CONAN LIVES! Info on the new Conan RPG

[N01H3r3]

What Chris (modiphius) said, but I thought I should weigh in, as the guy running the rules side of things:

What happens is this: Player is allowed to throw more dice when making a task. The more successes he has, the better he does on the task. But, there is a chance the he rolls bad enough to add points to the Threat Pool, too.

The Threat Pool grows, for the group. It is suggested that buttons are placed into a jar. The GameMaster can spend the points in the Threat Pool to add extra obstacles to the party or a player, whenever he wants.

So, in effect, Conan could build up the Threat Pool single handed, and Subotai could pay for it with a complication he encounters in a completely unrelated part of the adventure.

More accurately, the situation is this:

A player character rolls 2d20 for a test normally. If he wants to roll more - push his luck, be more daring, etc - he may buy up to three additional d20s for that test, by handing the GM one Threat for each d20 bought.

The GM also gains Threat when the players suffer complications from rolling natural 20s and 'buy them off' (the system is roll low, on a per-die basis - you're counting successes with each die generating up to two successes, so roll-low is faster than roll-high in this instance), when player characters attempt Response Actions (dodge, parry, etc), and under a few other circumstances ("this monster is particularly vile and mighty, so it adds 1 to Threat just by turning up", "the sorcerer's ritual adds one to Threat each round until he's got enough to cast his spell", etc)

The GM can use Threat for minor scene editing ("more guards arrive, drawn by the sound of fighting", etc), or for boosting his NPCs (buying extra dice, Response Actions, buying off complications, and triggering unique special abilities), by paying points out of his pool.

So the system is prone to bad GMing? If your Subtai tries to open a lock later on and this lock suddenly has a poison needle payed by from the increased threat pool, I'd agree with you. But in the context of a single scene the mechanism makes sense to me.

The GM is welcome to play up or play down the 'scene editing' uses of Threat as he or she wishes - some GMs may wish to do impromptu retcons like this, others may not feel comfortable doing it, and instead save their threat for things like NPCs dodging or fighting harder. A lot of the time, I'll have a handful of Threat spends lined up in a scene in advance, to represent extant perils that aren't happening constantly. The limiting factor on those events is that there's a limited amount of Threat available at any one time, and it's limited by the players. There are ways for the GM to generate Threat by himself, sure - NPCs can pay excess successes (Momentum) into Threat in the same way that PCs can save Momentum into a group pool - but the players are the main contributors, so they can collectively serve to set the pace of the game by choosing how much Threat they're willing to throw at the GM.

It's "prone to bad GMing" in the same way that any game system is - player behaviour is the kind of thing that should normally be handled through talking it through like adults and/or finding a system that suits your style of play better. No system will suit every player or every group.

If one player is generating all the Threat, then the GM is entirely within his rights to focus his uses of Threat on that one player in return: the towering, brash hero drawing all the attention. I'd still make sure that everyone is on the same page in terms of what they want out of the game, though.

 

[Water Bob]

So the system is prone to bad GMing? If your Subtai tries to open a lock later on and this lock suddenly has a poison needle payed by from the increased threat pool, I'd agree with you. But in the context of a single scene the mechanism makes sense to me.

It would make more sense to me, too, if it played out in a single scene, for the one character. I still wouldn't like the mechanic, but it would make more sense.

But, that's not the way it works.

Threat Points are basically Kharma. Do badly, and it comes back to bite you, and everyone around you, in the lower extremities. Being risky and being a hero is tempting the fates in this game.





In d20 terms, Threat Points are akin to a character having a chance to generate a Threat Point every time that character uses a Feat. The more often he uses his Feats, the more likely he'll generate Threat Points.

It doesn't have to be guards, it might be more physical challenges or traps for Conan or the others - Threat should be spent focused on those creating it to be thematic, but as a group if they're letting one guy cause them problems, then they're basically watching one guy play the game and copping out - and they should suffer the consequences. If players take too long working out what to do, take some Threat, they'll soon act.

It's exactly what I said. Risky, heroic characters are punished because they generate Threat Points more often.

Also if you were GM'ing D&D, and one player was smashing guards left right and centre would you not bring in more challenges to balance things out?

I find that players feel like they are damned if they do, damned if they don't, when a GM plays that way.

The best way is to have a set number of guards. If the PCs blow through them easily, then the PCs should smile and rejoice for a job well done. If the PCs have a hard time, then maybe they should re-think their actions and strategy.

Or do you let them cruise through and finish the game with a feeling of dissatisfaction that it was too easy?

