Topic: Top 5 worst things about HARP

[Karizma]

One of the best things about this system appears to be that if you don't like the way something was written, HARP has the tools to change it without destroying the game. 

Any complaint I may have about HARP is easily negated by this little Truth.  And so despite seeing things I personally don't like, I'm glad that it's simple enough to modify that I can choose to do so.

[Arioch]

Didn't we already have a thread a few months back, that covered the issue of GM cheating? 

Yeah, probably, did I mention that I'm quite obsessed by this topic? 

[Winterknight]

I vaguely recall you mentioning something of the sort.  

[kreider204]

I've got my own handful of minor beefs with HARP - though it is still my favorite system to play.

The one major beef I have is the way that Monsters were done in the rules. Assumed 75 in all stats, Fighter Profession (including Fighter abilities - Shield Training???) and the Initiatives calculated for the chart....

Yes, we've discussed this a dozen times in the past, and yes you can create your own base version and adjust the stats as you wish - but my biggest issue is that if it was done right this would not be a problem to begin with.  The Fighter profession has abilities that make no sense for most monsters - the assumption of 75 stats exceeds standards specified for base PC creation (making level comparisons imbalanced) and the Initiative figures are just plain ridiculous (good luck getting a strike in).

All that being said... I'll still play HARP, even if I need to throw out the pregen monsters and start from scratch on my own.

+1000000000000000000000.  I sold my copy of M:aFG for this reason.  Ended up buying RMC:C&T and doing the minor conversion necessary to use it with HARP.

The folks at ICE make some weird design situations sometimes, and that was definitely one of them.  Another - giving the characters in the Character Book absurdly high stats, and doing the same for RMC/X character creation guidelines, thus forcing any game group who stuck to the RULES when making characters to have to adjust any published adventures and supplements in order to avoid having the party get slaughtered ...

[Arioch]

IMO that's part of both the "encounter building" point and the playtesting one, if there will ever be a new edition of HARP I hope that these kind of problems will get fixed.

[kreider204]

My only other serious gripe: I don't like that DP are based on stats.  Encourages munchkinism.  I've noticed that LOTS of us house rule that - fixed DP, usually about 40+1/lvl. 

I also have conflicted feelings about training packages (can also encourage munchkinism), but I think they could be OK if used sparingly.

For the record, though, I heart HARP.  I was looking at my house rules, and there's really very little about it that I'd change.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

5) ... First of all, I don't like the Personal/Party goal distinction. Not only it's an unnecessary complication, but it also seems an attempt to drive the system towards too many different directions.

The reason that party goals are rewarded more heavily is to encourage teamwork and cooperation between PCs. It makes sense from a gamist perspective of trying to keep multiple strong personalities under the same sky. I'm normally a little less formal about XP-- tend to hand it out by fiat, based on rough ideas of RP and accomplishment-- but the HARP system makes sense to me.
 

3) Skills: It's not that I don't like skills, it's that I feel that skills in HARP need a better organization. For example, I don't understand why the physical and general categories need to be separated, since evrry profession get the as favourites, wouldn't it have been easier to make them a single category?

Agreed. Though if I did so, I'd be inclined to move Jumping into Athletic. (Then again, I prefer much more superheroic jumping than the HARP rules allow.)

In addition, some categories include very few skills, while others have a lot of skills under them: this gives more potentialities to some professions and less to other, wiìhich imho is not a good thing.

My pet peeve is Influence. I understand the intent may have been to emphasize in-character roleplay over skill checks, but the lack of such key adventurer-style interactions such as Intimidation and Interrogation frustrates me to no end. A Gossip skill and possibly a separate Investigation skill wouldn't be out of line, either-- though the latter could easily be a function of Interrogation.

There are also some skill that seems out of the scope of the game to me (like the crafts skill), and a few somewhat overlapping skills (medicine and herbalism, to make an example).

Same category, same Stats. Takes all of a simple sentence to House Rule them into a single skill.

