2D20 CONAN RPG - My Thoughts (and why I don't like the system)

[Water Bob]

For those that don't know (and, I know a lot of people are unfamiliar with the 2d20 system), this is how the new Conan RPG is going to work, as far as I understand it.

Please correct me if I am wrong about any of this.





Task Difficulty is measured in successes.

Average = 1
Challenging = 2
Daunting = 3
Dire = 4
Epic = 5




Characters have Attributes and Skills.

In order to roll a task, you roll one or more d20 dice. The default is two d20 dice, which is why the system is called 2d20.

Attribute + Skill = Target Number.

When you roll under (or equal) your Target Number, you gain a success.

If you also roll under (or equal) your Skill Number, you gain a bonus success.

Thus, if you had Attribute 9 and Skill 2, you would gain a success for every time you rolled 11 or less. And, you would gain an additional success if the die was also 2 or less.



Example.

You need to complete a task, and the Game Master has said that the task requires two successes.

You have Attribute 9 and Skill 2. Your Target Number is 11.

You roll two d20 dice, and get 2, 14. You rolled two successes. Both successes came on the first die roll. It was equal to or lower than both your target number and your skill level. The second die, you failed the task. Thus, on this roll, you rolled two successes and one failure. Failures cancel out successes. Thus, for the total roll, you failed the task because you only rolled one success (you needed two successes to succeed on the task).





Natural 20.

If you roll a natural 20, this is a Critical Failure. The GM will do one of two things with a Crit. He will immediately do something against the character who made the roll. Like this:

Extending the example above, you are trying to open a locked chest. It's a Challenging difficulty, so you need 2 successes. You have the appropriate attribute 11 and appropriate skill 2, meaning that your target number is 13/2 (13 for less for a success and 2 or less for a success).

You roll 2d20 and get: 20, 9.

That's a Critical Failure and a single success in the same roll.

You don't have enough successes to open the lock, so you failed there.

And, you rolled a Crit that your GM decides to implement immediately...


You feel a sharp, quick pain and look down to see that the lock was trapped, and there is a small red dot of a pin prick in your hand. You're sure that you've been poisoned.

Note that it is possible to both be successful at a task and roll a failure. Had the lock required only 1 success, then you would have opened the lock AND sprung the trap.



This is a part of the rules I'm fuzzy on: Do Crit Failures not also cancel out successes? Or, is it only normal failures? If so, how is a successful task rolled with a failure?





Momentum

Any time you roll more successes than you need, you get Points. This is called momentum. If you need 2 successes, and you roll 4 successes, then you have 2 momentum.

When you roll momentum, you can spend the points you get to do extra stuff.

1 point per extra d6 can be spent to get you extra damage from a successful attack.

1 point spent can get you a called shot with your success. You choose the hit location instead of rolling it.

2 points spent can get you a second hit location. You do normal damage to your original hit location, then you roll for a second hit location and do half damage to that area.

1 point spent can allow you to re-roll any number of dice that you roll for damage.

Stuff like that.





A player can throw any number of dice when making a task. (I'm fuzzy about this, too. I think it is correct.) More dice gives you more chances to roll successes, but it also gives you more chances to roll failures and Critical Failures.





Bad Points.

The GM starts the game with a certain number of Bad Points. I call them "Bad Points" because the writers of the Conan game haven't yet decided on a name for these points when last I read the beta test rules. "Bad Points" will work for our illustrative purposes here.

The Bad Points represent the obstacles, challenge, and evil forces working against the characters.

Whenever a Player rolls a Critical Failure (a natural 20), two Bad Points are added to the pool (unless the GM immediately imposed a complication on the player, as I outlined above in the example where the character was hit with a poison needle from the trapped trunk).

Anytime a player adds dice to a throw, add a Bad Point for each extra die used.

You don't have to do any bookkeeping with these Bad Points. Just use a token. The game will probably come with some type of token to use. Everybody has a lot of six sided dice. Use those. Any time a Bad Point is added to the pool, drop a d6 token die into a cup. The cup holds the total Bad Points available to the GM. I've read that some GMs who like the system use this as a way to mount dread on the players--a clear glass or bowl used to hold the Bad Point tokens. As they see the bowl fill up, they know the crap is going to hit the fan.

Personally, I don't like this meta-gaming at all. If I want to hit my players with foreboding, I'll do it. Sometimes, I want surprises--I don't want them expecting twists and turns in the game.



Spending Bad Points

NPCs normally act, in this game, after the PCs. Bad Points can be spent to allow NPCs to act before a PC or to even interrupt a PC's turn.

Bad Points can be spent to introduce unforeseen problems. The GM uses these points to make things worse for the players. This used to be called "bad GMing", when a GM takes advantage and makes a situation worse than it was supposed to originally be.







ANOTHER COMMENT

When I first started my Mongoose d20 Conan game (my first campaign), I used the optional d20 rule called Active Defense. This is where character's don't have static numbers for Armor Class. Instead, the player rolls his defense.

Basically, an AC value is akin to Taking Ten on a defense roll. If you have AC 13, then your Active Defense roll is d20 + 3.

I used this with the Conan game. And, it was fun, to a point. But, I noticed something. The game was less immersive. By having my players roll the defense actively, the players became more aware that they were playing a game. Rolling the die for defense took them out of the story and focused them on the dice rolling.

When I went back to using static AC numbers, with the players no longer fiddling with rolling their defense, what do you know! My players found themselves more immersed in the game. They weren't thinking about the dice roll and if they could beat my dice attack roll. They were picturing the fight in their heads. I would roll behind my screen so that the players could not see my attacks. And, this way, they had to listen to my description of the encounter--which is a lot more immersive than just watching one die beat another--to see if they were hit.

They lived through the experience. They envisioned it.

And, this certainly wasn't happening as often or a deeply when they were rolling their Active Defenses.



I see the 2d20 in the same light. Although it claims to be, it's not an immersive system. It focuses the characters on dice rolling. If focuses them on game mechanics. When, the players really should be focusing their thoughts on living through the action as their characters.



I said above, too, that I dislike the way Momentum and the Bad Points pool affect the game. Back in my AD&D days, I used a rule where a natural one meant a fumble, and a fumble was whatever the GM could make up at the time. Sometimes, I had some neat ideas for fumbles. Other times, I didn't. But, the natural "1" was still there on the die, and I had to make up something.

