Crypts and Things vs Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperboria, which does swords and sorcery better? Are either too tied to their default setting or could either work for home brew S&s without too much fiddling? I like the look of both but damned if I'm not a sucker for a boxed set? Thoughts? Experiences with either product?
Quote from: Arkansan;870668Crypts and Things vs Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperboria, which does swords and sorcery better? Are either too tied to their default setting or could either work for home brew S&s without too much fiddling? I like the look of both but damned if I'm not a sucker for a boxed set? Thoughts? Experiences with either product?
I don't really own Crypts & Things but to the best of my understanding it's a Swords & Wizardry hack using Akrasia's house rules (http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com.br/2009/07/swords-sorcery-house-rules-index.html) with a suitably S&S setting. It's generally rules-lighter, e.g. I think there are only three classes (fighter, magician, thief), there's a single saving throw, etc.
I own AS&SH in PDF and I love it. It's got a ton of classes (e.g. warlock, necromancer, pyromancer, scout, berserker, barbarian, cataphract, etc. in addition to usual suspects), like an S&S-flavored Unearthed Arcana. The bestiary is crawling with Cthulhu Mythos monsters as well as demons, lycanthropes and undead, though even orcs get a S&S version here. The setting is very evocative. I like the system bits well enough that, before 5e came out, it was poised to displace Castles & Crusades as my go-to system for AD&D 1e material.
Quote from: The Butcher;870680I don't really own Crypts & Things but to the best of my understanding it's a Swords & Wizardry hack using Akrasia's house rules (http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com.br/2009/07/swords-sorcery-house-rules-index.html) with a suitably S&S setting. It's generally rules-lighter, e.g. I think there are only three classes (fighter, magician, thief), there's a single saving throw, etc.
I own AS&SH in PDF and I love it. It's got a ton of classes (e.g. warlock, necromancer, pyromancer, scout, berserker, barbarian, cataphract, etc. in addition to usual suspects), like an S&S-flavored Unearthed Arcana. The bestiary is crawling with Cthulhu Mythos monsters as well as demons, lycanthropes and undead, though even orcs get a S&S version here. The setting is very evocative. I like the system bits well enough that, before 5e came out, it was poised to displace Castles & Crusades as my go-to system for AD&D 1e material.
Is AS&SH too mechanically tied into its setting or would it be easy to run with my own S&s setting?
I'm not familiar with AS&SH but I've been running a C&T campaign since the book came out and I'm very happy with it.
I don't like AS&SH that much, it's too similar to standard D&D, specially the magic system.
Quote from: Arkansan;870696Is AS&SH too mechanically tied into its setting or would it be easy to run with my own S&s setting?
Piece of cake. What mechanical oddities AS&SH has are all about flavor, there are no mechanics tied directly to the setting at all. The only thing I can think of that comes close is race selection - humans are the only PC race in the RPG sense and, in the more general sense, the available races of man (Cimmerian, Kelt, Hyperborean, etc.) are all purely cosmetic, with the exception of Atlanteans (can breathe underwater, but need to immerse themselves frequently or they dry out).
Well, I prefer Crypts and Things. It's got broad classes, meaning I don't need a separate class if my fighter climbs on top of a horse, another for fighting on a flying ship, and yet another for fighting while sitting on a pony. Broad competence is part of the S&S genre.
Likewise, it has the rule that "everyone can backstab". Turning your back to anyone is dangerous.
Last but not least, it only has one class for all magic. But magic is divided in categories. Deciding to use a flashy, hurtful or deceiving spell, might well end up with great problems...
Overall, I haven't played ASOH, but I strongly suspect C&T would fit the genre better.
A remastered edition of C&T is currently in the works, funded through Kickstarter. I'm pretty neutral on OSR stuff in general, but I might decide to pick it up when it's available. How easily would it combine with Sine Nomine Games' Silent Legions?
Hmm I may just have my cake and eat it too, I think I'll grab AS&SH now and the revised version of CT when it comes out.
A question for anyone with AS&SH, what does it do mechanically to make itself feel more Sword and Sorcery? I'm aware enough of Akrasia's house rules to understand how they influenced CT and the way the provide a S&S feel to a standard OD&D variant.
Quote from: AsenRG;870720Well, I prefer Crypts and Things. It's got broad classes, meaning I don't need a separate class if my fighter climbs on top of a horse, another for fighting on a flying ship, and yet another for fighting while sitting on a pony.
