Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A Crunchy Take On Conan From Modiphius Entertainment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caliburn101" data-source="post: 7741929" data-attributes="member: 6802178"><p>Always interesting how much more honest detail comes out when you block someone and then unblock them a few days later.</p><p></p><p><strong>“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>― Daniel Patrick Moynihan </strong></p><p></p><p>Never heard of the fellow until I watched a program a couple of days ago in which he was mentioned and thought immediately of this thread and your statements.</p><p></p><p>So here are some undeniable truths about our discourse with each other Elfcrusher.</p><p></p><p>It is <em>not a fact</em> that your examples demonstrate what is missing in the game.</p><p></p><p>It is <em>not a fact</em> that I work for or promote Modiphius in any way.</p><p></p><p>It is <em>not a fact</em> that I didn't tell you the above already. Anyone reading back through the thread will see it clearly.</p><p></p><p>It <em>is a fact</em> that I know the game in far more detail than you as I playtested it and run it often.</p><p></p><p>It <em>is a fact</em> that you still haven't proven that a rule on weapon changes/breakage and enforcing the barbarian/civilised dichotomy is viable or even possible as I claim it isn't.</p><p></p><p>Let's look at a strawman argument in that last post of yours. You said;</p><p></p><p><em>"He could have simply said, "I don't think what you are suggesting is practical, it would overly constrain the game""</em></p><p></p><p>But I DID say that your rules suggestions were not workable and would take away player agency over what are best dealt with as narrative tropes. I'd have been delighted if you had then engaged in <em>"an interesting discussion about RPG design."</em> But no, preferable by far it would appear for you to characterise my disagreement as <em>"knee-jerk attack mode"</em>.</p><p></p><p>Admittedly however, it is a fundamental thing in people, myself included, to make a gut decision on whether we like something and only <em>then</em> come up with rationales as to why we had that feeling in the first place, <em>after the fact</em>. It is a basic human characteristic (and indeed primate characteristic) explained very well in Richard H. Thaler's <em>et al</em> work on the subject. I see this played out in the few tirelessly vocal detractors of this system who post so vociferously on sites like these.</p><p></p><p>Truth be told, I didn't like the idea of a Conan rpg with meta-mechanics when the idea was first floated, and I was on forums stating that I thought a system like RuneQuest 6/Mythras would be better deployed to represent this IP I am so fond of.</p><p></p><p>But as I hold to a personal principle of actively challenging my own pre-judgemental bias, I became a playtester. I got a group together to 'break the system' and gave feedback, and I even got confirmation that some rules changes were brought in because of that feedback. I did all of this for free, simply because I hadn't liked any of the previous iterations of Conan in rpgs and couldn't see another attempt being made in some time, so why not see if this one could represent the world and subgenre the right way!?</p><p></p><p>I thought being a round the table playtester was better than being a armchair critic.</p><p></p><p>I understand the 'tireless detractor' point of view you see, I once thought similarly. But ultimately those arguments always boil down to the same 'I don't like the 2d20 mechanics' mantra and they usually try to rationalise this dislike by saying it was developed for another game world (Mutant Chronicles) and so 'doesn't fit' anything else, or that meta-mechanics are inappropriate for the sub-genre. They then usually (although not absolutely <em>always</em>) demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings of the rules or a significant lack of working knowledge of the system as it has been deployed in the Conan iteration. This is clearly demonstrated when they mis-explain rules or in making non-factual statements, clearly show they didn't read the whole book, and certainly didn't play it.</p><p></p><p>In contrast, I know the fellow responsible for Red Dice Diaries, and he is not a fan of the 2d20 system either, despite being a big fan of meta-mechanics. He and I disagree about this, but not once have we had an argument about it as he clearly read the rules and digested the content before he came to a decision about it. His reasoned approach has earned the respect it garners on pretty much all the systems he reviews.</p><p></p><p>I would recommend it to you, because, frankly, if you are going to wax lyrical about why you don't like something, surely that is the only credible approach with which to do so!</p><p></p><p>I don't mind people disliking a game, or system, or even a games company for that matter. But if they do so without having bothered to understand what they are disliking, or in extreme cases hating, then I feel entirely justified in countering their arguments, and usually, because they haven't done their homework, when we get into the details, they make doing so straightforward from a logical point of view.</p><p></p><p>So stop with the labelling Elfcrusher - you and I disagree, and you haven't backed up your critique of the system with anything I think is remotely objective. Dislike it all you want, but don't please pass off your subjective opinions as facts, and certainly don't drag the discussion down into a exposition of how you are 'under attack'. That's as subjective a claim as the other stuff you have posted.</p><p></p><p>Let me quote you;</p><p></p><p><em>"Because instead he went after my logic and articulation, with denigrating/dismissive language ("utterly wrong", "myopic", "wrong-headed", etc.)."</em></p><p></p><p>The first part of that is exactly right - I DID go after your logic and articulation. I didn't go after you! I called your 'facts' "utterly wrong" from an informed point of view; I called your <em>argument</em> "myopic" because you didn't see what was right in front of you in the rulebook; and "wrong-headed" because you <em>argued</em> that your opinions were actually facts.