[Conan] anyone else playing Conan with Sorcerer & Sword?

[S'mon]

There is a brief piece on one-on-one or one-two play in the GM section at the back of the book, so that didn't get totally excised, although the variant skills rule has been relegated to a confusing note about class skills in the Skills section at the front.  :)

It was unfortunate about the Shemite, but also oh-so-horribly-Conanesque that I can't say I'd have had it any other way... >:)

[Kerstin Schmidt]

I'm Jirrigan's player in S'mon's Conan game, also a player in a DnD game GMed by S'mon, and GM in a Midnight game in which he plays.  I'm a confessed Gamist mostly, so there.  :)

I'd read S&S and was intrigued by certain aspects of Narrativism, so I was intrigued to see how the Conan RPG would play.  So far I haven't been disappointed.  

To get back to some of Ron's questions:  

What choices did I make?  Rather, what choices did I make in the game so far that I wouldn't have made in a purely Gamist game* - or might have made with a Gamist mindset, but for different reasons?  
And where were those FPs employed?  

(*I don't see Conan RPG as a purely Narrativist game btw, I'd say it's still Gamist enough to make me comfortable, albeit with strong Narrativist elements.)


First scenario choices:
(Note that these they aren't necessarily choices in the Narrativist sense - I'm trying to explain my mindset as a player, not so much to apply game theory.)

First choice:  pre-game - going with the unarmoured starting package for the Barbarian.  
Speaking as a Gamist, I didn't give myself long as a melee type with no armour on;  then again, in a d20 game the one time you can even hope to enjoy life much without items is at very low levels.  
Thinking Narrativist, I just couldn't resist.  As Jirrigan said to the NPC Jeros early in her career:  "Armour?  Best not to get hit, as far as I'm concerned."  Fat talk, as I well knew.  

Second choice:  drinking more of that accursed Korajan whiskey after I'd already failed one Fortitude save.  
Gamist:  uh oh.  
(In retrospect, I might have remembered I had Fate Points available in case things went very pear-shaped...)
Narrativist:  Heh.  I'm made by Crom.  I can do this --- surely ...

Third choice:  not backing up the Shemite PC when he insulted an NPC.  
No difference between Gamist and Narrativist approaches for me here.  One character insults another - my PC has the Barbaric code of honour that requires her to kill people who insult her, so it's only natural for her to assume that everybody else would.  
When the Shemite player spat "Bitch!", S'mon the GM looked at me somewhat pained.  "What do you do?"
*shrug* "I step back and give Unegen [the NPC insulted] room to kill him [the PC]."
Dunno, the Shemite's player had given his PC the Barbaric code of honour as well, so he should have known what he was getting into with his insult.  


Fourth choice:  letting the inexperienced NPC Cillian tag along as I went into Arenjun to enjoy the Beggars' Feast.
Gamist:  uh oh.  (As I said to S'mon:  "That guy has VICTIM written right across his forehead."  How right I was....)
Narrativist:  I thought Jirrigan sorta liked him, also he made a cool counterpoint for her - rather like her own Grey Mouser.  


All in all, a fun session.  The scenario was linear (being about caravan guarding and - with luck - escaping the nasty twist at the end), so didn't allow for major plot choices, but gave me room to stretch and get ready for ...  



The second scenario (not yet completed):  

One choice and one Fate Point comment.  

As S'mon mentioned, no FPs were spent.  As a Gamist, however, I was well aware by this time that I had some available, so unlike everybody else I didn't cut off my armour when the ship sank.
(Also of course I wasn't wearing chainmail or anything stupid to have aboard ship, not to mention too expensive for a poor Barbarian to afford - just a leather jerkin.  So unlike the Soldier PC I did have a chance of making my Swim check in my armour.)    


The choice I probably enjoyed most - and a "real" choice in this case - was not even to bother about the strongbox beneath the bed of the pirate captain we killed and moving on without having so much as looked at it.  
Speaking as a Gamist, very liberating.  If I'm unlikely to still have all of my equipment at the start of the next scenario, why bother counting beans or silver pieces?  
Narrativist: Jirrigan still missed her companion NPC Cillian who she'd just learned was held prisoner in another part of the pirate hideout - so I decided that nothing would keep her from storming over there and trying to free him immediately.  Maybe come back afterwards if someone dragged me, but no time to waste now.  

