Topic: HARP D20-Fied Revisited

[masque1223]

The Jonathan Dale spreadsheet costs everything exactly the same as standard HARP rules, but then does a rounding after the results are calculated.

I'm using Allen Maher's OpenOffice version, dunno if that fixes what you're talking about, but it's not an issue of major concern to me.  I personally prefer D100, but my players like D20 better.  If they miss out on some detail or not, I don't think it'll impact our game much.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I guess it's written somewhere else because the HARP d20fied document has no reference to DP costs, no comments regarding skill costs, no mention of DP's, etc. It does refer to fumbles and provides directions to address it - of course it requires an extra roll to resolve.

That's what I get for trying to rely on memory.... heheh  

You are correct, but I know that I discussed the concept of increasing the costs (x2.5 for the +2 ranks and x5 for the +1 ranks, giving cost progressions of 2/5/10 and 4/10/20 for each +1 bonus). I must have done so in a thread someplace, either here or on the old forums....

[Thom @ ICE]

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with people playing the d20 version and I wish them the best with it - but I don't think it is as simple as a divide by 5 conversion. There are a lot of modifiers out there that are not included and from my recent reviews of the monsters and the rounding done there (bringing everything to multiples of 5) I have found that rounding on top of rounding changes things far too much for me.  I'm a mathematician and a purist, so I try to make things work precisely, and conversions (IMO) should be complete and not "close enough" - but that's me - YMMV

[RandalThor]

The point ChosenGM is making is probably why I feel it is more appropriate to use the HARP 20-fied with a d20 than to use if for HARP. Especially when "regular" HARP is fine. Yes, if your players are insistant on using a d20 instead of d100 then you kind of have to, but I think it would still be better to try and ween them off the d20 and onto the d100.

To me the HARP 20-fied seemed to be made almost exclusively as a way of integrating HARP/RM mechanics into the d20 rules system, not the reverse.

[masque1223]

The point ChosenGM is making is probably why I feel it is more appropriate to use the HARP 20-fied with a d20 than to use if for HARP. Especially when "regular" HARP is fine. Yes, if your players are insistant on using a d20 instead of d100 then you kind of have to, but I think it would still be better to try and ween them off the d20 and onto the d100.

We used D100 to begin with.  It's not like they were incapable of using it, it just wasn't as enjoyable to have to screw around with the larger numbers.  They're not stupid or anything, they can all do basic math, but it slowed things down enough to be an issue.  It's purely an aesthetic choice.

To me the HARP 20-fied seemed to be made almost exclusively as a way of integrating HARP/RM mechanics into the d20 rules system, not the reverse.

That seems a bit much to me.  It's not like it uses alignment, Vancian magic, extremely rigid class structure or any of the other things I find annoying about the D20 system that keep me from playing it.  There are so many other things that distinguish HARP from D20 beyond the dice used, and I see no way for there to be some kind of slippery slope issue here.

The flexibility that HARP has that makes it a superior system to D20 hasn't gone anywhere, we don't have to mess around with feat flowcharts and whatnot.  There's no way that I, as the non-D20 player at the table, am going to be more inclined to play a D20 system game just from using a 20-sider when I run HARP.  Use of a dodecahedral die != D20 system.

[RandalThor]

I could have said that better.

What I meant there was that it is a different (like the original Arms Law & Spell Law) way to do combat in d20, and with it being d20 was even easier. That is what it seems like to me.

[masque1223]

I could have said that better.

What I meant there was that it is a different (like the original Arms Law & Spell Law) way to do combat in d20, and with it being d20 was even easier. That is what it seems like to me.

Combat has never been much of an issue for me.  For me to play D20 system, they'd have to port over HARP's magic system, point-based, skill-dominant system, blood talents (I have a player who is half Elf, a quarter Gnome, and a quarter Gryx, she has a fun family history), ease of taking multiple professions, get rid of alignment, etc.  I like HARP combat, especially with the hit locations from Martial Law that we use, but combat is the only part of D20 I don't have a fundamental problem with.  It's pretty much everything else I've looked at that I don't like.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

To me the HARP 20-fied seemed to be made almost exclusively as a way of integrating HARP/RM mechanics into the d20 rules system, not the reverse.

