Conan vs Lord of the Rings

[JoeGKushner]

In response to the following, I created a new thread. Didn't want to derail the "When is Conan Coming Out one" with pros and cons.

To me, Lord of the Rings does a better job of making sure that all the characters are involved in the group. In Conan, well, it's Conan after all. Most other characters are walk ons or guest stars. Most of the popular material from the comics, video games or television series aren't in the stores to the same degree.

To me, I also think that a little PC is good for a game. Why does everything have to be about gold? With that attitude, why not just have some NPC hire one of the players to kill the other players and then the NPC can just kill that one lone fool afterwards? Good is good at times for certain parties. The whole barbarian thing is good if everyone is intent on playing at least somewhat neutral characters.

I don't want players running around commiting rape, doing drugs and other things that common barbarians do. It's just not my own style.

In addition, there is no magic in Conan's world outside of some plot elements which come through wizards who are quickly hacked to death because they couldn't get a spell off in time. Pretty boring for those wizards, clerics, bards, paladins, and rangers, leaving the fighter, barbarian and rogue with a good share of the glory mind you. Just don't get hurt because it'll take forever to heal.

I think that Grim Tales and Conan are coming out at a good time as people are looking for options to handle that low magic, high fantasy feel but at the same time, settings like Morningstar and Dawnforge are coming out for a high magic, high fantasy feel, which to me, is good. Now if only Exalted d20 would hit the shelves...

"I wonder why it is that D&D has strayed so far away from Conan's style, when Conan is so much more "fun" than Tolkien. Meaning, that Conan-esque adventures are much easier written, much more personal (as they predominantly deal with the characters immediate situation rather than complicated backdrops and detailed politics--though that option is certainly there for those interested in pursuing it). Lawlessness, superstition, and amorality are rampant in Hyboria. Conan, to me, is much more "plug and play" than Tolkien, FR, GH, DL, PS, etc., and never gets anywhere close to consistent high magic FR style. Maybe it's just personal preference, but I enjoy reading REH or Robert Jordan's Conan stories over Tolkien.

One doesn't need to be an expert on a bunch of extraneous factors when running an Hyborian Age campaign. Here are some bad guys, who A) either piss off the hero in some way that offends him personally (rarely as the heroes are too amoral to care much about anything aside from their own skins), or B) piss off someone who can't get the bad guys directly and thus must hire the amoral heroes to deal with them in a brutal manner. Ruins are everywhere, with treasures within if you can't find someone to hire you to kill/kidnap someone, LOL. Just watch out for... well, everyone and everything! It just seems refreshingly "back to basics" from everything else out there now, and I suppose that's because the original REH tales were penned for the pulp mags of the 1930s, when action was king. I'm also excited because Conan is about as un-politically correct as you can get, and I'm sick to death of the PC-creep in everything d20 these days. It's just not a realistic attitude, IMO, especially for anything set in ages past, make believe or no."

 

[Iron_Chef]

In response to the following, I created a new thread. Didn't want to derail the "When is Conan Coming Out one" with pros and cons.

Haha, that was my post. I've since deleted the comments you quoted at the end of your post above, in keeping with your idea to keep my original thread uncluttered.

I like "low fantasy": "no/low magic" or "magic rare" settings; gritty, kill or be killed places like Lankhmar, Gor, Harn, Thieves' World and Conan's Hyboria. These places automatically seem more "real" to me, and to many others, as evidenced by their continued popularity. "Magic rare" is not the same as "low magic", in that powerful magics do exist, but are extremely rare. Low magic assumes that no powerful magic exists. There is a huge difference betwen them, but the terms are often used interchangeably for some reason. Speaking in d20 terms, low magic would be no spells higher than 2nd or 3rd level for anyone short of the gods, while magic rare would allow for 9th level spells, but you only see someone with that kind of ridiculous power once in an age, and typically either he disappears, transcends to godhood, or is massacred by fearful/jealous neighbors, and his magics lost, destroyed or hidden away. There are no Elmisters, Manshoons or Fzouls around every corner, waiting to overshadow the characters with their impossible to match deeds.

The reason Conan is predominant in his stories is because, well, the name of the series is Conan. Everyone else is there either to support or oppose him in his quest for wealth, women and glory. Conan was created at a time when many series characters were popular in the pulps, such as The Shadow, the Spider, Doc Savage, Operator #5, etc. These series all followed the same formula, in that the hero was larger than life and no one could dare upstage him except the villain, and then only until the final chapter, when he was horribly killed for messing with the hero first, and society, second. This type of story is still written today, and still packs a punch. You read them because you love the hero and want to see what new danger he will face next, but you know he will somehow win in the end. I'm sure there were plenty of other characters who kicked ass like Conan during the same time Conan lived, but REH didn't write about them---there's no reason to feel that Hyborian Age characters must live in Conan's shadow. In any case, I'd much rather have one Conan than dozens of Elminsters to worry about.

The other settings I mentioned are mostly ensemble shows, with a pair to dozens of heros running about... however, you rarely get the feel that any one of them is as unstoppable as Conan.

When running a Conan game, I think it is perfectly acceptable to ignore Conan entirely, or even write him out of the setting. This frees you completely; the setting becomes yours and there's no Conan and future event chronology to consider if you don't want to. There's no reason you can't even replay the Conan adventures with the PCs as an ensemble group instead of Conan, the lone wolf. It's important not to get hung up on Conan himself, IMO, to truly enjoy the setting.