The cool thing was that as I went, away from the treasure and towards my captive friend, I swept everyone else along in my wake.  There was no suggestion of hanging around and discussing further proceedings or tactics (a thing our heavily Gamist group has been guilty of a lot).  Apparently my dramatic drive (which I didn't even explain at the table) was compelling enough for everyone else to follow.  If I see myself taking Author stance at any time during those two sessions, that was it.

[Storn]

Very interesting thread.  I apologize if this is a bit of topic drift... but I wanted to get the feedback of the Conan gamers.  Reading SB/Jirrigan's Gamist/Narrativist on/off switch was great!

And one that "solved" a niggling problem that I have with my own game, Savage Worlds.

SW has Bennies.  But they are basically a re-roll "fate" mechanic.  We've used them to do a bit more than that... but the structure suggested in this thread of the Conan rpg (which I had hoped to get a copy of) seems a bit more interesting.

If I'm reading this right, basically Conan suggests; If the GM screws the PCs with Fate (starting them off with no equipment) you give out a Fate pt.

Now, in SW, players get more Bennies for "good roleplaying".  My problem as a GM is my players role play quite well... seperating out what is Bennie worthy is hard.  So I just simply forget about it.  But Bennies are very much needed in combat to keep the players alive.

So, my rewording for SW is this:

If a player, through good roleplaying in character, takes on additional Risk... that is Bennie worthy (or Fate pt or Luck or what have you).  Or another way to put it, when a player screws his PC over for dramtic story sake, there is a reward for doing so.  

My one thought is that in SW, you get 3 Bennies at the start of every adv.  I think I would make it a bit more complicated in that "Fate pts' would be awarded for taking on Risk.  These Fate pts could be used like a Bennie, mechanically, but they could also be used to create subplots, situational "editing" as Neil likes to call it, do Magic in the Fantasy game, that is beyond the scope of the character's write up... stuff like that.  Fate pts carry over from session to session... so they could be horded or used as the player sees fit.  Bennies do not carry over, as per SW rules.

I loved how SB/Jerrigan used a Fate pt to make the young squire fall in love with Jerrigan.  I would love to encourage more of that author stance, thru this mechanic, with my own group.  I've noticed a tendancy in my 2 groups that are in this world, to play it close to the vest, to only take on the "job", because generally, the job is a big deal... and it makes sense to husband ones resources.  There is also a sense that Bennies are SO needed for combat, I think my players are hesitant about spending Bennies for subplot creations.  And I do NOT run a lot of combat usually.

So, breaking away from the main quest and investigating that haunted copse of trees IS a Risk.  The Hard Bitten mercenary taking on a wide eyed apprentice is a Risk (y'know, the one with "victim" written on the forehead).

Dunno.  I like it.  I WANT to give more story control over to my players.  I control the world, seems to be a bit of disparity! <g>   It remains to be seen if my players do.

[S'mon]

Hi Storn - glad you've found our play accounts useful!  :)
StalkingBlue described Jirrigan's choices better than I could, because she was the one actually making them.

If I'm reading this right, basically Conan suggests; If the GM screws the PCs with Fate (starting them off with no equipment) you give out a Fate pt.

Not exactly - the Conan RPG merely says that it's ok to deprive PCs of their equipment, and that FPs are given out at GM's discretion, normally for completion of major tasks.  

The idea of FP-for-screwover I think I got from the GMing advice in CJ Carella's 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' Game; where Drama Points perform the same function as FPs (but are much more heavy-handed & intrusive), and the GM hands out DPs whenever he does arbitrary bad things to the PCs.  I think it's a good idea (if used reasonably frugally), and it makes a surprise in-media-res kickoff to a scenario much easier to justify I think.

[RDU Neil]

Thread drift, sorry...

