you remove all the clever narrativy crap - like you can only die when you think it is dramatically appropriate BS - FATE works OK as a fairly generic skill based RPG with a "make up your own boons and flaws" thing going on.  There are several threads around here about it.  I know pundit did it for Starblazers and I have done it with Anglarre.

This same just isn't true with 2d20 where the fortune/doom thing is so deeply woven into every facet of the game that removing the OOC mechanics leaves it completely formless and without structure.  In FATE, you can remove narrative bits and it still chugs along.  In 2d20, it just collapses and has to be rebuilt to be put back into service.  It's not worth it

Quote from: rgrove0172;940494I dunno, I think its all a matter of perception. I can recall many scenes in REH's stories (Conan's and others) were the "hero slips on a pool of blood" or "barely catches hold with his finger tips" or "has an enemy's blow glance off his armor as he turned" etc. (Quotes are not direct) The action appears to the reader to be a matter of fate, luck or whatever - be it beneficial or detrimental. Nobody is measuring to see if they even out but it seems obvious that sometimes "shit" just happens without the direct influence of the character's ability/skill/desire etc. There is another element there, some other force at work.

Conan's company of mercenaries is fired on by enemy archers and scores drop in the metal rain, but not the Cimmerian, somehow he only takes a shaft in the thigh which he shrugs off. Conan's ship goes down in flames and his crew drown but not him, he wakes up on the shore sun burnt and exhausted but alive. Conan is about he eaten by wild wolves but suddenly an old tomb entrance appears granting him an unexpected and miraculous escape. Howard's stories are full of this kind of stuff and sure, you can explain it any number of ways but who cares? The point is the 2d20 system allows for it to be recreated in the game, which I think was most likely the point.

I can agree that it may well be directed at permitting each game to recreate a Hyborian tale rather than presenting a simulation but personally Im ok with that. Why am I interested in playing a game based on Howard's work? Because I read and enjoyed Howard's work and would like to take part in something similar to it. I get that others may have a different vision of what they want to get out of it but I would think most fans of the genre would be ok with a mechanic that allows the action on the table to more or less imitate the stories.

Nah.  The action never appears to be fate, luck, fortune, the gods, karma, cosmic balance etc in Howard's Conan stories.  That is the opposite of what Howard was writing about.  Conan lives by his strength, wits, skill, reflexes and steel.  He is sometimes lucky and sometimes unlucky. If he comes out on top when he gambles it is because he knows how to play the odds. He trods the jeweled thrones beneath his feet and carves out a kingdom by his own hand.  Right?  No otherworldly forces give it to him. No power smiles from above to pluck him from danger.  I am a historian and not an expert on literature, but it seems to me that the stories are about the power of a mortal man (and yes it is a bit misogynistic) to overcome nature, the wickedness of civilization, and the uncaring unfathomable universe.  You might argue that Conan never dies, but that is only because REH's literal pay check depended on his survival.  The doom/fortune economy in 2d20 absolutely kills these Howardian themes - if you play RPGs from an IC perspective.  

Modiphius Conan is not about playing a character in the Hyborian age.  It is a game where the group collectively plays REH, as some kind of collective rule-bound hive-mind, in the process of writing a Hyborian age story.  Players push points around competing for REHs typewriter.  At least, that is the only angle I can come up with that makes the fortune/doom economy make any sense.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940608Not quite.  In FATE, unless they've changed things, you don't have to spend FATE points to do ordinary tasks, it must be a pretty serious Stunt for it to have a FATE activation cost.
In Conan 2d20, if I choose to parry, the GM gets a Doom Point.  That's not spending a Momentum, but it is a cost.
Now on the GM side of things, many NPC powers must be activated with a Doom expenditure.  Many things that most systems simply assume the GM will decide through fiat or random roll, are taken out of the GM's hands (because remember, Modiphius thinks GMs need to be restricted or are n00bs who need to be led) and assigned Doom costs for.

To "de-OOC" 2d20 you'd have to...

• Get rid of Fortune, or at least severely curtail it down to "got luckily saved from death without any choice to spend involved" like WFRP1.
• Get rid of buying dice by giving Doom to the GM (which incidentally, makes the highest level of difficulty in the system mathematically unattainable).
• Get rid of "banking" Momentum and restrict it's usage.
• Take the Doom costs off of nearly everything the GM does, because without players putting Doom in, the GM won't have enough Doom generated through Momentum to make happen what logically would.

....
.

From time to time, I think that perhaps Conan 2d20 won't be so bad, and that I could give it a chance, I don't know, a few houserules here and there, and I could have a perfect serviceable system. And then Madprofessor and CRKrueger come along, and remind me how wrong I am, and how difficult and laborious it would be.

Mother of God, the rule that if you parry, the GM gets a Doom Point, made me cringe.

I think its hilarious that they cribbed a design element from a board game that was cribbing design elements from a much older board game that was cribbing from Conan.

Full Circle.

Quote from: Madprofessor;940649Nah.  The action never appears to be fate, luck, fortune, the gods, karma, cosmic balance etc in Howard's Conan stories.  That is the opposite of what Howard was writing about.  Conan lives by his strength, wits, skill, reflexes and steel.  He is sometimes lucky and sometimes unlucky. If he comes out on top when he gambles it is because he knows how to play the odds. He trods the jeweled thrones beneath his feet and carves out a kingdom by his own hand.  Right?  No otherworldly forces give it to him. No power smiles from above to pluck him from danger.  I am a historian and not an expert on literature, but it seems to me that the stories are about the power of a mortal man (and yes it is a bit misogynistic) to overcome nature, the wickedness of civilization, and the uncaring unfathomable universe.  You might argue that Conan never dies, but that is only because REH's literal pay check depended on his survival.  The doom/fortune economy in 2d20 absolutely kills these Howardian themes - if you play RPGs from an IC perspective.  

Modiphius Conan is not about playing a character in the Hyborian age.  It is a game where the group collectively plays REH, as some kind of collective rule-bound hive-mind, in the process of writing a Hyborian age story.  Players push points around competing for REHs typewriter.  At least, that is the only angle I can come up with that makes the fortune/doom economy make any sense.

This quote is pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with the game:

"...He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?"
Queen of the Black Coast

Quote from: CRKrueger;940608Not quite.  In FATE, unless they've changed things, you don't have to spend FATE points to do ordinary tasks, it must be a pretty serious Stunt for it to have a FATE activation cost.
In Conan 2d20, if I choose to parry, the GM gets a Doom Point.  That's not spending a Momentum, but it is a cost.
Now on the GM side of things, many NPC powers must be activated with a Doom expenditure.  Many things that most systems simply assume the GM will decide through fiat or random roll, are taken out of the GM's hands (because remember, Modiphius thinks GMs need to be restricted or are n00bs who need to be led) and assigned Doom costs for.

