Brom's Cover Art For Modiphius' Upcoming CONAN RPG

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!

 

[moldyderp]

I somewhat agree with Water Bob's observation about the mechanic, but wonder why it really matters (outside of personal preference as to knowing meta knowledge) simply because it would seem to all even out in the game anyway. As a player I can choose to get an advantage in X situation knowing that I may suffer a penalty later on in Y situation. It would seem to make situations much more dynamic over just having to overcome a static difficulty rating (i.e. the player may feel they need a high chance of success to to overcome an obstacle in the interest of RP or to facilitate some measure of creativity). The mechanic does give players an increased chance to perform heroic actions when they see fit, which I think is a good thing.

The mechanic might be better suited to be tied to an individual though, rather than a group, but that would seem to be as easy as a house rule. If the fighter keeps generating the threat, then as DM I can use those threat points against the fighter.

However, knowing that threat is currently tied to the group, it would seem to be a mechanic that would promote group play, rather than individual. For instance, just because the fighter can continually produce threat doesn't mean he will when he knows it comes at the expense of the group. In addition to that, threat points are in return used at the discretion of the DM, and it would be a poor DM to continually penalize a party member who wasn't a significant contributor to the threat. So, even though the system could potentially be abused by a crappy player or a crappy DM, I would think that it would mostly police itself through cooperative gameplay, a responsible DM, and just a good overall play group.

I do agree, and it is also my personal preference, that the open knowledge of the meta is somewhat disappointing. However, I think this negative aspect is more than offset by the positive the mechanic offers in allowing players to augment their character's chances to be heroic at their discretion. I think this allows for great RP opportunities, and seems to fit within the Hyborian Age canon very well... when Conan absolutely had to succeed at ripping off Baal-Pteor's head, dodging out of the way of a hurled boulder, or resisting the gaseous demon lurking in a long forgotten tomb, for instance. The flip-side of that - the DM returning those points as threat - maybe doesn't fit so well... but I do like the player options here.

I may have missed the points here though. I haven't read the rules or played the game.

 

[Water Bob]

ADDENDUM: It's possible I might have already said this earlier, but if I have, I'll reiterate. There are already plenty of games that can do sword & sorcery pretty damned well. There's the upcoming Crypts & Things Remastered—which tweaks Swords & Wizardry in ways that make it perfect for the subgenre—Barbarians of Lemuria, On Mighty Thews, and Beasts & Barbarians for Savage Worlds. The only thing the Modiphius Conan seems to have going for it, as far as I can tell, is the fact that it is officially licensed. That will probably be enough for a lot of people, but it's definitely not a selling point for me.

During the play test, I pleaded with the power that be to release a D&D 5E version, or some other version using one of the popular game systems, going that route of a few games these days publishing with multiple systems. But, Modiphius wouldn't have it. 2d20, for better or worse, is its house system.

I agree with Water Bob's observation about the mechanic, but wonder why it really matters (outside of personal preference as to knowing meta knowledge) simply because it would seem to all even out in the game anyway. As a player I can choose to get an advantage in X situation knowing that I may suffer a penalty later on in Y situation. It would seem to make situations much more dynamic over just having to overcome a static difficulty rating (i.e. the player may feel they need a high chance of success to to overcome an obstacle in the interest of RP or to facilitate some measure of creativity).

I can't stand the idea that Robert can sit in on our game and run up the Threat Pool because he's that type of risky player. Then, later, where I've got a character I love and don't want killed for some silly reason, MY character ends up getting the brunt of the extra Threat that Robert generated just because the GM decided to use his Threat Pool then.

So....let's say my character is a thief. And, I'm doing everything possible to sneak around the Sorcerer's lair all stealthy like. I'm putting a lot of effort into it. And, I'm getting away with it. The GM then decides to make the guards extra alert, spending from the Threat Pool to do that, and my thief character ends up getting caught where, most likely, my character would have succeeded had the GM not spent the Threat. And, the GM wouldn't have the Threat to spend if Robert hadn't been going berserk, buying a lot of extra dice on attack throws, building up a mountain of Threat on the previous game session.

No, I don't like that at all. And, that's one of the real reasons it matters.

