QuoteOriginally posted by AsenRG
Street toughs would be exactly "mobs of minions". Compared to the average citizen, namely "civilian", they might as well be Picts.
You know, I assume a street tough grew up in the harsh conditions created by civilisation, and lived to become an adult by being meaner and tougher than those that found an early grave.

Sailors are just pushed by desperation if they fight a PC. Dockworkers might count as street toughs, or sailors.

I hate to get in the middle of this argument, but AsenRG, this is completely contradictory to the source material.  It looks to me that you are just contriving arguments about relativity to twist REH's vision into something it was never meant to be so that it will fit the game.

A MAJOR theme in REH was the contrast between men who were schooled in the savage, dangerous wilderness and those who lived in the soft luxury of civilization.  Your effort to make up reasons why dockworkers should be just as dangerous as Picts amounts to re-writing Howard to fit the game rather than an explanation of how the game fits Howard.

Quote from: Jason D;883033I would like to point out that minions, just like player characters, are rated with Attributes, Fields of Expertise, Stress and Soak, and have their own Talents, and that different groups of minions will have different team tactics.

Additionally, the GM's use of the Doom pool can turn a a group of minions from apparently pushovers into deadly threat to the player characters.

Ok.  Last thing I'll say about the Minions.

1. Any system where every adventure comes down to three stages...

• You fight Mobs of Minions (some of which led by a single Elite)
• Then you maybe fight larger Mobs of Minions or perhaps groups of Elites.
• You fight the Boss Mobs

...is unsatisfactory from both a setting perspective and a story perspective.  Every mechanic is a tool, to be used in different combinations to better represent different things.  Mob of Minions as the base encounter, always, no matter the supposed type of Foe is not an interesting way to do things.

2. If you're dialing the Mob of Minions up to make the Mob tougher, why not stop a second, go back to First Principles and ask yourself: "If I need to make this Mob way tougher to accomplish what I need, why not, in this case, divorce myself from having to use Mobs and just use Elites if that will accomplish the same thing?  Must I always force every scenario into some 3 Tier rising narrative structure of escalation?

I meant that not as some rabid anti-narrative crusader tilting at my personal windmill.  I meant that as someone who's suggesting that by not locking yourself always into one specific application of mechanics, you might make a better game.  Call my suggestions "Spot Rules" if you will.

If you ever do make a scenario about Venarium, and cast the Cimmerians as Mobs of Minions, I hope you never wind up in Texas heaven, because Ol' Two-Gun Bob is going to be challenging you to boxing matches for eternity.

From this point, I'll post my playtest results in a playtest result thread, and my questions on the system in the questions thread.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883035...is unsatisfactory from both a setting perspective and a story perspective.  

The question I ask is: "unsatisfactory" to who?

"Unsatisfactory" is not specific. It's not measurable.

With all due respect, you've stated your preferences, but they're just one set in a vast array of tastes. Even folks as close as within this very thread are divided in their opinions.

I actually appreciate that you seem interested in what we're doing, but many of your arguments are boiling down to telling us that our vision of how gameplay should work doesn't match yours.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883035If you ever do make a scenario about Venarium, and cast the Cimmerians as Mobs of Minions, I hope you never wind up in Texas heaven, because Ol' Two-Gun Bob is going to be challenging you to boxing matches for eternity.

I lived in Texas hell for 13 years before moving to Berlin, so I should be all right.

Quote from: Jason D;883042I actually appreciate that you seem interested in what we're doing, but many of your arguments are boiling down to telling us that our vision of how gameplay should work doesn't match yours.

I just think variety and flexibility of application of mechanics to better achieve the goal of representing Howard's world might be more useful than keeping to the same recipe regardless of the who, what, where, and why.

If "every single adventure must start with Mobs of Minions" whether they be Zamoran Pimps or the Royal Guard of Atlantis, is a design goal you guys feel is what you want to go with, so be it.

You're probably going to say "I never said that.", but when you defend against even the possibility of ever including a scenario without Mobs of Minions, that's exactly what you're saying.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Jason D
The question I ask is: "unsatisfactory" to who?

"Unsatisfactory" is not specific. It's not measurable.

With all due respect, you've stated your preferences, but they're just one set in a vast array of tastes. Even folks as close as within this very thread are divided in their opinions.

I actually appreciate that you seem interested in what we're doing, but many of your arguments are boiling down to telling us that our vision of how gameplay should work doesn't match yours.