This is a nonsensical criticism with regards to C&T vs. AS&SH. One class (the Cataphract) is at some advantage when fighting from horseback, but other classes are not forbidden from. or penalized for, mounting a warhorse and charging enemy ranks.
Quote from: AsenRG;870720Likewise, it has the rule that "everyone can backstab". Turning your back to anyone is dangerous.
Always used it since the days of BECMI/RC, honest. But credit to Akrasia for getting it in print.
Quote from: AsenRG;870720Last but not least, it only has one class for all magic. But magic is divided in categories. Deciding to use a flashy, hurtful or deceiving spell, might well end up with great problems...
Now this is a good point, and AS&SH's chief shortcoming IMO. Magic works exactly like regular D&D.
Quote from: Arkansan;870737A question for anyone with AS&SH, what does it do mechanically to make itself feel more Sword and Sorcery? I'm aware enough of Akrasia's house rules to understand how they influenced CT and the way the provide a S&S feel to a standard OD&D variant.
Not much, to be honest. The S&S feel mostly comes from the lack of non-human player races, the hand-picked bestiary and the grim, decadent setting.
Generally speaking, though, if you feel D&D doesn't do the genre justice, I submit that a different system might serve your needs better than houseruling D&D. Don't get me wrong, I love a good D&D hack, but sometimes just going with a different game will save you a lot of work. I favor RQ6 but there's dozens of options out there.
Quote from: Arkansan;870668Crypts and Things vs Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperboria, which does swords and sorcery better? Are either too tied to their default setting or could either work for home brew S&s without too much fiddling?I like the look of both but damned if I'm not a sucker for a boxed set? Thoughts? Experiences with either product?
I have run and played a fair amount of AS&SH, but I don't know Crypts and Things at all, so I cannot really compare and contrast them. Also, swords and sorcery can sometimes mean different things to different people, both in terms of setting elements and rules. Anyway...
The AS&SH setting of Hyperborea draws heavily from R.E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft and C.A. Smith, so there are analogs to the gods and monsters of those stories, but it also sprinkles in some Vance, Moorcock, Lieber and super science (radium pistols, laser swords, anti-grav belts, etc). There are no dragons, beholders or mind flayers, but there are demons galore, shoggoths, mi-go, four-armed apes and dinosaurs. There aren't any elves, dwarves or halflings, but there are fish-men, crab-men, snake-men and different types of beastmen. Like others have said, the player character race options are all human (Amazons, Hyperboreans, Kimmerians, Vikings, etc). The world is cold and harsh. Overall, it's a mix that appeals to me - it feels like Jeff wrote up the world of Frank Frazetta's paintings, which I love.
The rules themselves feel very 1E+Holmes to me, which I liked, because I wasn't really interested in a meaningful departure from what I knew. There are a few changes here and there, some because of Jeff's personal preferences, some probably for legal reasons, but nothing too jarring or hard to remember. For example, the attribute bonus curve's a little shallower, the classes each have their own little tweaks and everyone can roll a hit die of healing after a night's sleep. Needless to say, some people don't want Vancian magic in their sword and sorcery or they want magic to be very dangerous to use in sword and sorcery, but I'm not in either camp. I wanted familiar magic rules and also didn't want magic-using PCs hamstrung by insanity, corruption or backfire rules (may
sound good on paper, but not much fun at the table in my opinion). Oh, and I think you
could use the rules without using the setting, but the setting is the main draw in my opinion.
If you are considering the box set, I would hurry. He's running out and the game's next print, sometime in 2016, will be a single hardback volume.
Hope this helps!
As someone who hasn't paid much attention to either game, but whose curiosity has now been piqued by this thread, I'd suggest that the OP pay special attention to what reviewers have to say about the magic systems. It sounds like Crypts & Things is doing something pretty neat, especially within the D&D-family of games.
Quote from: Chainsaw;870739I have run and played a fair amount of AS&SH, but I don't know Crypts and Things at all, so I cannot really compare and contrast them. Also, swords and sorcery can sometimes mean different things to different people, both in terms of setting elements and rules. Anyway...
The AS&SH setting of Hyperborea draws heavily from R.E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft and C.A. Smith, so there are analogs to the gods and monsters of those stories, but it also sprinkles in some Vance, Moorcock, Lieber and super science (radium pistols, laser swords, anti-grav belts, etc). There are no dragons, beholders or mind flayers, but there are demons galore, shoggoths, mi-go, four-armed apes and dinosaurs. There aren't any elves, dwarves or halflings, but there are fish-men, crab-men, snake-men and different types of beastmen. Like others have said, the player character race options are all human (Amazons, Hyperboreans, Kimmerians, Vikings, etc). The world is cold and harsh. Overall, it's a mix that appeals to me - it feels like Jeff wrote up the world of Frank Frazetta's paintings, which I love.
