Topic: Has anyone tried a simplified two roll hit/damage resolution method for HARP?

[pyrotech]

Just some backstory about my question.  One of my most successful campaigns ever used the deeply flawed Mechwarrior 3rd edition rules.  But intermixed with the flaws in that system were brilliant nuggets of mechanics I have not seen elsewhere.  One of those mechanics was its hit & damage system.  It used an open ended to hit roll vs a target number dependent on a number of conditions (the sheer number of conditions and modifiers was one of the flaws).  The margin of success on the hit roll added to the damage roll.  The damage dice depended on the weapon or attack used and were open ended as well.  But the damage roll consulted a single simple table that indicated the severity of the wound.  The GM would dictate exactly what the nature of the wound was depending on its hit location and the nature of the attack (a moderate wound to a limb from a blunt weapon would likely be a broken bone, while a critical bullet wound to the torso is most likely a punctured organ and/or blood vessel).

This system is similar to a simplified single chart version of Rolemaster's system.  It forces a little more on the fly creativity on the GM, but gives diverse interesting injuries using only a single chart (as opposed to the pages of charts Rolemaster and HARP use).

Has anyone tried anything similar to this with HARP?  I know Rolemaster conversions are popular but I am wondering about something like the Rolemaster system but with only replacing the critical charts with a set of guidelines for the crits.  For example a A-crit represents bruised bones, severed veins, heavy superficial bleeding or severe sprains.

Thanks,

-Pyrotech

[Thom @ ICE]

Yes and no....
No second damage roll.  I am a very strong proponent of having the attack roll also drive the damage.  Other aspects might modify the result after the "hit" has been determined, but there would not be a separate Damage roll.


The concept of the margin of success playing an important part in determining the damage is definitely a key part of any combat system I play with.


The single crit table to determine severity (which was then different based upon attack type) is something I am playing around with right now.... I have a few other twists that I can't talk about right now.... But they are definitely a mix of HARP concepts and new ideas and have yielded a greater diversity of results with much less effort (and a definite increase in combat excitement and high adventure!)

[pyrotech]

Hey Thom,

I've read another post where you have hinted about your combat system.  Consider me interested in it.  I look forward to seeing it when you have it finalized.

I like the single roll attack resolution myself, but it loses a lot of differentiation between weapons.  I dislike the weapon vs. armor charts that Rolemaster uses (mostly because of chart complexity and proliferation) and prefer the static armor value system Harp uses.  You can always use special modifiers like chainmail reduces slashing crits by 10 if you want to include some of the weapon/armor interactions into the system (which I usually don't bother with).

Thanks for the response!

-Pyrotech

[Falenthal]

But the damage roll consulted a single simple table that indicated the severity of the wound.  The GM would dictate exactly what the nature of the wound was depending on its hit location and the nature of the attack (a moderate wound to a limb from a blunt weapon would likely be a broken bone, while a critical bullet wound to the torso is most likely a punctured organ and/or blood vessel).

That's a very interesting idea, and one that would probably fit well into the HARP system. As you said, HARP is a system that only losses some of its speed when combat arises and you have to look at the puncture tables for the archers, flip pages to look at the slash tables for swordsman, flip again to see how the magicians shockbolt hits, etc.

[Thom @ ICE]

Hey Thom,

I've read another post where you have hinted about your combat system.  Consider me interested in it.  I look forward to seeing it when you have it finalized.

When ready for that I'll definitely let you know. 

I like the single roll attack resolution myself, but it loses a lot of differentiation between weapons.  I dislike the weapon vs. armor charts that Rolemaster uses (mostly because of chart complexity and proliferation) and prefer the static armor value system Harp uses.  You can always use special modifiers like chainmail reduces slashing crits by 10 if you want to include some of the weapon/armor interactions into the system (which I usually don't bother with).

Thanks for the response!

-Pyrotech

Differentiation for weapons....  It's in there, both by group and by specific weapon....
Static Armor... still in there - but shields would be much different than how they are handled now.
As for armor vs weapon types.... would only consider it as optional since I don't normally do that much detail.
Slash... no longer in there... part of the diversity concept.