With complete respect, I would really like to learn about the design choices and how the system interacts with REH's stories and Hyborian age, but this seems impossible. Over and over when there is a question or criticism, we get this same response: "its all subjective and a matter of your opinion."  You say "the game does what it is supposed to do" without saying what that is.  When something seems amiss and we ask how a specific mechanic reflects REH you say "you've stated your preferences," or somebody else interjects and makes a big argument about it causing CRK to create an entirely new discussion about theory so as to not bog this conversation down.

I apologize for my moments of frustration, but I am completely over the fact that my preferred playstyle does not match the 2d20 system. I am not out to get anyone.  I just want to be able to ask simple questions how the system and REH interact - so I'll give it another shot on this same topic:

Why are Pictish savages the same level of foe as any commoner and how does that design choice reflect REH's creations?

Quote from: Madprofessor;883067With complete respect, I would really like to learn about the design choices and how the system interacts with REH's stories and Hyborian age, but this seems impossible. Over and over when there is a question or criticism, we get this same response: "its all subjective and a matter of your opinion."  You say "the game does what it is supposed to do" without saying what that is.  When something seems amiss and we ask how a specific mechanic reflects REH you say "you've stated your preferences," or somebody else interjects and makes a big argument about it causing CRK to create an entirely new discussion about theory so as to not bog this conversation down.

I apologize for my moments of frustration, but I am completely over the fact that my preferred playstyle does not match the 2d20 system. I am not out to get anyone.  I just want to be able to ask simple questions how the system and REH interact - so I'll give it another shot on this same topic:

Why are Pictish savages the same level of foe as any commoner and how does that design choice reflect REH's creations?

Actually, from the other thread, the reason is likely because he's not working on the system:

Quote from: Other 2D20 threadand the system work on 2d20 is being handled by Benn Beaton and Nathan Dowdell.

To which I will promptly apologize to Mr. Durrall, right here and now, for badgering him about something he cannot change.  And as an employee of Modiphius, I understand why he cannot agree with anything we say, should he even believe it (I don't think he does, but that does not matter), because of contractual obligations.  Hence, I will again, back out of this and any other 2D20 conversations dealing the Conan game.

Let it stand on it's own two feet.

I wonder how Asen's garden grows?

Quote from: CRKrueger;883045I just think variety and flexibility of application of mechanics to better achieve the goal of representing Howard's world might be more useful than keeping to the same recipe regardless of the who, what, where, and why.

If "every single adventure must start with Mobs of Minions" whether they be Zamoran Pimps or the Royal Guard of Atlantis, is a design goal you guys feel is what you want to go with, so be it.

You're probably going to say "I never said that.", but when you defend against even the possibility of ever including a scenario without Mobs of Minions, that's exactly what you're saying.

I am associate line manager and writer on Conan. I, too, have been with the game since it's earliest days. I'm writing sourcebooks, campaigns, and adventures.

The scenarios do not all follow a linear progression track of foes. Some classic Howard stories involve mobs that Conan hacks through, emerging heaped in gore. Others do not. The Tower of the Elephant doesn't feature a mob. Why would every Conan RPG adventure?

The mechanics are tools. You can build what you want with them. Different adventures and campaigns will have various different mixes of obstacles be they foes, traps, mysteries, or conflicting personal agendas. It won't boil down to any formula be it plot or mechanics.

Neither Jason nor I would want everything to read and play the same. Howard wrote Conan stories in a variety of hybrid genres. Since we're trying to capture Howard as closely as we can, it's only appropriate our adventures are varied as well, both in plot and in encounters.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883067With complete respect, I would really like to learn about the design choices and how the system interacts with REH's stories and Hyborian age, but this seems impossible. Over and over when there is a question or criticism, we get this same response: "its all subjective and a matter of your opinion."  You say "the game does what it is supposed to do" without saying what that is.  When something seems amiss and we ask how a specific mechanic reflects REH you say "you've stated your preferences," or somebody else interjects and makes a big argument about it causing CRK to create an entirely new discussion about theory so as to not bog this conversation down.

The mechanics are designed to translate the narrative turns of fortune found in Conan stories, and to an extent much of pulp or 30s serials, by allowing a tension and release, a win and a reversal sort of "beat" progression. Taking risks can gain you great rewards, but it also builds up bad karma coming your way.

If you look at most Conan stories, Conan goes through a series of victories and failures. He gets out of one scrape and fall into another. This continues until he is either victorious or merely gets out with his skin mostly intact.

The goal is to provide the GM AND the players with means to keep the beats of a Conan story moving along with rules to back it up. We don't expect it works in every situation. No game can hope to have the degree of pacing and plot control a prose story has and still maintain player agency. What we're trying to do is get as close to a balance as we can.

I don't know if that helps at all?

Thank you Chris Lites!