The rules themselves feel very 1E+Holmes to me, which I liked, because I wasn't really interested in a meaningful departure from what I knew. There are a few changes here and there, some because of Jeff's personal preferences, some probably for legal reasons, but nothing too jarring or hard to remember. For example, the attribute bonus curve's a little shallower, the classes each have their own little tweaks and everyone can roll a hit die of healing after a night's sleep. Needless to say, some people don't want Vancian magic in their sword and sorcery or they want magic to be very dangerous to use in sword and sorcery, but I'm not in either camp. I wanted familiar magic rules and also didn't want magic-using PCs hamstrung by insanity, corruption or backfire rules (may sound good on paper, but not much fun at the table in my opinion). Oh, and I think you could use the rules without using the setting, but the setting is the main draw in my opinion.
If you are considering the box set, I would hurry. He's running out and the game's next print, sometime in 2016, will be a single hardback volume.
Hope this helps!
Yeah I just purchased the last boxed set Noble Knight had in stock. I'm a sucker for boxed sets.
Quote from: Arminius;870743As someone who hasn't paid much attention to either game, but whose curiosity has now been piqued by this thread, I'd suggest that the OP pay special attention to what reviewers have to say about the magic systems. It sounds like Crypts & Things is doing something pretty neat, especially within the D&D-family of games.
To my understanding Crypts and Things draws a good bit from Akrasia's house rules, which I like very much and are rather close to my own home brew attempts to "Sword and Sorcery" up classic D&D. I think I'm going to purchase the revised edition of Crypts and Things when it comes out, that or order the pdf of it now. I really like the way magic is handled, it seems much more in line with the common roots of the source literature.
Quote from: Arkansan;870745Yeah I just purchased the last boxed set Noble Knight had in stock. I'm a sucker for boxed sets.
Cool, same here. If you have any questions, feedback or want to share your house rules, there's a Hyperborea forum (http://hyperborea.boardhost.com/index.php). Also, if you can attend Gary Con in March, there will be almost twenty AS&SH events to choose from this year. Should be good!
Quote from: Chainsaw;870739Oh, and I think you could use the rules without using the setting, but the setting is the main draw in my opinion.
Agreed. I'm one of many who have considered using the Hyperborea setting with RQ6 rules, but I don't think I've seen anyone going the other way (alternate setting with AS&SH rules). It wouldn't be a difficult thing to do, but the thing that makes AS&SH special really is the setting, not the rules.
AS&SH's setting sounds pretty cool. Anyone care to share some detail on C&T's default setting? And - not being particularly OSR-savvy - how easy would it be to import setting material from AS&SH into C&T?
Quote from: 3rik;870861AS&SH's setting sounds pretty cool. Anyone care to share some detail on C&T's default setting? And - not being particularly OSR-savvy - how easy would it be to import setting material from AS&SH into C&T?
I think you could probably port the setting pretty easily to just about any system, as there's nothing in the Gazetteer (that I can recall) that requires the AS&SH rules. The monsters might require a bit of tweaking, as they're naturally statted for AS&SH. I ran the
TAKEN from Dunwich module using AD&D and made monster changes on the fly. I'm sure most people could do the same with any D&D-based system.
Quote from: The Butcher;870680...I think there are only three classes (fighter, magician, thief)...
There's also the barbarian. :)
The classes are designed to encompass a wide range of archetypes. So fighters can choose among different 'fighting styles' that can enable them to range from heavily-armoured shield-masters to lightly-armoured swashbucklers. Magicians can cast different kinds of spells: white magic (healing and protection), grey magic (illusions and mind-control), and black magic (destruction and summoning). What kinds of spells magicians focus on will lead to very different kinds of characters (e.g., helpful 'white magicians' versus corrupted, malevolent 'black magic' sorcerers).
All characters are considered 'rogues' and thus can backstab.
I really like AS&SH, especially the setting and the art. The system resembles AD&D, which is cool, and so provides options via different classes (in contrast to C&T, which provides options via choices within classes).
Whether to go with AS&SH or C&T depends on what kind of game you want to run: a rules-medium AD&D-style game, or a rules-light 0e D&D game? They both aim at the same overall genre, and do so quite well IMO.