Far as Crafts... yeah, I don't see it having a big role in any given game, but it's good character background and can be surprisingly useful in certain types of game-- or even certain scenarios that develop over the course of a normal game. Think about the knife-crafting scenes from The Hunted as a marvelous example of how they might fit into a HARP game.

Finally, I don't like very much the trend of introducing new skills with new supplements, I'd prefer to see new uses for old skills than this.

I'd say that I agreed with this, but overall I'd say the new skills I've seen introduced have been needed-- especially the new skills in Martial Law and College of Magics. Much as I love HARP out-of-the-box, and the ability to play it out-of-the-box, those two supplements make the game so much deeper. The two different two-weapon styles represent a real tactical difference for two-weapon fighters, and the new skill options for magic-users are very nice.

Playtesting:
I don't know if I can consider this a valid complaint--at least not for my self.  It could be very well if somebody likes the system the way it is.  And I think an important thing to keep in mind is the company that's producing this.  This system really falls into standard ICE affair.

There are a number of things about HARP that I'd like to see changed. None of them stand out to me as things that would have necessarily been "caught" and changed as a result of playtesting-- I agree with you, that chances are things are the way they are because someone wanted them that way. Since it's my game, I'm just going to go right ahead and play it however I damned well please. Don't reckon it picks the pocket or breaks the legs of the designers for me to do that.

2) Skills.  I think it's GREAT that the number of skills is so small (compared to good ol' Rolemaster, of course).  And then HARP began falling into the Rolemaster problem of adding skills with new expansions.  The problem with this is then we have to get a new character skill sheet, but it includes all the skills, not ONLY the ones we want.

Even worse when you make extensive House Rules that add or remove skills. I've been experimenting with drastic expansions of the Monk based on the mystical Monks in Harper's Bazaar, including the use of new Chi skills. I flesh out the Influence list. I rework the skill end of the magic system. It all adds up to a great deal of difficulty using the standard character sheet, and I'm finding myself increasingly in need for an alternate for my House Rules.

Certain skills seem to overlap in my mind, such as Animal Handling and Beast Mastery.  So my solution was to make Animal Handling a skill, and Beast Mastery a talent that--when acquired--allows a character to use Animal Handling as Beast Mastery as well.

I think that's a gorgeous solution.

Crafts/Lores are also painfully vague.  There's no comprehensive list for me to show my players what the Crafts and Lores are.  I made one (admittedly, Lores is easier than Crafts), and find that the rules will refer to a craft that I didn't think of.

A list is good. Figure most specialties that come up can either be fit into your existing list, or your list needs expanded.

My only other serious gripe: I don't like that DP are based on stats.  Encourages munchkinism.  I've noticed that LOTS of us house rule that - fixed DP, usually about 40+1/lvl.

I've seen it. I've used it. Personally, I like the idea of a hybrid system where you get DP based on your stats that can only be spent on skills (and possibly talents) based on that stat, and a fixed (40 at 1st, 10 + 2/level afterward) pool that can be spent on anything, including stat increases. More points, but taking training packages out of the picture and imposing limits on where DP can be spent goes a long way to balancing that.

I also have conflicted feelings about training packages (can also encourage munchkinism), but I think they could be OK if used sparingly.

I actually like Training Packages. My only complaint is that they're tricky to complicate because their point value varies from profession to profession-- and I'd rather see fixed prices. Probably not hard to fix.

[Arioch]

The reason that party goals are rewarded more heavily is to encourage teamwork and cooperation between PCs. It makes sense from a gamist perspective of trying to keep multiple strong personalities under the same sky.

The problem imho is that there is no other element in the game that encourages it. To make an example, take d&d 4e: if you leave the party and go adventuring alone you're dead, because the rules strongly favour teamplay. In harp this is not true, each character is self-sufficient.
The only reason that game mechanics give him for following the other party members is Party Goals xp. Which isn't enough imho (besides, HARP doesn't really seem aimed at favouring a gamist CA) .
Mind, I'm not saying tha the xp system is bad, only that it could be improved. 