I do agree that the mechanic should be tied to an individual though, rather than a group, but that would seem as easy as a house rule.

Well, I'm all ears on how you would do that. Are you going to keep different Threat Pools for each player character? That seems like a lot of extra work--something to count and follow--for the GM. We all know GMs are already busy enough. And, how do you handled it when Threat is used by the GM to affect the whole party? The GM wants to use Threat to make rocks fall on the party as they cross a mountain trail. Who's Threat do you use? Certainly, some people will have more Threat than others, and some characters may have no Threat at this point. How do you reconcile all of that?

I think it's a mess and a bad mechanic to have to deal with in a Conan game that's supposed to be rules-light.

Man, I would have loved it if they would have adopted the old D6 System by WEG (Used for the old D6 Star Wars and Indianna Jones games). That would be PERFECT for a rules light Conan system.

 

[moldyderp]

I can't stand the idea that Robert can sit in on our game and run up the Threat Pool because he's that type of risky player. Then, later, where I've got a character I love and don't want killed for some silly reason, MY character ends up getting the brunt of the extra Threat that Robert generated just because the GM decided to use his Threat Pool then.

Yes, but as I mentioned in my post, why would a player do that knowing full well the repercussions of his actions? I don't understand why, if you knew what the mechanic was capable of (i.e. the DM returning threat) Robert would wantonly rack up the threat pool at the expense of the group. That some players may continually act irresponsibly in detriment to the group is not an argument to support changing the mechanic, it's an argument to remove the Leroy Jenkins from the play group.

So....let's say my character is a thief. And, I'm doing everything possible to sneak around the Sorcerer's lair all stealthy like. I'm putting a lot of effort into it. And, I'm getting away with it. The GM then decides to make the guards extra alert, spending from the Threat Pool to do that, and my thief character ends up getting caught where, most likely, my character would have succeeded had the GM not spent the Threat. And, the GM wouldn't have the Threat to spend if Robert hadn't been going berserk, buying a lot of extra dice on attack throws, building up a mountain of Threat on the previous game session.

No, I don't like that at all. And, that's one of the real reasons it matters.

The DM can do everything you just described anyway without even telling you. He doesn't want you to succeed? Rather than spending threat he can just arbitrarily up the difficulty without your knowledge. Knowing that the mechanic is in place must factor into your planning prior. This has pros and cons.

Well, I'm all ears on how you would do that. Are you going to keep different Threat Pools for each player character? That seems like a lot of extra work--something to count and follow--for the GM.

Well you probably have more gaming experience than me, and you've played the rules and I haven't. Offhand though, I don't see why keeping 4 small jars for buttons is any more complicated than keeping 1 small jar for buttons. Especially if that's the way you want it to work. And nothing prevents the DM from using threat points to penalize the character that generated them in the first place. Again we get back to DM responsibility and why would a DM continually apply punitive measures to a single individual other than the player that generated the threat in the first place?

I think the mechanic is far more group based. You generate threat to gain an advantage for the group. The DM spends threat to generate disadvantages for the group. That's the way I read it. And yes those are applied on an individual level, but it's a group game. I can't imagine a DM who intentionally tries to kill your character as a direct response to the actions of that "risky" player.

I think it's easily 'fixed' if you want it to be, and if you see that it needs to be. While I initially didn't like the mechanic, just in these few forum responses it's warming up to me as I see the potential. I see this playing out as a DM taking measures to apply disadvantages to a character as often as the player of that character takes measures to apply advantages to their character, while still retaining the option of applying that disadvantage to another party member if it is better suited there, rather than just for the purpose to be an ass, as you are implying.

I think a lot of your concerns are easily addressed by playing with reasonable people.

 

[Water Bob]

I can't stand the idea that Robert can sit in on our game and run up the Threat Pool because he's that type of risky player. Then, later, where I've got a character I love and don't want killed for some silly reason, MY character ends up getting the brunt of the extra Threat that Robert generated just because the GM decided to use his Threat Pool then.