To "de-OOC" 2d20 you'd have to...

• Get rid of Fortune, or at least severely curtail it down to "got luckily saved from death without any choice to spend involved" like WFRP1.
• Get rid of buying dice by giving Doom to the GM (which incidentally, makes the highest level of difficulty in the system mathematically unattainable).
• Get rid of "banking" Momentum and restrict it's usage.
• Take the Doom costs off of nearly everything the GM does, because without players putting Doom in, the GM won't have enough Doom generated through Momentum to make happen what logically would.

You can De-OOC Savage Worlds pretty easily, without affecting the system all that much.  It still plays fine, just comes down a few notches on the 1930's Serials Scale.
You can De-OOC FATE with more difficulty, leaving you wonder why not just start with Fudge or Old Fate 2.0 to begin with instead of a hamstrung New Fate?
You can De-OOC 2d20 which will be more complex than Fate (because there are simply more point economies at work here), but I'm not sure the system without the Narrativium is really worth playing.  You take away a One-Trick Pony's Trick, you're left with an Untrained Pony.

If I go to 2d20, it's because I enjoy Roleplaying+Storytelling, I want Players Choosing to be Awesome, knowing that if they keep doing it, Shit.Will.Get.Real because the GM's Doom Pool is growing.  I want that collaborative/competitive give and take that makes me feel like I'm inside a Howard Story as opposed to Howard's World.  

If you don't like Narrative Point Economies, if you don't like OOC decisions as players, if you don't like the GM to be restricted in rules like players are, why in god's name would you even think about choosing this system?  It's like buying a Range Rover for street racing.

The whole concept of the Doom Pool is just... I have no words for it. Why the fuck would a GM need to spend meta-currency to be allowed to do anything? It's absurd. And this Doom Pool is fueled by the players having their PC do awesome stuff?

Now I have not studied the system in detail, let alone tried to play or run it, but it would seem to me that everybody will turn out shifting meta-currency around the table all the time slowing down the pace and breaking immersion. Makes me wonder if discussion about this game shouldn't be in Other Games?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;940696This quote is pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with the game:

"...He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?"
Queen of the Black Coast

Exactly. The doom/fortune mechanics create a universe that is very different from this theme of man's struggle in an uncaring universe.

If you really want to support this theme that runs through all of the Conan stories, you need a game with skills and stats (preferably random stats - point buy suggest a fairness that doesn't exist) and zero ability to influence anything in the game world other than through your character's action - no re-rolls, no fate points, none of it.

Quote from: 3rik;940700Why the fuck would a GM need to spend meta-currency to be allowed to do anything? It's absurd. And this Doom Pool is fueled by the players having their PC do awesome stuff?

1. Because a few of the higherups are of the opinion that GMs need to be restricted in power and forced to play within the lines to create a good session.
2. It's part of the collaborative storytelling.  When players are buying Dice, they are giving the GM Doom, so essentially to be more Pulpish, Conanish, or what I call Choosing to be Awesome, they do so knowing the GM is going to do the same.  They are basically granting the GM the ability to kick it up a notch.  They have their hand on the Meta-Throttle.

Quote from: 3rik;940700Now I have not studied the system in detail, let alone tried to play or run it, but it would seem to me that everybody will turn out shifting meta-currency around the table all the time slowing down the pace and breaking immersion. Makes me wonder if discussion about this game shouldn't be in Other Games?

To be fair, once you get used to it, the game speeds up, not slows down once the metapoints become involved.  Buying dice means extra successes.  Extra successes means Momentum. Momentums kills shit faster, powers Cool Things and can give others dice which generates more successes, etc.  It's when you play it "straight" that things slow down.  True, you don't have the meta-decisions to worry about, but your character isn't dropping three Mooks an action either.

If Immersion for you in the context of roleplaying means "immersion into the character who's role I'm playing" then yeah, you're gonna be losing that all the time.  If your perspective is shifted just above the character, to the Howard Story about your Character, then you can switch back and forth, IC and OOC, and still be in the Story, even if you're not in your Character.  

To a lot of people, that's what's they've always meant by "roleplaying", games like this just give you a game to play in each headspace.

Quote from: Omega;940675I think its hilarious that they cribbed a design element from a board game that was cribbing design elements from a much older board game that was cribbing from Conan.

Full Circle.

Could you name those elements and the game they were cribbed from for us boardgame-illiterates:)?

Quote from: Madprofessor;940711Exactly. The doom/fortune mechanics create a universe that is very different from this theme of man's struggle in an uncaring universe.

If you really want to support this theme that runs through all of the Conan stories, you need a game with skills and stats (preferably random stats - point buy suggest a fairness that doesn't exist) and zero ability to influence anything in the game world other than through your character's action - no re-rolls, no fate points, none of it.

Destiny and fate don't exist? Because Conan said so?
Conan is, in your minds, more aware of the workings of the world than...oh, I don't know, the protector saint of Aquilonia in the first Conan story ever written by Howard (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600811h.html) who has been protecting the country for 1500 years:D?

Quote from: REH - Phoenix in the Sword"Oh man, do you know me?"

"Not I, by Crom!" swore the king.

"Man," said the ancient, "I am Epemitreus."

"But Epemitreus the Sage has been dead for fifteen hundred years!" stammered Conan.

"Harken!" spoke the other commandingly. "As a pebble cast into a dark lake sends ripples to the further shores, happenings in the Unseen world have broken like waves on my slumber. I have marked you well, Conan of Cimmeria, and the stamp of mighty happenings and great deeds is upon you. But dooms are loose in the land, against which your sword can not aid you."

"You speak in riddles," said Conan uneasily. "Let me see my foe and I'll cleave his skull to the teeth."

"Loose your barbarian fury against your foes of flesh and blood," answered the ancient. "It is not against men I must shield you. There are dark worlds barely guessed by man, wherein formless monsters stalk—fiends which may be drawn from the Outer Voids to take material shape and rend and devour at the bidding of evil magicians. There is a serpent in your house, oh king—an adder in your kingdom, come up from Stygia, with the dark wisdom of the shadows in his murky soul. As a sleeping man dreams of the serpent which crawls near him, I have felt the foul presence of Set's neophyte. He is drunk with terrible power, and the blows he strikes at his enemy may well bring down the kingdom. I have called you to me, to give you a weapon against him and his hell-hound pack."

"But why?" bewilderedly asked Conan. "Men say you sleep in the black heart of Golamira, whence you send forth your ghost on unseen wings to aid Aquilonia in times of need, but I—I am an outlander and a barbarian."

