Quote from: jdale on December 08, 2025, 11:35:15 AMI think it's easier to propose that gunpowder does work, it's just prone to exploding prematurely. Most reactions are tolerant of small perturbations. Explosives less so. If you can't store it and you can't transport it, it's not usable as a weapon, or at least not in firearms.

Yes, that's much closer to what TKA wrote about the role of technology on Kulthea. It isn't that technology doesn't work, but that it isn't always reliable. Fluctuations in the Essence result in some of the standard rules of physics being a bit less predictable on Kulthea than elsewhere. At any given moment gunpowder could be highly reactive and unstable or almost inert as if you had gotten it wet. When you can't calculate ahead of time how much gunpowder you'll need to fire that bullet, guns aren't quite as useful.

The assumption that the rules of physics are stable and we just need to discover them are a foundation of scientific thinking. In a world with magic where those rules are even slightly less predictable, it will take much longer to achieve results via scientific experimentation. And it would probably be so frustrating that many simply wouldn't even try. The Terran Empire's technology still works on Kulthea, but not consistently. while the Althan technology doesn't have that problem. That's most likely because the Terran devices are built with "standard tolerances" that are more than reliable in most places in the universe while Althan technology has to be more robust to account for a wider range of "normal variation" in the rules of physics on Kulthea.

With more complications for scientific inquiry, the presence of magical alternatives, different cultural assumptions (that may not prioritize "progress" like Earth's current dominant cultures), and various other complicating factors (such as agents of the Unlife trying to disrupt civilization and life itself) it's not that hard for me to believe in the Kulthean timeline for technological development (at least for the second and third eras, although that first era and the interregnum are insanely long).

Quote from: jdale on December 10, 2025, 11:11:29 AMAs I said, I don't think there is value in deciding what you don't like about the system. The value is in finding what are its selling points and highlighting them to the people who will be interested.

This is absolutely well said. Thank you for stating this.

Quote from: jdale on December 10, 2025, 11:11:29 AMAs I said, I don't think there is value in deciding what you don't like about the system. The value is in finding what are its selling points and highlighting them to the people who will be interested. No game is going to appeal to everyone, if HARP happens to not be your game, that's fine, but I'm not sure you have much of value to offer to the conversation, unless you are going to suggest ways to change that. Otherwise it's just pointless bashing.

Actually, I do, because I think that's something that is also missing from RM and basically ties in with the above.
If the game is to be sold as a generic system, increase this feature. Provide rules to design spells (a la HERO, Ars Magica, or others); provide rules to design character classes/archetypes and balance costs. You get my point; make it so that GMs and players can use the rules to make a dictionary that fits their own game setting to a T.
If the game is not to be sold as a generic system, then provide a setting and make the setting the selling point - make it unique in some way and have the rules fit the setting flavour and theme. I don't provide examples since, as you said, I'm not part of the target audience (for the record, I do own HARP and a few supplements, I'm not completely talking out of my behind). Decide on a theme and emphasise that theme in the rules and in the setting. Publish one micro-setting (once again, Vog Mur comes to mind: it's small, it gives an idea of what the greater world is about, and it is readily usable) to use as a starting point.

I also wish to point out that the thread topic is not "what can be done to make HARP more popular ?", but "Why isn't HARP more popular ?". I believe I was right on point in criticising the game, since it was basically what was asked :p

As I said, I don't think there is value in deciding what you don't like about the system. The value is in finding what are its selling points and highlighting them to the people who will be interested. No game is going to appeal to everyone, if HARP happens to not be your game, that's fine, but I'm not sure you have much of value to offer to the conversation, unless you are going to suggest ways to change that. Otherwise it's just pointless bashing.

Quote from: GMLovlie on December 10, 2025, 03:05:11 AMI'll sum it up: it's (too) generic. This is a selling point in my book, it can do a lot of things, some quite well, but it doesn't really excel at many things. Except at being generic. This is what I love about it. It lends itself very well to tinkering, while having a solid foundation and structure.

I don't know about "too generic". There are systems that are more generic than HARP (the HERO system, for instance), and their selling point is that they are designed as toolboxes to create our own stuff - your own combat manoeuvers, your own spells, your own magic system, your own superpowers... the system is generic because it needs to be.
I'm not sure HARP is generic that way - i.e. that it is build with genericity as a selling point. Rather, it is a fantasy game system with defined stereotypes that feels like generic in that "lacking in identity". It is not setting-specific, but does not cross the Rubicon in providing players with tools to design their own everything. As a matter of fact, this is an outlook it inherits from RM, with which you *can* do everything but basically are on your own for anything that isn't already defined because there are no rules for feature design.

Now that I think of it, when I bought Rolemaster, I was interested in it (but I've been interested in many game systems), but I would probably never have used it it the box was not packaged with "the World of Vog Mur", which was a good kick-starter. I looked for more, found Cloudlords of Tanara and The Iron Wind, and the rest is history. But RM without those would have been a footnote for me otherwise.

Thanks a lot! I've been working on my own rules for hex combat in RMU, and wanted to see how HARP handled it. That helped!

ToC:

• Distance and Sizes
• Hex basics
• Converting Movement Rates
• Creature Size

• Maneuvers and Attacks
• Attack Ranges
• Combat Actions
• Attacks of Opportunity
• Terrain and Obstacles
• Hex Size/Facing Illustrations
• Spell Shapes

It's a ten page PDF, with three tables: "Feet to Hexes", "Melee Weapon Ranges", and "Missile Weapon Ranges", and eight illustrations/diagrams.

BMR to Hexes is converted to 3 feet per hex (BMR: 2'-4'= 1 hex) , called a base hex rate (BHR), or Movement Points (MPs). Yes. Both.