Also, I found this openness with the fumble led to arguments between me and the players. I'd come up with something that I thought appropriate and fitting to the situation. The player wouldn't like it and think it was unfair--too strict compared to what I had done for another person when his character rolled a fumble.

I ended up with coming up with a standard rule that if a natural "1" was thrown, it meant you opened up in combat, let your guard down, and your foe got a free attack on you (what would later be called an Attack of Opportunity in 3rd Edition).

I see these points in the new Conan game forcing issues like this. I don't see it as a good thing at all. I understand that Momentum can be used by player to have their characters pull of stunts and heroic actions that the player makes up. This is just like my Fumble rule (but in reverse) above. I don't think it will play will and lead to arguments.

As for the "Bad Points", again, I don't like them. I don't want to be forced to do anything with them as a GM. If I want an additional guard detachment to come down the hall, then I'll have them come. Or, I'll roll a Listen check or something like that to see if the guards hear the PCs fighting their comrades. I don't need a mass of Bad Points to have those other guards come down the hall, and I don't want to wait on getting the Bat Points to a level I need them in order to activate my other guards.





So, yeah, I'm against the 2d20 system for the new Conan game. If it stays, there's a 90% chance that I will not be buying the new game. I may not have the game system completely correct, but I think I'm close enough to fairly evaluate it. Again, please. If you see me say something that is incorrect about the game, then please correct me.

I've heard that the company publishing the new Conan game has a history or dual publishing. If they publish the new Conan game using the 5E rules, then they've got me. I've looked at the new D&D 5E rules, and I'm quite impressed. They are less crunch than either 3rd or 4th edition, and they have an early AD&D feel to them. Yet, they still include the more modern aspects of the d20 system (such as Feats). I think WotC hit the ball out of the park with this new edition of D&D.

I would highly welcome a Conan game based on those rules.

[Enixon]

You roll two d20 dice, and get 2, 14. You rolled two successes. Both successes came on the first die roll. It was equal to or lower than both your target number and your skill level. The second die, you failed the task. Thus, on this roll, you rolled two successes and one failure. Failures cancel out successes. Thus, for the total roll, you failed the task because you only rolled one success (you needed two successes to succeed on the task).




kind of a nitpick, but failures don't cancel out successes, at least not in Infinity or Conan going from the quickstarts

The quickstart for Conan is free even if you don't back the kickstarter so posting this is problay ok
from the Conan quickstart, page 12
"For example, the Argossian sailor Zachirios is making
a Craft test. His Intelligence is 8, he has an Expertise
of 3, and a Focus of 2. The Target Number is 11 (8 + 3).
Zachirios’ player rolls 2d20 and gets results of 13 and
1. The result of 13 generates no successes, but the result
of 1 generates two successes: one for being equal to or
lower than the TN and a second for being equal to or
lower than the Focus in the skill."

[Water Bob]

Note that the Quick Start rules have been refined from what I read in the play test when I wrote the post above.

I still have the same complaints as I describe above, though, and more. I find Modiphius' 2d20 system to be a horrible fit for a Conan game.




Here's an example (among many), of what I'm saying: Modiphius' 2d20 system was originally created for Mutant Chronicles. In the universe of MC, there is a omnipresent force called Dark Symmetry that influences the world. It's kind of an evil version of the Force in Star Wars. So, the meta-game mechanic, called "Doom Points" in the Conan game (the name has changed several times--I called it "Bad Points" in the OP above) and Dark Symmetry Points in the Mutant Chronicles game, made sense in the MC game. Dark Symmetry Points reflected the influence of Dark Symmetry in the game world.

What Modiphius has done is taken a game system designed for them for a particular game and then shoehorned it into every game system that they publish and will publish in the future. Normally, this isn't a bad thing. Look at how the d20 system has been bent and folded and molded to fit other game universes.

The problem is that Modiphius' 2d20 system has this meta-game mechanic central to the game system where being heroic (a player spending Doom points to gain more d20 dice to throw on a task, thereby improving his odds of success and making very hard tasks easier to achieve) is always punished. The player spends Doom points. Doom points are collected in a jar (buttons in a jar is sometimes selected). And, then, later, someone (doesn't have to be the person who generated the Doom) pays the price of those Doom points being generated when the Ref decides to use the Doom points to increase the level of difficulty for the players. The Ref can be spend Doom points on special maneuvers for NPCs, adding more NPCs or monsters to an encounter, making events happen (like a rock slide). Stuff like that.

The relationship is: Player 1 is heroic by spending Doom points....and this leads to someone in the group having a harder time and more obstacles later in the game.

Now, that relationship is fine if you're playing Mutant Chronices. You're seeing the effect of Dark Symmetry in the game. That's why the 2d20 system was designed that way.



But, Conan's world doesn't operate that way. There's no overwhelming "Force", like there is in Star Wars or Mutant Chronicles (the same person designed the system used in FFG's Star Wars game, which has a similar mechanic to show the influence of The Force). In fact, Conan's world is about an individual, a strong sword arm, and the will to face one's enemies!

The game system doesn't fit Conan's Hyborian Age at all (and it doesn't fit any game world where there is no "Force" or "Dark Symmetry" like influence in the universe).

It is a flat out horrible choice for a Conan RPG. Yet, Modiphius has shoe-horned the system into their game.




Another aspect of the system that I just can't stand is that the Doom system is a gimmicky meta-game mechanic. Player will see the buttons in the jar rise and this will guide their actions. "Look, the Doom level is getting high! We'd better cool it with spending Doom points because we're giving the Ref too much ammo to use against us!"

That's not role playing. The players aren't reacting to the events in the story and game world as perceived by their characters. They're looking at a point total increase, and for that reason alone, they've decided to "cool it" on the heroics.

This is just another example of how the game system doesn't fit Conan's world at all.

[Chambers]

I see the Bad Points as a narrative tool for the GM. You mention the history of the mechanic as an Evil Force kind of thing. Consider this analogy for Conan: Stories are driven by conflict. Certainly in the Conan stories, Conan doesn't have it easy all the time. If I ran this system, I would think of Bad Points as a mechanic to introduce conflict into a story. Twist the Adventurers arm a little bit, give them a minor complication that they have to deal with.

Basically, instead of thinking of it as a malevolent force, perhaps consider it as a tool to drive the story. I see this kind of mechainc in a number of new RPG's (for example, the Moves that the GM makes in Dungeon World when the characters fail a task). Granted, a GM doesn't need rules for how to introduce conflict into a game, but having some kind of rule/mechanic there can act as a balancing tool with regard to how often (and to what degree) a wrench gets thrown into the characters plans.

