CONAN LIVES! Info on the new Conan RPG

[N01H3r3]

[MENTION=6799909]N01H3r3[/MENTION]

I understand the movement system isn't traditional, either. It's some sort of abstract system, yes?

Can you explain it a bit for our viewers (and me!).

Yes, it's somewhat abstract.

Broadly speaking, it's best described as a kind of asymmetric grid - each environment is divided into rough zones around terrain features and points of interest, and a character will inhabit one of these zones at any one time. When defining these zones, the GM is encouraged to approach the environment organically and simply, and to define terrain effects for those zones, such as obstacles that might hinder movement or provide cover - this is primarily because I have a fervent belief that battles in environments with obstacles and terrain is more interesting than ones without, but a lot of systems make it easy to ignore or overlook the inclusion of terrain, so that action scenes take place in featureless empty spaces (even I've been guilty of this at times - it's a bad habit that's easy to form).

Moving around within the zone (Close range) you're already in is essentially free, a narrative movement that allows characters to shift around, take cover, and so forth, without it taking up any particular actions. Moving from one zone to an adjacent one (Medium range) is a minor action. Moving two zones (Long range) in one round takes up more effort (a standard action, same as an attack). Anything 3+ zones is further than you can move in one turn, on foot at least (Extreme range). Entering melee is as simple as declaring that you are entering Reach of a character within the zone you're moving within or to (so you can spend a minor action to move into an adjacent zone, and say you're moving into Reach of an enemy there, and that's all that's needed to enter melee). Ranged attacks will have an optimal range (close, medium, or long) - an enemy in the optimal range can be attacked without penalty, but each range category closer or further will impose an increasing penalty (some weapons are too cumbersome to be used easily at close quarters, others are better at short ranges). This system of weapon ranges was established for Mutant Chronicles, so that assault rifles, sub-machine guns, and sniper rifles were all effective in different environments.

Within a building or other enclosed space, individual rooms are likely to be single zones - it's an easy way to define zones. Open areas should be defined by the presence or absence of features, so that a characters' location can be easily referred to in natural language (Conan is by the mine-cart, Valeria is hiding in the mouth of the cave, etc). Specific distances don't matter, but approximate locations based on proximity to terrain features is a good way to give movement relevance without tracking yards. Because zones are of no fixed size, the GM can - if he wishes - scale zones according to terrain density too: a large, open zone is mechanically the same as a smaller one, but this can easily represent how movement and shooting is easier in a big open space than in a small space or one with a lot of obstacles (imagine a forest - the clearing might be one big zone, surrounded by smaller zones filled with trees).

The system suits medium-to-large battlefields, and with a little care and consideration, can be used to give interesting tactical choices to players. It can also be adapted relatively easily to chases (create a long, thin environment, no more than three zones wide and a dozen or so long, use difficult terrain and obstacles liberally to slow down pursued and pursuers alike, with different routes having different difficulties and different length zones to give players choices (a long zone that needs a particularly difficult Athletics or Acrobatics test to enter or cross might slow down an unskilled character, but it works as a shortcut for a skilled and daring one). It lets you do running battles easily, because there's no separate chase subsystem.

Importantly, it can be used without maps and miniatures (full 'theatre of the mind', and a little easier than systems that use defined distances), but it doesn't exclude the use of those things either.

 

[fjw70]

Any word on what the magic system will be like?

 

[Hjorimir]

I'm actually quite encouraged by the Threat pool and what I'm reading here. Heck, I'd probably buy today if the book was available. Like fjw70, I'd love to hear something about how magic will be handled as well.

 

[N01H3r3]

Discussion kind of shifted over to the equivalent thread on RPG.net, but I'll repost what I said there.

Sorcery is a tricky subject, that needs to be handled carefully to make sure it deals with the source material properly. Broadly, the idea of sorcery having a meaningful cost to learn is present - Sorcerers have Patrons who must be appeased to provide access to magic, and individual spells impose a greater cost when learning them. Most spells also cost at least one Resolve (a mental wound) from the caster when using them, and produce Repercussions on any die that doesn't score a success on the Occultism test - they're risky and costly to cast. Part of the section (in its current form) also covers alchemical tricks and techniques that sorcerers can use in place of true spells, and advice on using other skills to substitute for magic or to make it more effective.

The section's not finished yet, as it's a fairly important subject that we don't want to rush.

With Mutant Chronicles, we have two kinds of supernatural abilities - The Art (shiny powers of Light and Righteousness, wielded by the Brotherhood), and Dark Gifts (vile powers of the malign Dark Apostles). The former are primarily for PC Mystics, and these Mystics can burn their own mental wounds to gain extra dice, instead of paying Dark Symmetry points, drawing on inner strength to fuel their powers. The latter are used mainly by NPCs, and while PC Heretics can use them, NPCs can use them differently, simply by paying Dark Symmetry Points.