One of the most common complaints against ICE's games is that it uses d100. And there are many, many D&D/d20 are willing to try something new, so long as it doesn't use d100 (cause they don't want to have to do the math with larger numbers - whatever their reasons).

Thus, the HARP d20-fied rules were created to allow those who won't go with the d100 to experience HARP (and perhaps eventually convert them to ICE's games).

[Marc R]

I've played a lot of 2d6, 3d6 and 2d10 games, and IMO they make the odds opaque.

This may be a good or bad thing, but comparing d100 to 2d10, despite them using the exact same dice for rolling. . . . you know in head and gut that 96-00 is 5% higher than 91-95. . . .a simple /5 doesn't work, as it would for 1d100 to 1d20. . .very few people have a "gut" sense of what the odds are when you say "Roll over a 15" in 2d10. . . .it's not a 25% chance of success as it would be in 1d20. . .

Thus also, it totally shifts the curve, and also freaks around the bonuses. . . .+5 to hit 5% d100, and easily converted to +1 (+5% chance) in 1d20. . .in 2d10 a +1 bonus could be as little as +1% and as much as +10% depending on where it rests.

The odds table works out to:

2d10 Roll	d100 From	d100 To
2	1	1
3	2	3
4	4	6
5	7	10
6	11	15
7	16	21
8	22	28
9	29	36
10	37	45
11	46	55
12	56	64
13	65	72
14	73	79
15	80	85
16	86	90
17	91	94
18	95	97
19	98	99
20	100	100

Which is hardly intuitive, and puts increasing/diminishing returns curves at both ends.

i.e. assuming no bonus other than ranks, and 1 rank = +1, your first rank is worth +0% (since you can't roll 1), the 2nd worth +1%, 3rd worth +2% . . .peaking at 11th rank worth +10%, then downhill from there. . . .

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

i.e. assuming no bonus other than ranks, and 1 rank = +1, your first rank is worth +0% (since you can't roll 1), the 2nd worth +1%, 3rd worth +2% . . .peaking at 11th rank worth +10%, then downhill from there. . . .

Actually, I don't think that that is correct.

A bonus of +1 (1 rank) means you have a 3% chance of success (i.e. a roll of 19 (2%) or 20 (1%) would equal success, presuming that 20+ == success).

Thus, 2 ranks (+2) would have a 6% chance of success, +3 would have 10% of success, +4 would have a 15% chance of success, etc..

Are the odds/chances easily seen? Nope, but then again nobody ever said they were, or that they need to be. 


Will using 2d10 produce a difference experience than using 1d100 or 1d20? Yup, sure will. But, then again, would that be a bad thing? For some people it would not be a bad thing, for others it might be.

Seems like many of the posts in this thread would rather try to talk the original poster out of his choice of how to play HARP. Me? I am just glad that he is playing and enjoying HARP, regardless of how he plays it. 

[Marc R]

True, I did reverse the odds there, the logic of bonus vs rolling over 100.

That's "over 100" or 101+ for an all or nothing maneuver in HARP. . .or "over 20" in the 2d20 scenario.

So you get a situation where, assuming no stat bonus or malus, the odds are one step off your examples:

1 rank = 1%
2 ranks = 3%
3 ranks = 6%
4 ranks = 10%
5 ranks = 15%
6 ranks = 21%

It catches back up at 9/45 and then reverses the other way. (among other odd interactions like how modifiers work.)

I dunno that it'd be a bad thing, but it would be an utterly different game.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

That's "over 100" or 101+ for an all or nothing maneuver in HARP. . .or "over 20" in the 2d20 scenario.

Oops... forgot about HARP being "Over", not "equal to or over", so yeah, my numbers were one step off, but the point still stands, I think.