The setting of AS&SH seems more tightly integrated with the rules, whereas the setting in C&T is provided more as an example of what you can do with the rules, rather than permeating the presentation of the rules themselves. (I don't use the 'default' setting in C&T myself.)
I own both games and very much like both of them. But I'm partial to C&T, for obvious reasons. :p
I'm not too familiar with C&T (for various odd reasons its one OSR title that has eluded me) but I did get a PDF version of AS&SH and really enjoyed it. I keep forgetting to go to North Wind and order a copy in print, which this thread is once more reminding me I need to do.
I'd say AS&SH is served less by the familiarity of the AD&D rules and more by how it adeptly weaves the sword & sorcery genre into them, providing a lot of flavor. Definitely worth anyone's time to check out.
I really liked AS&SH's art. I'm not sure about the system.
Firsts, the classes are out of whack. This was true in OD&D/AD&D but this was compensated for by some classes needing less XP. But that is broken in AS&SH because the level cap is 12. A 12th level Thief and a 12th Level barbarian might be the same level, but the barbarian will have needed twice as much XP and be much, much more powerful. Without the cap, the thief would be 15th or 16th level and more on par with the Barbarian.
There is no multi-classing, but a lot of B/X multi-class classes. Like instead of a Fighter/Magic-User, there is the "Warlock". Again, in TSR games, this sort of multiclassing would have a price, you wouldn't be as good as a pure whatever. But thanks to the level cap, in AS&SH, they are (if not quite as good, very close)
Secondly, why make thief skills based on a d12? Other than being cute? Why not just go with d100%? It's more granular, it lets you know the odds easily. There's no reason to use anything but that, IMHO, but even a d20 would make more sense (which they actually used for the assassination table).
Thirdly, while I like the art, I don't think it fits the system. You see all these pieces with scantily clad adventurers. But that's simply not support by the rules. Like regular D&D, you need to wear armor to survive in combat unless you are a monk. And the monk is still pretty wussy.
And lastly, the setting just seems silly. They took every place name they could from HPL and CAS's Hyperborea and jammed it together haphazardly. Sometimes change the names slightly for no apparent reason (most the CAS stuff, since I guess they were unsure of the copyright status of his stuff).
Crypts & Things has much worse artwork, but the system is better designed and fits the genre better. The setting, while not especially original (feels like a Lin Carter pastiche), isn't simply a mish-mash of existing names used differently.
OTOH, the adventures for AS&SH are really good, while the C&Ts ones not so much.
Quote from: Akrasia;871056I really like AS&SH, especially the setting and the art. The system resembles AD&D, which is cool, and so provides options via different classes (in contrast to C&T, which provides options via choices within classes).
Whether to go with AS&SH or C&T depends on what kind of game you want to run: a rules-medium AD&D-style game, or a rules-light 0e D&D game? They both aim at the same overall genre, and do so quite well IMO.
The setting of AS&SH seems more tightly integrated with the rules, whereas the setting in C&T is provided more as an example of what you can do with the rules, rather than permeating the presentation of the rules themselves. (I don't use the 'default' setting in C&T myself.)
I own both games and very much like both of them. But I'm partial to C&T, for obvious reasons. :p
This is helpful, thanks! I need to pick up a copy of C&T, because I do like OD&D a lot.
Well my boxed set of AS&SH just came in the mail this morning. I'm impressed, it's a really well put together product. The books are nice, the map seems good for gaming, and the character sheets should come in handy. The box itself seems fairly sturdy and the art is attractive, first thing out of my wife's mouth when she saw was "Ohh what game is that?" so I'll call that a win.
I'm debating on whether to go ahead and order a copy of CT or wait for the remastered version. I'm still flush with gift cards and cash from Christmas so I'm fighting the urge to impulse buy everything.
I don't have either of these.
Quote from: RPGPundit;871983I don't have either of these.
Try and dig up the AS&SH box set, it's a really well done product. The game within seems like a very cleaned up AD&D with nice S&S trappings.
I don't have the AS&SH boxed set since I'm a cannibalize-everything-for-B/X kind of guy, but I did go in on the adventures kickstarter and they're absolutely gorgeous and read as a lot of fun. Worth checking out.
Quote from: Arkansan;872038Try and dig up the AS&SH box set, it's a really well done product. The game within seems like a very cleaned up AD&D with nice S&S trappings.
The guy who did AS&SH tried to send me the box set, but the cost turned out to be prohibitive for him.
Quote from: RPGPundit;872444The guy who did AS&SH tried to send me the box set, but the cost turned out to be prohibitive for him.
