I am not looking to start wars here, but I am wondering, why isn't this game more popular. When I was at Gencon this past August, there was a lot of interest in HARP from the people I saw coming up to the table and chatting about it while I was there. They even sold out on the Creatures books and I think the core book. I bring this up, because lots of people who play Rolemaster or MERP, often talk down this game saying it's like drinking lite beer. I personally think it's a great game, and I've played it many of hours with a few family members. We all really like it. Just throwing it out there for a nice discussion.

Quote from: LordNikon on December 07, 2025, 06:20:17 PMI am not looking to start wars here, but I am wondering, why isn't this game more popular. When I was at Gencon this past August, there was a lot of interest in HARP from the people I saw coming up to the table and chatting about it while I was there. They even sold out on the Creatures books and I think the core book. I bring this up, because lots of people who play Rolemaster or MERP, often talk down this game saying it's like drinking lite beer. I personally think it's a great game, and I've played it many of hours with a few family members. We all really like it. Just throwing it out there for a nice discussion.

Just keep in mind that "it's like drinking lite beer and "it's a great game" are not incompatible descriptions, just different points of view.

I, for one, did not give HARP much of a chance because, in my opinion, the pros comapared to RM did not outweigh the cons. ICE would have been better off by trying something completely different to capture a totally different segment of the gaming community. As it is, the comparisons with RM and MERP were inevitable. Add to it the fact that both RM and MERP had well-established settings at the time (Shadow World and, well, Middle Earth) while HARP did not, and you get the impression of a derivative game without the conversion notes. I'm not saying that 's what it was, just that's what it felt like. ANd, given the quote you gave about lite beer, I am probably not alone in that.

Sure, the games are different. But there are too many similarities for HARP to have a clear path as its own entity. And since ICE was a small company, they had limited exposure, and whoever had a look at HARP likely was already knowledgeable about RM and/or MERP and would make comparisons.

These are my ramblings on the matter...

HARP is a great game, but like with its sibling games, "for many" fledgling GMs and new players, it can seem daunting when you look at the character sheet compared to say, Fantasy AGE, Numenera, PbtA, Symbaroum, Dragonbane, Forbidden Lands, and even 2d20 Conan.

For more experienced RPGers (starting gaming post ~2010), HARP's (and arguably RM's) lack of meta currency to influence the plot (unless something has changed recently, or I have forgotten something), puts it (rightly or wrongly) in a more "adversarial" category of games. It doesn't help that you're rolling a d100 and "have to do maths" (if simple addition and subtraction warrants such scepticism).

My own experience is that it is easy to learn, I've only had one player that was adamant that it was too much math to add and subtract so many variables. I alleviated this by making player aids, so he had small cards that would tell him what his OB was at certain ranges, under certain circumstances, and so on for different skills he often used. Basically doing the "maths" beforehand. He became discouraged by leveling up, because he had to redo the "all the math". But besides this one guy, I've always had fun playing this game - and I miss it. But my current pool of players is a sceptical bunch. But I have hope.

I still hold that it is one of the best game systems out there. It is flexible, dynamic, heroic, and deadly - and thus very rewarding and satisfying. I recall making (or expanding) a crafting system and lots of stuff for it back in the day when I had the time to run longer campaigns, make house-rules, and didn't have to resort to one-shots and shorter 1-3 session adventures to get my fix. This is perhaps a criticism of mine, it is missing some rules or dimensions that other games can do fairly easily, but that in HARP can appear to be more involved, and complicated?

What I think the game is missing is an interesting and varied selection of published adventures, and short campaigns, covering different sub-genres and "levels of heroism". It appears, perhaps, to not lend itself well in a good way to one-shots (which is inaccurate at best, and likely entirely false).

It might also suffer from the legacy of RM and the archaic MERP, and that it didn't find its own "clear path". But I think there are other and more important aspects to this than recruiting players from the company's other games. HARP could, and did, recruit new players in a way that RM can't, at least in principle. I think "dropping the ball" on Cyradon and developing that setting and publishing more adventures and introducing a "meta" or "canon" plot-line to assist GMs and groups to play in or along side, is also an issue.

Perhaps a challenge is that while there is interest, there's also a certain level of gatekeeping and status positioning in the community? Most games have "purist fans", and in the RPG community there are several "camps" of "how gaming should be done", that may not be inviting to new players and spreading the game?