There is also a sense that Bennies are SO needed for combat, I think my players are hesitant about spending Bennies for subplot creations. And I do NOT run a lot of combat usually.

This is my main problem with SW, which I otherwise enjoy as a rules light system.  Bennies are SO important to combat, that characters are often incompetent without them.  This game is a miniatures wargame derivitive, so it really has any "role playing" tacked on... and the combat shows this.  

Characters are a slight fleshing out of what I can only call a Heroclix kind of mini.  Each has unique selection of skills and abilities, but they are almost all combat oriented, and really focus the character... make them specialists.  Bennies are then intended to make them truly effective.

If you Fate mechanic was to give out more bennies each game, then that is a good thing, but as with much of SW, it is so loose, it is hard to tell what is too much or too little.  This would have to be worked out through a lot of play, and not expect to get it right the first time out.

[Storn]

The idea of FP-for-screwover I think I got from the GMing advice in CJ Carella's 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' Game;

Oh.  Still a fine idea.  I like it.

If you Fate mechanic was to give out more bennies each game

Yes, because I have a tendency to "forget" to give out more Bennies, this is a way that is subversely under the player's control to get more Fate/Bennies.  It also gives me a bit of a structure to judge, unlike the SW's vague "for good roleplaying"..... which means in gameplay, in both groups that Bennies tend to be given when a player makes everyone at the table laugh.

It is ALSO and perhaps more important, a way of encouraging *players* to take Risks with their PCs.  Such as your Jerrod Avery, who really wants nothing to do with this insane quest that the Privateers are on.  He would much rather be at home, scheming with the Lords of Waterdeep and practiciing his magic.  But because I've "screwed" Jerrod by forcing a life of adventure on him, I would say he has a Fate pt.  In fact, the whole cast of the Privateer mini-campaign would have a Fate pt... because 1/2 of them DON"T even know what they have signed up for.

In retrospect, if I had this structure before, I would say that James, with his PC, Katarina accepting the Duel, would have garnered a Fate pt, because not only was there Risk, but it drove the story forward.  Having that Fate pt might have meant Katarina could have won the duel instead of being sorely wounded, in body and pride.  But when the duel happened, I was really glad that James took the bait, knowingly... it made for a great scene... and even a good follow up scene with the Healer and her husband.

Sorry folks, for a long post and getting away from Conan.  But it is S'mon's examination of his own game that has lead me to examine mine.  I think it is "kinda" relevant.  If not, I apologize.

[Bifi]

I feel a need to have a break from the high-Nar games I'm running with our group now (Dark Ages: Mage in FUDGE/FATE, Victorian Horror in Sorcerer) and I would very much like to have a few sessions of Howard's Conan-style atmosphere and frenzy. Besides of thinking about Sorcerer & Sword (does it deliver? can you share your experience?) I'm very tempted with the Conan RPG (although over past 2 years I became increasingly frustrated and disgusted by d20). Is it able to recapture the setting and pace and fulfill the goals presented by Sorcerer & Sword?

Thanks a lot.

[S'mon]

I feel a need to have a break from the high-Nar games I'm running with our group now (Dark Ages: Mage in FUDGE/FATE, Victorian Horror in Sorcerer) and I would very much like to have a few sessions of Howard's Conan-style atmosphere and frenzy. Besides of thinking about Sorcerer & Sword (does it deliver? can you share your experience?) I'm very tempted with the Conan RPG (although over past 2 years I became increasingly frustrated and disgusted by d20). Is it able to recapture the setting and pace and fulfill the goals presented by Sorcerer & Sword?

Thanks a lot.

I think the Conan RPG is good 'Nar light' - obviously the d20 ruleset is a Gamist base; much of the extra rules (eg Fate Points) and the excellent GMing advice section are about introducing Nar elements; as is a lot of advice throughout the rules, from the equipment section, through XP awards, even character creation intro, about how Hyborian agers 'live the fullest lives imaginable'.

I think it helps if you're familiar with d20 so you can see what elements in the rulebook are new and what is an (occasionally sloppy) cut & paste from the SRD (the game was shifted from being d20-license to OGL-license at short notice, this undoubtedly resulted in production problems in making it a 'complete game').

