Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of - Detailed Review from a GM and Player

Caliburn101

Explorer
Wow this thread derailed quickly. Zapp, you need to tone it down. You aren't looking too good in this thread.

Anyway, this is a system I've definitely been curious about so it's cool to see a review. I really like Modphius - their Acthung Cthulhu stuff is awesome.

The system sounds interesting but the game designer in me has a hard time warming up to "lower-is-better" mechanics.

Well let's put it back on the rails! :)

Lower is better is a pretty old concept as you may know. Runequest 1st Ed. introduced it first with the percentile rolls.

You should check out the Quickstart rules on DriveThru - as the core mechanics are there and they are free to download.

You are actually the first person I have heard who has mentioned the roll-low mechanic as being something they would prefer was otherwise. So that's interesting - most concerns in terms of core mechanic focus on the tokens system (Momentum, Fortune & Doom), which is why I didn't do more than mention the 2d20 mechanic.

Is that just personal preference, or is there something a little more crunchy involved in you preferring roll-high systems?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Caliburn101

Explorer
Actually GURPS is another well-known roll-under rpg. It would also have been a great fit for Conan if they had produced a new magic system...
 
Last edited:

Caliburn101

Explorer
Likewise the new Mythras rules (Runequest 6 as it was) would have been a good fit, but Modiphius bought the rights, and made a good job of it.
 
Last edited:

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Put me in the camp that doesn't like low-is-better mechanics, but not to the extent that it would prevent me from playing a game I otherwise liked. Only mentioning it because you said it's the first time you've seen that complaint.

Doesn't Pendragon use low rolls? (It's been a while; I may have that wrong). EDIT: Yes, I just checked.

And coincidentally, I forgot it uses a mechanic similar to what I suggested...in that other warm & fuzzy thread...would have been apropos for Conan: traits come in opposing pairs ("lustful/chaste") that always sum to 20. "Civilized/Savage" anyone?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Caliburn101

Explorer
Put me in the camp that doesn't like low-is-better mechanics, but not to the extent that it would prevent me from playing a game I otherwise liked. Only mentioning it because you said it's the first time you've seen that complaint.

Doesn't Pendragon use low rolls? (It's been a while; I may have that wrong). EDIT: Yes, I just checked.

And coincidentally, I forgot it uses a mechanic similar to what I suggested...in that other warm & fuzzy thread...would have been apropos for Conan: traits come in opposing pairs ("lustful/chaste") that always sum to 20. "Civilized/Savage" anyone?

Yes Pendragon does use roll-under rolls (on d20 as aramis erak correctly pointed out) - and it has the opposed Passions system. Although if you try to define 'barbarism' then a mixture of a few of those opposed passions would better represent it, and in fact the powers of Christianity and Paganism which may visit the faithful in that game are linked to achieving high levels in three relevant traits - such as Chaste/Lustful, Modest/Boastful or Temperate/Indulgent. I imagine Civilised/Barbarous could be dealt with similarly using that system.

If you like that sort of thing, then the Mythras System has a passions system based off percentile dice (d100 like RuneQuest and Pendragon as you mention) which doesn't do opposed rolls of two, but which has a similar in-game effect (if you make a passions roll against Love of Family for instance, a success can boost your other skills relevant to defending them for instance, or a Loyalty Liege Lord replace your failing Willpower as the roll you use to resist magic manipulating you to betray.

I like the Mythras system better as it is less binary and more influenced by the player than the Pendragon system, which can really hogtie you sometimes and even lead to unavoidable character retirement or death.

For depicting the world of Conan, the Mythras system would have been fine, although passions running high is only a part of the genre (and this element of it) insofar as you might expect in another type of dramatic story, so I am not sure it is a necessity.

Where the Modiphius Conan shines is in the Resolve and Trauma area I described, and in that, your ability to act and the consequences to your willpower, morale or state of mind can be just as impactful as passions in Mythras. They are different though.

There is of course also the issue of your character's Nature trait, which impacts Fortune point regain and the expected approach to stress/challenges taken by the character wrapped up in that. I didn't go into any real detail on that in my review but it would figure in the portrayal (both narratively and mechanically) of your character and their chance of success and failure linked to being true to that Nature.
 
Last edited:

GlassJaw

Hero
Is that just personal preference, or is there something a little more crunchy involved in you preferring roll-high systems?

Mostly personal preference, but it is somewhat counter-intuitive to basic human psychology. It's not a deal-breaker per se but certainly not my preference and something I definitely try to avoid when designing a core mechanic.
 



aramis erak

Legend
Yes Pendragon does use low rolls (it is once again d100) - and it has the opposed Passions system.

Wrong on both counts about the dice in Pendragon. It's "High but under", and 1d20. In all editions. Take two opponents, both skill 15, no mods. One rolls a 13, the other 10; the 13 wins, and hits the other. Next round 17 and 10, the 10 hits because the 17 is over.

As for Conan, it's lacking the personality rules that are in Star Trek... but those could be added easily enough. Adding the opposed system of pendragon would be cumbersome given the dice mechanics of 2d20.

@CapnZapp -
The Conan artwork in the game mirrors the content of Howard's novels. De Camp's are a bit more lurid. The cover-art was often not reflective of the Conan within.
The art is not lurid to the level of Savage Sword of Conan (the comics)... but Conan purists tend to ignore that tripe.

Conan in Howard's novels is usually dressed, often armored (whenever he can do so when going into a fight), not a rapist, not a nudist, and reasonably respectful of women (at least for the era in which he was written). Many of the women in the novels are in fact strong characters themselves.

The things the Arnold movies got wrong: Conan as a musclebound hulk in just a jock strap and boots. Conan as thick witted. In other words, pretty much everything.
Well, Red Sonja and Zula both are not out of place... but again, Zula should have been wearing more.
 

Caliburn101

Explorer
Wrong on both counts about the dice in Pendragon. It's "High but under", and 1d20. In all editions. Take two opponents, both skill 15, no mods. One rolls a 13, the other 10; the 13 wins, and hits the other. Next round 17 and 10, the 10 hits because the 17 is over.

As for Conan, it's lacking the personality rules that are in Star Trek... but those could be added easily enough. Adding the opposed system of pendragon would be cumbersome given the dice mechanics of 2d20.

Interesting - I haven't played Pendragon since 1st edition first came out and had completely forgotten it was a d100 style game with a d20 resolution system.

I have corrected the original post.

Would you recommend the Star Trek personality rules for porting across? I find the Nature allocations work well enough themselves.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top