This is likely to inform certain kinds of sorcerous power in Conan as well - some abilities may simply be Threat spends, particularly if they require dark rituals - the NPC sorcerer (and/or his lackeys) spends turns adding to Threat by performing the ritual, and can then unleash the ritual's effects when he's accumulated enough points. The ritual then becomes a 'ticking clock' that the PCs can try to to interrupt.

Beyond that, if you're interested in the system, Mutant Chronicles (the first game using the 2d20 system) is now available through both Modiphius' online store and DriveThruRPG.

 

[Water Bob]

A CONSTRUCTIVE IDEA ABOUT THE THREAT MECHANIC
 
 
 
I was watching the recorded play of the new Conan RPG with Shanks et. al., and I realized a constructive spin on what I can't stand about the Threat Mechanic.
 
First, I don't like that it is out in the open for players as the level of Threat will influence player's choices.
 
Second, I don't like that when a character attempts a heroic action, he's penalized with Threat whether he's successful at his task or not.
 
Third, I don't like that one person can generate Threat, and another can suffer the consequences in another part of the game.
 
 
 
 
Let's look at some ideas on keeping the mechanic, but altering it so that the issues go away.
 
First, the GM can hide the Threat Point total.  This is more bookkeeping for the GM, but he's got that bookkeeping either way.  But, if the Threat Point total is hidden, then players can only guess at its level.
 
 
 
Second, what if we change how Threat is gained?  I'd like to see the rule changed (if we have to have it) so that Threat is gained only when a character attempts to be heroic and fails.  If the character is heroic and does not fail at his task, then no Threat is paid.
 
Obviously, the amount of Threat paid from only failed checks has to be higher than what it is currently.  Maybe a dice roll?  How about 1d6 Threat per extra d20 that was used on the heroic throw?
 
Now, you've got a situation where Total Threat is hidden, and the amount of Threat is variable, based on failure.
 
That makes a lot more sense to me.
 
 
 
Third, I'm not sure how to overcome the remaining thing I dislike about the game listed above.  But, we could say....watch who you choose to spend time with.  That person may not have your back and cause problems for you later on.  I've known people like that in my life.
 
 
Just some thoughts.

 

[N01H3r3]

First, I don't like that it is out in the open for players as the level of Threat will influence player's choices.
 
Second, I don't like that when a character attempts a heroic action, he's penalized with Threat whether he's successful at his task or not.
 
Third, I don't like that one person can generate Threat, and another can suffer the consequences in another part of the game.
... 
 
 
Let's look at some ideas on keeping the mechanic, but altering it so that the issues go away.
 
First, the GM can hide the Threat Point total.  This is more bookkeeping for the GM, but he's got that bookkeeping either way.  But, if the Threat Point total is hidden, then players can only guess at its level.
 
 
 
Second, what if we change how Threat is gained?  I'd like to see the rule changed (if we have to have it) so that Threat is gained only when a character attempts to be heroic and fails.  If the character is heroic and does not fail at his task, then no Threat is paid.
 
Obviously, the amount of Threat paid from only failed checks has to be higher than what it is currently.  Maybe a dice roll?  How about 1d6 Threat per extra d20 that was used on the heroic throw?
 
Now, you've got a situation where Total Threat is hidden, and the amount of Threat is variable, based on failure.
 
That makes a lot more sense to me.
 
 
 
Third, I'm not sure how to overcome the remaining thing I dislike about the game listed above.  But, we could say....watch who you choose to spend time with.  That person may not have your back and cause problems for you later on.  I've known people like that in my life.
 
 
Just some thoughts.

Sorry about the lack of reply - moving house, lack of internet, and then my laptop breaking down have all contributed to my absence from all things work-related of late.

1) Hiding Threat generated is easy enough, so easy that it barely even needs acknowledgement - just put it on the near side of the GM screen.

2) Threat generation is currently undergoing some changes internally anyway. The biggest change is that Threat and Momentum are literally two sides of the same coin - you can get most of the same benefits from spending Threat or Momentum, with Threat used more when you don't have any Momentum to spare. This helps cement the two concepts properly - Momentum is planning, teamwork, and taking advantage of success, while Threat ends up more as risk-taking, being reckless, and opportunism.

So, in rough terms, you can spend saved Momentum to add d20s to your own or an ally's skill tests, to increase the difficulty of enemy tasks, or to ask questions about the situation that the GM has to answer truthfully (plus a few other common uses, and whatever specific uses a given skill test might have). If you don't have sufficient Momentum left over for what you want, you can make up the shortfall by paying Threat.

This should help even out some issues on the metagame side, and help more clearly delineate what Threat is and done.