So....let's say my character is a thief. And, I'm doing everything possible to sneak around the Sorcerer's lair all stealthy like. I'm putting a lot of effort into it. And, I'm getting away with it. The GM then decides to make the guards extra alert, spending from the Threat Pool to do that, and my thief character ends up getting caught where, most likely, my character would have succeeded had the GM not spent the Threat. And, the GM wouldn't have the Threat to spend if Robert hadn't been going berserk, buying a lot of extra dice on attack throws, building up a mountain of Threat on the previous game session.

No, I don't like that at all. And, that's one of the real reasons it matters.

Another side of this is the meta-game information I get from just looking at the amount of buttons in the Threat jar. As a player, I look at it and decide that it's not a good time to go sneaking around the Sorcerer's lair.

That decision is made simply because of the number of Threat Point the GM has to work with. I mentioned this earlier. Players will be more cautious (when they normally would not be--and their characters have no right to be) when Threat is high.

So, I don't take my thief sneaking around for the silly, out-of-game reason that I know, as a player, that the GM has a lot of points that he may use against me.

Player's decisions should be based on what their characters see, know, smell, hear, touch, feel. Not on a number of meta-game points staring at me--buttons in a jar across the table.

 

[Water Bob]

I think it's easily 'fixed' if you want it to. While I initially didn't like the mechanic, just in these few forum responses it's warming up to me.

First off, we shouldn't have to "fix" a major mechanic like this. This Conan RPG is based on this mechanic. It's the heart of it. Ripping it out or modding it to make sense in Conan's universe is going to be a chore, in my opinion.

Second, hey, there are people who like the mechanic. Maybe you're one of them. I say, "Fair weather to ye, then".

It's just not for me. I'm a role player, not a roll player. I prefer a player asking questions and the give-n-take between player and GM over simply rolling dice and getting the answer. But, some people like rolling dice and moving on. I tend to mix both styles in my game but lean towards the former. Not everybody games that way.

I've got no stock in whether you buy this game or not. If it sounds good to you, then, yes, support it.

I'm just pointing out what I hate about it--a game I really wanted to love.

 

[moldyderp]

Another side of this is the meta-game information I get from just looking at the amount of buttons in the Threat jar. As a player, I look at it and decide that it's not a good time to go sneaking around the Sorcerer's lair.

That decision is made simply because of the number of Threat Point the GM has to work with. I mentioned this earlier. Players will be more cautious (when they normally would not be--and their characters have no right to be) when Threat is high.

So, I don't take my thief sneaking around for the silly, out-of-game reason that I know, as a player, that the GM has a lot of points that he may use against me.

Player's decisions should be based on what their characters see, know, smell, hear, touch, feel. Not on a number of meta-game points staring at me--buttons in a jar across the table.

But it all evens out, doesn't it? If you're staring at a jar of buttons indicating your impending doom, that's a result of you being excessive with applying bonuses to your character previously, right? Again, I think most of the problems you have with this system are easily addressed by simply not playing with asshats that run up the threat counter.

You could easily house rule that threat does not carry over between sessions, couldn't you? Players and DMs must expend their advantages and disadvantages within a single play session. Then you totally mitigate this 'impending jar of bean doom' you keep insisting will be ever-present at the table.

 

[moldyderp]

First off, we shouldn't have to "fix" a major mechanic like this. This Conan RPG is based on this mechanic. It's the heart of it. Ripping it out or modding it to make sense in Conan's universe is going to be a chore, in my opinion.

My suggestion is simply not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you don't like one jar of beans, play with one for each player. That really isn't that much harder. If you don't like the impending jar of bean doom, then just expire the points at the end of the session.

I realize you think it's a chore to do these, but I cannot see why. I don't classify either of these as "fixes" because I don't see the mechanic as broken. I simply used 'fix' as a general term on your behalf, since you're the one implying that the mechanic is terrible.

 

[Water Bob]

I can't stand the idea that Robert can sit in on our game and run up the Threat Pool because he's that type of risky player. Then, later, where I've got a character I love and don't want killed for some silly reason, MY character ends up getting the brunt of the extra Threat that Robert generated just because the GM decided to use his Threat Pool then.

