CONAN LIVES! Info on the new Conan RPG

[N01H3r3]

To be specific about the new Conan game, when I say "meta-game" mechanic, I'm talking about the Threat Pool. When players can look at the Threat Pool and decide to not be heroic anymore for no other reason (nothing in-game) than because the Threat Pool his high and they no longer want to contribute to it getting larger, then that's meta-gaming.

It is entirely at the GM's discretion whether or not to represent or narrate the increase in the Threat pool.

That's pretty cut and dried. Player wants to be heroic. Player generates Threat in order to have bonuses on a throw. Any Threat generated can be used by the GM to make the adventure more difficult for the characters.

That's a pretty clear relationship, there: If you are heroic now, the GM gets ammunition to make the adventure more difficult later.

The point of difference here is whether or not a given group of players regard "more difficult" as being a negative quality for an adventure to take on, and how much more difficult an adventure can become while remaining within the bounds of "an exciting challenge". I don't know many players who regard "more difficult" as a problem, so long as it doesn't become "too difficult".

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've looked at options for Threatless 2d20. They're seldom as satisfying, IMO, and I find that discussions of them detract from actual playtesting (we can't get accurate playtest feedback if groups aren't engaging with the rules-as-written, but what you do once the playtest is done is up to you).

I think part of it is a sampling bias. The kind of player/GM who would enjoy the Threat mechanic is not the kind of player/GM who would use it in a way that hurts the game. The kind of player/GM who gets hung up on this sort of thing is the kind of player/GM who can't understand how to use it without having it hurt the game. Perspective matters.

If you're willing to accept a mathematical tangent (pun intended), there's an old rule about reconciling multiple equations when you graph them. Basically, the rule says that the most interesting part of any graph - the solution to any problem which depends upon those equations - is going to occur at one of the extremes. If you're trying to maximize an outcome between two equations, then the solution is probably where those equations intersect. The best answer will never be in the middle of the defined area.

And that feels like what's going on here. You're saying that this mechanic works great as long as you use it in a balanced way, but I'm looking to the extremes because that's where any optimal solution will lie. If you're using the mechanic to increase tension, then I can "solve" that equation by maximizing tension. If you're using the mechanic to challenge the players, then I can "solve" that equation to maximize the kill rate. The only thing I can't do is to not solve the system of equations. My brain doesn't work that way. Math problem exist so that they may be solved.

 

[Water Bob]

It is entirely at the GM's discretion whether or not to represent or narrate the increase in the Threat pool.

But...if the players don't perceive the Threat Pool as something that will create harder obstacles for them later on in the adventure, then where is the incentive to not buy 3 extra dice for each and every task throw--the Threat Pool be damned?

You've set up the 2d20 System with the Threat Pool integral to the system. The 2d20 System doesn't work well without the Threat Pool.

And, it's ying and yang, pro and con. A player can get extra dice on this task throw IF he accepts that, later on, the GM will have more points with which to use against the party.

Take that away--for example, if the GM says that he'd never use Threat Points to increase obstacles--then there is no cost associated with rolling the maximum amount of dice each and every time.

So, I don't see how the 2d20 System can exist without the Threat Pool (or with the GM going soft on the Threat Pool).





BTW, how would Threat Points be used to advance the narrative without creating additional/increased obstacles for the party?

 

[N01H3r3]

I think part of it is a sampling bias. The kind of player/GM who would enjoy the Threat mechanic is not the kind of player/GM who would use it in a way that hurts the game. The kind of player/GM who gets hung up on this sort of thing is the kind of player/GM who can't understand how to use it without having it hurt the game. Perspective matters.

Perhaps, but it's also the nature of feedback. From the context of a playtest, if the question being asked is "do these rules work as intended", the answer "I don't care, I don't like it" isn't useful information. It's noise.

One thing that seems continually the case is that the people who are most vocally and vociferously opposed to Threat are also the people who aren't actually testing the game; they're giving it a passing glance, forming an initial opinion, and never pushing beyond that. There's a place for theory and evaluation in the design and development of any game... but there's a need for practical testing as well.