I haven't read the Quick Start rules myself, but I like narrative tools like that, where the players are the ones judging the risks and rewards. Do I use this extra dice now? How important is succeeding on this task, right at this moment? It can build good tension, as the players control the pacing of the Bad Points depending on how much they use the extra dice or what have you.

[Water Bob]

If I ran this system, I would think of Bad Points as a mechanic to introduce conflict into a story. Twist the Adventurers arm a little bit, give them a minor complication that they have to deal with.

But....conflict is already in the game. In fact, Bad Points are most often generated because a player needs his character to overcome some conflict. What the Bad Points do (and what is very unattractive to a game set in Conan's universe) is that generating the points even MORE conflict later.

Bad Points are similar to Fate Points from the Mongoose d20 game. The difference is, if you use the points in the new Modiphius game, then using the points has consequences--negative consequences for the character. If you use a Fate Point in the Mongoose game, well, your character is just bad-assed and heroic.

For clarity: The Quickstart calls the Bad Points as "Doom Points". There have been a few different monikers.





I haven't read the Quick Start rules myself, but I like narrative tools like that, where the players are the ones judging the risks and rewards. Do I use this extra dice now? How important is succeeding on this task, right at this moment? It can build good tension, as the players control the pacing of the Bad Points depending on how much they use the extra dice or what have you.

Yeah, and I see this as a horrible tool for the game. I don't want my players changing what they do because they see buttons in a jar piling up (the representation of the Doom Points at the table). That's meta-game, and it's bad. What should happen is the GM should make tension in the game when tension is called for. Players should react to the game world because of what their characters know and feel and experience--not because some meta-game counting tool is getting high in front of their eyes.

The Doom Points piling up in a jar in front of the players seems to me better suited to a board game. For example, in a RISK type game, maybe a mechanic like that measures the tension between countries. It really has no place in a roleplaying game where it game give the players a different feeling than the GM is trying to institute to tell his story.

For example, let's say that the buttons in the jar are at a high level because the players have generated a lot of "Doom". But, in the game, the GM has the players at a safe resting place. Here the feeling is completely opposite of what the GM is trying to create in his game. I guess he could say to his players, "Don't worry about the Doom Pool, I promise not to spend those points right now." But, that's an awful way to run a game.

Or...maybe the GM wants to encourage a feeling of safety in a city where the GM knows he's going to surprise the players with a quick encounter. But, the Doom Pool is high. Thus, the players will be on guard, ready for the GM to spring something--all because the damn Doom Pool is high, the entire encounter goes against the what the GM was intending.

I suspect that, once this game comes out, we're all going to see a lot more reports of GMs trying to modify, change, or get rid of this part of the rule system. The problem is that system is centric to the game. Taking it out is like altering the d20 system to not use character levels. Changing that would change so much about the game that you might as well write completely new rules.

[flond]

Yeah, and I see this as a horrible tool for the game. I don't want my players changing what they do because they see buttons in a jar piling up (the representation of the Doom Points at the table). That's meta-game, and it's bad. What should happen is the GM should make tension in the game when tension is called for. Players should react to the game world because of what their characters know and feel and experience--not because some meta-game counting tool is getting high in front of their eyes.

The Doom Points piling up in a jar in front of the players seems to me better suited to a board game. For example, in a RISK type game, maybe a mechanic like that measures the tension between countries. It really has no place in a roleplaying game where it game give the players a different feeling than the GM is trying to institute to tell his story.

For example, let's say that the buttons in the jar are at a high level because the players have generated a lot of "Doom". But, in the game, the GM has the players at a safe resting place. Here the feeling is completely opposite of what the GM is trying to create in his game. I guess he could say to his players, "Don't worry about the Doom Pool, I promise not to spend those points right now." But, that's an awful way to run a game.

Or...maybe the GM wants to encourage a feeling of safety in a city where the GM knows he's going to surprise the players with a quick encounter. But, the Doom Pool is high. Thus, the players will be on guard, ready for the GM to spring something--all because the damn Doom Pool is high, the entire encounter goes against the what the GM was intending.

I suspect that, once this game comes out, we're all going to see a lot more reports of GMs trying to modify, change, or get rid of this part of the rule system. The problem is that system is centric to the game. Taking it out is like altering the d20 system to not use character levels. Changing that would change so much about the game that you might as well write completely new rules.

See, I don't think that'll happen quite as much as you do. The meta-game is now a fairly big part of a lot of games. Indeed to the point where some games already are doing things like this, some of them well regarded (Dread, World of Dew), and two, the fact that the tempo is not...entirely in the hands of the gm is part of the fun of some mechanics like this. It's a willful session of control that produces surprises for everyone at the table, and allows for a narrative arc. Which honestly, is another thing. I tend to side eye when people refer to it as "the gm's story." And if this IS anything like the star wars game it's...similar to that. A nonzero amount of the story is ceded to the mechanics (Duty rolls, etc) and the players (Triumphs, etc). But even ignoring metagame narrative mechanics, I tend to side eye that in general because well...it should be everyone's story. And if you're expecting the players to be ambushed or surprised well...you're already going the wrong way in my opinion.

[Water Bob]

And if you're expecting the players to be ambushed or surprised well...you're already going the wrong way in my opinion.

Ever played the old D&D Expert Set adventure X4 - Master of the Desert Nomads and its sequel, X5 - Temple of Death? If you haven't, then you've missed one of the greats.

Central to that plot is an Abbey that the PCs use as a sanctuary. Except, it's not a sanctuary. It's an evil abbey in disguise.

Can you imagine what it would be like for the Ref when the players get to this abbey where the Ref is trying to make the players feel like the abbey is a safe place for them, but the damn Doom Pool is high--keeping all the players on their toes and wary because they know the Ref has points to use against them?

The Doom Pool would total go against the atmosphere the Ref was trying to create.

And, that problem is entirely meta-game! A silly mechanic, outside of the game, ruins the feeling in game that the Ref was trying to create for the players.

This illuminates another failing of the 2d20 System.

[Asmodai]

Can you imagine what it would be like for the Ref when the players get to this abbey where the Ref is trying to make the players feel like the abbey is a safe place for them, but the damn Doom Pool is high--keeping all the players on their toes and wary because they know the Ref has points to use against them?

