Voted the 4th most anticipated roleplaying game of 2016, Modiphius' Robert E Howard’s CONAN Roleplaying game - Adventures In An Age Undreamed Of is based on the company's own 2d20 system. Brom is a name you may recognise from Dark Sun and other D&D settings, as well as the covers of novels from the likes of Moorcock. He's a pretty big deal in the world of fantasy art. Apparently, Modiphius had trouble getting Brom for this cover - he was unavailable when they first approached him, but circumstances have brought his schedule in line with the game's 2016 release date, and so we now have a cover to ogle at!
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Brom's Cover Art For Modiphius' Upcoming CONAN RPG
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Voted the 4th most anticipated roleplaying game of 2016, Modiphius' Robert E Howard’s CONAN Roleplaying game - Adventures In An Age Undreamed Of is based on the company's own 2d20 system. Brom is a name you may recognise from Dark Sun and other D&D settings, as well as the covers of novels from the likes of Moorcock. He's a pretty big deal in the world of fantasy art. Apparently, Modiphius had trouble getting Brom for this cover - he was unavailable when they first approached him, but circumstances have brought his schedule in line with the game's 2016 release date, and so we now have a cover to ogle at!
Let's take a look at the video playtest and see if my examples have been off the mark.
Here is the video playtest of the Conan RPG using the 2d20 System. Click Here.
We have the GM, and clockwise from the GM, players 1-5.
At 6:53, we see player 5 buy an extra die to use in his attack. That generates a Threat Point. Looks like they're using dice instead of buttons in a glass jar.
At 9:15, player 4 also buys an extra die for his attack. Another Threat Point generated.
At 17:20, the GM decides to use one of the Threat Points from the pool. He removes one of the dice counters from the jar. It looks like he uses the point to bring up archers on the wall and have them fire down on all the characters.
You see....here's my problem.
If the GM needs Threat to bring forward the archers and have them fire, the players could have controlled that and kept it from happening if Players 4 and 5 had refrained from generating Threat.
Also: Because Players 4 and 5 generated Threat (got extra dice on their attack throws), the entire Party is now paying for that because the GM is having the NPCs fire bows at everyone!
Yeah, Player 4 and 5 were heroic and hit their foes (niether was that heroic as damage wasn't that much), but because they did that, the GM now has the ammo (Threat Points) to activate his NPC archers and have them rain down arrows on every character--not just Player 4 and Player 5.
This could have been devastating!
At 23:35 - (They spent some time resolving and talking about the Archer attack), Player 4's character is hit with an arrow, removing 3 of 11 hit points. But, more importantly the GM goes a step further and penalizes the character one round more, making him deal with the arrow wound.
And, this would not even have happened if Threat hadn't been purchased earlier.
Plus....what if Player 1 or Player 2 or 3 had failed their saves and been hit with arrows? Those players had not even generated any Threat up to this point, but if they had failed their saves, they would have suffered from Players 1 and 2's actions!
That's not a good game system for Conan!
Other curiosities and questions about the system:
10:58 - The GM allows NPCs to act, but this is before several players have gone. Is there an initiative system in this game?
15:20 - Player 1 wants to barrel roll and come up from the move swinging in an attack. He rolls two dice, getting a success on the attack and a failure on the acrobatics roll (and, I didn't see them designate which dice is for which before the throw....).
The GM says that the Acrobatics attempt failed but that attack was a success. How can this be? The Acrobatics attempt came before the attack. If the acrobatics fails, shouldn't the attack also fail because the character never reached the target?
Here is the video playtest of the Conan RPG using the 2d20 System. Click Here.
We have the GM, and clockwise from the GM, players 1-5.
At 6:53, we see player 5 buy an extra die to use in his attack. That generates a Threat Point. Looks like they're using dice instead of buttons in a glass jar.
At 9:15, player 4 also buys an extra die for his attack. Another Threat Point generated.
