Conan & lone wolf

[scourger]

Emirikol, having been there for the entire WORK-test (a "playtest" that was a really an exercise in free editing by playtesters) I agree with the spirit of your sentiments. Conan is a poor retread of Slaine, and it's a shame. I was hoping for a more elegant adaptation of the d20 system to the World of Hyboria in the vein of Judge Dredd. There are ways to incorporate the feel of the Conan world using existing mechanics and clever applications of the d20 system, but this game is ham-strung by the first author's predelictions and someone's coporate decision to "supersize" the game by "going OGL." The good news for me is that I don't feel even slightly interested in buying any Conan products (except TRoK for reasons mentioned).

GMSkarka, you're off base. I have read the Howard stories and the pastiches. The game does nothing to recapture the feel for me. I find the game unplayable. Your designer friend made some very, very poor choices in developing this one. Your suggestion to "go dig up REH and bitch to him about it" is insulting. And don't start in on me, either. I've been at this for a quarter century and am highly educated to boot. I know what I like and what I dislike; what works for me and what doesn't; and what is a professional quality game and what isn't. I am glad that other gamers get something out of Conan. Me and mine don't. And I believe that the players in my group are more representative of the typical gamer than you and I are. This isn't an instance of a gamer complaining and then buying the game anyway. I really mean that I'm boycotting that game, will encourage others to do the same given the opportunity or the forum.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

GMSkarka, you're off base. I have read the Howard stories and the pastiches. The game does nothing to recapture the feel for me. I find the game unplayable. Your designer friend made some very, very poor choices in developing this one. Your suggestion to "go dig up REH and bitch to him about it" is insulting. And don't start in on me, either. I've been at this for a quarter century and am highly educated to boot. I know what I like and what I dislike; what works for me and what doesn't; and what is a professional quality game and what isn't. I am glad that other gamers get something out of Conan. Me and mine don't. And I believe that the players in my group are more representative of the typical gamer than you and I are. This isn't an instance of a gamer complaining and then buying the game anyway. I really mean that I'm boycotting that game, will encourage others to do the same given the opportunity or the forum.

Are the players in your group more representative of typical gamers than the fellows I see playing Conan all the time at my local game store? They love it to pieces, and have left standard D20 behind for Conan.

And you're confusing personal taste with objective quality on a profound level. The editing of the first edition of Conan was horrible. Absolutely wretched. That was a non-professional mistake, to be sure, though steps were taken to correct it somewhat.

But the fact that you don't like Conan doesn't mean it's not a "professional quality game". It just means you don't like it. There are games that I don't like at all, but that doesn't mean they're automatically not "professional".

And "internet boycott" translates to "tilting at windmills". Especially in the case of a game as popular as Conan has proved to be.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

I don't have a particular interest in Lone Wolf.

Brings up something that always struck me about Lone Wolf. You amost have to be a pre-existing fan of the series and the world (which I am). IMHO, from the outside, there's not really too much to make Magnamund stand apart from any other FRPG setting.

 

[GMSkarka]

GMSkarka, you're off base. I have read the Howard stories and the pastiches. The game does nothing to recapture the feel for me. I find the game unplayable.

The key phrases being "for me" and "I find". I find the opposite. Others seem to as well. Still others agree with you. Aren't individual perceptions a wonderful thing?

Your suggestion to "go dig up REH and bitch to him about it" is insulting. And don't start in on me, either. I've been at this for a quarter century and am highly educated to boot.

Nobody said that you weren't. Over-sensitive much? There was no insult there, and none intended. You're defending yourself against slights which don't exist. I'm sorry if you felt that I was somehow insulting you.

And I believe that the players in my group are more representative of the typical gamer than you and I are.

Of course you do. This is called "anecdotal evidence." You believe that your experience is representative, others feel that theirs is, etc.

I really mean that I'm boycotting that game, will encourage others to do the same given the opportunity or the forum.

The minute someone on the internet starts talking about boycotting a product, their credibility drops to well below zero. Internet boycotts of RPGs have *NEVER* worked, and in fact, have often led in an *increase* in publicity and resultant sales. Trust me on this--I've been the target of a few of them, and they always end up succeeding only in making the boycotters look ridiculous.

Don't like a game? Fine. Tastes are, after all, tastes. But turning dislike into a crusade does nothing but make the crusader look like an Internet Crank.

 

[scourger]

Hey ARP & GMS, I didn't start this thread. I'm just putting in my 2 cents, as you are. I'm not a publisher (or freelance writer) as you both appear to be. I'm only stating my preferences and observations as an individual gamer and consumer along with those of my immediate gaming group. I don't feel qualified to make statements for the entire playing communiuty or for the publishing industry. I do feel qualified to call a product bad if I think it's bad, which is what I'm doing. Other views may differ, but I consider myself to be in a unique position on this topic. Of course, one man's meat is another man's poison; one man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm not championing a crusade against the Conan game or leading an Internet boycott. I don't buy those products on a personal level and will share my personal experience. Beyond that, I'm done.