The Doom Pool would total go against the atmosphere the Ref was trying to create.

And, that problem is entirely meta-game! A silly mechanic, outside of the game, ruins the feeling in game that the Ref was trying to create for the players.

This illuminates another failing of the 2d20 System.

What's different between knowing your GM can mess you up at any time with any amount of force, or you knowing that your GM can mess you up at any time with any amount of force and play X special tricks on you?

[Water Bob]

What's different between knowing your GM can mess you up at any time with any amount of force, or you knowing that your GM can mess you up at any time with any amount of force and play X special tricks on you?

That's a good point. But, the Doom Pool does have an effect on what the players do. There's a difference in seeing that jar full of buttons, right there in front of you, on the gaming table, and seeing it empty. With it empty, players are more likely to be risky (and therefore buy extra dice and thereby generate Doom). When the Pool is high, players know it, and it does influence their actions (and it shouldn't, since it is completely meta-game).

To speak to my comment above: Normally (a game with no meta-game Doom Pool), players can believe that a "good" aligned temple is a sanctuary. With a Doom Pool full, the players will say, "Yeah, we're in a good aligned temple, but what's the catch?"

It's not that they won't say that without a Doom Pool. It's that they are more likely to play cautiously, no matter what, because of meta-game information ("The Doom Pool is full, fellas, so let's watch it!")

[flond]

Ever played the old D&D Expert Set adventure X4 - Master of the Desert Nomads and its sequel, X5 - Temple of Death? If you haven't, then you've missed one of the greats.

Central to that plot is an Abbey that the PCs use as a sanctuary. Except, it's not a sanctuary. It's an evil abbey in disguise.

Can you imagine what it would be like for the Ref when the players get to this abbey where the Ref is trying to make the players feel like the abbey is a safe place for them, but the damn Doom Pool is high--keeping all the players on their toes and wary because they know the Ref has points to use against them?

The Doom Pool would total go against the atmosphere the Ref was trying to create.

And, that problem is entirely meta-game! A silly mechanic, outside of the game, ruins the feeling in game that the Ref was trying to create for the players.

This illuminates another failing of the 2d20 System.

So a metagame mechanic (the doom pool) ruins a metagame agenda (the gm wants the players to feel safe so they can get screwjobbed?) :P

And while I'm being flippant, I really do feel like that's part of the essential disconnect. Things like doom pool mechanics are GREAT for making the gm a little more a player, for making things a little bit more balanced. Obviously there's a spectrum but, at least in my experience, part of the fun of things like the doom pool is it lets the GM play tactically and reactively as well. It lets the system itself set part of the tension, and create a narrative arc and balance without the gm being expected to do pacing all themselves.

Basically, I think the reason you're so adamantly against this mechanic is that you want to run all the pacing yourself. You want to set up a story as the gm, which the players go through (and maybe change a little, but your skeleton mostly stays firm) and that's NOT what a lot of modern game design is about.

[Water Bob]

Basically, I think the reason you're so adamantly against this mechanic is that you want to run all the pacing yourself. You want to set up a story as the gm, which the players go through (and maybe change a little, but your skeleton mostly stays firm) and that's NOT what a lot of modern game design is about.

I so dead set against it for a number of reasons. I'm an old school gamer, where anything meta-game was always bad. I don't like players reacting to the Doom Pool--changing what they do just because the Doom Pool is high. There's no in-game reason why the players would act that way.

I also don't like how being heroic is punishes someone in the party later on in the game. Let's say you've got a player playing a Conan Barbarian fighter-type who generates a lot of Doom. He just fills the jar. Later, another player is playing a Thief type character, trying to sneak into the Bad Guy Sorcerer's Keep, but the Ref uses the points in the Doom Pool to make it rough for him.

The Fighter character benefited when he generated the doom. Another character--the Thief--pays the price for the Fighter's heroics.

Every point of Doom is generated by the Fighter character. Later, the Thief character runs into all the extra obstacles as the Ref uses all the Doom Points to make things interesting for him. That doesn't make sense to me at all, and if I played the Thief character, I'd be crying foul! "Why am I punished when he got to use all the bonus dice?"

It's a failure in this game system.

[Asmodai]

Bob, the Doom Pool is pretty much controlled by the characters. They want to guarantee success on a difficult roll? They trade it for doom. They have extra successes? Cool, they either get momentum or they lower the doom. It's actually pretty fun in play.

[Water Bob]

Bob, the Doom Pool is pretty much controlled by the characters. They want to guarantee success on a difficult roll? They trade it for doom. They have extra successes? Cool, they either get momentum or they lower the doom. It's actually pretty fun in play.

Yes, I understand that and have represented it correctly above.

One of the many problems with the system, though, is as I have just expressed in my last post. You've got Jeff, who has a character in a large fight, and he buys a lot of extra dice to not only succeed, but also make himself "cool" and do extra things like chopping off a head, then picking it up and throwing it back at the enemies, screaming, "Come and get me, you dogs!" He spends Momentum on to do this, and he got the Momentum because he purchased extra dice on several attacks. Buying that extra dice generated Doom.

Now, later in the game, there's Fred, who is running a Thief character, and he's trying to sneak into the Big Bad Sorcerer's Keep. The Doom Pool is pretty full a this point, do to Jeff's actions earlier in a completely different scene.

Now, Fred can look at that Doom Pool and decide that it's too much to go up against, knowing that the Ref would likely use the Doom Pool against him making the trip into the Sorcerer's abode quite hairy--a lot hairier than it would be if there were no Doom Pool.

That there is meta-gaming. It's ridiculous that Fred will make a game decision for his character based on a Dice Pool, especially if Fred would attempt the trip into the Keep if the Doom Pool were low or at zero.

But, let's say that Fred takes his his thief into the Sorcerer's abode anyway and gets his character killed because of the way the Ref spends points from the Doom Pool.

Is Fred going to be happy about this, knowing that, if Jeff hadn't built up the Doom Pool in the first place, that Fred's Thief character would still be alive?

I don't think so.

I don't think Fred will find the system very fun, either.

What Fred will think is that the system is unfair. Jeff generated the Doom, so what aren't the consequences aimed at Jeff's character? That's what he'll think. Fred will cry, "Why is my character know dead because of the Doom Points that Jeff created?"

Thus, the problem (one of them) with the Doom Pool.

