What is the state of Conan 2d20 ruleset & module development

[statik37]

I have been planning the next rpg season and Conan 2d20 is always on the list. I decided to check how things are with the ruleset. I have seen that the old domain and forums are wiped and threads lost... Looking at the new site I am again puzzled and wondering if this ruleset has any future and hope to see the light of days as fully fleshed product line. Why the rant again?

On the Coming soon I see 4 (four) new and quite different products planned or in the works. I always welcome that, especially if they are planned for Fantasy Grounds, but then I begin to wonder... Checking the forums, in the single thread I find the "roadmap" for Conan:


I really don't understand based on what you are making this roadmap, but the only product that makes sense from user perspective is the "Horrors", which is kind of monster manual. There are FIVE amazing "Conan the..." books before the adventurer that are much more valuable to be converted first as they carry the core Conan tropes and themes. And this does not take into account the Ancient Ruins book that is great resource for the GMs.

Adding the extreme slow pace (or lack of) in addressing issues such as Reference Manual and ruleset enhancements to the automation, I really wonder if there is any point to continue following this. I personally made 3 full modules for my own usage by converting The Thief, Pirate and Mercenary over 2-3 weeks with full reference manual and NPS/Items/Careers/Encounters libraries for MoreCore, and I am single person with probably less time on my hands than four of you combined. And you work on 4 rulesets now with their own set of content.

PS: Fix the product title, there is "Of" that you forgot: https://nerdeyeindustries.com/Products/Conan

We are sorry you are not happy with how things are going. However, we have not abandoned it. Nor did we ever imply that we would. We are actively working on fixes and new content daily. I am also sorry it is not going a a pace you are satisfied with, we are certainly doing our best.

As far as the site goes, we felt having multiple URLs was no longer needed and we funneled everything into one. Also, the Frum install we had before did not allow us to export the forums and import them to the new site. We wanted to update everything, and that was a victim of progress.

You are welcome to follow along the new forums, if you like. I assure you they will not be going anywhere at any point. We also installed a new Bug feature to our forums. So if you post in the Bugs subforum, it auto generates a ticket for us, so we can stay on top of things better.

Yes, we have 4 other products on the horizon. And yes, they are not all the same, but that doesn't stop us from continuing to improve what we have out there. If you notice, some of the future products are also 2d20. What this means is as we complete one, we add new functionality to it, and then we push that functionality to everything that is already out there.

I also feel, as is the case with most development, there will never be a "fully fleshed product", because there will always be room for improvement. I would ask you to be patient, but it seems you have already made up your mind, and I am affraid, no matter what we do, it won't be good enough for you.

Enjoy your next season of RPGs, whatever it is you choose to play.

[Valyar]

We are sorry you are not happy with how things are going. However, we have not abandoned it. Nor did we ever imply that we would. We are actively working on fixes and new content daily. I am also sorry it is not going a a pace you are satisfied with, we are certainly doing our best.

...

I also feel, as is the case with most development, there will never be a "fully fleshed product", because there will always be room for improvement. I would ask you to be patient, but it seems you have already made up your mind, and I am affraid, no matter what we do, it won't be good enough for you.

Enjoy your next season of RPGs, whatever it is you choose to play.

Thanks for the response! I want to state that I haven't given up on your ruleset and the reason I rant is because I know it can be very good if the mentioned by all of us improvements are put in timely manner and we get more modules. After all, Conan 2d20 is fantastic game, in top 3 of many groups around and not getting what it deserves is causing grief

The "fleshed product" I mean is to have the product line available. To be fair, I quickly converted my modules to your ruleset (thanks XML format and bulk processing!) so I can enjoy my work while playing on the official one. Too bad there was no way to move the NPCs, just Reference manual, story and talents.

I hope we start we proper updates, more often and modules in the right order.

[Theros]

Thank you for the prompt answer, Sunspoticus.

From customer perspective (player and GM) my concerns are valid - you have four 2d20 rulesets that seems are WiP and even though the game mechanics share the same core, the systems fork and differ. And if Conan is stalling like that with four developers, I don't want to think what might be when you spread over the various products.

I would give the benefit of the doubt here and see how things progress in the following weeks. I will put my Conan 2d20 plans in favor of another short campaign and return in few months. I hope there are no hard feelings.