This weekend I'm going to introduce some new players to RPGs, and HARP is high on my list, but I do not have the time to pre-make characters (and we're not wasting our one available evening with character creation), and there are few - if any - interesting adventures for a 4-5 hour evening one-shot.

But there's a "marketing" issue and variety and selection issue, and an issue when it comes to being introduced, either through a beginner game or adventure. At least if you want to recruit new RPG players. Recruiting from other games would mean to define HARP's position and "thing", and show the system's strengths through a variety of different kinds of sub-genres of stories and adventures. And these are daunting tasks to take on for small companies, generally.

And one more thing: it is missing a good GM screen (goes doubly so for HARP SF).

Whether a PDF to print and slide into the generic ones you can buy, or a printed one of good quality, in landscape format.

A good GM screen with evocative high quality art inspires and pulls players and prospective GM in. It's a useful gaming aid that is also a great marketing device.

If we set aside the "it is a great game / no it isn't" argument that only shows that everyone has an opinion, I'm pretty sure that we can understand why HARP is a very small market game by elimination.

1. It is not D&D. It is sad to say, but D&D is a major factor all by itself, in that a significant number of players begin with D&D and never move from it. It might be less of a factor in the future if Hasbro continues to wreck the IP, but as of today, it still holds.
2. It does not surf on any existing well-known IP, such as Lovecraft's Cthulhu, Star Wars, or the like. One major IP was licensed to ICE at one time but for another game that competed with this one.
3. In the same line of thought, it cannot rely on a "vibe" appeal, such as what happened with Vampire:tM and other White Wolf products that took advantage of the period fad (edgy and dark gothic). You could also include Cyberpunk (the original) at the time as an example.
4. It is an old game, but not a foundational one. I think HARP was first published around 2003, but its mechanics are in the same vein as games from the late 80s - and those games already had their faithful followers who were spreading their own gospel. It was nothing new and ground-breaking system-wise, and yet was not established.
5. It was not part of the wave of "new games" that changed the landscape of Roleplaying systems by focusing on the theme of the game (model something important really well) instead of trying to be a simulation of real life (model everything adequately). Granted, that kind of games took flight later (in the early 2010s), but the roots were there already and they were the new 'in' things. The Whispering Vault, for instance, was published in 1993, and illustrates that something was happening in RPG systems well before the 2000s.
6. It is not a simple game. It might not have the level of complexity as the very old mammoths, but it still carries some complexity in character development, action resolution (mostly because of the modifiers). Compare it to FATE, for instance, and you can see what I mean.
7. ICE was/is not a major company. At the time, there were no YouTube influencers and brands such as Critical Role and others. Promoting a game meant word of mouth or ads. Ads are expensive and need a medium where they compete with other ads. Word of mouth requires distributing the game and providing material that can kick-start it, which also costs money.
8. HARP did not benefit from usable material right out of the gates - no adventures, no setting that could catch the eye by showing how it was different from the others, it was basically a rulebook that had to find an audience that was targeted by many other rulebooks, some of them being backed by usable material.
9. HARP was competing with other ICE products. It is positioned on the same market as Rolemaster: generic medieval fantasy with some degree of flexibility regarding character definition, but does not have RM existing material as backing. Sure, it is simpler and more flexible in some ways, but MERP (another ICE product) is also simpler than RM, benefits from a well-known IP, has tons of existing material, and can easily be adapted to other settings... and also benefits from a large degree of compatibility with RM.

I'm sure we could find other "reasons why HARP didn't do well". But I think that RM would have been as much of a failure if it had been published at the same time.

Good thoughts here, and I thank everyone who contributed their two cents about "the whys." I agree for the most part, and I think HARP would benefit from having a community content program—which I understand and already know won't happen.

Sure, I know I can create my own material for the game and share it with others as long as I avoid IP issues and focus solely on mechanics, but that's not going to help overall. I personally enjoy all the ICE games, though my experiences are mostly limited to MERP 2e, RMSS, and HARP. I was a bit saddened to see the guys at GenCon working hard, with so many people asking questions (which was good), but still so few actually playing HARP.

