CONAN LIVES! Info on the new Conan RPG

[aramis erak]

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.

I've seen a few small heartbreakers with similar premises - and they have, as you predict, lead to being overwhelmed and turning back.

The mechanic needs to stand up to the majority of players and GMs... and such escalating threat has been such a problem in the past that I'm instantly leery of it.

That said, I HAVE seen it work - in Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, and in Dragonlance 5th Age...
In MHR, there are enough reasons to buy down the doom pool as to make it hard to get it to stupidly hard. It's nigh constantly being spent from to power NPC special abilities and to inflict fumble effects that it's use as the default environmental difficulty is based upon them having rolled well earlier, rather than poorly, and having limited the NPC's.

In DL5A, being card based, it's limited by the size of the dragon suit. So, it's at most 10 cards deep in an 82 card deck, and often, players could overcome it. Plus, players could nerf the doom pool by holding doom cards in hand once drawn.

What I'm seeing here for the 2d20 system has the reward cycle skewed - early risk makes later actions more risky, whether it succeeds or fails. Therefore, players are likely to either spend big early, and die, or to avoid any use of it. It's a mechanic that rewards caution and cowardice, and punishes heroic swash. That's a VERY bad fit for a Conan game.

 

[Water Bob]

What I'm seeing here for the 2d20 system has the reward cycle skewed - early risk makes later actions more risky, whether it succeeds or fails. Therefore, players are likely to either spend big early, and die, or to avoid any use of it. It's a mechanic that rewards caution and cowardice, and punishes heroic swash. That's a VERY bad fit for a Conan game.

It looks like, from the recent posts by N01H3r3, that the difficulty of some throws in the adventure will require Threat being built up (or extra dice found in another manner, with paying Threat being the most common form). In fact, the 2d20 System flat out encourages the purchase of Threat.

The "fun" maneuvers that NPCs can do is tied to spending Threat.

I agree with you, Aramis, that is is a very bad thing for a Conan game.

 

[N01H3r3]

What I'm seeing here for the 2d20 system has the reward cycle skewed - early risk makes later actions more risky, whether it succeeds or fails. Therefore, players are likely to either spend big early, and die, or to avoid any use of it. It's a mechanic that rewards caution and cowardice, and punishes heroic swash. That's a VERY bad fit for a Conan game.

Which is valid criticism... but we can't go on forum posts alone, because those tend to become dominated by a small number of frequent posters (Water Bob alone is a majority of the commentary in this thread). We've just gotten in the responses from playtest surveys, and the results there are far more positive. How much weight do we give to negative posters on forums who by their own admission don't want to play the game, over people who've given it a try and responded positively? It doesn't bear out in any of my own tests and demos, or those of my colleagues either.

Any given forum thread will tend in one direction or another, primarily because people who disagree with it seldom stick around to present a counter-opinion. Social media is the same - you just end up with self-reinforcing echo-chambers that reinforce one set of opinions, while people who hold other opinions avoid it. Individual feedback sent privately - emails, face-to-face discussions at conventions, survey responses - tends to lack that factor, so we get feedback from people who aren't as likely to spend time on a message board complaining about games they don't play.

My own experiences, the experiences of my colleagues, and the feedback coming in directly is coming back saying "yes". Forums seem to consist of a small number of people saying "no" loudly and often, particularly places like this that skew more towards traditional styles of RPG.

Personally speaking, if you don't find our game to be to your tastes, you're welcome not to like it - particularly if you've already got a game that serves your needs*. I'd ask, out of courtesy, that you don't try and dominate discussions about it to dissuade others - if others like it, it's for them to decide, on their own terms.

*On this note, this tends to be a factor in feedback received - a part of the Mutant Chronicles community preferred the rules-heavy simulationist style of the earlier editions in the 90s, but they were a relative minority. Conan is similar in this regard, as it's a well-established property with numerous older games of more traditional styles. Infinity has very little of this kind of feedback - there's no prior edition to compare to. John Carter, thus far, has had little in the way of this commentary, in part due to a relative dearth of prior games for that setting. Presenting a new edition that takes a new approach to an existing community is always a fraught proposition... but if nobody tried new approaches to gaming, we'd never have had D&D to begin with.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

We've just gotten in the responses from playtest surveys, and the results there are far more positive. How much weight do we give to negative posters on forums who by their own admission don't want to play the game, over people who've given it a try and responded positively? It doesn't bear out in any of my own tests and demos, or those of my colleagues either.