[Maelstrom]

I also have conflicted feelings about training packages (can also encourage munchkinism), but I think they could be OK if used sparingly.

I actually like Training Packages. My only complaint is that they're tricky to complicate because their point value varies from profession to profession-- and I'd rather see fixed prices. Probably not hard to fix.

 

TPs in Harp provide a 25% discount on the skills in the TP.  Not sure what you mean by "point values var[y] from profession to profession"

[RandalThor]

The problem imho is that there is no other element in the game that encourages it. To make an example, take d&d 4e: if you leave the party and go adventuring alone you're dead, because the rules strongly favour teamplay. In harp this is not true, each character is self-sufficient.
The only reason that game mechanics give him for following the other party members is Party Goals xp. Which isn't enough imho (besides, HARP doesn't really seem aimed at favouring a gamist CA) .
Mind, I'm not saying tha the xp system is bad, only that it could be improved. 

Except that it is safer for two (or more) people to attack the orc than it would be for either one of them to do it alone*. Plus, rules - even if they don't touch on every aspect of the game - to encourage people to work as a team as opposed to trying to dominate individually is much appreciated. (By me, at least.  )

I just go with a player incentive xp system: if you show up on time for the game, every 4th session you level up. In-game bonuses are given for exceptional gaming (like bonus Fate Points for excellent roleplaying). Of course, exceptional circumstances (like a sick family member, etc.) are not tallied in this 4 games = a level guidline.

*In the majority of scenarios.

[Thom @ ICE]

I also have conflicted feelings about training packages (can also encourage munchkinism), but I think they could be OK if used sparingly.

I actually like Training Packages. My only complaint is that they're tricky to complicate because their point value varies from profession to profession-- and I'd rather see fixed prices. Probably not hard to fix.

 

TPs in Harp provide a 25% discount on the skills in the TP.  Not sure what you mean by "point values var[y] from profession to profession"

A TP for Art skills has 25% reduction for the Art skills, but some professions have art skills at 4DP and others at 2DP.  Additionally, there are talents which would be ideal to tie to the TP, but formal TP rules do not allow the TP discount to be used on anything other than skills.  The line between talents and skills is very blurred at times in terms of what it represents, but the mechanics are different.  Since you can use DP to acquire either, the TP discount for DP expenditures should apply to all areas of DP expenditures.  I know that I have already houseruled that in.

[Ancient of Days]

for what its worth, all i can say that i dont like about the system is that there is waaay too much left to the GM to fill in as far as minutia with the rules and guidelines. ive done my share of variant system building in my day but im getting to old to spend days or weeks doing the algebra for tables of info most systems already give you, let alone then have to convert to HARP. they should just make one systems.... HARPmaster...

[Thos]

Current lack of any new printed material. I love the system and want MORE! 

[johnkzin]

What 5 things do I think HARP should have done differently? (which is sort of the same thing as "what are the 5 worst things about HARP", but most of mine aren't directly about the rules)

1) More like (the old RM-light game, based on a licensed setting, that the forums censor me from saying)/Cyberspace -- DPs are set amounts per level, not derived from stats.  Professions  dictate DPs per skill group per level (sort of like the DP that a HARP profession gives at 1st level in that Profession ... only that is applied _every_ level).  And, instead of paying 20 DP to change professions, simply let a player choose whatever profession makes role-playing sense for the character to advance in.

2) Should have included design rules, in the core rule book, for professions (including alternate rules for "professionless" gaming), species, talents, spells, weapons, etc., so that you can easily adapt it to other settings/genres/epochs/tech-levels/magic-levels/etc..

3) Should have been Generic: lightly treated for all genres, not just fantasy, and not just one fantasy setting -- with examples, skills, and skill groups for High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, historical middle ages, colonial, 1800's (napoleonic, western, steampunk), early 20th century, late 20th century, modern, supers, post-apocalyptic, hard-sci-fi, and soft-sci-fi/space-opera/science-fantasy all in one rule book ... and then an initial treatment of applying that to the HARP setting ... instead of tying the HARP setting directly into the rules, and having the initial rules all being limited to Fantasy.  And I don't mean "1 skill list for each genre/epoch", I mean 1 skill list, period.  Then the skill definition would tell you which skills apply to each genre/epoch/tech-level/magic-level.