"Peace!" the ghostly tones reverberated through the great shadowy cavern. "Your destiny is one with Aquilonia. Gigantic happenings are forming in the web and the womb of Fate, and a blood-mad sorcerer shall not stand in the path of imperial destiny. Ages ago Set coiled about the world like a python about its prey. All my life, which was as the lives of three common men, I fought him. I drove him into the shadows of the mysterious south, but in dark Stygia men still worship him who to us is the arch-demon. As I fought Set, I fight his worshippers and his votaries and his acolytes. Hold out your sword."

Or maybe saints ain't good enough, and we want to check, I don't know, The Hour of the Dragon (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600981.txt) for a dark wizard and a witch:p?

Quote from: REH, Hour of the DragonThe horse was tiring fast. Conan recognized the grim finality of his
position. He sensed an inexorable driving fate behind all this. He
could not escape. He was as much a captive as he had been in the pits
of Belverus. But he was no son of the Orient to yield passively to
what seemed inevitable. If he could not escape, he would at least take
some of his foes into eternity with him. He turned into a wide thicket
of larches that masked a slope, looking for a place to turn at bay.

***

Zeiata stirred the fire without replying.

"These things are governed by immutable laws," she said at last. "I
can not make you understand; I do not altogether understand myself,
though I have sought wisdom in the silences of the high places for
more years than I can remember. I cannot save you, though I would if I
might. Man must, at last, work out his own salvation. Yet perhaps
wisdom may come to me in dreams, and in the morn I may be able to give
you the clue to the enigma."

***

A long silence ensued, in which the crackle of the tamarisks was loud
on the hearth.

"Find the heart of your kingdom," she said at last. "There lies your
defeat and your power. You fight more than mortal man. You will not
possess the throne again unless you find the heart of your kingdom."

"Do you mean the city of Tarantia?"

She shook her head. "I am but an oracle, through whose lips the gods
speak. My lips are sealed by them lest I speak too much. You must find
the heart of your kingdom. I can say no more. My lips are opened and
sealed by the gods."

***

In that great emptiness the voice of the man beside the altar sounded
hollow and ghostly:

" And so the word came southward. The night wind whispered it, the
ravens croaked of it as they flew, and the grim bats told it to the
owls and the serpents that lurk in hoary ruins. Were-wolf and vampire
knew, and the ebon-bodied demons that prowl by night. The sleeping
Night of the World stirred and shook its heavy mane, and there began a
throbbing of drums in deep darkness, and the echoes of far weird cries
frightened men who walked by dusk. For the Heart of Ahriman had come
again into the world to fulfill its cryptic destiny. "Ask me not how
I, Thutothmes of Khemi and the Night, heard the word before Thoth-Amon,
who calls himself prince of all wizards. There are secrets not meet
for such ears even as yours, and Thoth-Amon is not the only lord of
the Black Ring."

So, the learned people in the stories all know about fate and gods influencing the events.
Conan, in his barbaric indifference to the workings of the outwordly forces, just rejects whatever plots they forces beyond Veil have prepared, and fights until he changes it, or is brought low. But there are things even he couldn't fight, unless helped by an outworldly force or two (Epemitrius and the Heart of Ahriman, respectively). All said powers, tellingly, help him in order to fulfill their destinies.
In short, Conan is a pawn in a Universe-wide game of chess. He's just the Pawn that lives long enough to get promoted into a more important figure;).

And Fate points, Mythras-style, are quite useful in this set-up. The Doom Pool would require, admittedly, more mental gymnastics, but it's doable.

Asen actually makes a decent point.  You look in Howard's stories, it's NOT Full.Lovecraft.  Yes, there's the Outer Void and Gulfs Unknown to Man filled with Demons and Things Unimaginable.  But there's also the more immediate conflict of gods.  Crom might not care, but Mitra and Set kinda do, and they don't like each other much. :D

Mythras has Luck points, not Fate points.

That was my point, Green One - and also, that you're unlikely to play a follower of Crom in a game that has you playing characters from all over the setting;).

Besides, what's the point of playing a Cimmerian? You can at best hope to match Conan, while you can always strive to do better than the other Aquilonians, Nemedians and Hyrkanians in the stories:D!

Is the Doom point mechanic  and economy explicitly In setting, out of setting or "It depends"?

Quote from: Nexus;940729Is the Doom point mechanic  and economy explicitly In setting, out of setting or "It depends"?

Define explicitly.  "This is an OOC mechanic." is a line I doubt you'll ever see, even in games filled with them.

Quote from: Robert E. Howard's Conan, page 261, quoted under Fair Use, bolding mineThe Doom pool grows and shrinks as the player characters take action and the gamemaster responds. Doom is a means of building tension— the larger the Doom pool, the greater the likelihood that something will endanger or imperil the player characters. Strictly speaking, the player characters don’t know that their actions further imperil them as they push their luck — at least they should not know in any fashion they can measure — but the players understand this. Eventually, in a final encounter, all of the Doom generated in the session is spent, usually in a final confrontation.

In this way, Doom mimics the increasing tension which builds over the course of a Conan story. Each story is comprised of cycles of building and releasing tension. This rollercoaster series of highs and lows eventually culminates in an action-heavy ending which tops all the previous cycles.

The gamemaster collects Doom. The players see it, and they know that the more they push their luck, the worse the eventual reprisal will be. The gamemaster should encourage and assist the players as they ride those ups and downs, and channel these highs and lows through the reactions of their player characters.

That bolded part is about as explicit as you'll see I think.

Now, they DO throw you a bone or two for rationalizing this:

Quote from: Robert E. Howard's Conan, page 262, quoted under Fair UseThe heroes push their luck, and Fate pushes back.

and

Quote from: Robert E. Howard's Conan, page 262, quoted under Fair UseIn the setting, Doom is an abstract thing, but something ever-present in the minds of those caught up in the intrigue and danger of the Hyborian Age: Doom is everything that could go wrong, every problem that could arise, the pressure applied by the conspiracies of evildoers and the machinations of malevolent gods, and represented in the power of foul sorcerers and vile abominations. It is seeped into the earth in some places, redolent of ancient and terrible deeds done in ages long forgotten by history. While at times the universe seems a vast and indifferent place, it inevitably reeks of evil and maliciousness, and the hearts of men and beast alike, when left to their own devices, will turn malign and baneful.

So, in this case, they're making the argument that it's not an Uncaring Universe, but some kind of Malevolent force, an embodiment of the evils in the world.

How you'll interpret all this is up to you, seems pretty clear it's meant to be a completely OOC player-facing, player-aware mechanic, that maybe the characters have some sense of.  Narrative players who like dwelling in both Story and Character can probably make it seem seamless.  

