CONAN Is Finally Here!

After appearing three years running in the 10 Most Anticipated RPGs of the Year list, it seems that Conan's streak has come to and end - because Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of has been released! You can get it right now from Modiphius' web store, and will be able to get it elsewhere from tomorrow. PDF only, for the moment. You can also grab a book of six adventures, Jewelled Thrones of the Earth. Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed of is based on Modiphius' own 2d20 system (which also powers their upcoming Star Trek Adventures game). The book is now available for review in the reviews area.

SaveSave​

 

[Morrus]

There is a full quickstart for Conan 2d20 available here: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/174829/Robert-E-Howards-CONAN-Roleplaying-Game-Quickstart

If you have played FFG's Star Wars, the destiny pool is the closest parallel I have seen.

Effectively, the GM starts with a number of Doom Points which, for the most part, are spent like Momentum for NPCs (Momentum being the PCs "bennies"). The only two novel aspects are:

1. PCs can spend Momentum they don't have by adding Doom Points.

2. Doom Points can also be spent on a few "story twist" like effects, such as adding in extra opponents, creating an environmental effect etc.

For the most part, it acts like a single benny pool which streamlines the GM's resource management really well. It also allows the PCs to double down to get what they want at the cost of upping the stakes of the situation as a result. These are both good results IMO.

The main issue is with #2. By adding a cost to certain things a GM can normally do, it creates an expectation that the GM shouldn't do them without spending the cost. As said, its easy enough to ignore the spends for #2 and use the system as written.

Oh. Pretty standard fare. Why is it so controversial?

Also sounds very easy to just not use.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think that's an exaggeration. I strongly dislike Fate primarily for the Fate point mechanic, but the Doom Pool is a far cry from such a mechanic. In Conan 2d20, there is a much more robust traditional system sitting alongside Doom, than there is in Fate with Fate points. Doom is pretty much akin to bennies that appear in Savage Worlds, Conan d20 etc. Yes, there are similarities and its cool that this will make the game less appealing if you don't like the former, but to simply dismiss the whole RPG because you don't like the Fate point mechanic seems a disproportionate response.

Maybe I'm understating the degree to which I hate Fate points and every similar form of meta-game resource, including those in Savage Worlds and 3.5 Eberron, but I consider any game with a meta-game resource to be completely unsuitable for the style of play which drives me to an RPG instead of a video game. And given that there's a wide range of games out there to play, and that the easiest game to find a table for doesn't use that sort of mechanic, I have no compelling reason to cross that line.

If this was 1980, and there were only a handful of games to choose from, I might want to give it a chance. Since this is 2017, and I have hundreds of games to choose from, it's easier to dismiss things for small reasons. (Not that I consider this a small reason, I mean; but even if it was easy to ignore the rule, I'd still be better off playing one of the myriad games which didn't ask me to make such changes.)

 

[Skywalker]

Oh. Pretty standard fare. Why is it so controversial?

Also sounds very easy to just not use.

Its controversial as it does breach a line that many people hold dear. Requiring the GM to have a resource to do something that they would normally be allowed to do is seen as unnecessarily limiting, especially given the GM's already difficult task. So, I totally get why something that smells like that on a sniff test gets a strong reaction.

Its also not easy to ignore. The Doom Pool is a central mechanic. For example, active defences add Doom. Taking it out would be hard work.

Where I think people go awry is that though the Doom Pool may not be easily removed, the 2-3 most offensive Doom spends can be. As said, once you remove adding reinforcements, splitting the group, and environmental effects, the Doom Pool is pretty much the GM's bennies for NPCs.

Its a shame that Modiphius is so afraid of criticism of its design that they can't include this kind of discussion in the corebook. It wouldn't take more than a sidebar to keep most people happy.

 

[Skywalker]

Maybe I'm understating the degree to which I hate Fate points and every similar form of meta-game resource, including those in Savage Worlds and 3.5 Eberron, but I consider any game with a meta-game resource to be completely unsuitable for the style of play which drives me to an RPG instead of a video game. And given that there's a wide range of games out there to play, and that the easiest game to find a table for doesn't use that sort of mechanic, I have no compelling reason to cross that line.

Cool. If you have zero tolerance for any form of bennies, then Conan 2d20 isn't for you.

These kinds of resources are more common than not these days (starting with WFRP1e in the mid-80s) and even appear in the last two editions of D&D. Its cool if its not for you, but I don't think its surprising that Modiphius exploring this area of RPG design.