And, you know what, it'd be nice for people who have reservations about the system to get some time with the system on the table as well. I'd like to hear practical feedback from that perspective, not necessarily because I think it'll make converts of everyone (though the game is one that plays better than it reads - one of my goals is to get it to read better, to narrow that difference), but because I think that we'll get some valuable feedback that might otherwise be missed. But we can't get that feedback from a portion of the gaming community that not only dismisses the system out of hand, but attempts to dominate discussion about the system in a way that drowns out or deters other feedback.

You're right that perspective matters... but we aren't getting workable, useful feedback from some perspectives, because the people who don't like the game don't provide any feedback except some variation of "I don't like it".

"I don't like it" doesn't have much value, because not everyone will like every game anyway.

It's an awkward situation, obviously - it's very difficult to get actual play feedback from people who don't want to play.

 

[Water Bob]

The point of difference here is whether or not a given group of players regard "more difficult" as being a negative quality for an adventure to take on, and how much more difficult an adventure can become while remaining within the bounds of "an exciting challenge". I don't know many players who regard "more difficult" as a problem, so long as it doesn't become "too difficult".

If a DM in a D&D game starts increasing the Hit Points of a bunch of enemies that the PC's are fighting just because the PCs are doing a good job of whipping up on them, that's usually considered bad form and bad gamemastering. The players feel as if the DM is trying to "win" rather than impartially govern the game.

And, the players feel as if, no matter what they do, the DM will just make enemies and obstacles harder.

Players lose that feeling of achievement when they do win, and even then, it was only because the DM decided it was time they won (otherwise, he'd have changed the encounter as it was played, making it harder).

I think the Threat Mechanic will lead to this type of play in many games.

 

[Water Bob]

One thing that seems continually the case is that the people who are most vocally and vociferously opposed to Threat are also the people who aren't actually testing the game; they're giving it a passing glance, forming an initial opinion, and never pushing beyond that. There's a place for theory and evaluation in the design and development of any game... but there's a need for practical testing as well.

I'll admit that I fall into that group. I've got no problem being fair handed and honest. What you describe is me.

But, it's hard to want to put the time into learning a system where, in everything you read about it, you dislike intensely what you read. There's nothing about the 2d20 rules that makes me want to spend a lot of time learning all the little details about the game.

I understand how the system works--how the big concepts work.

And, to further that understanding, I am going to watch every minute of your game session video once it gets up on YouTube (and I do hope there is commentary along with the visual explaining the rules as we watch).



Further, I've describe some real, practical problems that I see with the system (like the Valeria example where she's killed just because the GM felt the need to spend the Threat Pool and decided that killing Valeria would make for a good story).

The answer I get back from you and Chris and other is, "Well, you don't have to GM that way."

That's not a good answer to a real problem with the system. I'm basically saying, "Here! Here's a real issue! The system is easily manipulated in a not-good way!"

And, your answer is, "Yeah, it's a legal move, but don't use the system that way."

You're right that perspective matters... but we aren't getting workable, useful feedback from some perspectives, because the people who don't like the game don't provide any feedback except some variation of "I don't like it".

"I don't like it" doesn't have much value, because not everyone will like every game anyway.

People don't often know why they don't like something. Yet, if they don't like it, the buying decision is made.

Don't you think that the number of people that either don't have interest in this game (large number, from what I've seen here and on other forums) or are vocal about not liking the game (much smaller portion--but those are the ones who took the time to say they didn't like it) or flat-out don't like the rules that they are seeing is a tell-tale sign that should be listened to?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's an awkward situation, obviously - it's very difficult to get actual play feedback from people who don't want to play.

Playtesting is difficult, just in general. It's hard enough to get a group together to play a game, anyway, and asking everyone to spend that time on an unproven game can be a tricky task to pull off.

Running the numbers, making characters, and testing skill or combat interactions are all things that can be done individually, which makes it much easier feedback to give. It's relatively easy to run two sides of a battle to see who wins, but I'm not even sure how I could possibly test this sort of mechanic. It seems like a lot of it would come down to reading your players, to know where applying Threat would be most entertaining.

Sorry if that's not helpful :-/

 

[N01H3r3]

But...if the players don't perceive the Threat Pool as something that will create harder obstacles for them later on in the adventure, then where is the incentive to not buy 3 extra dice for each and every task throw--the Threat Pool be damned?