Thanks for the interest....

[Zhaleskra]

That's a very interesting idea, and one that would probably fit well into the HARP system. As you said, HARP is a system that only losses some of its speed when combat arises and you have to look at the puncture tables for the archers, flip pages to look at the slash tables for swordsman, flip again to see how the magicians shockbolt hits, etc.

How about making a GM's Screen of the critical tables? Or buying one, provided one is available for sale?

[Tommi]

  But the damage roll consulted a single simple table that indicated the severity of the wound.  The GM would dictate exactly what the nature of the wound was depending on its hit location and the nature of the attack.
-Pyrotech

Seems also quite like HARN master combat. Are you familiar with that? I have the material but my players newer wanted to give a try... And also I like RM better.

[Falenthal]

That's a very interesting idea, and one that would probably fit well into the HARP system. As you said, HARP is a system that only losses some of its speed when combat arises and you have to look at the puncture tables for the archers, flip pages to look at the slash tables for swordsman, flip again to see how the magicians shockbolt hits, etc.

How about making a GM's Screen of the critical tables? Or buying one, provided one is available for sale?

Well, I made my own with copies of the book, but still, one table for everything would be still better.

[Zhaleskra]

Well, I made my own with copies of the book, but still, one table for everything would be still better.

Cool if it works for you. To me that would be oversimplifying.

[pyrotech]

In response to Tommi,

I've not tried Harn - mostly because of it's reputation as the Phoenix Command of "Fantasy" games.  Way to much realism getting in the way of the game.  So I'm not actually familiar with the combat system.

As far as using a GM screen, even HARP has too many tables to conveniently use on a typical 3 or 4 panel screen and still be easily legible.  My solution is to  use an indexed "booklet" of just the combat charts.  But that still adds way more time flipping and indexing than just one or two charts.  Rolemaster and Tri Tac are even worse than HARP for this aspect of the game.

From my experience, it was pretty simple to describe almost any wound just from the source of the damage, the location of the damage, and the degree of the damage.  A Giant cockroach bites a leg for a serious wound?  That is "it's mandibles slice through calf muscles making it difficult to stand let alone run".  A Bear bites a hand for a Critical wound?  That is "The bear's teeth tear through your hand shattering bones and almost severing it completely, you drop whatever is in it and it is useless until healed".  The players usually weren't too concerned about the gritty details during the battle, as long as they knew what its modifiers were.

With HARP I'm usually not looking for a super realistic game.  I'm mostly looking for a replacement for the game Hasbro mutilated.  HARP seems to satisfy that niche pretty well.  If I really wanted a more complicated system that allowed even more realism I would probably go to Rolemaster.  But for some games those kinds of details just get in the way of the game.

I've got some guesses on what Thom is up to based on some of his posts.  And I am very intrigued with what he might be able to do with that. 

[Zhaleskra]

For GM "screens", I don't even really use a screen format anymore: separate pages that can be stacked and flipped through work for me.

[Mitchiban]

Would still like a GM screen to add atmosphere,hide notes, handouts, etc.  Easy to work around but love the system and would support the product with a purchase if they did come out with one.

So if its speed you are looking for Excel / spreadsheet programs can save your butt.   Then any form of combat resolution you want can be implemented/automated quickly if that was a reason to simplify. 

Currently running an excel spreadsheet with the maneuver, critical tables, included.  Have a combat tracker for party and monsters on tabs and all character spells, skills etc.  With one tab for total party summary tied of course to where I record player damage.  Have it automated to roll monster maneuver rolls/combat rolls for the entire lot of monsters in an encounter.   Although automated to work with the Hack n Slash rules I need to tinker it down to regular Harp simplified rules for new group.  We can ease them into bloody chaos later. L)   Learned so much about excel from updating the Michaud.buss.dale character sheet ( /bow to the excel Gods ) fixing bugs, finishing the ht/wt part etc. that the combat stuff was easy in comparison.

Also looking forward to see what Thom has cooking.  Sounds interesting. 

[dagorhir]

Would still like a GM screen to add atmosphere,hide notes, handouts, etc.  Easy to work around but love the system and would support the product with a purchase if they did come out with one.