 

[Staffan]

Every player would have to own the RPG to play the game..or else the 40 page house-rules.

This is a sentiment I've often run across in D&D discussion fora (mailing lists, boards, etc.) that I've never been able to understand. In almost all the games I've ever played, the only person who had the rules for the game was the GM. The only exceptions have been when another player also ran (or wanted to run) the game, and occasionally in D&D (because of the rules mass concentrated in the PHB, especially spells).

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Other views may differ, but I consider myself to be in a unique position on this topic.

Why? In what way are you unique? You're not the only Conan fan. You're not the only D&D player, or the only D&D GM. You're not the only person who's been roleplaying for a good few years. You're not even the only person who participated in the Conan playtesting.

So what is it that you've got that no-one else has?

 

[bolen]

Why is the game unplayable? It seems to me as if they added a new twist to the combat system (using armor as DR and having dodge and parry values instead of AC) What's this big deal with that.

I agree that it is ashame that the 1st edition was so poorly edited but the 2nd edition fixed that and Mongoose even offered a reduced price if you bought the 1st edition and cut the last page out and mailed it to them.

I have not played a scholar but I like a point system, better then the "I forgot the spell system" but that is a matter of tatse.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've got Conan and love it. I use it to run one-offs on occasions when we can't get the usual suspects together to play in one of our normal campaigns.

I think Conan provides excellent "rare-magic" rules, I love the scholar class as the only magic using class, I love armour as DR, finesse weapons etc. We actually roll for parry or dodge too (which may have been in earlier playtest documents, judging by some typos in the first edition).

I've got no complaints about it, and I'd seriously consider using the Conan rules for a future grim and gritty game in a setting which has few magic items and rare magic.

We happen to have found the rules capture the Hyborian flavour wonderfully for us, and many of the elements which Emrikol dislikes we think are really neat (the three character party contains one with a barbarian code of honour, one with a civilian code of honour and one with no code of honour - recognising who is allowed to betray who and under which circumstances gave a much more rich and lively edge to the roleplaying than alignments ever did

There was some initial Conan discussion here at ENworld in the d20 forum, especially led by Iron Chef. Most of the discussion now takes place on the Mongoose boards as Argo said (I participate there a little... less now that I do moderating here. Busy busy busy )

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

My group is playing Conan, and we like it pretty well. I'm running it, I did create a hefty bunch of support materials, but overall it seems to be going well.

I picked up the Old Edition and I have to say that the primary motivation for my picking it up was to help out the pathetic gamestore it was being sold in. The decision proved to be inspired, however and we love the game.

Keeping in mind that I love it, I can certainly see how a lot of the complaint works.

So Here's my short critique:

Good:
-The classes and races are fantastic, as a whole.
-We like the armor as DR.
-The terror inspired by the supernatural is great.
-Reputation and fate points are good.
-The way it treats items is pretty awesome.
-The way it uses the original source material in the book is awe-inspiring, at least for an utter novice such as myself.
-Some very cool little throw away rules like getting hit points from throwing back wine.
-Rules for multiple oponents are great.
-Codes of honor are a great idea, though agree that the individual codes need work.

Overall Good: Making characters certainly makes it feel really different and cool. There are some very nice big concepts. The source material is very well arranged within the rules.

Bad:
-Some of the class features look like they could use a rework, noble is too generic.
-The Parry vs. Dodge thing is implemented very very awkwardly.
-Needs a simple and elegant mook or squad combat mechanic.
-Some of the best things, like reputation and fate points, should have been used more elegantly. Without loot players do need in story pay-offs that mean more.
-There really aren't enough feats. It's an odd complaint, but the thing is that it gives away lots of feats and there aren't enough to cover lower levels in non-combat classes. A thing aggravated by the relatively unique character of the game.
-Needs more item rules, the alchemy and weapon sections should be expanded not so much to make up for the lack of magical items as to express how much cooler skills are in this game.
-The Magic system looks half-baked. The basic ideas are great, but the spell system and they way it scales needs more work. In particular, it annoys because it looks really flexible and functional, but as I work with it I become increasingly convinced that it fails to live up to that level of cool even to the point there are probably only one or two ways to make a very survivable character or no method whatsoever. Put simply, the system consistently fails to play up to its strengths.

Overall Bad: Most of these complaints come off of good things the game tries to do but fails to implement well. So as a DM I find myself doing a lot of interesting work to fix or compensate for these faults. This pleases me because, to a large extent, I prefer an interesting failure to a mediocre success.

Conclusion: I love it, I also love working with it. Actually a great game for supplements. Magic system probably needs the most work.