Ahh. That's a shame as it's a really nice product, I'm supposing shipping to your location is expensive in general?
Quote from: Arkansan;872494Ahh. That's a shame as it's a really nice product, I'm supposing shipping to your location is expensive in general?
South America really is. It speaks volume to how much publishers value reliable and read reviews that so many of them have sent me books.
Crypts & Things for Conan? AS&SH for Conan?
What are the pros/cons for each?
Also, what are the pros/cons for either vs. 2D20 Conan?
Quote from: Spinachcat;886699Crypts & Things for Conan? AS&SH for Conan?
What are the pros/cons for each?
Also, what are the pros/cons for either vs. 2D20 Conan?
I've never read AS&SH, but C&T would do Conan very well.
I own, have played, and like both games.
C&T is rules lite and based on Swords and Wizardry core. The rules changes are significant though it is still clearly D&D. There are Sanity Rules, Combat Styles, and excellent sorcery rules that make magic suitably dangerous and corrupting. It includes a setting which is so-so IMHO, but it is only a few pages long.
The rules changes in C&T stand out to me as a near perfect example of how to adapt OD&D to a particular genre.
AS&SH is a beautiful Boxed Set with gamescience dice, three spiral bound books a fold out map, and great art and layout. It is based on 1e D&D (Osric I suppose). It clarifies, organizes and streamlines a lot of of the original DMG and PH and it is very well-written. Classes and races are new but the game is not much different from 1e. Other than chargen and a few small things like thief skills, it's close to a clone with greater clarity and consistency than the original rules. The setting is pretty involved and, IMO, is strongly influenced by Clark Ashton Smith.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Spinachcat
Crypts & Things for Conan? AS&SH for Conan?
Definitely C&T for Conan.
The vibe for ASSH is more CAS or Lovecraft.
QuoteOriginally Posted by JeremyR
OTOH, the adventures for AS&SH are really good, while the C&Ts ones not so much.
Agreed on both counts.
Blood of the Dragon for C&T was bland and left me uninspired.
OTOH, Charnel Crypt of the Sightless Serpent for AS&SH was very evocative. It's short, meant for perhaps an evening, easily adaptable, and a little gritty and spooky. Jeff (AS&SH) has a few others that I haven't picked up and he is running a kickstarter as we speak for another.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1806106772/hyperborea-the-mystery-at-port-greely
Any one known when, and how, 2ed C&T will be available?
Quote from: Madprofessor;886725Definitely C&T for Conan.
Why?
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;886716I've never read AS&SH, but C&T would do Conan very well.
Why?
Quote from: Teodrik;886729Any one known when, and how, 2ed C&T will be available?
The book's draft has been available for backers (so glad I backed this) since the Kickstarted started, and it has seen a few updates over the months.
The last update said the final PDF will be out for backers (and I guess everyone else to purchase) by the end of this month.
Sheesh, Spinachcat, asking me to justify my opinions is just a step too far :). I thought people are just supposed to accept my word as truth :p
Before I start - two caveats to my previous enthusiasm:
1) C&T is best for cinematic comic book style Conan. Its grittier than bog standard D&D but not as gritty as REH. (by the way, I realize that "gritty" is one of those now meaningless buzzwords - hopefully you know what I mean).
2) I personally do not think that a class/level game is the best way to approach swords and sorcery, pretty much no matter how well it is modified. I think skill based games like BRP, RQ, GURPS and the like are better fit.
That said, C&T does a great job of D&D Conan because:
1) The sorcery system. Spells are divided into Black, Grey, and White varieties. Spellcasting does psychological and/or physical damage to the caster depending on the severity of the spell. Spellcasters are potentially powerful but they are playing with fire.
2) A simple sanity system that works like HP based on the Wisdom stat works well to convey the horror elements and the mind-warping of sorcery.
3) A simple resolution mechanic based on the S&W saving throw and modified by class and character background. It's not quite a skill system but it adds some breadth to the 4 classes (fighter, barbarian, thief and sorcerer).
4) Combat is a little deadlier for several reasons. HD are all D6 based (D6-1 to D6 +2) kinda like white box, but weapon damage is higher using polyhedrals. (Mongoose did something similar increasing weapon damage compared to character HP). Damage is changed with HP representing fatigue and CON points representing physical damage. Finally, fighters get a boost with fighting styles that make them deadlier in combat than bog standard D&D.
5) Of course, non-genre stuff (like demi-humans, turning undead, etc.) is removed. No healing or resurrection. No Alignments. There are some rules on magic items too essentially removing them except for ancient evil artifacts and such (for which there are examples).