</p><p></p><p>As for your claims that I played the victim - well that's pure theatre - and your tactic throughout the latter stages of this debate. In psychological terms that's called Psychological Projection. To use your words, <em>"I am so sick of that all-too-common forum tactic."</em></p><p></p><p>Indeed!</p><p></p><p>Now, lets tackle your issue with me evoking the R.E.Howard Society and it's involvement with the game. Since when has... and let me use your perjorative expression... <em>"defending the honor of IP lawyers"</em> been either (a) an automatically bad thing, or (b) proof positive of being <em>"out of arguments"</em>?</p><p></p><p>Again, I call Psychological Projection here - and that you are the one out of credible arguments and trying the old switcheroo behind a smoke and mirrors routine. I might be wrong about that of course - you may just be a conspiracy theorist when it come to lawyers, but that seems far less likely to me.</p><p></p><p>Finally, you last strawman my argument...</p><p></p><p>There is actually a great deal of the Conan subgenre flavour that is codified in the rules - the grittiness of Combat, the extensive Skills-system, the pulp-fiction Momentum and Fortune token system for handling Challenges, the utterly debased nature of Sorcery and the psychological impact of Displays. If you had wanted to use REAL examples of Conan 'codification' in the rules, you could have mentioned these. But see, there's the problem for you isn't it. These are all really good rules, and so don't support your argument. So your only recourse was to fabricated the need for codified rules for narrative elements of the genre, and when I said that wouldn't work and was effectively dealt with as narrative advice, you couldn't come up with a single idea on how to do it yourself - and I did ask.</p><p></p><p>You looked for a reason to explain your dislike of the game and found nothing credible, so you came up with an explanation that got challenged. If you don't like having your opinions challenged, why post on boards like this?</p><p></p><p>I have been GM'ing for 40 years now, and have an in-depth and informed point of view what is best dealt with in the narrative and in the rules for the games I run, and for the games my many players enjoy. I think Modiphius got it right on this occasion (although I don't think so for Star Trek so much btw...), and you think they got it wrong.</p><p></p><p>The difference is, I am using examples of things that actually exist to prove my point and you are evoking things that you claim should exist, even though you cannot think how that might work to support your point.</p><p></p><p>My supporting evidence is concrete, yours is pie in the sky.</p><p></p><p>Now your posts have been challenged, I'll resume where I left of when I said I wasn't going to engage further on this. I am not going to block anyone, so you are always free to PM me to try and resolve our difference of opinion on whether you have been subject to some kind of personal attack or whatever.</p><p></p><p>However, as I suspect I know what's going to happen next (and with as much flourish and drama as can be mustered no doubt), I will just exit stage-right and leave you the floor.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caliburn101, post: 7741929, member: 6802178"] Always interesting how much more honest detail comes out when you block someone and then unblock them a few days later. [B]“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan [/B] Never heard of the fellow until I watched a program a couple of days ago in which he was mentioned and thought immediately of this thread and your statements. So here are some undeniable truths about our discourse with each other Elfcrusher. It is [I]not a fact[/I] that your examples demonstrate what is missing in the game. It is [I]not a fact[/I] that I work for or promote Modiphius in any way. It is [I]not a fact[/I] that I didn't tell you the above already. Anyone reading back through the thread will see it clearly. It [I]is a fact[/I] that I know the game in far more detail than you as I playtested it and run it often. It [I]is a fact[/I] that you still haven't proven that a rule on weapon changes/breakage and enforcing the barbarian/civilised dichotomy is viable or even possible as I claim it isn't. Let's look at a strawman argument in that last post of yours. You said; [I]"He could have simply said, "I don't think what you are suggesting is practical, it would overly constrain the game""[/I] But I DID say that your rules suggestions were not workable and would take away player agency over what are best dealt with as narrative tropes. I'd have been delighted if you had then engaged in [I]"an interesting discussion about RPG design."[/I] But no, preferable by far it would appear for you to characterise my disagreement as [I]"knee-jerk attack mode"[/I]. Admittedly however, it is a fundamental thing in people, myself included, to make a gut decision on whether we like something and only [I]then[/I] come up with rationales as to why we had that feeling in the first place, [I]after the fact[/I]. It is a basic human characteristic (and indeed primate characteristic) explained very well in Richard H. Thaler's [I]et al[/I] work on the subject. I see this played out in the few tirelessly vocal detractors of this system who post so vociferously on sites like these. Truth be told, I didn't like the idea of a Conan rpg with meta-mechanics when the idea was first floated, and I was on forums stating that I thought a system like RuneQuest 6/Mythras would be better deployed to represent this IP I am so fond of. But as I hold to a personal principle of actively challenging my own pre-judgemental bias, I became a playtester. I got a group together to 'break the system' and gave feedback, and I even got confirmation that some rules changes were brought in because of that feedback. I did all of this for free, simply because I hadn't liked any of the previous iterations of Conan in rpgs and