So....let's say my character is a thief. And, I'm doing everything possible to sneak around the Sorcerer's lair all stealthy like. I'm putting a lot of effort into it. And, I'm getting away with it. The GM then decides to make the guards extra alert, spending from the Threat Pool to do that, and my thief character ends up getting caught where, most likely, my character would have succeeded had the GM not spent the Threat. And, the GM wouldn't have the Threat to spend if Robert hadn't been going berserk, buying a lot of extra dice on attack throws, building up a mountain of Threat on the previous game session.

No, I don't like that at all. And, that's one of the real reasons it matters.

Bottom Line, for me: Is that I don't want to have to look across the table at a player running a thief who asks me, "I'm trying to sneak around this place and not give any alarms. Why are the guards all of a sudden throwing 5 dice on Perception throws instead of their usual 2 dice?"

I can't look at the player with a serious face and say, "Well, Jazzen the Pirate built up a lot of Threat in our game two weeks ago when his character was trying to keep from drowning. Yeah, I know Jazzen drowned anyway, but the Threat is still in the Jar. I've got a lot of points to spend."

I don't think the player with the thief would appreciate me telling him that, either.






I really don't like the idea that my players are focused on Threat Points and buttons in a jar--letting that guide their decisions to be cautious or not. In my book, a player focused on game rules is bad. What I strive for as a GM is a player who lives and breathes through his character--feeling what the character feels, tasting what he tastes.

In other words, I want characters focused on what's happening inside the game--not a meta-game rule mechanic.

 

[Water Bob]

But it all evens out, doesn't it? If you're staring at a jar of buttons indicating your impending doom, that's a result of you being excessive with applying bonuses to your character previously, right? Again, I think most of the problems you have with this system are easily addressed by simply not playing with asshats that run up the threat counter.

What if the player wasn't an asshat? In my example above, why does the Thief have to pay for the Threat built up by the drowning Pirate from a previous session?

You could easily house rule that threat does not carry over between sessions, couldn't you? Players and DMs must expend their advantages and disadvantages within a single play session. Then you totally mitigate this 'impending jar of bean doom' you keep insisting will be ever-present at the table.

I don't think that you're thinking this through. If you did that, you are giving your players no restrictions on buying extra dice on task throws. The restriction in the the game is that buying extra dice builds Threat, and the GM can use Threat to make obstacles harder for the players.

What happens, as the game's session draws to a close, every player starts buying extra dice on task throws because they know the Threat will not carry over to the next session?

Players are smart. They figure out these things.

 

[moldyderp]

Bottom Line, for me: Is that I don't want to have to look across the table at a player running a thief who asks me, "I'm trying to sneak around this place and not give any alarms. Why are the guards all of a sudden throwing 5 dice on Perception throws instead of their usual 2 dice?"

I can't look at the player with a serious face and say, "Well, Jazzen the Pirate built up a lot of Threat in our game two weeks ago when his character was trying to keep from drowning. Yeah, I know Jazzen drowned anyway, but the Threat is still in the Jar. I've got a lot of points to spend."

I don't think the player with the thief would appreciate me telling him that, either.

I don't understand why you're applying repetitive punitive measures to players who didn't generate the threat (i.e. "I've got a lot of points to spend"). There is apparently a rule in place that says you must spend these points? Or you're just being an asshat DM who is intentionally being obtuse?

I really don't like the idea that my players are focused on Threat Points and buttons in a jar--letting that guide their decisions to be cautious or not. In my book, a player focused on game rules is bad. What I strive for as a GM is a player who lives and breathes through his character--feeling what the character feels, tasting what he tastes.

In other words, I want characters focused on what's happening inside the game--not a meta-game rule mechanic.

While I was initially mostly in agreement with you, after thinking about it, I think the mechanic drives RP, not detracts from it, by allowing the players to gain advantage in areas where they want their character to be strong in story. Much more than a d20 system. I can say when I want my character to try to be heroic in excess of a normal dice roll. That's fantastic! My thief, who I want to RP as mechanically inclined beyond his level can buy dice on mechanical rolls to RP that story. My fighter has a companion carrying a torch, and if he can successfully heft and hurl a barrel of oil at his enemies we can ignite the spill and burn them all. I can buy dice to assist in facilitating that RP event. This is like an action movie!