If you wanted to, you could hide the Doom Pool, so the players can't see it, they simply state their actions and get dice, they don't actually put counters into the Doom Pool themselves, or see the GM do it, so they don't literally see the bowl filling up with red counters or whatever.  The GM can adjust his descriptions accordingly to ratchet up the tension, etc.

In the end though, it's putting the players in charge of the pacing, their hand is on the throttle.  If they decide to starve the GM of Doom, not much he can do except gain them through his own Momentum, which means he has NPCs rolling great, but not doing anything, storing Doom for later.

So the players have to buy in to not game the system and starve the GM, and he kind of has to play into not being a Doom Whore and storing up enough Doom to have a big bad vaporize the characters.  It is competitive, but definitely works better when people agree to Not Be A Dick.

BTW some other headings from the GM chapter...
Let the Players Be Extraordinary
Framing Scenes
Scene Framing Tricks
Just Say "Yes"
Failing Forward and Success at a Cost

So, you may want to stay out of the GM Chapter unless you like your teeth itching. :D
Either that or have a good bottle by your side.

Also, the adventure Vultures of Shem looks to be pretty cool, but, like the other adventure, it's very In Media Res.

The problem with In Media Res adventures is, because they are focused and drop you right into the story, they are perfect for one-shots or starting adventures, where it is assumed the campaign continues from here.  The problem is stringing them together, especially if they are all over the place.  It forces a meta-construct of "Wandering Heroes" which again, fits the genre if you're concerned with the current Story aspect only and handwave everything in between..."Your characters just drank, fought and fucked their way from Aquilonia to Turan...as you get to the outskirts of Agrahpur..." but doesn't fit a logical, coherent setting too well if the players have motivations in the Hyborian World other than "Roaming S&S Hero".  Most of these books are supposed to have adventures in them, hopefully they're not just hyper-focused and will contain information usable in a broader context.

There are supposed to be some mini-campaigns coming, so that should be interesting to see.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940732If they decide to starve the GM of Doom, not much he can do except gain them through his own Momentum, which means he has NPCs rolling great, but not doing anything, storing Doom for later.

So the players have to buy in to not game the system and starve the GM...

That's one thing I've wondered about with 2D20: would it be an effective strategy for the players to starve the GM of Doom/Dark Synergy Points, basically emasculating any NPCs/monsters that they face? What would happen if they cooperated? Would the opposition be a pushover for the characters throughout an adventure, because the antagonists would rarely be able to leverage any special abilities? Or would it be a fail-fest across the board for the characters and the opposition, because the level of competence for everyone would be in the shitter? I'd bet that it would result in some pretty uninspiring and uncinematic play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940733BTW some other headings from the GM chapter...
Let the Players Be Extraordinary
Framing Scenes
Scene Framing Tricks
Just Say “Yes”
Failing Forward and Success at a Cost

So, you may want to stay out of the GM Chapter unless you like your teeth itching. :D
Either that or have a good bottle by your side.

I just bought Captain Morgan Gold spiced today, and just made some tea that goes with it:p. I'm all set, though I've got The Nightmares Underneath to read, instead.

Quote from: K Peterson;940736That's one thing I've wondered about with 2D20: would it be an effective strategy for the players to starve the GM of Doom/Dark Synergy Points, basically emasculating any NPCs/monsters that they face? What would happen if they cooperated? Would the opposition be a pushover for the characters throughout an adventure, because the antagonists would rarely be able to leverage any special abilities? Or would it be a fail-fest across the board for the characters and the opposition, because the level of competence for everyone would be in the shitter? I'd bet that it would result in some pretty uninspiring and uncinematic play.

It would probably result in the kind of Warhammer fights where people hack at each other until they score a critical;).

Quote from: K Peterson;940736I'd bet that it would result in some pretty uninspiring and uncinematic play.

That hasn't happened in four sessions of MC (Dark Symmetry early period) with my group, they just add dice all over the place and i not-so discreetly add the red glass beads to my pile.

They've been known to utter an 'oh crap look at that pile....' once in a while....

Quote from: AaronBrown99;940738That hasn't happened in four sessions of MC (Dark Symmetry early period) with my group, they just add dice all over the place...

Oh, sure. I played around 5 sessions in a friend's MC3 campaign, and the GM never had a shortage of DSP. Getting all of the players to work together to starve the GM would be a challenge in itself, and probably be like herding cats. Not very damn likely. :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;940732Define explicitly.

Is there any attempt to connect it with some in setting force or justification like "Force Points" or "Possibilites" which are some that nominally exist in the setting's metaphysics though not in the quantifiable mechanical form detailed form they're present as in the mechanics and the characters may or may not be aware of them.

Quote from: K Peterson;940736That's one thing I've wondered about with 2D20: would it be an effective strategy for the players to starve the GM of Doom/Dark Synergy Points, basically emasculating any NPCs/monsters that they face? What would happen if they cooperated? Would the opposition be a pushover for the characters throughout an adventure, because the antagonists would rarely be able to leverage any special abilities? Or would it be a fail-fest across the board for the characters and the opposition, because the level of competence for everyone would be in the shitter? I'd bet that it would result in some pretty uninspiring and uncinematic play.

If you played the published adventures so far with a 100% no-dice buying policy, it would be slower-paced, definitely lower-octane, but due to the overuse of Mobs, the PCs would still have a pretty decent advantage.  A GM needs to use Doom to even make them worthy of being placed on the table, really, they are far, far weaker than SW non-Wild Cards for a comparison.

The problem is, once you do that, you're going to be focused more on the details of combat itself, range, positioning, tactics, etc... and with the Zone system, you may as well not bother on that front.  Which is why I don't think the game is worth modifying.  Play it for what it is, if you can do that, it's very fun.  If you can't - don't.  You'll never make it Mythras, you'll never even get it to Savage Worlds or 5e, so why bother?

But, if you don't go out of your way to make an OOC production out of the buying of dice, then I noticed it wasn't this big OOC thing.  There were no meta-discussions like "Dude, we'd better not buy any more dice, we're gonna get Doomed." or anything like that.  If the player really wanted to do something, they grabbed for the extra dice, which I called "Effort Dice".  Yeah, the players remarked that the decision was in their heads, it was somewhat immersion breaking, which is why it's not considered a candidate for the weekly roleplaying system.

Quote from: AsenRG;940737It would probably result in the kind of Warhammer fights where people hack at each other until they score a critical;).

Hey, a drive-by snark line.  I thought you didn't like the Sommerjon comparison? ;)  I know someone suggesting you can't just handwave and paper over all OOC mechanics gets you swallowing your tongue, but to paraphrase the philosopher Robert Downey Jr...