A medium biped fills one hex, a medium quadruped fills two (and cannot be lined perfectly horizontal as you can imagine). Larger creatures fill more hexes and there are diagrams to show.

Facing: Three hexes in the character facing direction are "front", the two to the left and right angled rearwards are flanking, and the single one in the rear is rear. Makes sense.

Weapons, both missile and melee, have ranges in hexes, so for instance, an axe or short blade has a 1 hex range, whereas long blades have 2, pole arms have a 4 hex range (but there's a penalty for attacking foes at this range), and great blades have 3. (It is at this point I'm starting to understand why this maybe didn't catch on.). This is followed by rules on "Restricted Area Combat", dealing with the space needed to swing a weapon...

There are rules on AoO, changes to combat actions (possibly some new ones), and of course the increased cost of difficult terrain, and moving through space smaller than the number of hexes your character occupies.
 
It's a short supplement. Kind of making HARP into a small skirmish game.

While I agree that bestagon grids are vastly superior to a square grid, it would perhaps have been better to not get caught up in using a grids. Maybe.

Nice list! 

I'll sum it up: it's (too) generic. This is a selling point in my book, it can do a lot of things, some quite well, but it doesn't really excel at many things. Except at being generic. This is what I love about it. It lends itself very well to tinkering, while having a solid foundation and structure.

Thematically it is perhaps more "gritty", or"dark", or "realistic", what I mean is, you gain more by being careful, than say Genesys, which is the more heroic and cinematic (but which borrows the idea of a critical hit table), where you risk and lose less by being reckless.

I'll playing the devil's advocate here, so please understand where I'm coming from

Quote from: jdale on December 09, 2025, 05:27:03 PMIn terms of strengths, the skill-based character system allows significant customization of characters; blood talents add to that as well. Compare D&D, which in the current edition lets you make very few decisions as your character develops, especially after you have chosen your subclass at 3rd level. So that ability to really define your character is a key selling point.

Is it a key selling point compared to classless systems ? Even in the ancient times of AD&D the First, there were purely skiil-based alternatives such as RQ, Traveller, and others. Nowadays, I get the impression that most systems that are not D&D clones (more generally, d20-based) are skill-based.

QuoteIt also has an effect-based combat system that means combat is more than just a battle of hit point attrition. Wounds matter, they change the flow of battle and they aren't easily mitigated in the middle of the action; you need to adjust your strategy. That makes combat more interesting.

I would dispute that (having played RM plenty): what makes combat interesting is the tactical options. D&D combat nowadays is interesting if you play it as it is meant to be played, that is, as a tactical combat game. Other games put the emphasis on the capability of the players to change the environment and create opportunities, such as FATE. Sure, neither is as precise in the wound effects as HARP (or RM) is, but both explicitly provide options during a combat situation (D&D by class abilities, FATE by effect creation and activation). Does the wound system really stand out as interesting all by itself ?

QuoteThose things are basically all true of RM as well, but HARP is simpler. So that has to be considered a key feature as well.

I wouldn't go down the "simple" argument: HARP is considerably more rules-heavy that a number of games that exist out there. I don't think it can be considered a selling point - I think that even the character creation is on the complex side - I would compare it unfavourably with Shadowrun (1st to 3rd editions).

QuoteHARP also has a scalable spell system that is fairly intuitive and lets casters specialize and develop thematically rather than just gathering random assortments of spells.

OK, the spell scalability is interesting. But it is still very much constrained by what the rules give you, and the rules tell you which spells exist and in which way they are scalable. How does it compare with, say, the Hero System, where every ability can be scratch-built to specifications, or to Ars Magica, where spell design is a core part of the system ?

QuoteSo those are the things that jump out to me, and which I would point out to someone considering the system. It doesn't matter if some people don't like some of those things (e.g., Nash, or personally I just really love spell lists), what matters is selling those features and trying to find the people those features will most appeal to.

I would say that, like RM, HARP sits squarely in the middle of the road: it tries to do many things, but for each point of attention, you can find games that do it better. RM is in the same boat, actually - it was somewhere between D&D and RQ back in the days, and I believe what limited its growth was that D&D was more straightforward (and had less tables) while RQ was more flexible in its character evolution (and had less tables).

HARP tries to be too many things at once, and, as a result, each point of attention seems to be the start of an interesting idea that was hampered or hobbled by another part. Take character creation - there is flexibility, but it still adheres to a semi-rigid archetype system and still uses levels. Combat details wounds, but does not go all the way towards flexible consequences, and is not tactical in the precise way that those who like tactical games would be interested in. The magic system provides tailoring rules for spells but does not remove the basic straightjacket of a defined list of spells and a precise definition of how spells can be altered. And so on.
It is as if HARP was trying to be "old-school but not too much, flexible but not too much, simple but not too much". It missed the new wave of game systems that focus on adherence to theme rather that simulation, and it also missed the old-school revival wave that focus on the simplicity of basic stereotypes.
It shows its roots, which are RM. But people who play RM play it for a reason, and there is more than an odd chance that the way HARP changes things did not appeal to them. And since it is still too close to RM to be its own thing, those who ignore RM because it is not their thing will still ignore HARP as well - it is not their thing.

Now, was it devil's advocate enough ?

Quote from: alloowishus on December 09, 2025, 08:48:02 PMIs it assumed that just the caster's naked body grows or shrinks?

That is how I interprete it, at least. You might have a different take, because "caster" (as area of effect) could mean "caster with clothes" - in the Invisible Ways spell list, "1 target" is specifically stated as "one naked body" as an example. But RM is notoriously imprecise in its spell descriptions, so it could go either way.