Something you probably should take into consideration, though, is how much of your Threat usage follows directly from the rules and how much bias is introduced because you (and your colleagues) have some shared pre-conception about how that Threat should be used.

It's entirely possible that the game mechanic works really well if you come at it from the angle of making things interesting rather than challenging, but for as long as Threat can be spent in various ways, there may be issues with an outsider GM who doesn't get that point. I mean, if much of the fun of the game lies in its challenge, then surely the GM is there to spend that Threat as efficiently as possible in ramping up the challenge, right?

My own experiences, the experiences of my colleagues, and the feedback coming in directly is coming back saying "yes". Forums seem to consist of a small number of people saying "no" loudly and often, particularly places like this that skew more towards traditional styles of RPG.

It definitely helps that you acknowledge this is not a traditional style of RPG. That's exactly the sort of statement which is useful for getting players and GMs into the right mindset for this game, and to warn fans of traditional RPGs before they become too invested in something that would likely end poorly for them.

 

[N01H3r3]

Something you probably should take into consideration, though, is how much of your Threat usage follows directly from the rules and how much bias is introduced because you (and your colleagues) have some shared pre-conception about how that Threat should be used.

I'm aware of the possibility, although there's still a fair amount of variation between individuals.

Your point is a well-made one, in that a lot of it comes down to approach and perception. It's also not something that has completely passed us by. While it's a little late for Mutant Chronicles (with the book going to print, and already being 500 pages long), Infinity and Conan will have much more in-depth discussions of Heat/Threat, not only in mechanical terms, but also providing more advice and guidance on how to get the best from it.

It definitely helps that you acknowledge this is not a traditional style of RPG. That's exactly the sort of statement which is useful for getting players and GMs into the right mindset for this game, and to warn fans of traditional RPGs before they become too invested in something that would likely end poorly for them.

I'm not going to shy away from the fact that different games favour different styles of GMing and playing, and 2d20 system games err on the side of narrative rather than traditional or simulationist. The GMing chapters in Mutant Chronicles already handle things from the perspective of pacing, scene framing, and other narrative conventions, with a focus on "the GM should make things interesting and keep things moving" - they include options for "Fail Forwards" and "Success at a Cost", for GMs and groups that want to embrace such concepts (they're not in the main rules chapters, because they're more GM advice than hard rules).

I apologise if I come off as a little acerbic at times - working on a game and seeing lots of negative feedback about it online (even balanced out by positive feedback from elsewhere) can be demoralising and frustrating, as I'm sure you all can imagine. I try my best to be patient and provide clear responses, but it can be difficult.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I apologise if I come off as a little acerbic at times - working on a game and seeing lots of negative feedback about it online (even balanced out by positive feedback from elsewhere) can be demoralising and frustrating, as I'm sure you all can imagine. I try my best to be patient and provide clear responses, but it can be difficult.

I know exactly what you mean, and I must say, you're handling this very well.

One trick that I use, to compartmentalize my own thoughts on design, is to imagine ahead of time what your most likely criticisms will be, and decide if you can accept that before moving forward with the design decision. I think most people are aware that any sort of design is full of a lot of trade-offs, so for every imagined criticism, just keep in mind why it is the way that it is.

In this case, the Threat system offers a lot of benefits (mainly to the GM, but also to the players) which you couldn't get out of other game mechanics. And even if I don't personally like that particular implementation, I can understand why it is the way that it is.

 

[CoreyHaim8myDog]

I think all we can do as designers is to try to provide a set of rules to game with in an REH style. What you players and GMs do with those tools is up to you. It may not be everyone's cuppa, but it won't lack for trying to capture Howardian pulp.

 

[Water Bob]

In this case, the Threat system offers a lot of benefits (mainly to the GM, but also to the players) which you couldn't get out of other game mechanics. And even if I don't personally like that particular implementation, I can understand why it is the way that it is.