Never go Full.Sommerjon.  Beside we already have NeoJon in Driscoll, so you wouldn't even be an original imitator. ;)

Quote from: Nexus;940742Is there any attempt to connect it with some in setting force or justification like "Force Points" or "Possibilites" which are some that nominally exist in the setting's metaphysics though not in the quantifiable mechanical form detailed form they're present as in the mechanics and the characters may or may not be aware of them.

No. The closest you have is that second excerpt from page 262 I quoted.  Doom is definitely not Dark Symmetry, which in Mutant Chronicles is a thing.

Which is why when this whole thing was announced way back when, I questioned the use of these mechanics for Conan.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940743Hey, a drive-by snark line.  I thought you didn't like the Sommerjon comparison? ;)  I know someone suggesting you can't just handwave and paper over all OOC mechanics gets you swallowing your tongue, but to paraphrase the philosopher Robert Downey Jr...

Never go Full.Sommerjon.  Beside we already have NeoJon in Driscoll, so you wouldn't even be an original imitator. ;)

Two:).
You need to learn something, Green One: if I have something to add, I do that. If it amounts to one sentence, I write one sentence.
Sommerjon writes single sentences (or used to, I stopped reading months ago). I recently reminded Rgrove that Heamingway wrote a whole short story in a single sentence, too.
That doesn't mean Sommerjon is anywhere near Heamingway.
And in the same vein, me writing a single sentence doesn't mean I'm immitating someone whose posts I don't even see until you quote them. Not anymore than it makes me Heamingway, it must be noted.

Also, there was no snark. It was system analysis...though admittedly, I haven't looked at the system for a while.
Still, if you only roll the basic 2d20, I'd expect you to need to gather Momentum to really take someone out. So you are going to hack at people for a while.
And that reminds me of Warhammer;).

Personally, Nexus, I don't know if you would like it.
1. It's Howard, so definitely going to be some dark stuff going on.  Vultures of Shem(the adventure in the book)  

Spoiler

has cannibalistic ghouls potentially eating or sacrificing dead NPCs and PCs alike.

2. It's arguable as to whether the Narrative Mechanics are there because that's the way the Hyborian World works, or that's the way a Howard Weird Tale from the 30's works.  There's magic, demons, gods, etc in Howard's Hyboria, so you might be able to square the circle the same way you can something like Pendragon, I don't know.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940744No. The closest you have is that second excerpt from page 262 I quoted.  Doom is definitely not Dark Symmetry, which in Mutant Chronicles is a thing.

Which is why when this whole thing was announced way back when, I questioned the use of these mechanics for Conan.

Thanks, some of the discussion made me wonder how it was presented in the game.

I wonder...

What would happen if you just say fuck it to shuffling around all those tokens. And instead say :

Here is Hero Points and here is Villains Points (Doom). Players start with X number of individual points and GM starts with Y number of points. They only refill at the end of a session or at the end of a adventure. Nothing you do in-game will refill anything. You use it or lose it. And Parry does not give GM any more Doom and you actually rolls initiative in combat. No Doom either way for any sensible standard actions. If new points generates by some circumstance you use it or lose it if applicable.

So you kill the moving meta-economic system, but dont change a lot of other underlying assumptions of the system. Except, also limit Doom to really be Villains Points. Only antagonists to the players can use them. No enviromental-cosmic effects manipulated by some backlash-reversed-Karma-force.
 
Question then is: What the hell would be the consequences? Would it still be playable?

If you strip out the crap stuff from the game, all you're left with is the setting material - which you can get from multiple other sources. It's a bit hilarious that if you have a risk averse gaming group, you're basically going to be grinding the whole time, while if you have people willing to make trade-offs, you're kinda playing something else with a nod to rpgs.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;940112GURPS makes playing Conan feel like you are playing GURPS still, rather than playing Conan.

Um, I suppose, though playing GURPS Conan has been the only time I ever felt like playing Conan at all, so...
Actually the type of play involved (in GURPS Conan) _is_ one that I like, which is to think about what the real-world stats for something really powerful, strong, skilled, super-heroic etc. would be, and then to game the rest of the universe realistically, to see what that's like. Including the likelihood that you still need to face real risks and consequences, not just have crap work because of story expectations.

What I've read about Modiphius 2d20, FATE, etc all sounds like something I'd hate and prefer were called something other than an RPG.

Quote from: Skarg;940768.

What I've read about Modiphius 2d20, FATE, etc all sounds like something I'd hate and prefer were called something other than an RPG.

Well that's a load off my mind then.

Just think, all that time I've spent worrying whether or not you think an rpg I play should be called something else.

If you're going for hardcore mundane (in the sense of grounded and non cinematic, not dull or ordinary) Conan, GURPS seems like a good choice.

Quote from: Nexus;940770If you're going for hardcore mundane (in the sense of grounded and non cinematic, not dull or ordinary) Conan, GURPS seems like a good choice.

Mechanically I think The Dark Eye 5e might work out just fine, but you'd have to import all of the setting materials from elsewhere and rebuild the culture packages to fit Conan.

Of course, we are criticizing a system for a game that isn't published yet.

Nothing I have seen about the Modiphius Conan (YET) looks good to me, but maybe the published books will be more palatable.

Quote from: Spinachcat;940783Of course, we are criticizing a system for a game that isn't published yet.

Nothing I have seen about the Modiphius Conan (YET) looks good to me, but maybe the published books will be more palatable.

The criticism is mostly for the game system--2d20--that Modiphius only makes minor tweaks to adapt to everything they put out. I haven't looked at the Conan stuff, but I do own (and have tried twice to play) their MC3 game, so I feel I can be critical of 2d20.

Quote from: Spinachcat;940783Of course, we are criticizing a system for a game that isn't published yet.

Yes, we have.  It's what's powering Mutant Chronicles 3e.  Unless they're rewriting the entire system since the quickstart, which is based off the MC3 game...  I think we have criticized the right system.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940725Asen actually makes a decent point.  You look in Howard's stories, it's NOT Full.Lovecraft.  Yes, there's the Outer Void and Gulfs Unknown to Man filled with Demons and Things Unimaginable.  But there's also the more immediate conflict of gods.  Crom might not care, but Mitra and Set kinda do, and they don't like each other much. :D

Mythras has Luck points, not Fate points.

That is actually in Lovecrafts stuff too. The old gods are active AND arent co-operating much. But they are now somewhat more subtle and long term in their plots and plans. Generational corruption. Dagon with Innsmouth as one example, or Yog-Sothoth and Dunwitch, Shub-Nigguraths modern cults and so on. All are indifferent to the human race. But even worms can be put to use.

Much the same in Conan. Except these beings are more hands on and out in the open with their followers. Even Crom. Since he actively gives men courage and strength at birth and then leaves them to their own devices sink or swim. But thats still taking a very hands on approach. Its just that it tends to be often a case of "Here. Have some stuff. Use it well cause thats it." and others are "The first hits free..."