I haven't played Sorcerer & Sword/Sorcerer, as written it wouldn't be a 'break from high Nar' although it looks like it could be played in a fairly Gamist way if you wanted (characters & conflict resolution are dice-based, most of the mechanics are not particularly Nar-dependent a far as I can see); Sim is the only category it's really not intended to support IMO.

I've approached Conan as an introduction to Narrativist gaming based on the d20 ruleset; what I've seen on the Conan Mongoose forums are a lot of players with a rigid Gamist (or occasionally Sim) mentality who try to use the game for typical resource-allocationist, 'stake out a territory', beat X opponents to level, type games.  I think using Sorcerer & Sword in conjunction with Conan helped me a lot to make the game 'be all it can be'.  :)

[Kerstin Schmidt]

As a player I thought Mongoose (and S'mon as GM!) were doing a brilliant job in enabling a Howardish feel.  

Of course as I've stated above, I'm mainly a Gamist and I don't have big issues with the d20 system.  What exactly frustrates you in d20?  More information would help me deciding whether there's more I can tell you that makes sense.

[John Kim]

I've approached Conan as an introduction to Narrativist gaming based on the d20 ruleset; what I've seen on the Conan Mongoose forums are a lot of players with a rigid Gamist (or occasionally Sim) mentality who try to use the game for typical resource-allocationist, 'stake out a territory', beat X opponents to level, type games.  I think using Sorcerer & Sword in conjunction with Conan helped me a lot to make the game 'be all it can be'.  :)  

Just a note -- I decided to run a Conan RPG adventure as a convention event, and I started http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10829">a new thread on it.

[Bifi]

Of course as I've stated above, I'm mainly a Gamist and I don't have big issues with the d20 system.  What exactly frustrates you in d20?  More information would help me deciding whether there's more I can tell you that makes sense.

That would be a long discussion, but mainly (from both Nar and Sim perspectives):
* the absence of any meaningful mechanics or stress on character development or social context - relations, status, etc. (Read the beginning of the GM's Guide - how focusing on ROLEplaying, i.e. morals, politics or social interaction would mean a step away from the rules - I ask why? Why doesn't the system support it?)
* how the game tends to bog down in combat without providing an option for streamlining (apart of just proposing it at the beginning of the GM's Guide)
* alignments
* too many game currencies
* the GM vs. players attitude in contract to GM and the players
* the silly nonrealism of combat (especially in relation to how it is unnecessarily complex and abstract), mainly the infamous 5-ft. step and attacks of opportunity, hit points, rigidly defined elements such as ranges, speed, load etc. (making decision does not mean to imagine the situation in your head including the atmosphere, cool moves, flashes or emotions but thinking in 5-ft. increments, feat combination and tactics)
* the kill things and gain stuff and XP attitude (and how characters are defined in relation to this)
* the open-ended nature of the system with linear curve of resolution
* XPs and character advancement (the level system and the growing gap between high-level characters and low-level (read: common) characters/people (Hide +26 as in contrast to +4 - what does it mean, actually? Where is the "top"?)
* why "Do I fast-talk him?" is of enormously different scale and complexity than "Do I kill him?"
* how magic is treated
* how Nar stuff tends to be slaughered by the system again and again (although this fault probably lies with the players also)
* how the classes, races, feats and else are treated - just a collection of interchangeable crunchy elements
* the dichotomy of making story-oriented decisions for your character and character effectiveness (combat or else)
* the way the player is forced to accept the behaviour of his character in certain situations without being able to decide for the character

Just from the top of my head. Plainly - if I want to play Gamist and with better rules I rather play Mordheim or Confrontation.
If I understand correctly a lot of the things are adjusted or changed in the Conan RPG and I slowly come to think that after about a year of RPG experimenting and theory I probably would be able to shift the focus but maybe it's just an illusion. Thanks for the reaction.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Just from the top of my head. Plainly - if I want to play Gamist and with better rules I rather play Mordheim or Confrontation.

