Topic: HARP D20-Fied Revisited

[Marc R]

Were rank bonuses +1/rank or did you calc a d100 bonus/5?

[Witchking20k]

Oh, +1/rank

[Witchking20k]

In retrospect I might actually use the ranks/level limits presented in HARP too

[Marc R]

What did you use when you did it?

[Witchking20k]

I used 2+2/level as the max.  2D10 yields rolls of 9-12 fairly often, so I figured that using 2xstats would yield a bonus of about 3 and skill of 4= 7 meaning the player would have to roll 13-15 to succeed at M & H maneuvers respectively; making such feats attainable at 1st level....but not easy

[Marc R]

The +1/rank and (LV+1)x2 rank limit are more signifigant changes than the 2d10 actually, though they do behave contrary to each other so that ameliorates some of the effect. . .at higher levels skill bonus would most definitely be a far more relevant factor.

[Witchking20k]

Agreed, but switchking from a linear to bell curve makes a huge difference to the dice rolling aspect in my experience.  Having played & GMd Hero for many years, I've come to appreciate the game scale it creates.  For example, if the average DB is 10, and the a roll of 9-12 is common then an OB of 2-3 is good enough to hit 50% of the time.

[Marc R]

The 3d6 HERO curve is very different, 2d10 is still 100 results, they're just curved to the middle, 3d6 is 216 and far more steeply curved the the middle. Did some Fantasy HERO/RM back-n-forth back when ICE published both, and it's a dramatic difference. DB becomes DCV, OB becomes combat levels you can split between OCV and DCV (parry).

2d10 lowballs the bottom and top ends compared to d100, but not nearly as badly as 3d6 does.

Due to OB vs DB in defense and parry. a 2-3 OB in a scenario of 10 average OBs will essentially never hit rather than hit 50% of the time. . .beyond the issue of DBs of 1-3, parry will push your OB down fast due to the rapid drop off below 9. . . .if I parry you into a -3 OB attack, your odds rapidly shift to crappy down the front face of the curve. I too played a lot of hero, and a 3 OCV attacking a 10 DCV is close to no chance at all. . .admitedly 2d10 doesn't pone you nearly as badly as 3d6 does in that scenario, but if you have an overall OB advantage, you can probably squeeze your opponant almost out of the fight and still leave yourself a decent OB to attack with.

Though I guess it depends how you translated the attack result to the attack table.

The +1/rank is essentially +5/rank in d100, without diminishing returns. . .even at 2/level you cross the 10 ranks rubicon of diminishing returns at 4-5th level. . . .your 9th level characters would be stronger than HARP standard, with 20 ranks = +20 = +100% vs 30 ranks = +80%. . . .at 14th level 30 ranks = +30 = +150% vs 45 ranks = +95%

What did you use for open ended rolls? 2 & 20, 2-3 & 19-20, something else?

[Witchking20k]

I played a 2D10 target 20 system.  Open-ended on 19&20 from Medium or higher attacks, 20 for Small & Tiny, 19&20 for skills.

Agreed on the bell curve, I play Hero in Shadow World still, which is one of the reasons I chose to try a 2D10 rather than 3D6, although I contemplated a roll under 0-18 system.....

[Marc R]

Convert to 98-00 and 00 open ended respectively. How did you work out the fumble/failure ranges at the bottom?.

Sounds like a lot of conversion fiddling was needed, I suspected as much above.

[Witchking20k]

Yah, it was a bit of work.  Spells on the fly was iinteresting....plus crits w/HPs penalties etc......

[Uriel]

I respect all of the numbers crunching, dedication and such towards this project, but I started playing HARP because I missed rolling percentage dice...


Carry on, fellows!


-Uriel

[SamwiseSeven]

I guess I like D100 roll under percentile systems better, and for mechanics that add numbers together, to use smaller numbers.  Of course I also like D10 dice pool systems... 

I just like a lot of stuff I guess.   

[Witchking20k]

I like d100 roll under systems too.  Star Frontiers! 

[RandalThor]

I guess I like D100 roll under percentile systems better, and for mechanics that add numbers together, to use smaller numbers.  Of course I also like D10 dice pool systems...  

I just like a lot of stuff I guess.  