At 17:20, the GM decides to use one of the Threat Points from the pool. He removes one of the dice counters from the jar. It looks like he uses the point to bring up archers on the wall and have them fire down on all the characters.
You see....here's my problem.
If the GM needs Threat to bring forward the archers and have them fire, the players could have controlled that and kept it from happening if Players 4 and 5 had refrained from generating Threat.
Also: Because Players 4 and 5 generated Threat (got extra dice on their attack throws), the entire Party is now paying for that because the GM is having the NPCs fire bows at everyone!
Yeah, Player 4 and 5 were heroic and hit their foes (niether was that heroic as damage wasn't that much), but because they did that, the GM now has the ammo (Threat Points) to activate his NPC archers and have them rain down arrows on every character--not just Player 4 and Player 5.
This could have been devastating!
At 23:35 - (They spent some time resolving and talking about the Archer attack), Player 4's character is hit with an arrow, removing 3 of 11 hit points. But, more importantly the GM goes a step further and penalizes the character one round more, making him deal with the arrow wound.
And, this would not even have happened if Threat hadn't been purchased earlier.
Plus....what if Player 1 or Player 2 or 3 had failed their saves and been hit with arrows? Those players had not even generated any Threat up to this point, but if they had failed their saves, they would have suffered from Players 1 and 2's actions!
That's not a good game system for Conan!
Other curiosities and questions about the system:
10:58 - The GM allows NPCs to act, but this is before several players have gone. Is there an initiative system in this game?
15:20 - Player 1 wants to barrel roll and come up from the move swinging in an attack. He rolls two dice, getting a success on the attack and a failure on the acrobatics roll (and, I didn't see them designate which dice is for which before the throw....).
The GM says that the Acrobatics attempt failed but that attack was a success. How can this be? The Acrobatics attempt came before the attack. If the acrobatics fails, shouldn't the attack also fail because the character never reached the target?
Your assessment of this video is what I would expect from someone who was deliberately trying to find fault. You neglected to mention that at least 4 of the 6 members in this game have less knowledge of the rules than you do, so their understanding of where and when to utilize the threat mechanic, and the potential repercussions of doing so are not yet realized. Nevertheless, they do a great job with it.
Also, you're supposedly the "role play" guy, yet you managed to neglect setting the scene. Because the scene may influence how the players react, it's kind of important to mention, don't you think? The characters in this scene are prisoners and attempting to break out of confinement. They have limited time, resources, and opportunities. So when they have the chance to act, they act swiftly, and with purpose, for which the threat mechanic is brilliant.
Ok, so in other words PLAYERS are generating threat. Not just a single player, acting as an asshat, as you told me would happen in your example before. And Player 5 chose to buy ONE dice, not generate mountains of threat as you suggested a player would.
When player 4 buys an attack dice, he also buys only ONE, but you also didn't mention why he did. What did he say as he thought it through?:
"I don't know if it's worth the extra dice or not..."
*thinks about it*
"Well this is important" and then he buys the dice, makes the roll, and saves the day.
This thought process is important!
Not only is he successful in his attack, he downs the opponents and provides the whole party with weapons, gains a momentum (whatever that is), and frees a mob of slaves.
This demonstrates exactly why this mechanic works. Heroes can CHOOSE when they want their character to act above and beyond what they might normally be capable of. PLAYERS are using the mechanic to buy an advantage NOW (receive a reward) knowing that the GM can use this against them later in the game. Bearing in mind that the scenario lends itself to acting quickly to break capture, these PLAYERS made the determination that they wanted to try to free themselves from captivity quickly and arm themselves and that it was worth the potential risk down the road. And that is exactly what happened. Well done players!
Realistically, most of these players don't have enough experience with the game to determine if when they should be buying dice or not. They're just playing a beta game as it spills out before them. Certainly a player familiar with the mechanics, and the GM, would have a good understanding of where and when to buy dice. As I said before, this is a calculated reward/risk opportunity, and this video demonstrates it beautifully.