I dunno that it'd be a bad thing, but it would be an utterly different game.

Utterly different? I don't know as if I would say it goes that far. Having a different feel? Most definitely.

[Marc R]

The first hand comes in the opacity of the system, many people can't seem to disentangle the logic of all the elements that lead to the odds of an attack result already, without going out of your way to make it more difficult to figure out. . . .Going from HARP d100 then /5 to d20fie it, then to 2d10 takes you back to a percentile system (there are 100 possible results on 2d10, just most of them are equal in summed value) but hides the results behind the dice.

It's like using Babelfish to translate from English to Italian back to English. . . .you succeed in confusing everything enough to utterly change the meaning.

Is GURPS fantasy utterly different from Core d20? Well, they're both FRP games, but within the set, they'd be considered utterly different from each other. HARP d20 is HARP d100 played with less granularity. . .HARP 2d10 is less like HARP d20 and more like HARP d100, just done in a manner that makes all the odds different and shifts the overall logic of how modifiers apply.

I'm sure if it was popular enough to attract a signifigant following, the 2d10 variant players and GMs would be able to lay out loads of examples of how things just play out differently.

This is one of those apparent/actual variations. . .The Combat Companion is another example of something that appears not to make many surface changes, but in tampering with the odds inside it causes radical changes in how the game works in play. . .

To offer an aside cue to variation, the min/maxing methods are very different in straight die linear probability systems than multi die curve systems (if the cheaters can detect and exploit it, then it's not merely a "feel" variation.)

To offer an example non RPG related:

A Toyota Celica coupe is very different from a Ford F150 Pickup truck

But the Toyota Celica is far MORE different from a Toyota Prius than it is from a Ford F150. . .despite all their differences, the two internal combustion engines are more alike than either is to a hybrid electric motor. Regardless of the fact both are coupes using Toyota parts, the difference under the hood is a BIG difference.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I'm sure if it was popular enough to attract a signifigant following, the 2d10 variant players and GMs would be able to lay out loads of examples of how things just play out differently.

Nobody denies that using 2d10 would play differently. 

Nor is 2d10 being more opaque really a question either. The question is -- does it really matter that it is more opaque than when using percentile dice?

Personally, I don't think it matters at all, so long as those who are playing are having fun.

For me, as long as they are having fun and enjoying themselves, then more power to them! 

[Marc R]

The fun logic is the ultimate trump card. . .if they enjoy themselves nothing else really matters more. . .But that merely determines if the game is being played "right or wrong". . .if it's fun, you're playing it right, if it's no fun, you're playing it wrong, change something.

But of course, if you played "HARP Armwrestling edition" where you had to armwrestle the GM to resolve anything, and your mods determined how many fingers you could use in your armwrestling hand (and for really high mods, how many fingers of the other hand you could toss in) then you'd not be playing HARP as anyone using d100 or d20 plays it either, regardless of how much fun you're having. . . .

The randomization method at the core of any roleplaying system is the baseline mathmatical logic that everything else is based off of. "Is +20 to big a modifier for this effect?" that kinda thing. . .

So I'm not saying "2d10 HARP" would be wrong or unfun, I'm just saying that regardless of the word HARP being in there, it wouldn't be the same game as HARP d100. . .it would differ more from HARP than RM2 or RMFRP do. (And certainly WAY more than playing HARP with a d20 would).

[RandalThor]

Combat has never been much of an issue for me.  For me to play D20 system, they'd have to port over HARP's magic system, point-based, skill-dominant system, blood talents (I have a player who is half Elf, a quarter Gnome, and a quarter Gryx, she has a fun family history), ease of taking multiple professions, get rid of alignment, etc.  I like HARP combat, especially with the hit locations from Martial Law that we use, but combat is the only part of D20 I don't have a fundamental problem with.  It's pretty much everything else I've looked at that I don't like.

