Topic: The End of Critical Tables?

[Thom @ ICE]

In HARP if the foe has a high DB you need a really good strike just to hit (cause damage) - and your hit is similarly reduced by that high DB so odds are it is very difficult to land that killing blow upon a foe with a high DB.  In many cases OE may be required.

[Marc R]

The one roll for both method would do as Vroom said above. . .you'd be chasing that high DB monster around for a while before you hit with an 90+ roll. . .and kill it.

running HARP, I have noticed that odds wise the results heavily cluster to "Miss" or "Max result for attack". . .I'm not saying they miss or max, but that in 100 attacks, Miss or Max will be far more common than any other result, with the rest of the results evenly distributed between miss and max, and you will likely see every result at least once in 100 attacks. . .With RM's tables, miss will again be the most common result, but then the distribution from there wildly varies. . .this is due to the number of possible results:

One weapon, assuming any armor, and lowballing by saying only half of all hits cause crits in RM:

~20,000 RM2 AL 1989
~10,000   2003 AL
~900 RMX
95 Martial Law
19 HARP Core

Assuming only one AT
~1,000 RM2 AL
~500    2003 AL
~275    RMX
95 martial law
19 HARP Core

One could say the hits damage makes no difference, only the crit matters, then you get:

95 RM2
95 2003 AL
95 Martial Law
19 RMX
19 HARP Core

Though the existance of things like I criticals in RM2/c and RMSS, which resolve as EDB, would give:

6,859 RM2
6,859 2003 AL
95 Martial Law
19 RMX
19 HARP Core

But if you don't like seeing the same result over and over, something like Martial Law (in which you use the 1s die to get the location) is radically more diverse than HARP core. . .and if you ignore hits, is more diverse than RMX. . .and ignoring spells comes in a tie with RM's method. . .

Vroom, this conversation knocked loose some dust in my brain. . .there was a one roll RM method I'd tried in the past that worked fairly well. . .inverted die. . .so a 31 attack roll is a 13 crit. . .a 79 is a 97 crit, etc etc. . .avoids the "miss or kill" issue of using only one roll. (That would put RM on a complexity par with Martial Law, assuming the crit tables are in a spread across from the attack table).

[Cory Magel]

HARP has one roll resolution.  It's one of the reasons why I dig it.

We played one campaign using HARP and I disliked it most for the two primary reasons I like RM the most: Spell uniqueness/variety and the Hit/Crit chart variety.  I don't mind a one roll resolution, but it needs to NOT result in too much repetitiveness (which HARP did IMO).

As much as it would be nice to see combined results in RM I don't know how feasible it's going to be.  I'll have to play with the whole single hit/crit individual weapon chart idea some more.

[masque1223]

We played one campaign using HARP and I disliked it most for the two primary reasons I like RM the most: Spell uniqueness/variety and the Hit/Crit chart variety.

I use Martial Law for HARP, so the hit locations switch it up a bit.  I'm usually changing the flavor text for my players anyway.  As for the magic system, to me it's the main selling point of HARP over RM, so YMMV.

[jasonbrisbane]

I was always frudstrated at rm at not having clear mechanisms for scaling spells for range, duration, and number of targets, as well as other spell specific effects. I hatwd getting speLl mastery with only a vague hope that the gm would interprete rules the same way and allow you to cast what you wanted...


In harp that is standard.

[Marc R]

We're drifting off topic here. . .but that said. . .

True, and very handy, I think HARP does offer a great deal of flexibility of use in what it gives you. . .but I think what Cory was referring to above was the vast number of base spells in RM. . .Even if you boil down all the Teleport I, II, V, X into one spell and say it's scaled variants, there is quite a large pool of base spells to draw from.

Which makes it harder to vary HARP casters by spell selection, as RM not only has more base spells, it breaks them up into lots of mutually exclusive buckets (assuming the GM doesn't casually allow "Other base" or "Other Realm" selections.) which ties back into the variations issue above. . .two casters can easily be made different, but over 100 casters you start repeating yourself a lot sooner using HARP, even with all the books tossed in.

I think the two games are suited to different things, and I don't think this thread was intended as a point to start a fight between the two sides. . .They're different, and better for different flavors. . .but in their own flavor, superior. . .And one of the things RM stresses is variability of both chargen, and results of actions. . .the one roll table would seem to be contrary to that general theme.

(Managed to make it back on topic at the end there)

[Cory Magel]

Well, maybe the way to look at it is that HARP is the 'mass market' appeal one, or the entryway into RM, which is for the hardcore or veteran players.  RM keeps its seperate attack and crit tables and if someone doesn't like that then maybe HARP is for them.

I would like to see some cross improvements however.  I see no reason why RM couldn't adapt some of the improvement in the way HARP does spells (i.e. the scaling and so forth Jason refers to), but keep the uniqueness of spell lists, especially the profession lists, that RM currently has.