Any success achieved by any individual player as a result of these dice buys is a success for the whole group. This is beautifully demonstrated when player 4 buys a dice, downs his opponent, and provides weapons and freedom for everyone. The mechanic worked masterfully.
Ok, so again you point out why your previous examples are bad. Here we have a DM actively using the threat that the PLAYERS have just generated. This is vastly different than your previous example where GMs just horde their threat points forcing players to turn into timid sheep (according to your assessment). How many does he spend? One. Who does he spend it on? Everyone. He did not punitively punish a single player for the actions of another, as you again erroneously suggested would happen in your previous example (though he certainly could have).
You neglected to mention at 16:10 player 2 is reminded he can buy extra dice and chooses not to, again demonstrating the thought process behind rewards vs. risks. Players don't just generate a much threat as they possibly can as you have suggested.
Also, the entire group benefited from the dice buy from players 4 and 5, and as a result the GM can expend the threat as he sees fit. This is confirmed by Player 2 (the player who chose not to buy dice) when at 18:40 he says exactly what I've been telling you, "No reward comes without risk" in response to the GM using threat.
The entire party is free and armed and one player has momentum because of players 4 and 5. An entire mob of slaves was also freed. They've been rallied, they momentarily even fight for the PCs. And even if the players had failed, they still determined in advance that the potential reward was worth the potential risk. That's quite a bit of success generated on a measly two dice. Well worth the risk.
And I don't see anyone at this table sharing your sentiment. Where is the player who says "I would rather still be shackled and weaponless than be shot by this archer"? Where is the player saying that buying those dice was not worth it? Players aren't acting as you said they would. The GM is not acting as you said he would. No player is complaining about being penalized for the dice buy of another. Nothing you said would happen, actually happened.
Yeah that was awesome RP, wasn't it? I liked that too. I didn't see the GM use threat to do this, maybe I missed it. But what a cool use of threat if he did.
I watched until minute 25. I'm not going to analyze the whole thing.
I cannot see why you would present this as support for your case when it clearly demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you suggest it does (at least as far in as 25 min). The mechanic is working exactly as intended. Everyone is having a good time. No one is abusing the mechanics. No players are being asshats. The GM is not hording massive amounts of threat. The players openly acknowledge that the reward was worth the risk and audibly work through the thought process of the reward/risk relationship of buying dice.
Tell me again how this mechanic is so terrible?
You seem like a last-word kind of guy, so regarding our conversation, you can have it. Good discussion.
Also, you're supposedly the "role play" guy, yet you managed to neglect setting the scene. Because the scene may influence how the players react, it's kind of important to mention, don't you think? The characters in this scene are prisoners and attempting to break out of confinement. They have limited time, resources, and opportunities. So when they have the chance to act, they act swiftly, and with purpose, for which the threat mechanic is brilliant.
Water Bob said:
Ok, so in other words PLAYERS are generating threat. Not just a single player, acting as an asshat, as you told me would happen in your example before. And Player 5 chose to buy ONE dice, not generate mountains of threat as you suggested a player would.
When player 4 buys an attack dice, he also buys only ONE, but you also didn't mention why he did. What did he say as he thought it through?:
"I don't know if it's worth the extra dice or not..."
*thinks about it*
"Well this is important" and then he buys the dice, makes the roll, and saves the day.
This thought process is important!
Not only is he successful in his attack, he downs the opponents and provides the whole party with weapons, gains a momentum (whatever that is), and frees a mob of slaves.
This demonstrates exactly why this mechanic works. Heroes can CHOOSE when they want their character to act above and beyond what they might normally be capable of. PLAYERS are using the mechanic to buy an advantage NOW (receive a reward) knowing that the GM can use this against them later in the game. Bearing in mind that the scenario lends itself to acting quickly to break capture, these PLAYERS made the determination that they wanted to try to free themselves from captivity quickly and arm themselves and that it was worth the potential risk down the road. And that is exactly what happened. Well done players!