So, without using Doom points, what kind of actions is the GM allowed to perform?

Quote from: 3rik;940865So, without using Doom points, what kind of actions is the GM allowed to perform?

At a guess. Probably not much since these sort of "economy" storytelling games have a tendency to shuffle the hard hitting stuff into the GM store for purchase. Otherwise whats the point in having this economy system if the GM can still hammer the PCs without it?

Quote from: 3rik;940865So, without using Doom points, what kind of actions is the GM allowed to perform?

Without doom points, a GM will be able to have his NPC's perform normal, proactive actions (ie, move and attack), but not defend themselves. But only after the players are done with theirs, courtesy of the popcorn initiative. By removing the buy-in economy, it stands to reason that player characters won't be able to defend themselves either by buying defensive actions, nor buy dice to counter difficulties. The GM can't activate spells or special powers of NPCs and monsters, and he can't arbitrarily decide to break a player character's leg (something that has a set cost of 4 baddie points according to MC3). Things like accidents, traps, earthquakes, Newton's laws and the like would be stuff that only happen in fairytales told around a campfire.
A simple initiative-system can relatively easily be cobbled in if you so desire. Changing the turn-structure into something that makes a modicum of sense is also doable. If you're really industrious you can make a power point or pr/day-system for special powers, and retool the way difficulty-challenges work to play a 2d20-game without the badpoints-pool.
But it would be less work to just play something else instead.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;940769Well that's a load off my mind then.

Just think, all that time I've spent worrying whether or not you think an rpg I play should be called something else.

The point being, that especially after David Johansen explained the basic combat system to me on Spike's MC rant thread, it seems to me that it's just a very different game type and having a descriptive word for it might convert arguments about how terrible an RPG it is, to simply saying it's another type of game. Narrative and story game apply, but the abstract fate/momentum/shared-success/doom/"dark synergy" system isn't necessarily just narrative per se - is there already a conventional term for that other than OOC/metagame/GMnerf?

Quote from: Skarg;940886- is there already a conventional term for that other than OOC/metagame/GMnerf?

Yes.  It's called RPG.

You guys wanting more qualifiers for what you guys think is RPG is a YOU problem it has nothing to do with RPG.

Quote from: Sommerjon;940898Yes.  It's called RPG.

You guys wanting more qualifiers for what you guys think is RPG is a YOU problem it has nothing to do with RPG.

You really love being wrong dont you?

For supposedly smart people some of you are really short sighted when it comes to this.

First, given @AsenRG's examples, just renaming 'Doom' to 'Notice' and using little glass eye beads as counters would solve the thematic/perspective discrepancy. But if you really want to get rid of Doom/Momentum entirely, have everything that would normally add Doom raise the chance of a Complication on the next roll by one instead.

Quote from: K Peterson;940736That's one thing I've wondered about with 2D20: would it be an effective strategy for the players to starve the GM of Doom/Dark Synergy Points, basically emasculating any NPCs/monsters that they face? What would happen if they cooperated? Would the opposition be a pushover for the characters throughout an adventure, because the antagonists would rarely be able to leverage any special abilities? Or would it be a fail-fest across the board for the characters and the opposition, because the level of competence for everyone would be in the shitter?

Can't GMs get Points from NPC actions?

Regardless, I'm more concerned with the opposite, where it doesn't matter how many Points the GM has if the players are constantly operating at full throttle.

Quote from: AsenRG;940746Sommerjon writes single sentences (or used to, I stopped reading months ago). I recently reminded Rgrove that Heamingway wrote a whole short story in a single sentence, too.
That doesn't mean Sommerjon is anywhere near Heamingway.

If only more people realized that two things can be similar in one respect without being identical in all of them.

Quote from: AsenRG;940746Also, there was no snark.

What? WHYYY?

#NeedsMoreCowbell

Quote from: estar;940221Using a wargame, which a tabletop RPG is, ......

I give you mad props for actually admitting that you think a tabletop RPG is a wargame, your wrong, but at least your not hiding behind immersion or some other veneer of BS.

Quote from: Omega;940900You really love being wrong dont you?

I'm rubber your glue...

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940901Can't GMs get Points from NPC actions?

Not that I've seen. They're generated as a result of PC action: the equivalent of fumbling; 'buffing' themselves by purchasing more d20; avoiding a die roll with the goal of avoiding a fumble. The points are the fuel the GM uses to power his NPCs: activate their special abilities; complicate a situation; interrupt PCs.

But I'm going by what I've read of Mutant Chronicles; I've not seen the playtest rules for Conan yet. I'd like to know the answer too.

QuoteRegardless, I'm more concerned with the opposite, where it doesn't matter how many Points the GM has if the players are constantly operating at full throttle.

From my experience, the GM can really unleash some hell with a large quantity of Doom/DSP - especially in what would be considered 'boss fights'.

Quote from: Sommerjon;940903I'm rubber your glue...

"you're"

Quote from: Skarg;940886Narrative and story game apply, but the abstract fate/momentum/shared-success/doom/"dark synergy" system isn't necessarily just narrative per se - is there already a conventional term for that other than OOC/metagame/GMnerf?

I think "a momentum system" is the best term, since it helps you track the momentum of the fight.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940901If only more people realized that two things can be similar in one respect without being identical in all of them.

That's some crazy talk:)! Oranges are round, and footballs are as well, so you can put footballs in a blender and drink the juice!
Right:D?
(Luckily, nobody went to that level of logic fail in this thread, but I find the comparison funny).

QuoteWhat? WHYYY?

#NeedsMoreCowbell

Because I was feeling snarky for unrelated reasons and didn't want to go there for fear of accidentally overdoing it;)!

Quote from: Sommerjon;940902I give you mad props for actually admitting that you think a tabletop RPG is a wargame, your wrong, but at least your not hiding behind immersion or some other veneer of BS.

It not fucking hard.

A roleplaying game is a package of tools used to help a referee run a tabletop rpg campaign. The point is not to play a game but to run a campaign where players interact a setting as a character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

My point relates to the fact it is common to use a WARGAME to RESOLVE COMBAT as part of the adjudication process. Other types of games are often designed and packaged in to handle other aspects of a RPG campaign. For example Traveller Interstellar trader. Sometime a single set of mechanics is used as the
foundation for all the mini-games that go into the RPG. Other time very different system are used.

What kind of interaction (immersive, silly, serious, focus on combat, etc) is a matter of TASTE. The same with what kinds of character, setting, and how much detail the referee uses adjudicate actions. There are literally infinite combinations which is why there are dozens of useful RPGs and more being made all the time.