 

[Patrick McGill]

That's pretty exciting! Also, you can apparently get a PDF of the game with the Conan:Exiles video game if you get the Barbarian Edition.

 

[unnatural 20]

I guess I don't understand the controversy either. I've read both sides of the argument. I guess I'll just jot it down to some preferring a mechanic that others do not.

 

[Skywalker]

I guess I'll just jot it down to some preferring a mechanic that others do not.

That's pretty much it, multiplied by the internet

 

[unnatural 20]

I'm trying not to break it down as simply "your die rolling method sucks compared to mine!". Maybe I will understand more once I get to sit down with the rulebook.

 

[Water Bob]

The artwork is a mixture of scantily-clad muscle-bound barbarians and some fur-covered ones

I do quite like the art they're using on the books.

 

[Water Bob]

Modiphius, I feel, are releasing a higher quality product then Mongoose did but they are both very different from eachother and both fine games in my eyes.

In what way? I sure don't see it in the mechanics. Are you talking about the art and presentation?

Could somebody quickly summarise the Doom Points? I'm not familiar with the system.

Your target number on a task is to roll lower than Skill + Attribute. You roll a number of d20 dice. Each one that rolls under your target is a "Success".

Difficulty is measured in Successes. You need 1 Success for something easy. You need 2 successes for something of standard difficulty. And so on.

You get 2 d20 dice to start with.

There is a way to gain extra successes by rolling really low (rolling lower than your target number and a focus number), so one d20 dice can roll up to two successes.





MOMENTUM: If you roll more Successes than are needed, then you can keep these extra Successes as Momentum Points. You can use Momentum Points to buy extra dice or effects in the game, later on, on later rolls.



DOOM: Another way to get extra dice to roll is to purchase DOOM points. For example, you need to climb up a wall that is very hard to climb. It will take three successes to reach the top, and there is a good chance that you'll fall to your death.

You start with your 2d20 dice, but the chances of rolling three success on 2 dice is slim. You want some insurance. You pay 2 points of DOOM to the GM. In return, he gives you an extra two dice. Now, you have 4d20 dice to make the climb--rolling them, looking for three successes.

The GM keeps these DOOM points and saves them for a point in the game where he wants to use them to buff up his NPCs, activate monsters that normally wouldn't be activated, or generally make obstacles harder for the players.

In the example, the GM might immediately use the two DOOM points he just got from the climbing PC to use with the NPC that is chasing him. He uses the two DOOM points to add two dice to the NPCs climb--so that the NPC has a better chance, like the player character, to make it up the cliff.

Or...the GM might keep the DOOM points, letting them build, so that he has a lot of ammo to use during the climax of the adventure that happens four game sessions later.

It's up to the GM on how to use the DOOM points. He can keep 'em or use 'em as he sees fit to keep the game "dramatic".

 

[Water Bob]

Why is it so controversial?

It's meta-game aspect.

Player Fred can generate a lot of DOOM at Monday night's game when he decides to charge a group of bad guys single handed.

The GM scoops up all these DOOM points and keeps them.

Three game sessions later, a different player, George, has his thief try to sneak into the enemy compound. And, this is where the GM decides to use all of his DOOM points. Breaking into the bad guy's temple is harder than it was originally because the GM can activate more guards with the extra DOOM.

In effect, player George is having a harder time of it because of player Fred's actions.



And, from a very meta-game perspective, player George may decide to refrain from breaking into the bad guy's temple--simply because he sees the amount of DOOM points the GM has to work with. Why try something risky when you know the GM has a lot of ammo to use against you?

This is totally meta-game and has nothing to do with roleplaying or events that the character can see, hear, smell, taste, touch, or otherwise consider inside the game universe. The player's actions are totally guided by the number of points the GM has.

Yuk!

Also sounds very easy to just not use.

From what I've seen in the Quick Start and other materials, the DOOM mechanic is central to the game. The game is designed around this interaction of the players generating DOOM and the GM being able to use that DOOM against the PCs at a later point.

If you took it out, a lot of extra abilities and things would no longer be available to the players.

 

[Morrus]

It's meta-game aspect.

I know it is. Lots of games have them. Dozens, maybe hundreds.

So I ask again: why is it so controversial?

 

[Water Bob]

I know it is. Lots of games have them. Dozens, maybe hundreds.

So I ask again: why is it so controversial?