Actually, I find that players are very satisfied when they do well, make great choices, have high dice throws. If that results in them "cruising through the adventure", then they usually pat themselves on the back.

It's when every game session--every adventure--is a cake walk that the game becomes dissatisfying.

The Threat system makes it really easy to balance things, you don't have to learn the balance which can take GM's a long time, it's simple and there in the rules.

What I'm seeing is a meta-game mechanic that punishes players for being risky and heroic.

If they roll more dice, to get the interesting and neat effects, they run the risk of more Threat Points.

That's not a good game mechanic, in my estimation.

If players become to cautious seeing the Threat points rise they probably shouldn't be playing an RPG - we're here to have adventures with brave heroes.

WHAT???

That's exactly the opposite of what I always remind my players in my Mongoose d20 Conan game.

I remind them how dangerous and gritty the game world can be. I remind them that this isn't like it was in AD&D where a player tried to kill everything on the map to get the XP.

I tell them to play smart. Use tactics. Retreat if they are in over their heads. And be strategic.

I tell them NOT to play the game like a computer game.

I tell them to live in their character's shoes and experience the world, living through their characters, as if it were real.

And...that seems to be exactly opposite of what you say above--and the direction of this new Conan RPG.

Again would you do this in a game of Pathfinder, 13th Age or D&D? Why should another player pay for the success of another player? Use your common sense as a GM and use the Threat when it's relevant, when it's fun, etc.

First, it CAN be done using that Threat Mechanic.

And, Second, if a GM doesn't mean to, he probably will still punish the entire group, or another character who didn't generate any Threat, just by using the Threat Points for whatever reason.



Threat Points, in my opinion, are very bad game design.

 

[Water Bob]

More accurately, the situation is this:

A player character rolls 2d20 for a test normally. If he wants to roll more - push his luck, be more daring, etc - he may buy up to three additional d20s for that test, by handing the GM one Threat for each d20 bought.

OH, I thought there was only a chance of generating Threat when rolling more dice. Here, you're saying that Threat builds automatically.

That's even worse.

You're saying, "You can be heroic and daring and push your luck, but if you do, obstacles will be harder and more numerous for you."

The GM also gains Threat when the players suffer complications from rolling natural 20s....

That's where I got the "chance of Threat" idea.

This 2d20 System has a lot of meta-game aspects to it. It's more akin to a board game or a computer game than it is a role playing game. Meta-game aspects, by definition, do not lend themselves well to immersive roleplaying.

Typically, meta-gaming is something that players and GMs want to keep minimized in a roleplaying game. Players should play their characters (and GMs should play the NPCs) from the perspective of those characters--not use the players knowledge, which can be something the characters don't know or realize.



Chris said that Threat can be used to add more enemies when the players are blowing through an encounter too easily. That's meta-gaming. That's the GM saying, "Hmm....this is too easy. Let's add in some more enemies."

Or, if the GM looks at the Threat Pool, sees that it is high, and decides to spend some of that threat by putting poisoned needle on a trapped trunk, where there was no poison needle there before.

The GM can use Threat for minor scene editing ("more guards arrive, drawn by the sound of fighting", etc), or for boosting his NPCs (buying extra dice, Response Actions, buying off complications, and triggering unique special abilities), by paying points out of his pool.

I get it. An aspect of Threat is that it is a pool that any NPC can draw from, rather than each NPC have his own individual abilities.

 

[pollico]

It would make more sense to me, too, if it played out in a single scene, for the one character. I still wouldn't like the mechanic, but it would make more sense.

But, that's not the way it works.

Threat Points are basically Kharma. Do badly, and it comes back to bite you, and everyone around you, in the lower extremities. Being risky and being a hero is tempting the fates in this game.





In d20 terms, Threat Points are akin to a character having a chance to generate a Threat Point every time that character uses a Feat. The more often he uses his Feats, the more likely he'll generate Threat Points.









It's exactly what I said. Risky, heroic characters are punished because they generate Threat Points more often.







I find that players feel like they are damned if they do, damned if they don't, when a GM plays that way.

The best way is to have a set number of guards. If the PCs blow through them easily, then the PCs should smile and rejoice for a job well done. If the PCs have a hard time, then maybe they should re-think their actions and strategy.





Actually, I find that players are very satisfied when they do well, make great choices, have high dice throws. If that results in them "cruising through the adventure", then they usually pat themselves on the back.

It's when every game session--every adventure--is a cake walk that the game becomes dissatisfying.






What I'm seeing is a meta-game mechanic that punishes players for being risky and heroic.