Where storygamers delude themselves is that a wargame is usable as a means of collaborative storytelling. The gyrations that they put themselves through cause them to be as fucking obsessed with rules as a  hardcore wargamer opening up his book to rule 3.12.3.4.  "Morale modifiers resulting from a Lizard man vigorously displaying his blue penis"

Quote from: estar;940931"Morale modifiers resulting from a Lizard man vigorously displaying his blue penis"

slowly backing away from the thread....

The GM can generate Doom from Momentum of NPCs, but if that how he wants bank it then we have the case where the GM rolls a massively awesome hit, which turns out to be a minor hit instead because the GM needs the Doom if he wants Thoth Amon to actually be able to cast spells when the PCs fight him later.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940901Regardless, I'm more concerned with the opposite, where it doesn't matter how many Points the GM has if the players are constantly operating at full throttle.

Now we're back to something I think both you and Skywalker were getting at.

For a game that limits the GM's power ostensibly because experienced GMs shouldn't be necessary, the balancing act of Doom works best with an experienced GM.  If the players are going Full Throttle every roll, and the GM is playing adversarially, someone's getting curbstomped.  Spend a couple Doom here, wandering encounters hear and start coming in, spend a few Doom there, and Mobs turn to normals, normals become elites.

For all the weird limitations of what the GM can do and how he needs Doom to do it, When he spends the Doom and What he spends it on are still Fiat.  So they haven't really helped the n00bster much and they still haven't prevented the DickGM, they've just made a system that handcuffs an experienced GM who knows what they're doing unless they throw out the mechanical limitations and redesign the system.

You find out pretty quick it's not as much about helping the N00bs as it is subscribing to the design ideology of the Cortex Prophet.

Quote from: CRKrueger;940939Now we're back to something I think both you and Skywalker were getting at.

That moment that you walk into a thread you have not been in before and find someone referring to you :D

FWIW I think you are confusing two things. Placing limitation on the GM isn't necessarily the same as creating a competition with between the GM and players. The later necessarily includes the former, as without limitation there is no basis for competition. The former, in the likes of PBtA RPGs, is done well to help newbie GMs as unfettered discretion can be esoteric and intimidating and sometimes what appear to be hard rules can be more effective than advice and guidelines.

Also FWIW I have an issue with the later, as I find direct competition creates an expectation that undermines what is best in RPGs, but I am OK with the former if its done to good effect.

Quote from: Skywalker;940943That moment that you walk into a thread you have not been in before and find someone referring to you :D

FWIW I think you are confusing two things. Placing limitation on the GM isn't necessarily the same as creating a competition with between the GM and players. The later necessarily includes the former, as without limitation there is no basis for competition. The former, in the likes of PBtA RPGs, is done well to help newbie GMs as unfettered discretion can be esoteric and intimidating and sometimes what appear to be hard rules can be more effective than advice and guidelines.

Also FWIW I have an issue with the later, as I find direct competition creates an expectation that undermines what is best in RPGs, but I am OK with the former if its done to good effect.

Did I say the adversarial nature stemmed strictly from the limitations on the GM's Doom expenditure?  I don't think I did.  The adversarial nature mainly comes from the back and forth nature of the Doom itself, and the player's minigame of "Feed or Starve" and the GMs minigame of "Howard or Lovecraft"?

As far as limiting GM's power so new GM's can learn...well...they'll learn how to be crippled GMs at any rate, but that's another thread. ;)

Where I guess I mixed you up is with the "despite the training wheels, the system still requires experienced judgement" part, which I know Anon mentioned way back when, and I thought you might have as well.  If not, oh well. :D

All good. I kind of jumped on here at the end. The only thing I will add is that I don't see anything in Momentum that acts as a learning tool for new GMs. It's purely to create tension through a sense of competition, and worse yet a false competition as there is not enough limitation on the GM for that. It remains my biggest issue with the system but I don't think it's difficult to excise that issue with a few minor mods.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;940917"you're"

I normally hate #GrammarNazis, but damn.

Quote from: estar;940931My point relates to the fact it is common to use a WARGAME to RESOLVE COMBAT as part of the adjudication process.

...

You do realize that RPGs resolve more than 'combat', right?

Quote from: CRKrueger;940939You find out pretty quick it's not as much about helping the N00bs as it is subscribing to the design ideology of the Cortex Prophet.

Strangely the Doom pool in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying doesn't have the same problems, or at least to the same extent. And given the designs I've seen, I kinda wish Modiphius took more from Cortex+. I may not agree with #CamBanks politically, but damn if he isn't some kind of weird game design savant.

Then again, MHR still suffers from the 'single best tactic' issue many RPGs do.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940997Then again, MHR still suffers from the 'single best tactic' issue many RPGs do.

Does it ever but I risk pulling the thread off topic.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940997Strangely the Doom pool in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying doesn't have the same problems, or at least to the same extent.

From my playtesting of it, which was less than 2d20, I agree.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940997I may not agree with #CamBanks politically, but damn if he isn't some kind of weird game design savant.

Not the game I'd sign up for really, but it damn well does what it says it does, better than any other similar game I've seen.

Quote from: AsenRG;940928I think "a momentum system" is the best term, since it helps you track the momentum of the fight.

But a traditional combat system aimed at representing cause & effect in a rational way might have a momentum system that represents something that might exist in reality, such as physical momentum in a charge or some sort of group morale or something.

In contrast, the mechanics I've been reading about in Mordiphius games seem to be about adding an OOC influence that doesn't represent anything realistic in the game universe - instead it represents narrative balance or intentions to create a tense heroic story based on the desire for that sort of game but not representing anything in the game universe. In some cases it might accidentally correspond to something that makes sense (e.g. maybe the player rolling lots of extra success points by auto-firing an HMG and giving the successes to others is only being used to things that could be real results of good cover/suppression fire or something) but could also very easily not make any sense other than in a meta-game OOC device for generating difficulty or tension or some sort of gameplay for its own sake with no in-game reason for it existing.

"OOC" sort of fits, but isn't enough. hmm... and it goes beyond just having some characters have occasional luck/blessing re-rolls, because of things like being able to choose to dodge/parry only if you generate doom the GM can use to fiat-break-your-arm or something later. "OOC surreal game mechanics"? Is there not already a term for these?

Quote from: Sommerjon;940903I'm rubber your glue...

Which is why you keep getting stuck failing. Glue beats rubber. :cool:

(oh. And you failed at even getting the quote right...)

Quote from: Skarg;941002But a traditional combat system aimed at representing cause & effect in a rational way might have a momentum system that represents something that might exist in reality, such as physical momentum in a charge or some sort of group morale or something.