Well, that about sums up your position, doesn't it?  Don't deceive yourself then.  Conan is - and means to be! -  d20, albeit with some rules tweaks and more freedom for slivers of Nar stuff.

[S'mon]

>>* the absence of any meaningful mechanics or stress on character development or social context - relations, status, etc. <<

Conan RPG uses a Reputation stat, Allegiances & Codes of Honour which are mechanically defined.  Personally I'm not sure why rules should be necessary for roleplay stuff, I tend to like to do it freeform, but Conan does support the alternate style better than standard d20.

>>* how the game tends to bog down in combat without providing an option for streamlining (apart of just proposing it at the beginning of the GM's Guide)<<

Conan combat adds _increased_ complexity with the aim of better emulating the stories.  It lacks an option for streamlining - and in fact I found it more necessary than for regular D&D so I added my own, basically rolling a d6 per NPC attacking another NPC and killing them on a 4+, 5+, etc depending on relative ability.

>>* alignments<<

None in Conan

>>* too many game currencies<<

?  You mean cp, sp, gp, pp?  Conan game only uses sp, with occasional gold.

>>* the GM vs. players attitude in contract to GM and the players<<

Conan Fate Points require a cooperative attitude & help mitigate this.

>>* the silly nonrealism of combat (especially in relation to how it is unnecessarily complex and abstract), mainly the infamous 5-ft. step and attacks of opportunity, hit points, rigidly defined elements such as ranges, speed, load etc. (making decision does not mean to imagine the situation in your head including the atmosphere, cool moves, flashes or emotions but thinking in 5-ft. increments, feat combination and tactics)<<

Conan RPG retains all this, which as I said earlier may have been a mistake, it seems a bit incongruous in a literature-based game.

>>* the kill things and gain stuff and XP attitude (and how characters are defined in relation to this)<<

Conan RPG discards this; XP are awarded freeform, not for killing things, there are no tables of magic items or wealth-by-level.  Of course most Conan scenarios will still involve killing things!  A trusty sword & some stout armour is all the stuff most characters will ever need (or get).

>>* the open-ended nature of the system with linear curve of resolution<<

Well, yes, d20s are still rolled...

>>* XPs and character advancement (the level system and the growing gap between high-level characters and low-level (read: common) characters/people (Hide +26 as in contrast to +4 - what does it mean, actually? Where is the "top"?)<<

"Top" is level 20 I guess.  Conan retains this, basically.  I award skill points outside the XP system to reflect life experience, but I'm a d20 heretic and they'd burn me on ENWorld if they could...

>>* why "Do I fast-talk him?" is of enormously different scale and complexity than "Do I kill him?"<<

Conan retains this.  I think the fault lies with too-complex minis-based combat rather than too simple skills system, personally.

>>* how magic is treated<<

Completely different magic system in Conan, nothing at all like regular D&D.  Much more freeform & generally mysterious, at least the way I use it.

>>* how Nar stuff tends to be slaughered by the system again and again (although this fault probably lies with the players also)<<

Conan RPG Fate Points encourages Nar approach.  OTOH use of FPs tends to involve negotiation GM/player, players & GMs likely to be reluctant to accept whatever player says is the result of the FP expenditure, at least to start with.

>>* how the classes, races, feats and else are treated - just a collection of interchangeable crunchy elements<<

Hard to say how much this is changed.  Classes, feats & (human) races all have mechanical (ie crunchy) differences, but you said earlier that you like 'crunch' for social interaction stuff - do you not like it for physical stuff?  The Conan races are all very evocative & flavourful I thought, much moreso than the bland D&D demihumans.

>>* the dichotomy of making story-oriented decisions for your character and character effectiveness (combat or else)<<

I have no idea what this means.

>>* the way the player is forced to accept the behaviour of his character in certain situations without being able to decide for the character<<

This isn't true of 3e D&D or Conan, in fact I don't think it's ever been true of D&D in any incarnation, it's a very un-Gamist thing to do.  I guess it's true of certain heavy-Sim games like Pendragon where you might have to 'save vs avarice;' or whatever to avoid your PC acting against your wishes.  In D&D it would only occur under the influence of mind-altering magic, and likewise for Conan.