If they roll more dice, to get the interesting and neat effects, they run the risk of more Threat Points.

That's not a good game mechanic, in my estimation.






WHAT???

That's exactly the opposite of what I always remind my players in my Mongoose d20 Conan game.

I remind them how dangerous and gritty the game world can be. I remind them that this isn't like it was in AD&D where a player tried to kill everything on the map to get the XP.

I tell them to play smart. Use tactics. Retreat if they are in over their heads. And be strategic.

I tell them NOT to play the game like a computer game.

I tell them to live in their character's shoes and experience the world, living through their characters, as if it were real.

And...that seems to be exactly opposite of what you say above--and the direction of this new Conan RPG.







First, it CAN be done using that Threat Mechanic.

And, Second, if a GM doesn't mean to, he probably will still punish the entire group, or another character who didn't generate any Threat, just by using the Threat Points for whatever reason.



Threat Points, in my opinion, are very bad game design.

Then don't use them.

But you seem quite focused in YOUR way of doing the things... And yet you forget that every game is different and so, MUST be played accordinly withing its own ways... And to understand a mechanic it must be put in practice without previous biases, because if not, our own expectatives are going to ruin them. So, Im sorry but I cannot agree.

In fact, I think the "Treat system" is a neat and cool way of creating great adventures and fun obstacles meanwhile its develops the history forwards. It is not realistic, but hey, D&D has never been any realistic and people didn't complain, isn't it?

 

[pollico]

OH, I thought there was only a chance of generating Threat when rolling more dice. Here, you're saying that Threat builds automatically.

That's even worse.

You're saying, "You can be heroic and daring and push your luck, but if you do, obstacles will be harder and more numerous for you."







That's where I got the "chance of Threat" idea.

This 2d20 System has a lot of meta-game aspects to it. It's more akin to a board game or a computer game than it is a role playing game. Meta-game aspects, by definition, do not lend themselves well to immersive roleplaying.

Typically, meta-gaming is something that players and GMs want to keep minimized in a roleplaying game. Players should play their characters (and GMs should play the NPCs) from the perspective of those characters--not use the players knowledge, which can be something the characters don't know or realize.



Chris said that Threat can be used to add more enemies when the players are blowing through an encounter too easily. That's meta-gaming. That's the GM saying, "Hmm....this is too easy. Let's add in some more enemies."

Or, if the GM looks at the Threat Pool, sees that it is high, and decides to spend some of that threat by putting poisoned needle on a trapped trunk, where there was no poison needle there before.







I get it. An aspect of Threat is that it is a pool that any NPC can draw from, rather than each NPC have his own individual abilities.

Oh boy, this is ludicrous. So a roleplaying game can't use abstract, gamist tools to create new ways of doing stuff, because then its not an rpg, so Fate is a videogame, HeroQuest is a boardgame and RQ6 is a guessing kinden-garden game. And meta-game is using threat points, but not rolling damage or hitpoints. Why? All are "out of character" mechanics... So... Explain it to me, please.

 

[Water Bob]

I predict that more people will dislike this mechanic that those who do like it.

And, yes, I know the 2d20 based Mutant Chronicles just won an Ennie for best rules.

Time will tell who is correct.

I know I don't like it.

And, I explained it to one of my Conan players last Saturday, and he said (because I am the GM), "If you switch to that game, I'm quitting."

 

[CoreyHaim8myDog]

I don't see the quandary here. Threat creates a basic tension between the character's goals and the evorinoment. Tension and conflict are at the heart of all drama. If you know, as a player, that you can keep trying the craziest thing imaginable without increasing risk, what is the point of NOT doing the most dangerous thing every time?

How is threat different from charging headlong into combat with opponents that outmatch you? And yet players do it. Sometimes the risks pay off. Sometimes they don't. Every game is, to one degree or another, based on that tension.

I think, WaterBob, you're taking a fluid concept and trying to apply it rigidly in a codified manner. Threat allows the players to visualize the sense of rising tension in the mechanics of the game. It's like reverse Jenga—the more threat tokens you see in the GM's pool, the harder you know things might get. Rising tension and increased stakes are pretty much the root of all narrative. Without them, who cares what happens?

 

[Water Bob]

I don't see the quandary here. Threat creates a basic tension between the character's goals and the evorinoment.

And tension between the players, too, don't forget that, as players get mad at that idiot who keeps building the threat pool because the player is trying to make his character do risky and heroic things.

Threat allows the players to visualize the sense of rising tension in the mechanics of the game.