I think you're missing my point.

My point here - the point you quoted - was that if the GM chooses not to narrate or establish an in-setting facet to Threat, then yes, it will be purely a metagame concept. But it doesn't have to work that way.

In Mutant Chronicles, Threat is Dark Symmetry points. In that setting, humanity is opposed by an malign extradimensional force, the Dark Soul, which exerts its will upon humanity through its servants and through the force known as the Dark Symmetry. Dark Symmetry points do have a connection to the setting, as they can be thought to represent the malefic influence of the Dark Soul upon the world, as it rises up to subvert and corrupt humanity. It is a fundamental oppositional force for the game.

In Infinity, Threat is Heat. Infinity has little in the way of supernatural elements, but the setting is one that emphasises covert and clandestine activities. 'Heat' is a representation of unwanted attention (from local authorities, from enemies, etc), and of the potential for plans to come undone and ordered situations to become chaotic. In the stealth mechanics that form part of Infinity, Heat has a direct relationship with the enemy's awareness, as their ability to respond to characters moving covertly is tied to the Heat pool (it requires Reactions, which require Heat to be spent - lots of Heat means enemies that are highly aware).

Similar relationships exist with Threat (as has been explained at length), that allow the GM to narrate and establish the relationship between Threat and extant peril within the game.

BTW, how would Threat Points be used to advance the narrative without creating additional/increased obstacles for the party?

At the simplest level, Threat can serve merely as a parallel for PC resources. In Mutant Chronicles and Infinity, PCs may have several Reloads for their weapons, allowing them to unleash withering salvoes of gunfire. NPCs don't track Reloads individually, but spend Dark Symmetry points/Heat (for Mutant Chronicles or Infinity, respectively) instead (the GM has one resource to track for all NPCs, rather than a few for each NPC). Similarly, just as PCs can buy extra dice for tests or make dodge and parry response actions by paying Threat-equivents, so can NPCs do those things by paying them.

At this level, there's no scene-editing, merely a -for-tat parallel to what the PCs are naturally able to do.

If a DM in a D&D game starts increasing the Hit Points of a bunch of enemies that the PC's are fighting just because the PCs are doing a good job of whipping up on them, that's usually considered bad form and bad gamemastering. The players feel as if the DM is trying to "win" rather than impartially govern the game.

And, the players feel as if, no matter what they do, the DM will just make enemies and obstacles harder.

Players lose that feeling of achievement when they do win, and even then, it was only because the DM decided it was time they won (otherwise, he'd have changed the encounter as it was played, making it harder)

And, in D&D, they'd have a right to feel that way... except that you've already brought up the GM's ability to fudge undesirable rolls, and this is essentially the same.

In that instance, the GM is doing so arbitrarily, stepping outside of the rules to make a judgement upon it. That's little different from the old "rocks fall, everyone dies" notion, that the GM can choose to wipe out the group at any moment if he wishes...

In 2d20, the situation isn't identical - the GM is wielding an open, known, and limited resource to make these changes. The players can see how far the GM can tweak things on the fly, and can contribute (or not) to his ability to do so. Spending a point of Threat to add an extra d20 to a Frost Giant's attack isn't an arbitrary change, make outside of the rules (as fudging the roll would be), but one that the rules already assume will occur, and which is limited and regulated by the rules.

There's the difference - it isn't "the GM wields his godlike powers to change the world however he wishes", but "the GM is using the tools provided by the game to be a participant in the game, albeit one with a different role".

Now, I'm being bombarded with responses and replies, so I'll stop here, gather my wits, and then push on...

 

[N01H3r3]

I'll admit that I fall into that group. I've got no problem being fair handed and honest. What you describe is me.

But, it's hard to want to put the time into learning a system where, in everything you read about it, you dislike intensely what you read. There's nothing about the 2d20 rules that makes me want to spend a lot of time learning all the little details about the game.

So you see my dilemma.

Further, I've describe some real, practical problems that I see with the system (like the Valeria example where she's killed just because the GM felt the need to spend the Threat Pool and decided that killing Valeria would make for a good story).

The answer I get back from you and Chris and other is, "Well, you don't have to GM that way."