Conan is much more "back to the dungeon" than 3rd Edition ever was! Just about everyone is motivated primarily by greed, lust and ambition, because being any other way is a sure-fire recipe for getting yourself killed in a brutal environment like Hyboria. Some are still motivated by personal codes of honor, religious fervor or more rarely, patriotism, but these types are just asking for an even quicker, messier death, because their "noble" aims step on the toes of too many rich and powerful others who are motivated purely by self-interest. Very few places would be considered "good" by D&D alignment standards in Conan's world, which is one of the reasons why the D&D Alignment system is not being used in Mongoose's game: that kind of black and white view is not subscribed to by Conan's creator, Robert E. Howard.

Options are there for other play styles, however, so really, one could make just about anything they want of it. The beauty of plotting traditional Conan-esque adventures is you don't have to worry about high magic, uber-monsters, non-human races, world-shattering events or "will A effect B" political stuff if you don't want to. It's very liberating in that regard from where I sit, not that I don't enjoy playing FR on some levels (minus the *cough* dinosaur people, "everything but the kitchen sink" approach to element inclusion, and Elminster and the Harpers, plus all the other lame goody-goody goofiness). I don't find FR realistic as written, so I alter it drastically to remove all the elements that stink, IMO; it's still recognizably FR and high magic, only made better for my non-politically correct needs.

 

[Iron_Chef]

Just don't get hurt because it'll take forever to heal.

I actually like this idea. It's realistic, and makes getting into ANY fight scary, as it should be. D&D is too far in the opposite "video game" approach for me, where everybody has healing magic and no fear of death from a crazed farmhand with a pitchfork or courtesan's dagger. Players should ALWAYS try to find a non-combat solution to any confrontation, for their own good health, so that when all else fails, and swords clash, it feels truly brutal and barbaric, like there was no other choice, and that it's "do or die." Those are the battles you will remember and talk about... if you live, or if you don't die a lingering death from infection days later.

 

[Iron_Chef]

As to Conan vs. Lord of the Rings, here's my take: I loved Fellowship, but got bored with Two Towers and never bothered to finish reading the series. It got wrapped up in things and characters I didn't care about, and the villains were all predictable lackluster henchmen with little personality. Sauron sucks as a villain, IMO. Here's a giant flaming eyeball who never leaves his Tower and says maybe two sentences in the whole trilogy. Boring! I felt nothing when he died, except ripped-off. Saruman was a much better villain, yet he disapears completely and nothing is mentioned again of him except "his power is broken." Boring! Anybody as wise and powerful as Saruman should have been able to have dealt with the Ents, or at least had a back-up plan ready. It just isn't logical.

Tolkien has too many characters (most of middling to no great importance) all mucking about, cluttering up the story. REH only ever has one character: Conan. That is both REH's flaw and strength in the series, to take as you will.

 

[hong]

ALL HAIL ROBERT A. HOWARD, KING OF THE MANBOOBS, AND CREATOR OF CONAN, RED SONJA, AND LAZARUS LONG.


Hong "20,000 pints of baby oil went into the making of this photo" Ooi

 

[Iron_Chef]

ALL HAIL ROBERT A. HOWARD, KING OF THE MANBOOBS, AND CREATOR OF CONAN, RED SONJA, AND LAZARUS LONG.


Hong "20,000 pints of baby oil went into the making of this photo" Ooi

It's Robert "E." Howard, and you forgot Kull the Conqueror and Solomon Kane.

 

[hong]

Oops! Sorry! Wrong Conan!

Hong "20,000 pints of caffeine went into the making of these jokes" Ooi

 

[DarkSoldier]

Trivia: In the preproduction stages of Conan the Barbarian, Arnold Shwarzenegger's chest was too big for him to properly wield a sword, so he had to tone down his workouts.

 

[d4]

Saruman was a much better villain, yet he disapears completely and nothing is mentioned again of him except "his power is broken."

that's because you didn't finish reading The Return of the King!

Saruman does make another appearance...

 

[d4]

It got wrapped up in things and characters I didn't care about, and the villains were all predictable lackluster henchmen with little personality.

i prefer LOTR to Conan, but i'll agree with you here. Tolkien usually paints his evil as Evil, and we as the readers aren't really meant to have any empathy for the villains. OTOH, Tolkien was emulating the old mythologies, whereas "empathy for the villain" i believe is a much more modern notion.

Anybody as wise and powerful as Saruman should have been able to have dealt with the Ents, or at least had a back-up plan ready. It just isn't logical.

"Evil will never win, because Evil is dumb." or something like that.

although Tolkien always said he detested allegory, you can really see in the Saruman-Ent struggle a sort of Industry vs Nature fight going on. Sometimes it's nice to see Nature fighting back after being abused for so long. Mirroring what i said above, Tolkien was going for a more "mythic" style than a more realistic or logical one, so when i read LOTR i get in the mindframe to expect things like this. it's all a matter of taste, really.

Tolkien has too many characters (most of middling to no great importance) all mucking about, cluttering up the story. REH only ever has one character: Conan. That is both REH's flaw and strength in the series, to take as you will.

again, as a matter of taste, i tend to prefer books with a "cast of thousands" as opposed to following a single character. i like getting swept up in all the drama.