I explained it--at least my dislike of the game--in that same post under that sentence that you quoted.

It's controversial because A LOT of people don't like the mechanics. Then, again, A LOT of people also like the system.

Thus, controversy.




EDIT: I did a quick Google, and here's someone who explains what he doesn't like about the game (this is for Star Trek). CLICK HERE.

 

[Morrus]

I explained it--at least my dislike of the game--in that same post under that sentence that you quoted.

It's controversial because A LOT of people don't like the mechanics. Then, again, A LOT of people also like the system.

Thus, controversy.

Metagame mechanics are common. That's the opposite of controversial.

So I ask again: why is it controversial?

 

[Water Bob]

Metagame mechanics are common. That's the opposite of controversial.

So I ask again: why is it controversial?

I don't seem to be making any sense to you, so I'll allow someone else to answer.

(Maybe it's controversial because a lot of people really want to like this game. I know I do. But the mechanics are so bad that I won't play the game. So, massive disappointment has set in. Which angers people. They gripe about it. Discussion seen as controversy.)

 

[Tush Hog]

It's meta-game aspect.


Three game sessions later, a different player, George, has his thief try to sneak into the enemy compound. And, this is where the GM decides to use all of his DOOM points. Breaking into the bad guy's temple is harder than it was originally because the GM can activate more guards with the extra DOOM.

Can't happen.

Doom doesn't transfer from session to session. It's obvious that it isn't the system for you, but my group has absolutely loved it!

the momentum/doom mechanic has helped drive the story in very compelling ways and makes the game as fun for the GM as for the players. Every game relies upon a good GM. This is no different. A good GM (me ) can get a lot of drama from this system!

 

[Morrus]

I don't seem to be making any sense to you, so I'll allow someone else to answer.

(Maybe it's controversial because a lot of people really want to like this game. I know I do. But the mechanics are so bad that I won't play the game. So, massive disappointment has set in. Which angers people. They gripe about it. Discussion seen as controversy.)

Couldn't resist the edit, huh? The post was better when it did what it said -- "I don't seem to be making any sense to you, so I'll allow someone else to answer."

Your should have resisted the compulsion to come back and edit it.

You're just repeating that it's controversial. I understand that definition of "controversial" is "many people think differently". My question was why is a common mechanic happily accepted in dozens of popular games suddenly controversial?

Which angers people.

If you're angry about the choice of rules in a tabletop roleplaying game, game forums are not your solution.

I'd be interesting in hearing from people other than you, as you are known for stalking 2d20 threads across multiple websites and ranting about how awful it is. The fact that there's a person out there who obsessively hates a system to the extent of following it around the web and condemning everywhere they see it is not useful information to me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I know it is. Lots of games have them. Dozens, maybe hundreds.

So I ask again: why is it so controversial?

Because meta-gaming is bad. It is definitionally the opposite of role-playing, which is the reason why many people choose to play an RPG in the first place. Just because other games have done it, that doesn't make it good or acceptable. Since you seem to have missed the memo about meta-gaming being a bad thing, consider an analogy.

For a significant period in the eighties and nineties, it was not uncommon for a game to present stat modifiers based on the gender of the character. More often then not, men would have a bonus to Strength and women would have a bonus to Dexterity or Charisma or something. Some particularly egregious examples would just give women penalties across the board.

And then one day, someone realized that it was a bad idea. They realized that most of it was based on out-dated stereotypes, it didn't have a place in modern gaming, and it was better to let female characters be on an equal footing with their male counterparts. Eventually, the rest of the community got on board with that, and now the only games that include gender-based stat modifiers are those old games which we critique for being so ridiculous.

Now imagine that you're excited for this new Conan game that's coming out, and the first thing you notice when you crack open the .pdf is that women are -2 to Thews and +2 to Seduce. How would that make you feel about the game as a whole? Would you just accept it as something common in a lot of other games? Or would you find it distasteful, and be disappointed in the game for including it? Would you house rule it away? Would you be comfortable joining a group that was playing the game, without knowing how they handled the issue? Or would you cringe, every time it came up?

And it's not just the mechanic, itself, that's the problem. It's the mindset that goes along with creating that rule in the first place. I could probably house rule 'bennies' and Fate points out of Savage Worlds and FATE respectively, but the whole books are written to reinforce the tone that those mechanics are supposed to reflect. Stat modifiers for women usually exist to reinforce the idea that they aren't capable as heroes, and are meant to be rescued. Why would I want to support a game that intentionally chooses to do that?