Yeah, me too. I am OK with many systems - I think it comes from being around in the era of gaming when each new game that came out, came with it's own rules system. For me, just so long as they have a few aspects: you do (roll) better, you do (results) better, I don't need to know calculus to learn/use the rules, they don't require miniatures, and don't change the rules for every new rule/situation.

I like d100 roll under systems too.  Star Frontiers!  

Don't forget Top Secret S.I., one of my favorites.

PS (and back on topic): I have been tending towards games with bigger scales and a 1-20 is about as small as I like to go now. Just like the room for improvement and the ability to reflect the vast array of different capabilities/beings/etc. (Such as, a motorcycle compared to a Death Star. A 1-6 scale just doesn't reflect the actual difference there. IMO.) So 20-fying HARP is OK to me, just don't want to go any smaller in scale.

[Cory Magel]

Maybe I'm missing something but what is the point of using a D20 (i.e. divide by 5) version of a 2d10 game?  The fact that you use a different die?

The only point I see is, well, to put bluntly, stupid.  It sounds more like a mental block on the players part to trick themselves into thinking they are not playing that "other super complex" game system (which, when you compare the systems is really a silly argument if you ask me).

I've also seen, in this thread even the "bigger numbers" comment.  No offense... but... really?  Is a three digit number really that much harder for the players to figure out than a two digit number? Seriously?  If this was the major problem a group of players under me had against a system I don't think I'd have any patience for the rest of their intelligence level.  We've had players that tried to pose that argument, but they were also the players that were too dense to add up all the various standard modifiers of their most commonly rolled actions (i.e. like their primary weapon attack) so that all that had to add or subtract was the die roll and the enemy modifier. Every time they be going "58 OB, +5 Weapon, +10 this, +5, that... uh, what was that other bonus I have?"

Sorry, might sound kind of rude, but we're gamers for gods sake, is it really that difficult?

[RandalThor]

CM, I agree with you somewhat. Especially about the difficulty difference between game systems, which is something I kept trying to tell some of my friends, but they just couldn't get past it. (That and the "chart-master" comments that kept coming up.)

The idea that adding and/or subtracting the slightly higher numbers is hard enough to warrant a system change is silly to me too. I am sure it is in most cases a cover for the "I just don't want to change systems because I am set in my ways" mentality.

But, there are those casual gamers, like my friends wife, who want to play the game because of the story potential and not the crunchy parts that many hardcore gamers like. (Though, I am a hardcore gamer* and I prefer the story to the number crunchy/balancy parts myself.) So, for them, maybe it is a way to be simpler/smoother. I still think it is mostly "in their heads" as any game can be crunchy, if that is how it is ran, and any game can be story driven, if that is how it is ran. IMO.

*One look at my shelves would prove that.

[masque1223]

<SNIP D100 to D20 RANT>
Sorry, might sound kind of rude, but we're gamers for gods sake, is it really that difficult?

I run D20ified for my players.  D100 is not difficult for them.  It's just annoying to have to fiddle with the larger numbers, and it's a little slower to do the math in one's head.  So we use a D20 to simplify the numbers, but we still use the rest of the system.  It's a streamlining thing, not a stupid player thing.

[Thom @ ICE]

From what I have read on these posts it is clear that there are multiple positions and each one is right for the individual's own gaming group.  I don't think that it is an intelligence issue at all, but I also don't think that HARP d20 has the ability to have the granularity and impact that HARP was designed with.

If d20 works for you and your playing HARP/5 that's great - better than having you play another system. And if it's really all about the roleplaying anyway then I guess the granularity loss is not a big deal - certainly not a major impact to all aspects of the system (though I'd prefer to have it with d100, then give it up with d20).

Since the conversion has been described as being relatively simple for those who want to play HARP/5 my only comment is that I hope that HARP products are never released based upon the /5 version and instead remain true to their d100 granular roots.

[Witchking20k]

I think the appeal for a 2D10/D20 system is less math and its appeal to new players because its closer to what they are used to.  Its not like my players are stupid or anything, its just that handling the large numbers is more cumbersome than need be when you are 30+ and get together every other week for a couple of hours to play.  We simply want to maximize the time by minimizing the math.

If I remember correctly the Harp Charts are all scaled by 10s, meaning there is no difference between rolling a 73 and a 78, so why not divide the whole chart by 10 and have 14-15 results instead of ranging from -2 to 12 (including 0) and roll 2d10 + skill ranks to attack?