Fantasy Craft has actually done some of what you have listed there: Spell points & no alignement (unless you choose to be aligned). They have a pretty-good skill system, but attack bonus, saves, defense bonus, & initiative bonuses are still dependant upon your class & level. Being of mixed race is just a matter of working with your GM as they have a much more detailed background/character generation - quite afew more options.

For me the biggest problem with DnD (3.X and the ilk) was the fact that it was impossible... impossible to actually kill a 5th level fighter on the first hit - without throwing in a whole bunch of special abilities and feats that really had to be crafted from the beginning of character creation (or by being at least 8-10 levels higher than them and having some mass damage capability, like a Fireball). With RM/HARP the dirty beggars in the alley with knives can be a threat, not an impossible, perfectly balanced encounter, but still a threat if you aren't a bit smart about how you deal with them. I like that. The rest of the game (Fantasy Craft / D20) is OK to me.

[RandalThor]

This:

I've played a lot of 2d6, 3d6 and 2d10 games, and IMO they make the odds opaque.

This may be a good or bad thing, but comparing d100 to 2d10, despite them using the exact same dice for rolling. . . . you know in head and gut that 96-00 is 5% higher than 91-95. . . .a simple /5 doesn't work, as it would for 1d100 to 1d20. . .very few people have a "gut" sense of what the odds are when you say "Roll over a 15" in 2d10. . . .it's not a 25% chance of success as it would be in 1d20. . .

Thus also, it totally shifts the curve, and also freaks around the bonuses. . . .+5 to hit 5% d100, and easily converted to +1 (+5% chance) in 1d20. . .in 2d10 a +1 bonus could be as little as +1% and as much as +10% depending on where it rests.

The odds table works out to:

2d10 Roll	d100 From	d100 To
2	1	1
3	2	3
4	4	6
5	7	10
6	11	15
7	16	21
8	22	28
9	29	36
10	37	45
11	46	55
12	56	64
13	65	72
14	73	79
15	80	85
16	86	90
17	91	94
18	95	97
19	98	99
20	100	100

Which is hardly intuitive, and puts increasing/diminishing returns curves at both ends.

i.e. assuming no bonus other than ranks, and 1 rank = +1, your first rank is worth +0% (since you can't roll 1), the 2nd worth +1%, 3rd worth +2% . . .peaking at 11th rank worth +10%, then downhill from there. . . .

...is the long way of saying this:

As for the 2d10, I like the ideas of bell-curves too (because it means you can actually say and mean, "average") but it would be a totally different game. A +1 means more in a 2d10 game than a d20 one.

 

[Marc R]

I think perhaps I was struck hard with that Blarney stone. . . 

But I think you'll see it's worse than that +1 is worth a variable amount, which is the issue in my mind.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

But I think you'll see it's worse than that +1 is worth a variable amount, which is the issue in my mind.

But it is one of the things inherent in a bell curve.  And one of the things that those who like bell curves understand and also like. 

[Marc R]

Got no problem with that myself, but unless you're going to change the whole game to fit, so much is just not going to make any sense at all.

The d20 version uses a d100 character sheet, does a /5 and rounds everything off. . .most of the mods in the book are in increments of 5 so are handily /5ed. . .

So d20 HARP is just d100 HARP done to another die.

Now you toss a bell curve into the dice without changing anything else. . .and things begin to get rather strange.

Like the diminishing returns curve on ranks. . .it makes sense to 5/2/1 down when you're rolling against a line, against a curve? Curving bonus into a curved die roll sounds like a mess to me.

If you "fix" that, akin to "Every rank is worth +1 on the die roll." i.e. every rank is worth +5%. . . .you're trending off HARP out into some space beyond the fence. . . keep making changes on that line to "fix" things that conflict the die mechanic and when are you playing an "Utterly different" game?

Note I never said "Bad" though you keep seeming to try to imply I did. . . .I merely said "Utterly different", and it would be. . .HARP d20fied is like HARP d100 with the granularity corners sanded off, but it's still recognizably the same system. . .at 2d10 it just ain't.