Your post certainly helps bring clarity. The amount of "storygame" / Forge language in your description of the design for Conan answers a LOT of questions about the philosophical goals behind the game.

That's a good thing.

Just not a good thing for traditional RPG players, but perhaps there is an audience who will appreciate what Modiphius is trying to achieve. There is certainly a strong interest on Kickstarter and maybe that will translate to actual players, not just backers.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883045If "every single adventure must start with Mobs of Minions" whether they be Zamoran Pimps or the Royal Guard of Atlantis, is a design goal you guys feel is what you want to go with, so be it.

You're probably going to say "I never said that.", but when you defend against even the possibility of ever including a scenario without Mobs of Minions, that's exactly what you're saying.

It's always interesting when I realize that someone is arguing with some phantom standing behind me, rather than actually engaging with me and what I'm saying or have said.

Where in the world did you get the idea that every adventure begins with, or has to include, minions? Has any member of the design team said any such thing? I know I haven't.

I'm looking at adventures where there aren't any, and even one where there's only a single, dedicated and powerful enemy.

Here's the excerpt on how the quickstart handles the Pict groups:

QuoteMinions: Pictish Warriors are defeated after one
Wound or Trauma. It's up to the gamemaster if this
means they're dead, playing dead, cowering, fleeing,
or unconscious. They only roll 1d20 each for skill
tests normally.
Mob: The gamemaster may decide that a group of two
or more minions are acting as a mob: they will take a
single turn for the group, rather than a turn for each
minion. When the mob acts, it rolls 1d20 per member
for the skill test. When attacked, the mob counts as
a single target, and each time a member of the mob
is taken out, any remaining damage carries on to the
next member of the mob; continue until there is no
more excess damage, or there is no more mob.

Minion rules are one method of handling combats with large groups. The GM is in no way required to use minion rules, and nowhere in the core rulebook does it say that.  

Furthermore, not all minions are alike. One group of minions might have higher Fields of Expertise, Stress, and Soak. They might have additional levels of Harm, better armor, and thus be more formidable.

Quote from: Jason D;883033I would like to point out that minions, just like player characters, are rated with Attributes, Fields of Expertise, Stress and Soak, and have their own Talents, and that different groups of minions will have different team tactics.

Additionally, the GM's use of the Doom pool can turn a a group of minions from apparently pushovers into deadly threat to the player characters.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883067Why are Pictish savages the same level of foe as any commoner and how does that design choice reflect REH's creations?

In "Beyond the Black River", REH had a relatively-green woodsman with no apparent experience battling Picts (prior to the events of that story), fighting alongside an injured dog, account for more than nine Pict savages on the warpath, before falling in battle.

Quote from: Jason D;883224It's always interesting when I realize that someone is arguing with some phantom standing behind me, rather than actually engaging with me and what I'm saying or have said.

Where in the world did you get the idea that every adventure begins with, or has to include, minions? Has any member of the design team said any such thing? I know I haven't.

I'm looking at adventures where there aren't any, and even one where there's only a single, dedicated and powerful enemy.

Here's the excerpt on how the quickstart handles the Pict groups:



Minion rules are one method of handling combats with large groups. The GM is in no way required to use minion rules, and nowhere in the core rulebook does it say that.  

Furthermore, not all minions are alike. One group of minions might have higher Fields of Expertise, Stress, and Soak. They might have additional levels of Harm, better armor, and thus be more formidable.

Thanks, that's what I was curious about.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;883084To which I will promptly apologize to Mr. Durrall, right here and now, for badgering him about something he cannot change.  And as an employee of Modiphius, I understand why he cannot agree with anything we say, should he even believe it (I don't think he does, but that does not matter), because of contractual obligations.  Hence, I will again, back out of this and any other 2D20 conversations dealing the Conan game.

Let it stand on it's own two feet.

Umm... thanks, I guess?

At no point in my discussions with Modiphius was I informed that I needed to toe some company line or parrot an official stance, so I'm not sure how to take an apology that also accuses me of withholding the truth.

I've worked on crunchy games (my day job is in MMO system design, which is a magnitude more detailed than any tabletop pen-and-paper game system), and I've worked on a couple of diceless games, as well as writing for the whole spectrum.

When I began working with the 2d20 system, I had concerns that it was actually too crunchy, but in the course of actually demo-ing the game and playing it, I've been relieved to see that it plays well and is easy to teach. Table-full after table-full of players in my experience have come in skeptical and left convinced that it was a fun system, easy to grasp, and excellent in enabling rapid, pulpy action.

I get that it's not to everyone's tastes, but honestly, the range of opinions expressed in this very thread indicate that there is no consensus on the one true way to game in the Hyborian Age setting.