6) Optional rules for XP, Chaos (Moorcock style), Passions, and some random tables of S&S themed stuff.
7) It's rules lite and easy to tweek, it's also still fully compatible with other OSR/D&D stuff (if you know what your doing).
Those are the major points as I remember them, (I am in the process of moving and don't have my books so someone might be able to fact check me).
Quote from: Madprofessor;886772Sheesh, Spinachcat, asking me to justify my opinions is just a step too far :).
After the 2D20 Conan wankfest, I am going to grill you like a steak!! :)
Good luck with your move!
Quote from: Madprofessor;8867721) C&T is best for cinematic comic book style Conan. Its grittier than bog standard D&D but not as gritty as REH. (by the way, I realize that "gritty" is one of those now meaningless buzzwords - hopefully you know what I mean).
Assume I don't. What do YOU mean by gritty?
How does "cinematic comic book Conan" differ from REH in your opinion?
As Modiphius is promoting their 2D20 Conan as the REH RPG, what do you see lacking in C&T that would make it more Marvel Conan or Arnold Conan compared to REH Conan?
Quote from: Madprofessor;886772That said, C&T does a great job of D&D Conan because:
Interesting. Sounds like some of the S&W house rules that we were bouncing around forums a few years ago. Glad somebody codified them.
How does the Fighter differ from the Barbarian in C&T?
Quote from: Madprofessor;886772Damage is changed with HP representing fatigue and CON points representing physical damage.
How do we know when my sword cuts the monster versus just making it sleepy?
We had that problem in SpyCraft which had Vitality and Wounds, and unless you scored a crit or they ran out of Vitality, you didn't actually wound the target with your fully auto machinegun with armor piercing explosive rounds.
Quote from: Madprofessor;886772No healing or resurrection.
No healing? Just natural healing? Do you quickly regain Fatigue?
QuoteOriginally Posted by Spinachcat
After the 2D20 Conan wankfest, I am going to grill you like a steak!!
Wankfest!?! Oh, for cryin out loud. Wankfest. (grumbles, and mutters under his breath) Damn vegi cat. I had significant... oh nevermind.
QuoteAssume I don't. What do YOU mean by gritty?
I mean that the imaginary world operates on a mortal scale where the laws of physics and human limitations govern almost all of the action, and the player expectations of what can be accomplished. The exceptions would be the rare punctuation of the supernatural. In a gritty game, mundane things like six inches of steel in the gut, exposure to the elements, or falling off a cliff have mortal implications, and the supernatural is terrifying because it breaks those mortal boundaries and is thus beyond reason. Fear, I think has a lot to do with it.
In a gritty game, heroism is unexpected and comes from human frailty and the courage to face it. In a cinematic game, heroism is expected and comes primarily either from super-human abilities or from dramatic structure.
QuoteHow does "cinematic comic book Conan" differ from REH in your opinion?
To my mind REH stories are "gritty" as I described above. True, the protagonist is an exceptionally gifted and talented mortal and of course, he never dies in the stories, but Conan never takes death for granted. For example, the thrill of combat that he experiences is the joy of life when death is so near. Conan is no coward but he will run when the odds are plainly stacked against him or when the rewards of risk are not high enough. He genuinely fears the supernatural because it is beyond his control and understanding. He doesn't die because REH needed to sell stories, but it never feels contrived, and the sense of mortal heroism is never lost.
OTOH, Sprauge de Camp novels, comic books, Conan movies (actually the first Arnold Movie is pretty gritty), and other pop-culture Conans are more like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. There is adventure aplenty, good stories, and imaginative concepts, but because A) the action is regularly super-human and B) characters do not fear their own mortality or the physical world (often because the only thing that can kill them is the appropriate dramatic moment).
QuoteAs Modiphius is promoting their 2D20 Conan as the REH RPG, what do you see lacking in C&T that would make it more Marvel Conan or Arnold Conan compared to REH Conan?
As far as gaming goes there is no right or wrong about either of the above two styles. However, to capture the essence of REH's Conan in an RPG, the element of mortal heroism,overcoming human fears and limitations (grittiness), is essential IMHO. D&D isn't very good at grittiness no matter how you slice it so C&T is still more cinematic than REH. I won't speculate on 2d20's grittiness lest I am accused of wanking.
Sheesh - I hope the steak is well-done enough for you. :D
QuoteHow does the Fighter differ from the Barbarian in C&T?