That's not a good answer to a real problem with the system. I'm basically saying, "Here! Here's a real issue! The system is easily manipulated in a not-good way!"

And, your answer is, "Yeah, it's a legal move, but don't use the system that way."

A lot of 'issues' with RPGs come more from a behavioural perspective than a mechanical one - trying to solve these behavioural issues with rules can, in my experience, produce more problems than they solve.

The issue you reiterate here is one little different to the GM deciding to do the same things in D&D or another traditional system. As I mentioned in my previous post, "rocks fall, everyone dies" is an entirely possible outcome of traditional games and the limitless powers of the GM to step outside the rules. We don't legislate our way around those problems, we talk to players and GMs and establish common assumptions for gaming, or we stop playing with people who play or GM in ways that we find disruptive of or deleterious to our enjoyment.

The difference here is that there's a mechanic in play here, rather than GM fiat.

Don't you think that the number of people that either don't have interest in this game (large number, from what I've seen here and on other forums) or are vocal about not liking the game (much smaller portion--but those are the ones who took the time to say they didn't like it) or flat-out don't like the rules that they are seeing is a tell-tale sign that should be listened to?

Considering the amount of feedback we get - direct feedback, rather than on forums (because there are multiple channels to give feedback) - I can't say for certain whether or not people who don't like the system form any sort of majority.

Beyond that, there's a point at which you have to make the game you want to make, rather than the game that someone else wants you to make. Sure, people don't always know why they don't like something, but as often, people may not know if they like something until they try it - the things that people know they like are the things they've already experienced, after all, and that cannot account for things they've never experienced.

Running the numbers, making characters, and testing skill or combat interactions are all things that can be done individually, which makes it much easier feedback to give. It's relatively easy to run two sides of a battle to see who wins, but I'm not even sure how I could possibly test this sort of mechanic. It seems like a lot of it would come down to reading your players, to know where applying Threat would be most entertaining.

Sorry if that's not helpful :-/

It's helpful, and everything gets noted down and considered later anyway, but "actual play" tends to get more weight.

 

[Water Bob]

... The Common Threat List ...

I'd like to a list of common purchases for Threat in a Conan game.

If there is Threat to be spent, what are some common choices the GM can make....?

1 ...
2 ...
3 ...





... An Adventure Question About Threat ...

Also, a question: When the adventures are written, will they have entries like this:

"...there is a loose flagstone near the entry to the temple, and it costs 4 Threat to have it depressed, which means poison darts shoot from four columns at the corners of the entry, attacking everyone in front of the door."



"...It takes 2 Successes to open the lock on the chest. If 2 Threat are Spent, then the lock also explodes with hidden gas pumped by a bladder concealed within the cask. Everyone within 10 feet take damage of..."



"...if the PCs make any noise over a whisper, spend 6 Threat to have 2 more guards appear from around the corner of the building..."







... Another Question About Threat ....

Is the GM limited in anyway on how he spends the Threat.

Let's say the PCs are kicking butt, have stolen the princess from Thulsa Doom, and are making their get away. The GM decides to use his Threat to kill Valeria, make Conan mad, and set up a revenge fueled climax for the adventure.

The GM spends 2 Threat in order for Doom to have a live snake on him to use in his spell. It costs 4 Threat for Doom to have the spell, Snake Arrow, memorized and ready to be used. It costs 2 Threat for either Thorgrim or Rexor to be carrying a bow that Thulsa can use. And, the GM spends 3 Threat on Thulsa to give the sorcerer the best chance of hitting Valeria. On top of that, the GM spends 3 more Threat to ensure that the venom injected into Valeria's body will render her dead withing a game round or two.

The GM uses all of the Threat pool to kill Valeria and further the narrative.

But...even after all of this, the players pull it out. Akiro shows up, riding a donkey, and happens to have a neutralize poison spell. He generates some more Threat when rolling for the spell, but he saves Valeria's life! The poison is gone before it is fatal!

Yeah!

Now, though, the GM has 3 more Threat Points in the pool, and he uses all three to cause a landslide at the mouth of the narrow gorge as Valeria exits--and she dies from those wounds.

This is all legitimate, yes? The GM could spend his points this way if he felt this was the best way to tell his story?