That may be.

But, Threat also tells the players, "Hey! Expect more obstacles, enemies, and complications" for a purely meta-game reason when the characters have no legitimate reason at all to expect things to get harder.

Rising tension and increased stakes are pretty much the root of all narrative. Without them, who cares what happens?

Rising tension in a story or game is great. I'm just saying that the Threat Pool is the wrong way to achieve that effect.






EXAMPLE OF WHY THREAT STINKS....

Conan ventures into Thulsa Doom's mountain alone. He fights the guards at the mouth of the cave, and buys some Threat. But, his heroics pay off, and he enters the cavern complex.

Inside, Conan runs into a squad of more guards. Again, Conan pushes his luck, buys some more threat, and takes 'em all out.

Now, Conan players sees the Threat Pool. It's too high for the player's taste. All of a sudden, bold, risky Conan is now backing off from those heroics, becoming more conservative.

He's done nothing but demolish every foe that has stood in front of him. But the player now knows that the GM has a good amount of Threat to play with.

So Conan becomes....cautious.

For no other reason than the meta-game mechanic of the Threat Pool has gotten high!





So, the GM sees the total, spends the Threat Points on bringing out Thorgrim and Rexor, Doom's right hand men, who proceed to capture Conan.

If Conan hadn't been so heroic earlier, the GM would not have the points to activate these two, strong NPCs together. But, because Conan was risky and heroic, he pays for that heroism now by having to face two of the strongest NPCs in this scenario, shay of Thulsa Doom himself.



Time passes, and Valeria and Subotai are worried. They go after Conan, even though they said that they'd stay behind.

There is NO THREAT left in the pool. The GM spent it on activating Thorgrim and Rexor above, who captured Conan (which probably would not have happened without the GM using the Threat Pool).

So, as Valeria and Subotai approach the mouth of the cave in search of their missing comrade--when they should be concerned about the situation at their utmost--the players are actually pretty calm and lackadaisical about their entrance into Thulsa Doom's fortress--the place that swallowed up their friend.

Why?

BECAUSE THERE'S NO DOGGONE POINTS IN THE THREAT POOL.






Threat isn't a good roleplaying mechanic. It's something for use on a board game or a card game.

It's a meta-game tool.

 

[CoreyHaim8myDog]

That presupposes that Threat is the only mechanic which causes danger in the game. It's an extra not a substitute for die-rolling and general GM plotting. The GM needn't even use it in the way you assume. Yes, he or she could add more guards. he or she could also rule that it costs the player character something—a lingering wound, death of a beloved NPC, etc.

Why couldn't Conan's example pay off not in being captured, but Valeria being killed? You don't HAVE to use them in one specific way. For that matter, maybe Valeria gave the GM tons of Threat when she resurrected Conan, and that's why she died. There is no reason you cannot integrate it directly into plot.

If a specific play is always pushing the Threat pool, the effects come down on that player. It needn't affect the whole group. That ought to remain the GM's call. As GM, I wouldn't punish the whole part for one player always buying more dice.

As for metagaming, this is pulp. Pulps follow a pretty solid formula of increased risks and rising tension.I don't see why metagaming can't be utilized to build real, palpable tension for the players rather than their characters.

 

[Water Bob]

That presupposes that Threat is the only mechanic which causes danger in the game. It's an extra not a substitute for die-rolling and general GM plotting. The GM needn't even use it in the way you assume.

I wrote that example to highlight what's wrong with the mechanic.

It could easily be used the way I describe.

Yes, he or she could add more guards. he or she could also rule that it costs the player character something—a lingering wound, death of a beloved NPC, etc.

And, now, you've got a player upset with you, which is never good for the game.

"Why do I have a bruised knee that halves my movement rate? You didn't use the Threat Points to do this to anybody else! You're picking on me! Singling me out. That's not fair!

As for metagaming, this is pulp. Pulps follow a pretty solid formula of increased risks and rising tension.I don't see why metagaming can't be utilized to build real, palpable tension for the players rather than their characters.

I've explained why.

And, I've run very exciting, very "Conan" games not using a meta-gaming tool. Meta-gaming is not a requirement, by any stretch, to run a pulpy game.

The Threat Mechanic is a meta-game tool.

Whenever a player uses meta-game information to guide his character in most rpg's today, it is usually looked at as bad form.

"Jerry's character wouldn't take the gold offered him because Jerry knows, for a fact, that the gold is covered with contact poison. But, there was no reason in the world that his character would have known that--and who would turn down gold?"

See...bad form.