 

[Morrus]

Because meta-gaming is bad.

It's been a while since I've seen a blantant example of badwrongfun. Blimey!

No it's not bad. It's just not to your taste. Why am I defining badwrongfun?

Dozens of very successful games fetaure metagame mechanics. Again, I ask: why is it controversial?

It is definitionally the opposite of role-playing

which is the reason why many people choose to play an RPG in the first place. Just because other games have done it, that doesn't make it good or acceptable.

It makes it *extremely* acceptable. Metagame mechanics are not a moral choice. They are very acceptable.

Since you seem to have missed the memo about meta-gaming being a bad thing

#badwrongfun isn't improved by dripping sarcasm.

For a significant period in the eighties and nineties, it was not uncommon for a game to present stat modifiers based on the gender of the character. More often then not, men would have a bonus to Strength and women would have a bonus to Dexterity or Charisma or something. Some particularly egregious examples would just give women penalties across the board.

And then one day, someone realized that it was a bad idea. They realized that most of it was based on out-dated stereotypes, it didn't have a place in modern gaming, and it was better to let female characters be on an equal footing with their cmale counterparts. Eventually, the rest of the community got on board with that, and now the only games that include gender-based stat modifiers are those old games which we critique for being so ridiculous.

I have no idea why you're trying to equate a game mechanic you don't like with an actual problem like discrimination and sexism.

 

[pemerton]

Marvel heroic: 5 damage steps which may as well be HP... as they do cumulate to death

They're not hit points. (1) There's 3 tracks. (2) They aren't linear in scale - if the effect die is bigger than the current status, it substitute; if small, the current status esdcalates by one. (3) They have a debuff consequence for the character (because can be included as a bonus die in an opposing pool). It's a type of condition tradck.

Hero Wars uses HP - called advantage points - which vary by the stakes of the extended conflict.

It can do in an extended contest. It doesn't have to - there are simple contests that yield debuff consquences. And APs are gained and lost based on an interaction of bids and opposed checks. They're not hp.

BW: the condition monitor has a HP subset... continued minors do overflow in Burning Wheel

You can't die from Superficial Wounds in BW - even if you get 3, and hence a Light, you're still not dying, and no amount of Light wounds will kill you. It's not hit points.

definitely for Duel of Wits.

The Body of Argument is a hit point-type mechanic, yes, in the sense of a pool that must be depleted to win the contest. But it's still not hit points because (i) has nothing to do with being hit, and (ii) is generated anew for each contest (in that respect a bit like the HeroWars APs). Heroes don't have a pool of "argument points" which can suffer attrition over the course of an adventure and which they replenish by resting or drinking potions of glibness.

Rolemaster explicitly uses HP as the default. With heavily armored characters and weak weapons, death by concussion hit loss can and does happen. About 10% of my RM kills were due to hit point losses.

As I posted, concussion hits aren't a metagame mechanic (which hit points are, as [MENTION=100241]slygeek[/MENTION] correctly noted). And at least in my experience death from concussion hit loss is extremely rare, because it occurs only at -CON. (Zero concussion hits is unconsciousness.)

One of the reasons that concussion hits are not a metagame mechanic in RM and HARP is that they are just one component ofthe whole injury system. In RM, you don't knock of the hit points and then narrate (say) a mighty blow that pierces the shoulder and draws blood. That narration is only permissible if yielded by an appropriate crit result. It's primarily a condition/debuff-based system.

Stress in 2d20 is VERY much HP... but HP with a shortcut that can drop you out sooner than "out of HP" - just like RM's crits can. Mōdiphüs' staff's claims that it isn't HP are simply wrong... but I understand why. See, of the games you claim don't have HP, each has a "depletion of the opponent's points wins" condition as a default position, and cumulative damage to them. They all do have a hit point element. So does 2d20. Oh, and then the harms and traumas limits are also a HP mechanic.[/QUOTE]

What I don't understand is why people won't give it a try just because of Doom points. It just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me.

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] has over 3,000 posts. A good chunk of that has been spent explaining his own (distinctive) views about metagaming and why he doesn't like it. He's not giving you a knee-jerk reaction!

And I'm pretty sure I've seen [MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION] post in the past on this issue too, especially in the context of this game.

As for myself, I run plenty of games with metagame mechanics (4e, BW, MHRP, AD&D). They don't bother me at all.