Realistically, most of these players don't have enough experience with the game to determine if when they should be buying dice or not. They're just playing a beta game as it spills out before them. Certainly a player familiar with the mechanics, and the GM, would have a good understanding of where and when to buy dice. As I said before, this is a calculated reward/risk opportunity, and this video demonstrates it beautifully.
Any success achieved by any individual player as a result of these dice buys is a success for the whole group. This is beautifully demonstrated when player 4 buys a dice, downs his opponent, and provides weapons and freedom for everyone. The mechanic worked masterfully.
Water Bob said:
Ok, so again you point out why your previous examples are bad. Here we have a DM actively using the threat that the PLAYERS have just generated. This is vastly different than your previous example where GMs just horde their threat points forcing players to turn into timid sheep (according to your assessment). How many does he spend? One. Who does he spend it on? Everyone. He did not punitively punish a single player for the actions of another, as you again erroneously suggested would happen in your previous example (though he certainly could have).
You neglected to mention at 16:10 player 2 is reminded he can buy extra dice and chooses not to, again demonstrating the thought process behind rewards vs. risks. Players don't just generate a much threat as they possibly can as you have suggested.
Also, the entire group benefited from the dice buy from players 4 and 5, and as a result the GM can expend the threat as he sees fit. This is confirmed by Player 2 (the player who chose not to buy dice) when at 18:40 he says exactly what I've been telling you, "No reward comes without risk" in response to the GM using threat.
Water Bob said:
The entire party is free and armed and one player has momentum because of players 4 and 5. An entire mob of slaves was also freed. They've been rallied, they momentarily even fight for the PCs. And even if the players had failed, they still determined in advance that the potential reward was worth the potential risk. That's quite a bit of success generated on a measly two dice. Well worth the risk.
And I don't see anyone at this table sharing your sentiment. Where is the player who says "I would rather still be shackled and weaponless than be shot by this archer"? Where is the player saying that buying those dice was not worth it? Players aren't acting as you said they would. The GM is not acting as you said he would. No player is complaining about being penalized for the dice buy of another. Nothing you said would happen, actually happened.
Water Bob said:
Yeah that was awesome RP, wasn't it? I liked that too. I didn't see the GM use threat to do this, maybe I missed it. But what a cool use of threat if he did.
I watched until minute 25. I'm not going to analyze the whole thing.
I cannot see why you would present this as support for your case when it clearly demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you suggest it does (at least as far in as 25 min). The mechanic is working exactly as intended. Everyone is having a good time. No one is abusing the mechanics. No players are being asshats. The GM is not hording massive amounts of threat. The players openly acknowledge that the reward was worth the risk and audibly work through the thought process of the reward/risk relationship of buying dice.
Tell me again how this mechanic is so terrible?
You seem like a last-word kind of guy, so regarding our conversation, you can have it. Good discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
You responded, as you always do, loudly and eagerly preaching your distaste. You practically leapt at the chance.
My financial stake in the game? Yes, clearly I'm blinded by the luxury of my working-class lifestyle.
This isn't about money. It's professional pride. I've done a lot of work on the 2d20 system - a couple of hundred thousand words in the last two years. I'm proud of my work, and I'm proud of the way the system has evolved from its initial form used in Mutant Chronicles (the Quickstart will represent the game's current form). I have no issue with people disliking the game, because not everyone will like every game. My issue here is that you seem to have taken the very existence of the 2d20 system personally, and have set out on a lone crusade against it.
Everyone else I've encountered who didn't like it has fallen into one of two categories: those who have expressed their dislike, and (whether or not they actually tried it) have then gone off to do their own thing having said their piece, and those who expressed their dislike before playing and then actually tried the game anyway, and found that it plays a lot better than it reads.
You're the one who sticks around to complain at every opportunity.