couldn't see another attempt being made in some time, so why not see if this one could represent the world and subgenre the right way!? I thought being a round the table playtester was better than being a armchair critic. I understand the 'tireless detractor' point of view you see, I once thought similarly. But ultimately those arguments always boil down to the same 'I don't like the 2d20 mechanics' mantra and they usually try to rationalise this dislike by saying it was developed for another game world (Mutant Chronicles) and so 'doesn't fit' anything else, or that meta-mechanics are inappropriate for the sub-genre. They then usually (although not absolutely [I]always[/I]) demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings of the rules or a significant lack of working knowledge of the system as it has been deployed in the Conan iteration. This is clearly demonstrated when they mis-explain rules or in making non-factual statements, clearly show they didn't read the whole book, and certainly didn't play it. In contrast, I know the fellow responsible for Red Dice Diaries, and he is not a fan of the 2d20 system either, despite being a big fan of meta-mechanics. He and I disagree about this, but not once have we had an argument about it as he clearly read the rules and digested the content before he came to a decision about it. His reasoned approach has earned the respect it garners on pretty much all the systems he reviews. I would recommend it to you, because, frankly, if you are going to wax lyrical about why you don't like something, surely that is the only credible approach with which to do so! I don't mind people disliking a game, or system, or even a games company for that matter. But if they do so without having bothered to understand what they are disliking, or in extreme cases hating, then I feel entirely justified in countering their arguments, and usually, because they haven't done their homework, when we get into the details, they make doing so straightforward from a logical point of view. So stop with the labelling Elfcrusher - you and I disagree, and you haven't backed up your critique of the system with anything I think is remotely objective. Dislike it all you want, but don't please pass off your subjective opinions as facts, and certainly don't drag the discussion down into a exposition of how you are 'under attack'. That's as subjective a claim as the other stuff you have posted. Let me quote you; [I]"Because instead he went after my logic and articulation, with denigrating/dismissive language ("utterly wrong", "myopic", "wrong-headed", etc.)."[/I] The first part of that is exactly right - I DID go after your logic and articulation. I didn't go after you! I called your 'facts' "utterly wrong" from an informed point of view; I called your [I]argument[/I] "myopic" because you didn't see what was right in front of you in the rulebook; and "wrong-headed" because you [I]argued[/I] that your opinions were actually facts. As for your claims that I played the victim - well that's pure theatre - and your tactic throughout the latter stages of this debate. In psychological terms that's called Psychological Projection. To use your words, [I]"I am so sick of that all-too-common forum tactic."[/I] Indeed! Now, lets tackle your issue with me evoking the R.E.Howard Society and it's involvement with the game. Since when has... and let me use your perjorative expression... [I]"defending the honor of IP lawyers"[/I] been either (a) an automatically bad thing, or (b) proof positive of being [I]"out of arguments"[/I]? Again, I call Psychological Projection here - and that you are the one out of credible arguments and trying the old switcheroo behind a smoke and mirrors routine. I might be wrong about that of course - you may just be a conspiracy theorist when it come to lawyers, but that seems far less likely to me. Finally, you last strawman my argument... There is actually a great deal of the Conan subgenre flavour that is codified in the rules - the grittiness of Combat, the extensive Skills-system, the pulp-fiction Momentum and Fortune token system for handling Challenges, the utterly debased nature of Sorcery and the psychological impact of Displays. If you had wanted to use REAL examples of Conan 'codification' in the rules, you could have mentioned these. But see, there's the problem for you isn't it. These are all really good rules, and so don't support your argument. So your only recourse was to fabricated the need for codified rules for narrative elements of the genre, and when I said that wouldn't work and was effectively dealt with as narrative advice, you couldn't come up with a single idea on how to do it yourself - and I did ask. You looked for a reason to explain your dislike of the game and found nothing credible, so you came up with an explanation that got challenged. If you don't like having your opinions challenged, why post on boards like this? I have been GM'ing for 40 years now, and have an in-depth and informed point of view what is best dealt with in the narrative and in the rules for the games I run, and for the games my many players enjoy. I think Modiphius got it right on this occasion (although I don't think so for Star Trek so much btw...), and you think they got it wrong. The difference is, I am using examples of things that actually exist to prove my point and you are evoking things that you claim should exist, even though you cannot think how that might work to support your point. My supporting evidence is concrete, yours is pie in the sky. Now your posts have been challenged, I'll resume where I left of when I said I wasn't going to engage further on this. I am not going to block anyone, so you are always free to PM me to try and resolve our difference of opinion on whether you have been subject to some kind of personal attack or whatever. However, as I suspect I know what's going to happen next (and with as much flourish and drama as can be mustered no doubt), I will just exit stage-right and leave you the floor. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A Crunchy Take On Conan From Modiphius Entertainment
Top