[flond]

As someone who's been in an FFG game which uses a similar system, I've never had a problem with it. Honestly, in my (admittedly limited) experience, expenditures generally come from a sort of soft consensus. (Usually), and if someone's being a point hog well, that's the same as someone being CoDzilla, or such. It's a problem with the player to point out. Otherwise, point divides should turn out to be pretty fair in the long run. (And no, I don't think I'd mind if my PC kacked from something like that. I didn't mind when my PC kacked because of that stonefall trap that I forgot about, and that was way sillier)

And secondly, there's nothing too wrong with metagaming. Used well, metagaming can be a great tool. Especially if you're going at least slightly beyond actor stance play. Metagaming is what lets you wrap up a fight because it's almost over. And it's what lets party cohesion with strange PCs work and let you get to the good part. And it's what makes players do things to shape the story and make it go in interesting ways.

Basically, I guess what I'm saying is, the system doesn't seem to be a problem to me. It reminds me of a lot of similar systems, and similar concerns. Worrying about something like a doom pool is "gamey" yes, but that doesn't always mean bad, and indeed can be a lot of fun. Not every mechanic needs to be firmly associated for it to be a good mechanic and this sounds pretty close to some standard designs. It's not the game for YOU yes, but..your concerns are not the gold standard of rping. (They're not BAD by any means but...well, it's not a BAD system from things like this. Just not for you)

[Water Bob]

As someone who's been in an FFG game which uses a similar system, I've never had a problem with it.

Still...it can happen. You admit that your experience with it is limited.

It's quite logical that it could easily happen as I describe.

Plus, FFG's game is Star Wars. The Pool is not as meta-game with that game as the effects can be chalked up to the Force.

They Hyborian Age has no "Force". That type of thing is not appropriate for Conan's world.






And secondly, there's nothing too wrong with metagaming. Used well, metagaming can be a great tool.

Here, we greatly disagree. If a player would normally take the right tunnel but decides to go through the left tunnel because of the size of a point pool, there's something really, really wrong with that.

[flond]

Still...it can happen. You admit that your experience with it is limited.

It's quite logical that it could easily happen as I describe.

Plus, FFG's game is Star Wars. The Pool is not as meta-game with that game as the effects can be chalked up to the Force.

They Hyborian Age has no "Force". That type of thing is not appropriate for Conan's world.







Here, we greatly disagree. If a player would normally take the right tunnel but decides to go through the left tunnel because of the size of a point pool, there's something really, really wrong with that.

Yes. It could happen like you describe. However, I'd consider that a player problem (one player using all the points all the time) over a system problem.

And yes, we do disagree. But, the pro-metagame faction is a pretty big thing now. Games like Star Wars, Fate (Especally fate. Fate points don't represent anything and let you do lots of things), and more indie style games are big, and taking stuff from them for more mainstream games is a valid choice. Just not the one you favor. :P

[Water Bob]

Yes. It could happen like you describe. However, I'd consider that a player problem (one player using all the points all the time) over a system problem.

And, I think it illuminates a big problem with the game system as applied to the Hyborian Age. With a different game, like Star Wars (or even Mutant Chronicles, for which the 2d20 System was created), the Doom Pool makes more sense.

It's not a good system for a wide variety of games. It's not as flexible as, say, the the D6 system is or the d20 system is.

Yet, 2d20 is being shoehorned into this game regardless of whether it is a good fit or not. Square peg and round hole.




But, the pro-metagame faction is a pretty big thing now. Games like Star Wars, Fate (Especally fate. Fate points don't represent anything and let you do lots of things), and more indie style games are big, and taking stuff from them for more mainstream games is a valid choice. Just not the one you favor. :P

We see these fads every so often. Remember when diceless tasks were big, and some games used a standard deck of playing cards to figure if a task succeeds instead of rolling a die?

And, I still submit that meta-game is bad. Leave that stuff for board games and board wargames. RPGs are about playing characters--getting inside a character's head. interpreting the game universe through the eyes and senses of the character--not by making decisions based on out-of-game dice pools. That's for games like Risk.

Points and point pools are OK, even good, when not used in a metagame way.




You know what would "fix" this game? Get rid of the Doom Pool. If a character generates a Doom Point, then the Ref must use the Doom Point right then, against the character that generated it, with consideration for the task that was used when it was generated.

If you did that, you wouldn't have some players generating Doom and other players paying the price for that Doom generation later.

You wouldn't have players wondering if the Ref was picking on them: "Why did the Ref decide to use points from the Doom Pool now against me when it's my turn, and not against the other player who went before me?"

Without the Doom Pool, you wouldn't have players making in-game decisions for their characters based on out-of-game information. Making a decision based on the size of the Doom Pool (which players will do) is just as bad as player saying, "Hey, I got a look at the GM's notebook and saw what was in the next room. We don't want to go that way."

A lot of things about the game would be fixed if the Doom Pool were taken out.





What Modiphius needs to do is write a supplement or a chapter about using the game without the Doom Pool. You'd still have Momentum and Doom Points. Those points would just have to be spent immediately and not kept for later.

It makes a lot of sense that a player, wanting to throw 5 d20 dice in order (3 more than the 2d20 normal amount) to make sure a task is successful is putting himself at risk of greater failure. Instead of buying Doom automatically and putting it in a pool, have Doom generated by rolling a high number. Therefore, rolling more dice means more chances at Doom (more chances to Fumble).

If Doom is generated, then the Ref applies the Doom (fumble) to the task. If the task is to open a locked chest, then the Ref can use Doom to trigger the trap. If the character is fighting another and generates Doom, then the Ref can apply the Doom to the NPC normally to give him an edge in combat--possibly getting another attack on the PC or increasing damage if a hit is scored.

This is the way this game should be played given the basic 2d20 System.

It's the Doom Pool that is so controversial (do a Google...lots of people take issue with the 2d20 System, and you'll see the Modiphius people fighting posters on almost every popular gaming forum, trying to defend the system. They spend a lot of time trying to defend the system--that should tell you something is wrong). Remove it, or just have the option of removing it (that way, you don't alienate those who like the system), replacing it with a viable method of running the game without the Doom Pool, and I bet Modiphius will have more buyers. And, not just for this game, but for every game they publish under the 2d20 System.

Look around. The 2d20 System has a lot of detractors, and more are popping up and people begin to play through the quickstart.

[flond]

And, I think it illuminates a big problem with the game system as applied to the Hyborian Age. With a different game, like Star Wars (or even Mutant Chronicles, for which the 2d20 System was created), the Doom Pool makes more sense.