Yes, if the Threat System weren't a meta-game mechanic, I'd find it easier to swallow. I can't think of any way, though to integrate the Threat Mechanic into the Hyborian Age, though. There is no "Force that penetrates us and binds us and holds the universe together."

The first thought would be to do something with Sorcery, but even that should be rare in the Hyborian Age--not pervasive.




Another aspect of the 2d20 System is its focus on mechanics rather than roleplaying. It constantly reminds players that they are rolling dice, focusing their attention on decisions like, "Do I need to purchase Threat so that I can roll more dice?'

When I first started playing the Mongoose Conan game, I used the alternate d20 rule where defense was not a static Armor Class but a d20 + mods defense roll. I quickly realized that change to the standard d20 rules did exactly what 2d20 does--it focuses the player on the dice. They look at their rolls rather than live through the experience. Once I saw that, I went back to the standard AC in the game. A dice is cast, and modifiers are added, sure, but the player looks to the GM for the outcome (with ACs hidden).

This allows the player to live the game instead of just dice it.

With 2d20, no only are players focused on dicing, but also the GM cannot easily hide the difficulty (as the AC is hidden in the Mongoose d20 game). That's a curse many roll low systems have. Players know their target numbers and instantly know whether the task was successful. Any GM commentary describing the scene usually falls on deaf ears because the players already know the outcome.

But, if you hide the difficulty, the player rolls the dice....and the GM can re-focus them in the game world, living through the character, seeing what he sees, feeling what he feels.



"With all your might, you swing, and....


And, your players are glued to the drama you describe because they don't know if their attack was successful. They experience success or failure through your description.

With 2d20...they already know, and the GM is just wasting his breath, on most accounts. The players know the outcome and are looking on to what's next.

Lots of drama is lost with a system like this.

I think that having that drama is most helpful in delivering that "pulp" feel.

 

[N01H3r3]

Another aspect of the 2d20 System is its focus on mechanics rather than roleplaying. It constantly reminds players that they are rolling dice, focusing their attention on decisions like, "Do I need to purchase Threat so that I can roll more dice?'

I personally don't see that as a bad thing. The idea that roleplaying and mechanics are these mutually exclusive presences is anathema to the way I think. You can roleplay without rules. You can game without roleplaying. Surely RPGs are the point where you do both?

With 2d20, no only are players focused on dicing, but also the GM cannot easily hide the difficulty (as the AC is hidden in the Mongoose d20 game). That's a curse many roll low systems have. Players know their target numbers and instantly know whether the task was successful. Any GM commentary describing the scene usually falls on deaf ears because the players already know the outcome.

But, if you hide the difficulty, the player rolls the dice....and the GM can re-focus them in the game world, living through the character, seeing what he sees, feeling what he feels.

I also don't feel that "living through the character" is the be-all-and-end all of the RPG experience - I'm much more a fan of the author-stance than the actor-stance for RPGs these days, where the player is more akin to an author controlling the character, than a presence embodying the character (indeed, I tend to find that 'living through the character' tends to result in a number of problematic behaviours, where the player's attachment to the character makes them actively avoid risk, peril, and compromising situations).

This is likely a significant point of conflict here - player-as-author tends to see players more willingly putting their character into difficult or perilous situations, because they want to see how the character gets through them. Player-as-author also tends to be a lot more forgiving of metagaming, because it assumes an existing degree of distance between player and character. Player-as-actor drills down into "player choice must always equal character choice", which I don't regard as being particularly advantageous, outside of some forms of traditional gaming (even though, original D&D, characters were reportedly regarded as more akin to playing pieces, as befits units in a wargame).

With 2d20...they already know, and the GM is just wasting his breath, on most accounts. The players know the outcome and are looking on to what's next.

Except... not. Because hitting the difficulty isn't the end of the test like it is in a d20 system game. Momentum adds variety of choice and variation of outcome after the roll. Hitting the difficulty gives you the absolute bare minimum successful result... getting Momentum, from extra successes rolled, from using the group's banked Momentum, from bonuses like talents turns success into "yes, and".