I made myself a blank board screen to hide behind during games. It also somewhat protects me from the dice the players throw at me on occasion. I printed all the tables I need as quick reference that I can flip through as needed.

So if its speed you are looking for Excel / spreadsheet programs can save your butt.   Then any form of combat resolution you want can be implemented/automated quickly if that was a reason to simplify. 

Currently running an excel spreadsheet with the maneuver, critical tables, included.  Have a combat tracker for party and monsters on tabs and all character spells, skills etc.  With one tab for total party summary tied of course to where I record player damage.  Have it automated to roll monster maneuver rolls/combat rolls for the entire lot of monsters in an encounter.   Although automated to work with the Hack n Slash rules I need to tinker it down to regular Harp simplified rules for new group.  We can ease them into bloody chaos later. L)   Learned so much about excel from updating the Michaud.buss.dale character sheet ( /bow to the excel Gods ) fixing bugs, finishing the ht/wt part etc. that the combat stuff was easy in comparison.

I also use Excel, but only to keep track of creature damage and initiative. Saves me some time and a lot of math.

Also looking forward to see what Thom has cooking.  Sounds interesting.

Indeed, it does sound interesting.

[Falenthal]

From my experience, it was pretty simple to describe almost any wound just from the source of the damage, the location of the damage, and the degree of the damage.  A Giant cockroach bites a leg for a serious wound?  That is "it's mandibles slice through calf muscles making it difficult to stand let alone run".  A Bear bites a hand for a Critical wound?  That is "The bear's teeth tear through your hand shattering bones and almost severing it completely, you drop whatever is in it and it is useless until healed".  The players usually weren't too concerned about the gritty details during the battle, as long as they knew what its modifiers were.

Agreed. The normal descriptions end up being repetitive, so I improvise them depending on the attacker, the situation, the location of the hit, etc. In the end, I don't read the descriptions anymores, I only look at the hits/bleeding/stun/penalties of the attack.

Well, I made my own with copies of the book, but still, one table for everything would be still better.

Cool if it works for you. To me that would be oversimplifying.

Not really. I see two ways to work on a united table:
1) The range for results is the same for every attack (41-50, 51-60, 61-70, etc.), so we can have a unique table where we find something like: Crush - 13 hits &1 round stunned / Puncture - 12 hits / Slash - 14 hits & -5 penalty
Even magical, slaying, etc criticals can be added, only depending on the design of the chart. As for the description, as Pyrotech said above, every GM can come up with an improvised description for the attacks, the same as we come up with improvised dialogues with NPCs.

2) For every result range and hit location, the chart could give an average result. For example, 13 hits. Then we can have a modifier that always applies to this average, depending on the kind of attack. In this case: Crush attacks - Add 1 round of stunned / Puncture - Decrease damage by 10% / Slash - Increase damage by 10% and add -5 to penalties.

Either way it would simplify the results, but not so much as to make them equal. You still would get different tendencies of damage depending on the type of critical.

[Zhaleskra]

Well, I made my own with copies of the book, but still, one table for everything would be still better.

Cool if it works for you. To me that would be oversimplifying.

Why are you arguing against how something would feel to me? To an extent I like more detail, although I think I'd avoid hit locations for elemental attacks. I don't see someone taking an Electrical crit to the 'nads, for instance.

[Thom @ ICE]

I don't see someone taking an Electrical crit to the 'nads, for instance.

Ouch!!!     

[Zhaleskra]

Ouch!!!     

Might be less painful than the NPC who took the cleric's War Mattock to the groin when I ran HARP at U-Con 2011.

[Luxferre]

@GM Screen:

I would highly appreciate one. And please use the same format as in Dragon Age. Like a rotated standardformat, less high, but wider. So the GM may overlook the table a bit better

[Falenthal]

Well, I made my own with copies of the book, but still, one table for everything would be still better.

Cool if it works for you. To me that would be oversimplifying.

Why are you arguing against how something would feel to me?

Sorry, I didn't mean to discuss your feelings.
I was trying to explain a little better why I think that a single chart shouldn't mean simplifying the results, or at least not oversimplifying. Only an opinion.