I've been running some demo games at my local comic book store, and I have a steady group of people who show up to play. Others give me the whole, "I play 5e only" speech and leave, which I just don't understand about this mainstream group of players. When I grew up gaming in the '80s, we played everything under the sun—we'd even rotate games daily. Sorry, this has turned into a bit of a rant, so I'll stop here.

I think it's more valuable to ask, who does it appeal to? What does it do better, and what kind of person is looking for that? How do you increase the odds of those people encountering it and recognizing that appeal?

There are a ton of games out there, most of them necessarily cannot be huge, so you have to find your niche.

Quote from: jdale on December 08, 2025, 11:39:54 AMI think it's more valuable to ask, who does it appeal to? What does it do better, and what kind of person is looking for that? How do you increase the odds of those people encountering it and recognizing that appeal?

There are a ton of games out there, most of them necessarily cannot be huge, so you have to find your niche.

I see you are part of the Dev team... how much effort is ICE putting into HARP these days. At Gencon, they mentioned more books coming out... was this true?

Quote from: jdale on December 08, 2025, 11:39:54 AMI think it's more valuable to ask, who does it appeal to? What does it do better, and what kind of person is looking for that? How do you increase the odds of those people encountering it and recognizing that appeal?

There are a ton of games out there, most of them necessarily cannot be huge, so you have to find your niche.

Exactly. What is the target audience, and how does the game stand out from the competition for this audience ?

HARP does not have a built-in setting. So it must stand out by its system, because "generic medieval fantasy role-playing game" is a path so well-trodden that the cobblestones are slick with wear

Quote from: MisterK on December 08, 2025, 12:39:16 PMHARP does not have a built-in setting. So it must stand out by its system, because "generic medieval fantasy role-playing game" is a path so well-trodden that the cobblestones are slick with wear

I honestly don't think that matters in my opinion. D&D in the Classic and Advanced books had no settings, sure LATER ON, it was defined by Gygax as Greyhawk but the books just assumed you made up your own and even gave you advice how to do that.

Quote from: LordNikon on December 08, 2025, 11:56:06 AMI see you are part of the Dev team... how much effort is ICE putting into HARP these days. At Gencon, they mentioned more books coming out... was this true?

I'm on the RMU side personally. But there is a dual-stat module being laid out currently (written for HARP with stats added for RMU), and then HARP Steampunk is the next thing in line for layout on the HARP side of things (there are also some RMU things, I'm not certain which is first). More things are being written for HARP, I don't have good visibility into the status of those projects though.

Quote from: LordNikon on December 08, 2025, 01:18:44 PM

Quote from: MisterK on December 08, 2025, 12:39:16 PMHARP does not have a built-in setting. So it must stand out by its system, because "generic medieval fantasy role-playing game" is a path so well-trodden that the cobblestones are slick with wear

I honestly don't think that matters in my opinion. D&D in the Classic and Advanced books had no settings, sure LATER ON, it was defined by Gygax as Greyhawk but the books just assumed you made up your own and even gave you advice how to do that.

How many RPGs were out there at the time ? And how long did it take for D&D to become a well-known game *when there was little competition* ?

You don't need many arguments when there are literally five games in the market, at least half of which do not compete with your own (sci-fi games, for instance).

Nowadays, there are thousands of games (tens of thousands ?). You need something different. If you have no built-in setting, that's one less argument to build your case.

Which brings us back to the fundamental question: what is the selling point ?

Quote from: jdale on December 08, 2025, 11:39:54 AMI think it's more valuable to ask, who does it appeal to? What does it do better, and what kind of person is looking for that? How do you increase the odds of those people encountering it and recognizing that appeal?

There are a ton of games out there, most of them necessarily cannot be huge, so you have to find your niche.

That kind of targeting is a good point. I think, that to appeal to new players, the game must at least spark curiosity, it needs visuals (or visibility), variety/selection.

Visibility could mean both being in game stores (that's an expense by investment) and at conventions (an expense by investment, but also an opportunity to explain, promote, sell, and show), but also appealing aesthetics and art (another expense, one that I think is at least on par with conventions, and would improve chances when on a shelf in a game store).