Keep in mind the players are only staring at a jar full of buttons if they have taken numerous occasions to give their characters advantages previously. So why wouldn't they expect increased difficulty in the end if they were playing their characters in risky manner to begin with? I see this as balance, if the players are running around generating threat to gain advantages over obstacles, then why is the DM not spending the threat just as freely? I really don't think an official 48oz Conan button jar is going to be a required accessory for the game, so I still don't see how all these buttons are generated without also being freely spent by the DM.

What if the player wasn't an asshat? In my example above, why does the Thief have to pay for the Threat built up by the drowning Pirate from a previous session?

I don't know! Why do you keep insisting he must pay for it? That he doesn't have to pay for it is my point, not yours. I don't understand why a DM would do the things you keep saying a DM would do, like repeatedly punishing players who aren't actually racking up threat. And I don't understand why a player would continually rack up threat at the expense of the group. These concepts make no sense to me and are player faults. Not mechanic faults.


Please answer these. Why would a DM do this to a player? Why would a player do this to their group?

What happens, as the game's session draws to a close, every player starts buying extra dice on task throws because they know the Threat will not carry over to the next session?

Uhhhhh.... the DM spends the threat the players just generated? I don't understand the question. More than likely though, (having not read the rules) I don't understand when the mechanic can be applied. I see it as:

Session:
Player 1: "I'm going to generate a bunch of dice to kill the boss. I hit. Massive damage"
DM: "I'm going to spend the threat you just generated to have the boss hit you back. I hit. Massive damage".


Am I missing something here?

OR

Player 1 buys dice and kills the boss.
DM uses threat to augment the difficulty of the trap on the bosses treasure chest.

OR

...countless other scenarios could apply here.

Players are smart. They figure out these things.

I know players are smart. That's my point. I keep asking you, why would a player continually and willingly generate a ton of threat knowing that the DM could in turn spend that threat to penalize that player, or the group? Players are smart, they wouldn't do this. That's my point!

---------------------------------------
Here's how I address each of your concerns. I'm not saying they're right answers, I'm just saying this is how I address them:

You: The mechanic is too metagamey. Players looking at a jar full of buttons will change their behavior in the game to be more cautious. Or if there aren't any buttons will behave like asshats and just run around buying dice to kill all my monsters and take their stuff.

Me: Players have already changed the way they play the game when they generated all those buttons in the first place. Them being cautious now is a direct result of them being risky before. This is an even tradeoff. If you don't want the DM to have the tools to make your end encounter really difficult, then don't generate massive threat to begin with. Remember what you said, "Players are smart. They figure out these things." And I totally agree with that, which is why I don't think your arguments are that sound.

You: I'm the DM and I have lots of buttons. I must punish anyone but the player who generated them. Hard.
Me: Huh? Who does this? Your argument seems to suggest that players do nothing but run around buying dice, and that the DMs only recourse is to apply his threat in large amounts to the character(s) who aren't actually doing the damage in his encounter. This makes no sense.

Suggested actions:
- Use common sense. Why are you spending a jar full of threat on a player that didn't participate in generating it?
- Threat expires at end of session. Or simply a reasonable amount carries over. If players are intentionally gaming your encounter to generate massive threat at the end, then use common sense and carry that threat over... right?
- Threat can only be applied to the person who generated it.
- Don't let asshat players - who do nothing but make it hard on the rest of the team - play in your group


You: My character shouldn't be punished even unto death from the actions of another careless player.
Me: Huh? Who does this?

Suggested Action:
- Don't be or play with an asshat DM


You: I like to role play, not roll play
Me: Having the option for my player to attempt to act heroically when I want them to act heroically is RP to me. That's fantastic RP to me. What a dynamic concept to add to the game. Much more interesting than your standard difficulty rating and this plays extremely well into the Conan stories and I already gave some examples of that in my previous post.


You don't like the mechanic, and that's fine with me. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I can see the point of everything you've suggested, I just don't see how any of these are issues unless you're the DM and being a complete douche to your players, or you've allowed an asshat player in your group. Everything you've suggested, to me, is completely and totally mitigated by using common sense. And if you do need to apply a 'fix', nothing that has been suggested applies any further complication to management of the game.