I honestly can't remember much about the Barbarian class except that it was based on a late '70s White Dwarf article. The Fighter picked fighting styles every few levels kinda like feats except there were only ten or so to choose from.
QuoteHow do we know when my sword cuts the monster versus just making it sleepy?
I think PCs and important NPCs treat CON as Meat Points and HP as fatigue, while everyone else (monsters and minions) used HP as Meat Points, but I don't have the book in front of me so don't quote me on it.
QuoteNo healing? Just natural healing? Do you quickly regain Fatigue?
I should have said no
magical healing. Fatigue healed quickly. CON healed slowly. I seem to recall that carousing or a stiff drink would heal fatigue (PC HP)
Quote from: Madprofessor;886891Sheesh - I hope the steak is well-done enough for you. :D
THAT was awesome and VERY helpful! Thank you!
C&T is also very easy to tinker with and modify. You can take out or add in all kinds of sub-systems and house rules without breaking the game.
Well, fuck me with Arnold's Biceps, I'm actually intrigued for both systems now.
Damn you all! I can't afford to spend cash! Seriously, I had a hardware failure, and that means a lean month for the next two or three.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Christopher Brady
Well, fuck me with Arnold's Biceps, I'm actually intrigued for both systems now.
Ha!
Seriously, don't break the bank, but... both of these are small businesses run by great guys (well, as far my conversations with them have gone) so I am sure they would appreciate the business, if you get the chance.
Quote from: Madprofessor;887236Ha!
Seriously, don't break the bank, but... both of these are small businesses run by great guys (well, as far my conversations with them have gone) so I am sure they would appreciate the business, if you get the chance.
Well, given that C&T 2e is not out yet is giving me a bit of a reprieve, but... The BOTH sound intriguing. Makes me wonder how much I can tinker with both.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Christopher Brady
Well, given that C&T 2e is not out yet is giving me a bit of a reprieve, but... The BOTH sound intriguing. Makes me wonder how much I can tinker with both.
If I had to make a choice...
I hate to say this, but as much as I like AS&SH, it is a game that I can live without, and if I was in a cash pinch, it might not be my first choice. It's a very pretty game, especially for a small press, but for me it is not a "must have" unless you are a big Clark Ashton Smith fan (which I am) or a big fan of 1e D&D (which I am not).
C&T (1st edition) is not a pretty game but the rules are worth the price if you like both D&D and Swords and Sorcery. Of hundreds of games in my collection, it's one of a handful that gets played. I would wait for 2e though.
Quote from: Madprofessor;887247If I had to make a choice...
I hate to say this, but as much as I like AS&SH, it is a game that I can live without, and if I was in a cash pinch, it might not be my first choice. It's a very pretty game, especially for a small press, but for me it is not a "must have" unless you are a big Clark Ashton Smith fan (which I am) or a big fan of 1e D&D (which I am not).
C&T (1st edition) is not a pretty game but the rules are worth the price if you like both D&D and Swords and Sorcery. Of hundreds of games in my collection, it's one of a handful that gets played. I would wait for 2e though.
I started with AD&D 2e (as I'm sure everyone is sick of me mentioning, but I'd rather tell people something they know, rather than hold anything important by assuming that they already know) and been running (among other games, I'm something of an eclectic gamer) D&D in it's various forms for about 31 years, so I'm not particularly attached to any one edition.
And I've read this thread, so it's been said that AS&SH is very tied to AD&D? How is C&T in that regard. Again, as I've said elsewhere a game I don't alter/house rule is a game I don't play (as in I do it automatically, rather than some elitist BS. Often I don't realize I've already houseruled it.)
So my question is: How easy is it to mod C&T or AS&SH?
C&T is essentially modded S&W--it would thus seem incredibly easy to mod further.
I understand that the upcoming 2e of C&T will be considerably different from the first edition, and from what little I have read it seems like it's moving away from S&W into it's own, more "Modern" game (For example, saving throws are chucked out in favor of luck points that are spent).
Nope, still firmly a Swords & Wizardry variant :) Most of the extra content is background material, example adventures, new magic items, 5 new character classes inspired by Swords & Sorcery and Dark Fantasy. Its still firmly Swords & Wizardry based - there's the two methods of using Armour Class for example.
The whole Test your Luck mechanic is actually based upon a very old school mechanic from the 1980s Fighting Fantasy Game-book series. Also its easy enough to swap out for your favorite Old School Save System of choice.