And there's copious amounts of playtest feedback emailed in, and comments made personally at conventions, from people who do like it.
Some people like it. Others dislike it. A few preach their distaste from the rooftops, because apparently it's more important to tell people how bad you think something is than to find something you actually enjoy. The same can be said of basically every RPG ever published.
Consider this: Infinity - also using 2D20 - is currently the third-highest backed Kickstarter for an RPG, and the two above it are new editions of Exalted and Mage. We released several playtests before it, and a quickstart as part of that campaign, so those backers aren't going in blind. Clearly, there are a lot of people interested enough to support the games we're making.
You say it repeatedly, and loudly, and with no tolerance of anyone who says different. Honestly, I can imagine you foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of "Threat" (which, as it happens, has been renamed "Doom" for the final version, so you've got a different term to rage at now).
Except when it isn't.
As I've explained elsewhere in the past, you're looking at an older version of the rules, and looking at them in the most unfavourable light possible.
Buying extra d20s comes from a variety of sources. Paying Doom to the GM is one of those sources - representing risky or reckless action. Characters can also use Momentum generated by the group to gain bonus d20s (representing teamwork, or capitalising on prior successes, etc). Or they can use other personal resources - Fortune points (a limited resource, each point spent gives you a d20 that's already rolled the best possible result), skill-specific consumables like poultices with a Healing test, using more shots with some ranged weapons - or capitalising on some favourable circumstances through talents or weapon abilities.
Paying Doom is always an option, because it comes as a risk-vs-reward concept - you take a chance now, in exchange for peril later. It's up to the players whether or not they regard subsequent risk as acceptable for the reward, and how they deal with any subsequent perils is up to them as well. It's a decision point for players and GMs alike, and decision-making is at the heart of any game.
I've said all I'm going to say here. If you want to get the last word in, feel free.
Once the quickstart is released, anyone with rules questions is free to email me at nathan@modiphius.com with rules queries. I hope that people are willing to give the game a try - not just a quick read, but to actually play the game - before making their final judgements. I'd rather people make an informed decision about the game, rather than rely on snap judgements.
LOL. Anybody can watch the play test and consider my comments, making up their own minds. That's why I provided the link to the play test.
So, is the play test video that Modiphius put out to show how the game is played meant to show how the game is played or not?
OK, that's why you're biased then--not just the money. And, that's why you'd like me to not write any criticism of your game. You want it to be successful, and you don't want anyone hearing what gamers like me (you know that there are several of us) who are disappointed in the rule system chosen for the new Conan RPG.
That's also why you're trying to villianize me when I post my opinion of what I dislike about the game. If you can make me look like a crazy with an agenda, then maybe people won't read my opinion about the game.
Is it not understood that's the problem with the game system?
When a Luck Point, Fate Point, Character Point (whatever you want to call it) is paid, there are no negative consequences in most other games. In the 2d20 system, not only is there a punishment (the "peril later" that you refer to). But, also, the character who caused the later peril may be dead, or not in the group when the peril happens--others will pay for the peril that he created.
This is where the 2d20 system does not fit Howard's Hyborian Age. When Conan is heroic (when he buys extra dice to pull off a hard feat and roll well on a task), it shouldn't automatically mean that he'll face some extra peril down the road. When someone that Conan is traveling with is heroic, then Conan shouldn't have to face more peril down the road because his companion was heroic (bought extra dice earlier).
That concept is fine for Mutant Chronicles where the influence of peril comes from Dark Symmetry. But, it doesn't fit the Hyborian Age at all.
When Conan is heroic, it shouldn't mean that his obstacles later--the peril he faces--will be greater than normal.
I understand that it's the problem that you have with the system. Practical experiences don't bear that out.