3) That's how I've regarded the issue to begin with - it's a player behaviour matter, so it's not something the rules should try and fix. You resolve issues with player behaviour by talking to players as reasonable adults, rather than trying to build game systems around their shenanigans.

 

[Water Bob]

2) Threat generation is currently undergoing some changes internally anyway. The biggest change is that Threat and Momentum are literally two sides of the same coin - you can get most of the same benefits from spending Threat or Momentum, with Threat used more when you don't have any Momentum to spare. This helps cement the two concepts properly - Momentum is planning, teamwork, and taking advantage of success, while Threat ends up more as risk-taking, being reckless, and opportunism.

I like the concept of Momentum. It's success oriented (you gain Momentum when you succeed well), and it's used by the character that generates it.

So, in rough terms, you can spend saved Momentum to add d20s to your own or an ally's skill tests, to increase the difficulty of enemy tasks, or to ask questions about the situation that the GM has to answer truthfully (plus a few other common uses, and whatever specific uses a given skill test might have). If you don't have sufficient Momentum left over for what you want, you can make up the shortfall by paying Threat.

I like most of that.

If the Threat were tied to the character who generated it, then I'd like it more. I still don't like that Johnny can generate Threat and Billy might have to pay for it later.

If a player is out of Momentum, then he shouldn't be able to buy extra dice (or any of the other things that Momentum can buy).

 

[Water Bob]

If the Threat/Momentum System could be turned into more of a Fate Point system (whatever you want to call it) where a character generates his own points by doing well and generates his own Threat (that will effect his character) when he fails miserably, then I'd like the system a lot more. The meta-game aspect of it is mainly what I object to, so get rid of that, and most of my objections vanish.

Does anybody have any ideas on how Threat can be tied to a single character and easily tracked?





HERE'S AN IDEA.



What if a character, once he generates Threat, is considered to be under a Threat Level of however many points he's generated. Then, the character throws a Threat Die with any die throws he makes.

For example, let's say that the character generated some Threat and is now considered at Threat Level 2.

Whenever the character throws for a task, he throws a D6 Threat Die. If that die results in a 1 or 2, then the GM is given Threat for his enemy to use (The Enemy basically gains Momentum that he must spend immediately).

This mechanic is like a Fumble or Critical Miss mechanic. When it shows up, something bad happens to the character, or the character's foe gets an extra attack or some other Momentum advantage.







The character under Threat can lower his Threat Level by spending Momentum. Which means, he's got to generate Momentum by rolling well, and then use Momentum to buy down his Threat Level.

GM's could award Momentum like Experience Points. Each starting character begins the game with X amount of Momentum. Momentum is generated by rolling well or by roleplaying success (awared by the GM).

Critical Failures cause the character to gain a Threat Level.

Maybe all characters are always at Threat Level 1. (Or, characters could start with no Threat Level.)

If there is a Threat level, then the GM can use Threat when it appears on the dice.




Something like that might work pretty good.

 

[Water Bob]

The system would work kinda like the Critical Threat system in d20, but in reverse.

Remember, in d20, if you rolled a natural 20, then you rolled a Critical Threat. You roll a check, and if successful, your weapon does more damage (usually double damage, but can be more depending on the weapon). Some weapons have a greater Critical Threat range. A Critical Threat may be checked on a natural roll of 19 or 20, for example, if the weapon indicates that Critical Threat range.



So, what I'm proposing for Threat in the Conan RPG is like setting up a Critical Fumble range for the character when the character generates Threat. The more Threat he generates, the wider his Threat Range, the more likely that his rolls will generate Threat for the GM to use against him.

If a character ends a scenario/adventure with a lot of Threat, I supposed it would dissipate over time (so that the character can start the next adventure fresh).

Characters who know Sorcery could even curse enemies with Threat.

 

[N01H3r3]

You're welcome to propose such things, but bear in mind that you're not the only person this game is being written for. Also, these suggestions of "if X, then roll Y to see what happens" add additional time to task resolution, which is something we're looking to avoid where possible.

You're also still coming at it from the perspective of "how can I minimise this element of the game I despise", and while that's a fair enough perspective for you to take, it's not exactly one I can embrace professionally.

Yes, Threat does cause problems for the group, rather than the individual. But you know what, that happens in real life too. I've been in situations where I've faced problems indirectly caused by someone else's actions. Hell, anyone who has ever been stuck in traffic has probably been negatively impacted by another person's decisions. The game in its current form has Momentum as being of collective benefit - you can capitalise on your allies' successes as much as you can your own - so having Threat as a collective problem mirrors that nicely. A group succeeds together, and they struggle together. The revised version we're working on at present doesn't necessarily minimise the presence of Threat, but it does clarify and define it better as risk-taking and recklessness, giving it a clearer place in the action and tying it more closely to the character's choices.