Quote from: Newt;887294Nope, still firmly a Swords & Wizardry variant :)
Very glad to hear this. Thank you for clarifying this, and I'm very much looking forward to the game!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;887262I started with AD&D 2e
Same here, man. Played 2E in middle and high school, then quit the hobby until around age 30 or so, when I picked up 1E.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;887262And I've read this thread, so it's been said that AS&SH is very tied to AD&D?
So my question is: How easy is it to mod C&T or AS&SH?
Without knowing exactly what you have in mind, after playing 2E for years, 1E for years and AS&SH for the past two years or so, I would say that AS&SH is as easy to modify as 1E or 2E (i.e., very easy). Anything different has seemed pretty simple and modular. The PDF is a ridiculous $10, sometimes cheaper if you have a discount code for RPG Now - just check it out. I think the Hyperborea setting's Gazetteer alone is worth that much, to be honest. You could easily make Hyperborea the "top of the world" or use it as a pocket dimension in an existing setting.
As for the print copy, be aware that a) Jeff's running out of box sets [so if that's your thing, better hurry - my old pics here (http://hyperborea.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=19)] and b) may release a hardback second print/edition later this year or early 2017.
I just purchased AS&SH this morning and so far I really like it. The 120-page Bestiary alone make it a great supplement for any OSR game. I plan to use it with Godbound.
QuoteOriginally Posted by Christopher Brady
And I've read this thread, so it's been said that AS&SH is very tied to AD&D? How is C&T in that regard. Again, as I've said elsewhere a game I don't alter/house rule is a game I don't play (as in I do it automatically, rather than some elitist BS. Often I don't realize I've already houseruled it.)
So my question is: How easy is it to mod C&T or AS&SH?
Either system can be moded easily by anyone with experience running older editions of D&D. I mod and houserule everything too. I personally think C&T is easier, as a base, to mod because there is just less of it. It's a lighter game and therefore easier to work with. But when I play D&D, it's a mish-mash of all older editions plus OSR stuff. I make up a lot of the rules from whole cloth, and gladly pull from whatever to make it work, so maybe I am not the best person to ask.
C&T is very easy to modify. Being a Swords&Wizardry variant it is more akin to B/X, BECM or 0D&D than to AD&D in mechanics and feel. The included setting is really provided by means of example and can easily be ignored or altered.
There are reams of S&W materials available from numerous publishers all of which can be plugged in to C&T with little or no effort required.
This thread has gotten me interested in AS&SH. Now I must wait for the KS for the 2nd edition.
Quote from: Starglyte;887539This thread has gotten me interested in AS&SH. Now I must wait for the KS for the 2nd edition.
Has a 2nd Edition been announced?
Quote from: Maese Mateo;887542Has a 2nd Edition been announced?
Edit: See Starglyte's link below. Also, here's a whole thread (http://hyperborea.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=106) from the AS&SH board. Last update below:
Quote from: Ghul in Nov 2015Quote from: ChainsawAnything new you can share, Jeff?
It's on! I've been working on it, and others have, too.
ART!
- Charles Lang is working on the cover. He has sent me several conceptual sketches. Things are coming together nicely on that front!
- Val Semeiks will be doing six full-page frontispiece illustrations that will mark each of the six "volumes" or chapters of the game. He starts in December.
- Johnathan Bingham is working on interiors. He is doing a series of full-page class illustrations -- of which there will be 26 in total! After that he might be taking on some larger scene pictures.
- Del Teigeler will be doing several monster illustrations.
- Glynn Seal is going to tackle the world map.
WRITING!
I've got contributions from Ben Ball, Michael Haskell, and Colin Chapman (has anyone seen or heard from him?). Some of these contributions will be worked into the hardback alongside the three new subclasses (cryomancer, huntsman, purloiner), as well as a fourth subclass that I'm still fiddling with. It was going to be a seer, but I've been experimenting with another subclass, and I'm liking it more -- a Viking-style runecaster.*
EDITING!
David Prata will edit the whole, tidying up the new material and combing through the original material.*
It's a work in progress, I'm happy to say, but I'm also working on something else, too. Never a dull moment in the hoary wastes of Hyperborea! ;)
Cheers,
Jeff T.
Quote from: Maese Mateo;887542Has a 2nd Edition been announced?
http://www.hyperborea.tv/kickstarter.html
They mention that their next planned Kickstarter will be for the 2nd edition.
Quote from: Starglyte;887582http://www.hyperborea.tv/kickstarter.html
They mention that their next planned Kickstarter will be for the 2nd edition.
Totally forgot about that!