Depends on the game. A lot of games with those kinds of resources typically allow a character to gain more of that resource during play by suffering a setback or complication, either voluntarily or as a natural fall of the dice - Hero Points in Mutants & Masterminds, Fate Points in Fate, Plot Points in any Cortex Plus, to name just three. They work in reverse to Threat - the setback comes first, then the point for the player, but a cycle of triumphs and setbacks is fairly common to the kinds of narrative structure that these games try to emulate.
A quantity of Threat (the setting-neutral term) the GM has is generated in this way - Natural 20s create Complications, which can either be an immediate issue to overcome there-and-then, or gain two Threat instead (for a problem to crop up later).
The resources that a player can use instead of paying Threat in 2d20 (in its current form - the Dark Symmetry Pool is a lot more front-and-centre in Mutant Chronicles than Heat or Doom are in Infinity or Conan, respectively) are limited in availability - Momentum has to generated before it can be used, you can only carry a finite quantity of consumable resources, talents cost XP and are only limited to particular circumstances.
Threat, in this case, becomes the last-ditch method, the option that exists when all other options are expended. It's risky, and it's desperate... and it's a choice. From a pure gameplay perspective, risk-vs-reward is a common decision point in so many different games.
Once again, you're ignoring the other methods I've outlined. "Heroic" acts aren't the only factor here, and thus acting "heroic" doesn't mean that you or your allies will face some extra peril down the road. Acting in a risky or reckless manner (adding to Doom) does add to the GM's potential to make things "interesting" later, but that's the point - if you didn't want to face problems, you wouldn't act recklessly. If you've got other methods of getting those extra dice (and other effects that do similar), you don't need to add to Doom.
This was one of the major developments I've driven in the current form of 2d20 - characters have multiple options for getting extra dice, each of which has their own sets of costs or restrictions, with Threat (whatever it's called in any given game) being the one that is always and unreservedly available - it's the worst option (compared to using options that don't strengthen the GM), but it's also the one that will always be there if you've exhausted every other choice.
Fun fact: every RPG, barring the GMless ones, have a single arbitrary force that embodies the peril that player characters face. That force is called the GM. The GM may choose to try and act as if he's not an arbitrary force, and that doesn't change when you add Threat resources, whether they're Heat in Infinity, or Doom in Conan.
As noted, Doom is not the only game in town when it comes to buying extra dice. Similarly, player action is not the only way that Doom grows - NPC actions can grow Doom in the same way that PCs can save up Momentum. Imagine a situation where the GM has noted that more NPCs can arrive as reinforcements during a fight by paying Doom. The Doom points that the GM gains from PCs acting recklessly (maybe their actions are noisy or draw attention), or those gained from NPCs adding to Doom (say, by calling out for help) could then be spent on those reinforcements... and voila, we have a logical cause-and-effect.
Crucially, through all of this, you're focussing on an abstract notion of Doom, without much sense of what it actually results in during play. One point of Doom is a single extra d20 on a single enemy's skill test, or having that enemy attempt to dodge or parry an attack once, or it's a single minor foe arriving as reinforcements, or a single skill test getting one step more difficult, or something similarly minor (essentially, all the ways that the PCs can give 1 Doom to the GM, are all ways that the GM can spend 1 Doom on NPCs). More Doom gets you more significant effects, certainly, but the majority of Doom being used by the GM will be used on minor effects like the ones I've described, which aren't really the big spikes of peril that you're fixating on.
Is the Modiphius play test video not a "practical experience"?
I pointed out above, with times cited on the video, where a player was shot by an arrow and lost his turn because the GM spent Doom Points that were generated earlier.
You, yourself, said that the system is based on the idea of reward-now for peril-later.
Looks to me as if practical experience does, indeed, bear that out.
- Status
Similar Threads
Voidrunner's Codex
Related Articles
-
Discworld: Adventures in Ankh-Morpork from Modiphius Coming to Kickstarter This Year
- Started by Abstruse
- Replies: 21
-
-
-
Here They Are! Your 10 Most Anticipated TTRPGs For 2024!
- Started by Morrus
- Replies: 48
-