It's not a good system for a wide variety of games. It's not as flexible as, say, the the D6 system is or the d20 system is.

Yet, 2d20 is being shoehorned into this game regardless of whether it is a good fit or not. Square peg and round hole.





We see these fads every so often. Remember when diceless tasks were big, and some games used a standard deck of playing cards to figure if a task succeeds instead of rolling a die?

And, I still submit that meta-game is bad. Leave that stuff for board games and board wargames. RPGs are about playing characters--getting inside a character's head. interpreting the game universe through the eyes and senses of the character--not by making decisions based on out-of-game dice pools. That's for games like Risk.

Points and point pools are OK, even good, when not used in a metagame way.




You know what would "fix" this game? Get rid of the Doom Pool. If a character generates a Doom Point, then the Ref must use the Doom Point right then, against the character that generated it, with consideration for the task that was used when it was generated.

If you did that, you wouldn't have some players generating Doom and other players paying the price for that Doom generation later.

You wouldn't have players wondering if the Ref was picking on them: "Why did the Ref decide to use points from the Doom Pool now against me when it's my turn, and not against the other player who went before me?"

Without the Doom Pool, you wouldn't have players making in-game decisions for their characters based on out-of-game information. Making a decision based on the size of the Doom Pool (which players will do) is just as bad as player saying, "Hey, I got a look at the GM's notebook and saw what was in the next room. We don't want to go that way."

A lot of things about the game would be fixed if the Doom Pool were taken out.





What Modiphius needs to do is write a supplement or a chapter about using the game without the Doom Pool. You'd still have Momentum and Doom Points. Those points would just have to be spent immediately and not kept for later.

It makes a lot of sense that a player, wanting to throw 5 d20 dice in order (3 more than the 2d20 normal amount) to make sure a task is successful is putting himself at risk of greater failure. Instead of buying Doom automatically and putting it in a pool, have Doom generated by rolling a high number. Therefore, rolling more dice means more chances at Doom (more chances to Fumble).

If Doom is generated, then the Ref applies the Doom (fumble) to the task. If the task is to open a locked chest, then the Ref can use Doom to trigger the trap. If the character is fighting another and generates Doom, then the Ref can apply the Doom to the NPC normally to give him an edge in combat--possibly getting another attack on the PC or increasing damage if a hit is scored.

This is the way this game should be played given the basic 2d20 System.

It's the Doom Pool that is so controversial (do a Google...lots of people take issue with the 2d20 System, and you'll see the Modiphius people fighting posters on almost every popular gaming forum, trying to defend the system. They spend a lot of time trying to defend the system--that should tell you something is wrong). Remove it, or just have the option of removing it (that way, you don't alienate those who like the system), replacing it with a viable method of running the game without the Doom Pool, and I bet Modiphius will have more buyers. And, not just for this game, but for every game they publish under the 2d20 System.

Look around. The 2d20 System has a lot of detractors, and more are popping up and people begin to play through the quickstart.

Well personally, I still don't have a problem with the doom pool, and think that it's fairly common enough a thing that it's not a problem. If there are other problems, I admit I'm not aware of them. (And...I guess I'm mostly in this to defend metagame mechanics more than 2d20) But, frankly, I'm gonna continue to do that, because if it's a fad, it's been a fad for 10 years. Personally, I find the drive for full actor stance tiresome. Metagame (especally metagame that lets me, the player, futz with the story) is fun. "Try to be your character, ignore everyhing else" gets tiresome imo, and honestly, while it's maybe the plurality of game mechanics, it's by no means the majority anymore.

And diceless games are still around! There are a few big ones kicking about, (Nobilis and derivitives are popular) along with of course, the still well regarded Dread. (Which has a giant metagame jenga tower as its main and only system!)

Also, I will say, having a lot of people complain about your system, while not a sure sign of success, isn't always the worst thing. Look at FFG again.

[Water Bob]

I also think that you're going to have players who will figure the best use of Momentum and always like that. For example, instead of using Momentum to grab a head and throw it back at the enemy, yelling, "Die, you jackals!", you'll have, instead, players who always use Momentum for the best mechanical advantage it can give to the character--extra attacks and extra damage.

Add to this the fact that players get to share the pain from the Doom they generate with the other characters in the party, and you get players looking at generating Doom as a win-now-and-maybe-not-pay-the-consequences system.

I don't think it is very good game design at all. Not for a role playing game.

[flond]

I also think that you're going to have players who will figure the best use of Momentum and always like that. For example, instead of using Momentum to grab a head and throw it back at the enemy, yelling, "Die, you jackals!", you'll have, instead, players who always use Momentum for the best mechanical advantage it can give to the character--extra attacks and extra damage.

Add to this the fact that players get to share the pain from the Doom they generate with the other characters in the party, and you get players looking at generating Doom as a win-now-and-maybe-not-pay-the-consequences system.

I don't think it is very good game design at all. Not for a role playing game.

All I'm going to say is, if someone's doing that and the party doesn't like it, talk about it. If someone's doing that and the party's ok with it...well, that's when the GM can respond in kind :D Also, I seriously don't really see the problem with someone going momentum heavy, if the game runs in a very teamwork oriented way. The other players gained the bonus of whatever was being dealt with being dead now. If that's NOT the case then, possibly problem player? And while system matters it can't fix problem players.

[Asmodai]

Tell you what. How about you sit down and play it. It's actually designed by the same guy that did the FFG Star Wars, and it works pretty well. I've been playtesting it for the past year, and I have to say it's a fun and functional system.

[Water Bob]

Here is a play test that came out two weeks ago that illuminates some of the issues I've highlighted about the 2d20 System. Clicky, clicky. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=34079)

The review is fair, and it's not a rant against the system. There are some things the review likes about 2d20. There are some surprises (things he thought he wouldn't like but didn't mind). And, there are things he does not like. In the end, the cons outweigh the pros for him, and he says that he'll probably only buy pdf adventures for the new Conan RPG to convert to his system of choice.

One of the aspects that he highlights is that the Doom Pool can become adversarial. That's something I posted above. Players may get in a situation where they feel the Ref is picking on them because of how the points of the Doom Pool are used (where the Ref may not be playing this way at all). For example, points in the Doom Pool are used, and a character is killed. The player of that character may think, "Why did the Ref choose to spend those points now? Why not before? Why not when X or Y situation occurred? Maybe the player sees another player's character more deserving of having Doom Points played against him, but the Ref choose not to play them then.