With average tasks, you're less likely to fail outright... but often, the extras you get from Momentum are valuable enough and interesting enough (and impactful enough on the narrative) that their presence or absence changes things.

It's worth noting at this point, that I tend to take a very positive approach to player character success: in short, player characters are skilled professionals, and they will succeed. With any given task, a player character will succeed given sufficient time and attention. Failure is the point at which opponents and obstacles interfere with the PCs.

To give a common example: the thief is attempting to pick a particularly complicated lock. Given enough time, he'll succeed, so long as he's allowed to concentrate. In a gaming context, he may fail if he isn't given sufficient time, or if he's distracted by some external force. The thief didn't outright fail to pick the lock... he was interrupted before he could finish because he heard a guard coming. The warrior didn't miss, his enemy turned the attack aside with a deft flick of his blade. The same applies to major NPCs - they'll succeed unless the PCs stop them. I don't fail to tie my shoelaces, but I might have to leave them undone because I'm about to miss the bus.

Consequently, the basic conflict of "pass vs fail" means little to me.

One thing to remember is that the system's designer was Jay Little, who designed the FFG Star Wars games. The two systems take a similar tack - the basic "success/failure" paradigm is a small part of things, and the extra things a roll of the dice present are a more interesting part of the game, and contribute more to the ongoing narrative.

 

[Water Bob]

I personally don't see that as a bad thing. The idea that roleplaying and mechanics are these mutually exclusive presences is anathema to the way I think. You can roleplay without rules. You can game without roleplaying. Surely RPGs are the point where you do both?

Not always played that way, but yeah, I think the definition of roleplaying games is to have a game with roleplaying.

Otherwise, you're playing a different type of game.

It doesn't surprise me that you think this way as I have said before that the 2d20 system is more akin to playing a board game like Risk more than it is a roleplaying game.

I also don't feel that "living through the character" is the be-all-and-end all of the RPG experience -

I'm sure some will agree. There are all types. But, I think that good roleplaying is the highest experience a person can have with a roleplaying game.

RPGs aren't Yahtzee. They aren't computer RPGs either.

(indeed, I tend to find that 'living through the character' tends to result in a number of problematic behaviours, where the player's attachment to the character makes them actively avoid risk, peril, and compromising situations).

Having a player be so attached to a character that he plays him like a real person is generally the goal. Sure, that person can do super human things, sometime--which can be a true thrill.

RPG characters shouldn't be the extra lives a person gets when playing a Computer RPG.

This is why your Threat Mechanic doesn't work for me. When a character is heroic, he's punished, or the group is punished, later on.

This is likely a significant point of conflict here - player-as-author tends to see players more willingly putting their character into difficult or perilous situations, because they want to see how the character gets through them. Player-as-author also tends to be a lot more forgiving of metagaming, because it assumes an existing degree of distance between player and character. Player-as-actor drills down into "player choice must always equal character choice", which I don't regard as being particularly advantageous, outside of some forms of traditional gaming (even though, original D&D, characters were reportedly regarded as more akin to playing pieces, as befits units in a wargame).

You hit the nail on the head. You're describing characters as playing pieces, like extra lives in a computer game, where all you have to do is reload your last save.

I'm talking about emotional involvement that delivers (what I would argue is) a superior game experience.

Consequently, the basic conflict of "pass vs fail" means little to me.

Most games, including d20 based one, can be scaled. How much you roll over your target gives you your "successes".

For example, for every 5 points rolled over the target, the character obtains a success.

One thing to remember is that the system's designer was Jay Little, who designed the FFG Star Wars games. The two systems take a similar tack - the basic "success/failure" paradigm is a small part of things, and the extra things a roll of the dice present are a more interesting part of the game, and contribute more to the ongoing narrative.

I'm a HUGE Star Wars fan. I LOVED the D6 WEG game. Like Mongoose's Conan, I bought every supplement and rulebook ever published for that game, in all editions. The new FFG Star Wars dicing system turns me off, big-time. Thus, I have not purchased the game.




And, all I'm seeing here is that the design philosophy about the new Conan game is exactly my impression from reading the playtest rules--nothing about the game's rules jive with how I like to play or what I consider good game mechanics.