Games, like books and most items, as seen before touched and read. If someone's not inclined to even pick it up, they're not going to read it. Sure, if a fellow player or GM tells me about it and "sells" it to me, then it is more likely that I will. There is of course a distinction here between people who prefer holding a book made out of dead trees (and look through it) and those who prefer or are more than fine with them being digital.

Variety/selection could mean, well, you mentioned Steampunk, but I would also argue adventures and settings. The classic "from farmboy to (reluctant/chosen) hero", but also more heroic adventures, mysteries, intrigue, dungeon crawls, city based adventures, horrors from other planes and worlds. A focus not only on action and the local bad monster in the hills, but also larger threats, more fantastical stuff perhaps.

Having a built-in setting helps, but if the setting isn't readily exciting and sparks curiosity, and if it isn't easily understood and "relatable", it could have difficulty getting traction. My prime example here is Numenera, which is a great idea, but an underdeveloped setting that - so far in my attempts to get several campaigns running - just doesn't really entice new and some veteran players at all (in my community). It doesn't have a "thing", it's missing a "clear path" as a setting - but it has loads of weird and fun concepts and ideas.

Cyradon is "generic" at first glance, but with its Gryphons (a cool and maybe unique aspect) its rich history (iirc), it has potential depth and much room to adventure and great stories, but having a "metaplot" adventure or five would make it so much easier to tell the story of the world and get player and GM investment - and then they would make it their own. A starter set would in this case be great - perhaps with premade characters, some useful handouts, some dice, and a map. That is, if the target is recruitment of brand new players, not only more or less experienced ones that have played other games.

Personally, I think one of the things HARP does well is customisation due to its flexibility and already quite extensive rules and guidelines on making your items, magic or otherwise, making spells, covering different kinds of material, herbs, and modifications to items and gear.

The magic system is also quite unique with excellent solutions to scaling and variety. It is more grounded perhaps (at least it allows for more grounded games where it feels rewarding and that you're utilising the game, more so than some others), with many opportunities for more high adventure and the fantastical.

So, I, personally, think the game is perfect for tinkerers, GMs and players that like to modify and find creative solutions - often in other games you need house-rules, in this game the rules are already there, if not explicitly then by implication of other rules. It is also a risky game, where running away is a serious option in many cases. You should respect the kid with a dagger, or that farmer with a quarterstaff. And barring the most high-end heroic adventure cinematic over the top style games, this game can be adapted to almost any world created and developed by GMs in collaboration with their group. It lends itself, perhaps, to a different kind of creative world creation. But this isn't necessarily your walk-off-the-street new players and fledgling GM.

Quote from: jdale on December 08, 2025, 04:12:42 PM

Quote from: LordNikon on December 08, 2025, 11:56:06 AMI see you are part of the Dev team... how much effort is ICE putting into HARP these days. At Gencon, they mentioned more books coming out... was this true?

I'm on the RMU side personally. But there is a dual-stat module being laid out currently (written for HARP with stats added for RMU), and then HARP Steampunk is the next thing in line for layout on the HARP side of things (there are also some RMU things, I'm not certain which is first). More things are being written for HARP, I don't have good visibility into the status of those projects though.

No worries. They can take their time on things, I was just curious if things were in the works, or it was more of.."oh we gave up, its not selling well.."

Quote from: MisterK on December 08, 2025, 12:39:16 PMNowadays, there are thousands of games (tens of thousands ?). You need something different. If you have no built-in setting, that's one less argument to build your case.

Which brings us back to the fundamental question: what is the selling point ?

Personally, I think not everything needs to be handed to you. You need to use your imagination, and build a world. That's how we all started, it wasn't until later editions of games, they started thinking for you.

I get that people see the setting for HARP and think its trash, but its an example, its something a GM can look at and model to make his own world.

So this is 100% my own opinion.  I own most of the HARP books - I got the original books when it first came out.  I've played a couple of campaigns... and I just don't like it.

There are a few mechanical things that I dislike:
- The skill system effectively maxes out too quickly.  At 3rd level diminishing returns has already kicked in
- The spell scaling system is too harsh; so spells are always low
- The combat system always felt like nerf weapons

At more overall level I feel characters feel too much the same - there isn't really a strong system backed roll you are in - everyone feels a lot like generalists.  And I never really hit the power fantasty as it were.

In 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.

It 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.

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

HARP 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.

So 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'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 ?

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.

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.

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.