Another poster in that thread says that the Doom mechanic has a "boardgame" feel, and I agree. It makes the game feel more like RISK than an RPG.

[Xuc Xac]

It makes sense in Star Wars and Mutant Chronicles and maybe something like Conan of Cimmeria. That guy is constantly doing impressive stuff at the limits of his ability for adventure after adventure but none of his companions ever make it through more than one.

Sounds like Conan just keeps piling up the Doom points and the other PCs keep playing it safe and getting whacked when the GM empties the Doom Pool. It's a great fit, but I agree it wouldn't work very well for... Wait. What setting did you say it didn't fit?

[meschlum]

The math interests me.

Let's see what we get!

Attribute is A. and Expertise is E, so the target number is A + E.

We assume that A + E is always less than 20, to avoid divide by zero errors.

Using two dice, the outcomes are as follows (out of 400)

Four successes: E^2
Three successes: 2 * E * A
Two successes: 2 * E * (19 - E - A) + A^2
Two successes, two Doom: 2 * E
One success: 2 * A * (19 - E - A)
One success, two Doom: 2 * A
No successes: (19 - E - A)^2
No successes, two Doom: 2 * (19 - E - A)
No successes, four Doom: 1

Two Doom has a probability of 38 / 400 = 9.5%, and Four Doom has a probability of 0.25%. So in all, there is a slightly less than 10% chance of Doom accumulating (or a critical problem occurring) every time you do something. This makes it fairly common (assume a fight involves 6 rolls: on average, there is a critical issue every other fight).

Assuming the initially provided attributes (A = 8 and E = 3), this also means that a Difficulty 1 challenge is overcome 79.75% of the time, so it's fairly common. This is good. A Difficulty 2 challenge is overcome 43.75% of the time, so it's a definite step up (from most of the time to less than half the time). Difficulty 3 is overcome 14.25% of the time, another drastic step. Difficulty 4 is overcome 2.25% of the time, so less than a quarter as often as critical failures occur! At least Difficulty 3 and 4 challenges never have any Doom attached to them if you succeed.

This gives the GM a difficulty range for normal rolls of: "Likely to succeed", "Unlikely to succeed", "Very unlikely" and "Very Rare", with critical failures being "Rare". It's liable to make players feel incompetent if any high difficulty presents itself, and to mash together "Always easy" to "Requires Training" style difficulties.

Also, your odds of getting Doom or a critical failure are independent of your skill level. Conan is as likely to get hit by a trap when unlocking a door as an untrained peasant, and both have the same odds of forgetting to pack water for a desert race, even if Conan will often be further in the desert when he notices this. And when facing a very difficult challenge (3 or 4), an untrained peasant who succeeds at decyphering ancient magical runes cannot have any complications from a misread character.


Now let's add a die.

First of all, the probability of getting Doom has gone up (14.625%, happening every 7 rolls on average rather than every 10). So as you add dice, you may become more likely to succeed, but you're also more likely to trip and make lots of noise while sneaking, trigger traps when opening locks, and otherwise imitate the Keystone Cops. This is not a good thing.

Numbers are out of 8000. I'm ignoring the extra Doom that is gained from rolling an extra die.

Six successes: E^3
Five successes: 3 * E^2 * A
Four successes: 3 * E * A^2 + 3 * E^2 * (19 - E - A)
Four successes, two Doom: 3 * E^2
Three successes: A ^ 3 + 6 * E * A * (19 - E - A)
Three successes, two Doom: 6 * E * A
Two successes: 3 * E * (19 - E - A)^2 + 3 * A^2 * (19 - E - A)
Two successes, two Doom: 3 * E * (19 - E - A) + 3 * A^2
Two successes, four Doom: 3 * E
One success: 3 * A * (19 - E - A)^2
One success, two Doom: 3 * A * (19 - E - A)
One success, four Doom: 3 * A
No successes: (19 - E - A)^3
No successes, two Doom: 3 * (19 - E - A)^2
No successes, four Doom: 3 * (19 - E - A)
No successes, six Doom: 1

So ignoring the increased Doom rates, we get 91.125% chance of success for Difficulty 1 (fails half as often as with two dice), 66.825% for Difficulty 2 (fail 1/3 of the time rather than 5/9), 32.675% for Difficulty 3 (succeed 1/3 instead of 1/7), 13.275% for Difficulty 4 (succeed more than 1/8 rather than less than 1/40), 3.0375% for Difficulty 5 (succeed more often at Difficulty 5 than at Difficulty 4 with 2 dice).

So our sample character could fake the difficulty 1 to 4 range by just rolling a d6, succeeding on 2+ for Difficulty 1 (83%), 3+ with difficulty 2 (67%), 5+ with Difficulty 3 (33%) and 6 with Difficulty 4 (17%). Rolling 2d20 in this case (with these values of E and A) seems a bit wasteful and skips the 'Difficulty 2.5 (50% chance of success)' option, which really should exist.

Adding a die, in addition to increasing the odds of getting Doom, does a reasonable job of making success feel more likely with the example numbers - you fail Difficulty 1 challenges about as often as you get critical failures with 2 dice, difficulty 2 is now more likely to succeed than fail, difficulty 3 is possible rather than rare, and difficulty 4 can happen rather than be a memorable event. On the other hand, those odds feel like what you should have to begin with!


In all, lacking guidelines on the base numbers and thus the general statistics that come with them, it feels like 2 dice are probably too few for a feeling of competence if there are many difficulty levels. This encourages the comedic aspect to the game, as catastrophic failures are likely to happen quite often. My impression is probably that the people making the game fell in love with the dice mechanism rather than actually look at the expected outcomes, since multiple d20s with variable target numbers make for extremely painful statistics - and the high frequency of Doom results probably forced the use of a Doom pool to prevent characters from feeling incompetent a lot of the time.

[Water Bob]

In all, lacking guidelines on the base numbers and thus the general statistics that come with them, it feels like 2 dice are probably too few for a feeling of competence if there are many difficulty levels.

According to the free Quickstart rules, there are six difficulty levels: Simple (0 successes), Average (1 success), Challenging (2 successes), Daunting (3 successes), Dire (4 successes), Epic (5 successes).

A player defaults to 2d20 on any throw. Thus it is possible, but highly unlikely, that Dire (4 successes) can be achieved. Each character, when making a test, adds stat plus skill level to find the target number. And, characters can have a Focus number (which is small, but provides an additional success).