I would say that core with some minor differences would not cause that much harm. It would even boost sales, as updates to Conan seems to be rather minor.

[ShotGun Jolly]

Ok, so what is the status of the combat tracker?

I have been watching these forums for updates on these particular requests, and there is still nothing as far as I can see.

IS anything going to be done to make the tracker more 2D20 Conan friendly?

If I sound impatient, is that I am.. I want to play this using the official ruleset so bad.. but until it can.. I am sticking to MoreCore.

[PhilAdams]

After lots of delays, I'm starting a Conan campaign this week (tomorrow). I'm going back and forth right now over whether to stick to the MoreCore ruleset I've been using for previous one-offs or to try to power through the official ruleset until it's actually usable. I don't like piling on, but this ruleset isn't ready for primetime and should not have been put up for sale in its current state.

For managing NPC rolls, I'm currently looking at using a PC owned by the GM (named GM Rolls). I'll plug stats into those as necessary. This would slow things down a lot, but I think it's the best approach. Or am I missing existing NPC functionality right now? The way I see Foes entries, the characters are given attributes and the associated skill grouping bonuses, but there's no place to turn those into actual skill rolls. Bare minimum, there should be a row where the GM can convert those values into Expertise, Focus, Stat and click the resulting roll (along with a place to specify the number of dice to roll).

[Trenloe]

Or am I missing existing NPC functionality right now? The way I see Foes entries, the characters are given attributes and the associated skill grouping bonuses, but there's no place to turn those into actual skill rolls. Bare minimum, there should be a row where the GM can convert those values into Expertise, Focus, Stat and click the resulting roll (along with a place to specify the number of dice to roll).

See steps here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post499499

There was a user guide linked here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l=1#post499607 But that doesn't appear to be valid any more.

[PhilAdams]

Ah! Thanks, Trenloe!

When I tried that the first time, it wasn't doing things right. I just realized even if it says it's clearing the entries you've double-clicked (the target number goes to zero) that it doesn't.

I think populating it in the NPC sheet (a single line like I mentioned where you have parameter fields) would be faster.

[Trenloe]

Ah! Thanks, Trenloe!

When I tried that the first time, it wasn't doing things right. I just realized even if it says it's clearing the entries you've double-clicked (the target number goes to zero) that it doesn't.

I think populating it in the NPC sheet (a single line like I mentioned where you have parameter fields) would be faster.

The way it's done now is how it's done in the core rules - NPCs don't have separate expertise and focus for each skill like PCs do. A couple of double-clicks (once on the attribute and once on the relevant field of expertise), set difficulty and number of dice in the usual location under the chat window, and you can do the roll. Or, if you just want to roll against a TN (target number), click on the target number control under the chat window and enter the TN, set difficulty and number of dice in the usual location, you can also do it that way too. I don't think that adding fields to a NPC record that aren't part of the standard format is the way to go, IMO. But the current setup can be streamlined for frequently used attribute/expertise combinations. The main issue I have with the current setup is running NPC skill tests in combat - if the main NPC skills used in combat would be a single double-click field, or a single-click button, to make the roll in a weapon line (attack) and also a similar reaction fields/buttons for possible reactions, it would make the process of using NPCs in combat a lot less fiddly than it is now.

[PhilAdams]

I've run Conan for a couple years (a major Kickstarter backer, a HUGE fan of the setting), so I'm familiar with the rules. Is the objective to reflect the look of the rules or the functionality of the system? The foes in the rulebooks are set up the way they are to reduce the size of their stat blocks. A parameterized entry that lets you create the roll(s) in question seems an elegant solution to me.

I'm wondering if part of my problem is that with my Mac's resolution, those buttons and such in the bottom left of the screen are pretty small targets to play with. Add to that I have a busted up elbow at the moment, so mouse (trackpad) cursoring all over the screen is extremely unappealing. Then again, mouse cursoring would be (I thought) a basic UI design thing to minimize. RSI is a real thing.

Regardless, this makes the decision to stick with the official ruleset for now easier. Thanks again!

[Trenloe]

Is the objective to reflect the look of the rules or the functionality of the system?

I'd say both. I'm probably not envisaging what you're envisaging when you say "Bare minimum, there should be a row where the GM can convert those values into Expertise, Focus, Stat..."