Role-playing Theory

[Grimhelm]

If we switch systems for Inzeladun, it will need to have a good, bloody combat system that is unencumbered by magic. One of the things I like about Conan is that almost none of the spells are suitable for combat.

I like the idea of getting rid of minis, going back to combat narrative. I also wonder about spells used in combat. It seems to me to be contrary to how spells would ultimately be cast... Merlin never used magic in this way. Neither did Gandalf most of the time. I like the idea of magic being used behind the scenes or to augment characters before they go into combat. The flip-side of this is that magic using characters should have decent combat skills too, just as Gandalf wielded a sword.

There is room for this, I think, but 3E does not allow for it. Perhaps, as we have said before, if we really see so many flaws in other systems, why not just create our own system? Start with an overlying idea, then go from there? We certainly have the talent and know-how to do it...

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Conan has an excellent narrative combat system for pirates and mass combat. In our recent games, just in regular combat, we've mostly given the minis a rest.

Sorcerers also have decent combat skills - the biggest complaint about them (from people who want DnD style mages) is that they have no melee-usable spells.

One thing that made the rules of AD&D pretty much invisible to us was because I read and re-read the rules constantly. Of course, I had plenty of time as a youth to do that. I knew the rules like the back of my hand and on the rare occasion we had to look something up, I knew right where it was. Gaining that level of invisibility of rules was hard in 3E (WAY too many feats, spells, options and prestige classes), but is something that is happening with Conan, since I have to reference them constantly in my work.

I am concerned that if we use another set of rules, those rules will be highly visible for quite some time. Speaking for myself, it takes a while for me to really gain an innate understanding of the rules to the point where they become invisible - as if they had been thrown out entirely.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I'm just not getting it. This seems to me to be the standard mode of play. Some GMs make their story more rigid, some more fluid. But the GM sets the plot and then reacts to how the players alter the plot through their action. There certainly is a give and take.

Check out this guy's mode of play: Undescribable

 

[thormagni]

See, I prefer action to conversation in a game. To me, what a lot of people call "role-playing" is just a good way to get exposition and plot in the game. The fun parts are the action parts.

I'm not going to say I am exactly the opposite, but I am much more interested in unravelling mysteries and outthinking the bad guys, than in combat. My idea of a perfect game is figuring out a way to overcome all the obstacles with a minimum of risk and a maximum of finesse. Turning two sides against each other, playing one faction against the other, figuring out a puzzle or plot. That's what I like best about RPGs.

If I had a particular concern about our Conan sessions, it is that they usually start with an unavoidable, overwhelming combat. I know that it gets the game off with a bang, but I would like to think that Yuri is smart enough to figure out a way NOT to get into the situations we frequently find ourselves in.

 

[Fyrestryke]

I pickup on rules pretty quickly. I need to continue with my reading of Iron Heroes. From everything I've heard about it (no real experience), the combat is fast, and brutal like you like it. It has DR just like Conan, yet it's different.

I am also in the process of reading the rules for Sorcery in Conan. When the changes in Inzeladun came up, my first thought was (as it usually is with Conan Sorcerers) that I don't like them. Upon deeper reflection, I realized that I'd never played a Conan Scholar, had never even read the rules for such, etc. It is unfair for me to say I don't like something without even reading it. I had based my knowledge on the Scholars by witnessing two known player scholars (De Oto and the guy Odovacar played that one time) and the bad guys IM sent against us (whose stinking guts I hate). So, I am in the process of reading the rules and I will most likely make up and play a scholar on Sunday. Then, I will be able to weigh in my opinion (limited as it may yet be) on the Conan magic system and it's viability for the new Inzeladun.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I'm not going to say I am exactly the opposite, but I am much more interested in unravelling mysteries and outthinking the bad guys, than in combat. My idea of a perfect game is figuring out a way to overcome all the obstacles with a minimum of risk and a maximum of finesse. Turning two sides against each other, playing one faction against the other, figuring out a puzzle or plot. That's what I like best about RPGs.

That is still conflict. I like it.

If I had a particular concern about our Conan sessions, it is that they usually start with an unavoidable, overwhelming combat. I know that it gets the game off with a bang, but I would like to think that Yuri is smart enough to figure out a way NOT to get into the situations we frequently find ourselves in.

OG mentioned that last time, so expect something different next time.

 

[Odovacar's Ghost]

OG mentioned that last time, so expect something different next time.

I believe you already have put this in on a game in the past.

Anyway, I could say, I'm not much of the guy who spends very much time with developing character backgrounds. I've tried in the past, but, essentially the type of characters I play, die quite frequently.

Though, the most memoriable one was: Odovacar died a heroic death defeating 1000s of picts in some unknown river.

My current character has done some exciting things, but I have skimped on background. Good times were, nearly eaten by a few crocodiles (alligators?), a grueling fight in a whore house while being naked.

I don't hate the games, just thought that every game in the past were all identical. Battle, plot, battle, eat, plot, battle. But, the previous game of Conan was much better. Unfortunately, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please every player in the party.

As for Rolemaster combat, you roll a percentile, add your combat bonus, subtract the defense bonus on the foe you are fighting, then check that result on a chart (based on the weapon you are using), which tells you how much damage, bleeding, stunning, or negatives to your next actions. Also, hitpoints in Rolemaster is different. One, it is considered a skill, you don't buy into it, you don't gain hitpoints. Two, the more damage you have taken, the harder it is to fight, and use other skills. Unlike D20, where one could have 1 hitpoint and shrug their shoulders and slay ones enemies.

Perhaps a few other types of combat systems to look into:

HarnMaster

and

The Riddle Of Steel

 

[thormagni]

Or, I could extend my hand to all, Vince included, and say, 'come and play in Arenaia.' I can then show you how I like to play, without attempting to explain it...

Meant to comment on this earlier. Hoody frickin' hoo!

 

[Fyrestryke]

Meant to comment on this earlier. Hoody frickin' hoo!

Well, let's plan on doing that sometime (Next Saturday?). I think it would be a blast.

I reworked Xylia and can't wait to try her out.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Anyway, I could say, I'm not much of the guy who spends very much time with developing character backgrounds. I've tried in the past, but, essentially the type of characters I play, die quite frequently.

You are not alone. The last time I played in a continuing campaign as a player, my characters lasted an average of three adventures before being killed off while doing something bold and/or rash - so I rarely bother to make up extensive backgrounds. Usually background comes to me while playing a long-term character, not beforehand (should that character actually live past three games).