The example in the book is a Sailor character making a Craft test. Intelligence is 8 and Craft Expertise is 3. Craft Focus is 2. This means he gets one success when rolling 11 or less, and he can get an additional success for rolling Focus or less, which in this case is 2 or less. 11- and 2- one a d20. He gets to roll 2d20, so four successes are possible.

Any natural 20 rolled is a complication. So, it's possible to succeed on the task and roll a Complication.

From what I understand reading play reports and talking to people, many Ref's look at the system as having two basic difficulty levels: Average with 1 success and Hard with 2 successes. Anything more than 2 successes required for success on a task is more rare. The heart of the game is a requirement of 1 or 2 successes.






My impression is probably that the people making the game fell in love with the dice mechanism rather than actually look at the expected outcomes, since multiple d20s with variable target numbers make for extremely painful statistics - and the high frequency of Doom results probably forced the use of a Doom pool to prevent characters from feeling incompetent a lot of the time.

I think that you are right about the Modiphius guys falling in love with (or being forced to use--because it's the "House" system) the dice mechanism. They vehemently defend it, no matter how many gamers tell them that they don't like it. And, to be fair, there are many out there who do like it, meta-game aspects and all.

I suspect, as the game is played more and more (the Conan game is not even out yet, but every game Modiphius publishes is using the 2d20 System), people will become more and more disenchanted with the system.

The game is designed so that players will generate Doom, and the Ref's hands are tied in some respects, requiring Doom to activate certain parts of the adventure (additional bad guy NPCs, NPC special moves or additional attacks, etc).

For example, in this game, player characters always move before NPCs. Every time. Except when the Ref can spend a Doom point. Doing so swings initiative to the NPC, allowing the NPC to go first. In this way, the Ref "buys" the NPC the right to go first by spending Doom Points that was generated by a PC earlier in the game.





Adversarial.

I can see how this game could get very adversarial with some groups. A Ref could be quite tactical with use of Doom Points. And, I could see a player feeling as if the Ref were playing against him instead of impartially governing the game when the Ref chooses that specific moment to sock it to the player's character by spending Doom Points for the NPC the PC is fighting.

The Ref can use Doom to trigger events, activate effects, boost the effectiveness of NPCs, among other things. So, if a player all of a sudden fights an NPC where the NPC goes first and has initiative (Ref spends Doom), and a room full of mummies come to life to back up the NPC (event triggered), where the only escape suddenly is cut off from a rock slide (event triggered), and the NPC attempts to block the PC's blow (Doom spent to boost NPC effectiveness), I can see where that particular player might feel picked on since this didn't happen to the player who's turn just ended.

Just think if the PC in quest had little to do with generating the Doom spent by the Ref in the first place.

I can see the system leading to a feeling of the Ref playing against the players, which, I think all experienced roleplayers know is a bad thing.

[Asmodai]

...Adversarial....

I'm astounded how you can actually spout all this stuff without even playing the damn game. Sit down with some people and actually play it for a bit. This sounds like the Edge of the Empire panic all over again...

Heck, no one's taking your old Conan stuff away, they're even giving you full tools to convert to and from the Mongoose d20, as well as the complete PDF's for the Mongoose Conan. Just give this a fair shake, without whiterooming it because it rubs you wrong.

[Water Bob]

I'm astounded how you can actually spout all this stuff without even playing the damn game. Sit down with some people and actually play it for a bit. This sounds like the Edge of the Empire panic all over again...

That came from actual play. I provided the link above. Those gamers played the game and found it adversarial.

And, I don't have to jump off a mountain cliff to know that I wouldn't like it or see potential problems doing it.

[awa]

the dm can pick on players in virtually any role-playing game yeah the dm can spend doom points to screw a player but if i keep throwing rust monsters at a party the fighter is going to think I'm picking on him t0o no doom pool needed. If your dm is out to get you the system wont save you.

[Water Bob]

the dm can pick on players in virtually any role-playing game yeah the dm can spend doom points to screw a player but if i keep throwing rust monsters at a party the fighter is going to think I'm picking on him t0o no doom pool needed. If your dm is out to get you the system wont save you.

Sure. The difference is that the Ref may not even be trying to "pick on a player" but it can be perceived that way by the player because of the way the Ref spent the points from the Doom Pool.

It's a lot different than a lone thief opening a door and finding a rust monster on the other side. The player sees the Doom Pool, and the player sees the Ref spend points from it.

What if, the last time the Ref used points from the Doom Pool to boost NPC abilities it was against player Bob's character. And, now, here the Ref is again using points from the Doom Pool against Bob's character.

The Ref feels the situation is dramatic and right to use the points as he did. It just happened to be Bob's character.

Bob may feel entirely different--like the Ref is out to get him specifically, or his character. Bob might ask, "Why didn't the Ref use Doom Points when Jeff moved, or Lee, or Timmy?"

Y'see. The system can cause problems because of it's adversarial component. When the Ref uses points from the Doom Pool to boost NPC abilities, it can feel as if the Ref is playing against the player--not impartially judging the situation.

Another flaw in the 2d20 System, me thinks.

[awa]

I could say why does the thief keep running into undead with life sense the dm thinks it was appropriate to be there the thief just thinks great another monster that I cant sneak attack or hide from why is the dm out to get me.

I honestly don't see the difference if you don't trust your dm to be fair/ Your dm is not fair any system that's not a board game is going to have that potential

[Water Bob]

I honestly don't see the difference if you don't trust your dm to be fair/ Your dm is not fair any system that's not a board game is going to have that potential

Said a different way, with the Doom Pool, you actually see the Ref play the game against you. There's the Doom Pool. The Ref takes points from it to enhance NPC abilities. You see this when it happens, and therefore are much more likely to feel as if the Ref is playing against you rather than impartially just moving pieces across the board that have been there from the beginning. The Ref decides when to use the Doom Pool and how those points will be used.



In a regular D&D game, I know that I feel one way about a Ref that who plays set encounters--encounters that have been planned (or random rolled) since long before the night's session started--whether they come from the Ref's original plan or a published adventure.

I feel an entirely different way about a Ref that makes it up as he goes along, takes a "side" in whether I win or lose or succeed in the encounter, and/or keeps putting obstacles in my way because he's trying to make sure that I don't reach my goal.

The Doom Pool can feel to some gamers like the later. Adversarial. And, that's not good.