First, the momentum of a charge isn't the momentum I'm speaking of. I'm speaking of getting advantage and using it to press your initiative. It applies to personal and group fights alike, and the system in Conan is far from the worst representation I've seen.

And yeah, it might. In fact, I'd argue that systems aiming for cause and effect should have it. What I wonder is why most don't have anything of the sort, though.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;940997You do realize that RPGs resolve more than 'combat', right?

Try re-reading my post again, this time for comprehension.

Pay particular attention to this sentence.

QuoteOther types of games are often designed and packaged in to handle other aspects of a RPG campaign.

To spell it out this include doing stuff as your character other than combat. And to state the fucking obvious I am well aware that many if not most RPGS design their skill system to be use for combat and the other stuff. Doesn't change my point that it is idiotic to use a wargame as a tool for collaborative storytelling in the light of the alternatives that far more are using.

In case you are clueless about what I am talking about. The amount of people engaged in writing, collaborating,  and sharing stories using various types of software on the internet is easily a 100x the total number of hobbyists playing RPGs. Some it is what called fan-fiction, other are original stories. They cover all kinds of topics, and there are dozens of ways people turns into a group activity. The one I follow and participate in a little is Alternate History. But there places for Harry Potter, Science Fiction, Romance, etc, etc. I read of people getting together in-person to do collaborative story writing. All of which doesn't involve the overhead of trying hammer a game into some kind of writing tool.

I am very negative about it, because time and time again the process of trying to turn a RPG into a storytelling destroys the flexibility that makes RPGs a unique form of gaming. Discussions about storygames are rarely about what I can do, but what I can't do. Oh the basilisk can't turn the dumb ass PC into stone because the GM doesn't have any doom points. Oh PC can't swing across the room on a chandeliers because he ran out of Fate points. And when you suggest just letting the event happen or just roll a dice to see if it happens. You get a collective gasp and finger wagging about how you are violating the "rules".  Or depending on the topic a lecture about the tyranny of the referee.

Modiphus is trying to push something they think that creates swords & sorcery stories about Hyboria as a RPG. Most gamer don't give two shit about storygames and the attendant issues. They will pick up this game try to play it like any other RPG and will quickly grow to dislike it as it keep forcing them think out of game and feel like it filled with these anal-retentive restrictions that have little to do with being a character within Conan's world.

Quote from: AsenRG;941022First, the momentum of a charge isn't the momentum I'm speaking of. I'm speaking of getting advantage and using it to press your initiative. It applies to personal and group fights alike, and the system in Conan is far from the worst representation I've seen.

And yeah, it might. In fact, I'd argue that systems aiming for cause and effect should have it. What I wonder is why most don't have anything of the sort, though.

But again, isn't that a side-topic? There is a difference between some sort of cause that has a basis in reality, and one that is intentionally not reality-based. It sounds like Mordiphius doom/dark/momentum whatever is all pretty explicitly about OOC points and reasons why (or limits to how they can be used) sound entirely optional. In fact, it sounds like the point system overshadows the game situation, to the point that a millionaire PC may struggle to buy a baseball bat, and have to risk bankruptcy to buy a used car, unless someone gives him momentum by doing something completely irrelevant to the car shopping (such as attack a random target with an HMG). And I'm just asking what's the best word for that? "Realism-apathetic"? "OOC-point-driven"? "Story-point game"?

Quote from: Skarg;941045And I'm just asking what's the best word for that? "Realism-apathetic"? "OOC-point-driven"? "Story-point game"?

"Stupid."

Quote from: Skarg;941045But again, isn't that a side-topic? There is a difference between some sort of cause that has a basis in reality, and one that is intentionally not reality-based.

Actually...no, there isn't. If a system represents reality well, why would it matter what the author had in mind when writing the mechanics? The mechanics for throwing a punch are what they are. Doesn't matter if the author, when thinking about a punch, was imagining a haymaker, a chinpalm jab, or the ultra-secret fingerstrike attack Guan Gun Checks The Oil:p.

QuoteIt sounds like Mordiphius doom/dark/momentum whatever is all pretty explicitly about OOC points and reasons why (or limits to how they can be used) sound entirely optional.

Some of the ways to spend momentum are narrative, especially the ones on the GM's side. Some of them, not so much, especially those on the players' side.
That's all I can say before seeing my backer's copy and reviewing the options:D.

QuoteIn fact, it sounds like the point system overshadows the game situation, to the point that a millionaire PC may struggle to buy a baseball bat, and have to risk bankruptcy to buy a used car, unless someone gives him momentum by doing something completely irrelevant to the car shopping (such as attack a random target with an HMG).

Didn't seem that way from the quickstart, but I don't remember it all that well:).

QuoteAnd I'm just asking what's the best word for that? "Realism-apathetic"? "OOC-point-driven"? "Story-point game"?

"Metapoints economy". But I wasn't replying about the metapoints, but about the momentum part, which actually makes sense;).

Quote from: AsenRG;941065Actually...no, there isn't. If a system represents reality well, why would it matter what the author had in mind when writing the mechanics? The mechanics for throwing a punch are what they are. Doesn't matter if the author, when thinking about a punch, was imagining a haymaker, a chinpalm jab, or the ultra-secret fingerstrike attack Guan Gun Checks The Oil:p.

That just sounds naughty.

Quote from: Nexus;941066That just sounds naughty.

That's the reason it's a secret technique, man!

Quote from: Skarg;941045(...) it sounds like the point system overshadows the game situation (...)

Exactly my impression.

QuoteAnd I'm just asking what's the best word for that? "Realism-apathetic"? "OOC-point-driven"? "Story-point game"?

"overdesigned"?

Quote from: AsenRG;941065Actually...no, there isn't. If a system represents reality well, why would it matter what the author had in mind when writing the mechanics? The mechanics for throwing a punch are what they are. Doesn't matter if the author, when thinking about a punch, was imagining a haymaker, a chinpalm jab, or the ultra-secret fingerstrike attack Guan Gun Checks The Oil:p.

I haven't seen anything at all to indicate that Modiphius has any interest in representing reality well, so why are you ever writing about that hypothetical situation?

Quote"Metapoints economy". But I wasn't replying about the metapoints, but about the momentum part, which actually makes sense;).

Ok. I concede that you can think of or use such an idea as a way to represent some situation where there is some sort of momentum of success, which can be a real thing that isn't included in many other games. Say, instead of having detailed crunchy rules for things like morale, surprise, group coordination/confusion/panic/situational-awareness, or whatever.


But again, I was just seeing what a good term might be so I can refer to these designs as something other than just RPGs I want to avoid. The suggestion of "stupid" works for my own purposes and those of like-minded people, but I was hoping for a more neutral term to greatly reduce the frequency of rants and arguments.