>>If I understand correctly a lot of the things are adjusted or changed in the Conan RPG and I slowly come to think that after about a year of RPG experimenting and theory I probably would be able to shift the focus but maybe it's just an illusion. <<

A lot is changed.  But if you have a gut hostility to d20 per se I wouldn't think it was the game for you.

[6inTruder]

Conan RPG discards this; XP are awarded freeform, not for killing things...

How exactly does the Conan RPG say to award experience? Are there any specific guidelines?

Jason

[Bifi]

S'mon,

Thanks very much for your lengthy answer. I didn't want my post to sound hostile (to d20 or its players), I apologize if it did.

As for some of the points:

It seems to me completely acceptable (at least in a system that's so heavy on describing anything crunchily) to have some mechanics for social interactions - although that does not mean I'm missing it in other games. I think "stats" like Honor etc. would do. If I understand correctly it's present in Conan.

Although in some instances the added complexity in combat could be good (such as in a dramatic adventure-ending fight), but I don't see the necessity for a three-hour long (real time) fight when two wolves attack the party. Pity they (WotC, Mongoose) didn't provide some guidance on how to mitigate this. Maybe a 250-pg. sourcebook on how to streamline miniature combat for $30.00 will be out one day... :)

With game currencies I mean all the things (stats, mechanics) that are in some way measured, but each differently - starting with hit points, attributes, skills, spell levels etc. It is quite hard to introduce new players to the game (at least players that didn't play any RPG before) although 3e did things to unify the system (that's why it's called d20, isn't it).

Of course S&S genre REQUIRES slaughter, so I'm with you on this one... but as I said in my previous post, thinking in 5-ft. increments and combat strategy (in terms of how best use, if not exploit, the rules) is in some way antithetic to the epic "feel" and atmosphere of combat, at least that's how I feel. Not to mention the fact that whatever level the character is, often his survival stands and falls on one roll (be it attack roll or saving throw).

As for the linear nature of d20, one of my ideas was to replace d20 with 2d10, increasing the range of critical failure to 2-3 and critical success to 19-20 and all weapons would have their critical ranges lowered by one. Maybe these changes would also force some changes in the skill system, like increasing the cost for higher skill ranks. I agree that the skill system is not too simple (neither too complex).

I like more settings with more human races instead of demihumans. Character immersion or believable story decisions for members of different races are very hard, not to say in a system such as DnD.

The "dichotomy of making story-oriented decisions for your character and character effectiveness (combat or else)" means that making story-oriented or in-character (Sim) decisions is not effective. Examples: the character inherited a beautiful masterwork sword from his father but as soon as he finds a generic +1 sword somewhere in a dungeon he tosses it away (repeat as he raises in levels). OR: If he fights one-handedly it's just plain silly not to take a shield, isn't it? But who in literature used a shield? The same goes with armour or some decisions in combat.
(If I extrapolate correctly, magic items in Conan RPG are rare which is good for my campaigns.)

The "way the player is forced to accept the behaviour of his character in certain situations without being able to decide for the character" means e.g. rolling a Will save to see if the character flees no matter how epic the player deems him to be, thus forcing a decision on the player and taking the epic feel of how the player dreamed up his character (surely in DnD no one dreams up a lame or daft character).

To the other points, I'm really glad to hear that Conan RPG brings so many changes.

I don't have a hostility to d20 per se, my disliking lies probably in frustration with the players (not just my player group) and their (our) interaction, too. It's just bad experience. Other factor could be my previous lack of insight into RPG theory I later gained thanks to Forge and indie-RPGs.

I grew up on 2nd Ed. AD&D and became very enthusiastic for 3e at first, but somehow I haven't experienced anyone to successfully work with the "meta-metagame" framework around d20 (me included). Maybe one exception to this experience: we played Arcana Unearthed and that was really good but we played just 2 sessions I think, so it's hard to tell. As time goes by and my bad experience fades away I'm starting to think whether it could be done successfully.

Michal