4) Should have delivered a Sci-fi setting within the first 2 years of the game being out.  Probably also a Supers setting within the first 4 years.

5) Should have delivered Java and/or web based tools for character generation/management, campaign management, NPC generation/management, monster/encounter generation/management, etc.  (I heard that, eventually, CMP did a HARP treatment, but I haven't heard if it has been kept current, if it was any good, etc.).

[butscharoni]

So, wanna throw my two cents in, too:

#5 Beastmastery
The thing i noticed first when i looked at the HARP rules first was animal handling and beastmastery.
Beastmastery just makes no sense to me. It duplicates animal handling in many aspects and is actually a thing i don't like in my fantasy worlds. To special of a skill for my players to have. I would be OK with it as a talent. No point in not letting the player who wants to play a beastmaster have it, but i will not allow any character without any background on it to talk to animals for gods sake!

#4 GM-tips/Guidelines
Now, while i don't necessarily need tons of advise how to deal with problem players or opinions on fudging die rolls, since HARP tends to think of itself as a generic system and a sandbox for building your own setting, i would really like tools to help me do so more easily. So i would like more discussion of the rules and how to adopt them. College of magics does this great for magic, but as was already said, there is nothing for encounter building, new professions, races etc. If this game is a toolbox, than give me advise on how to properly use it! Of course i can do it myself, but why am i buying your game then? Including a setting would also work, though. ;-)

#3 Skill distribution
I am also not quite satisfied with skill categories. Most of all, i don't like influence. While on the one hand, it contains skills every character should or could have access to, if you actually play a profession that does, on the other hand, there are just three skills in it that do not really give you much of an advantage. I like the concept of only special social fitting classes getting special social skills, but only giving some classes access to skills everyone could learn, sucks a lot.
I don't like skill bloat either, but find that at least the skills from College of Magics and Martial law enhance the gaming experience without bloating to much. While Warriors had a lot of skills to begin with in the first place. the options in CoM make mages that more interesting. It's totally worth it, if done right.

#2 Monsters to tough
This one was already discussed here multiple times so i think i don't have to explain. So while i like the monster building rules, i just don't like the power level of the monsters. And while i could change them myself, again the question, why i should buy the books if i have to do the work in the end. :-)


#1 DP points derived from stats
This is the biggest issue for me, because in my mind it totally breaks the game and leaves so much room for abuse that i wonder why this is even in the game. Because this is one of the playtesting issues, because to be honest, i didn't notice until a munchkin walked all over our game abusing these rules. The rules as they are work great if players create characters with realism and roleplaying in mind, but IMHO they should be good enough to also work if someone creates characters out of other reasons. Minmaxing can be a lot of fun, but the kind of behaviour the HARP rules allow is just so much out of scope it breaks anything.

All that said, i love HARP and would propably not write that much stuff in such an angry voice if i did not. I just wish, some of this issues are addresses in a new version, if one ever comes out. Oh, and did i mention i want more books to buy? :-D

[Raf Blutaxt]

One thing that really caught my eye in this thread is the XP problem.
I don't see it as a problem because I don't tell my players exactly for which action they get how many XP. And anyway, shouldn't players pursue goals because they make sense and not because they get XP for them?

Other problems include the imballanced skill system, most notably the influence category and the DP derived from stats issue. Again, for the right group this works fine and is a good rule but it's so wide open for powergaming exploitation (can you tell that I play in the same group as Butscharoni? ).
Oh and there's some issues with imballanced professions as well. The Thief / Rogue / fighter problem that has been discussed here before. These are things that should be adressed in a new edition. 

[Arioch]

One thing that really caught my eye in this thread is the XP problem.
I don't see it as a problem because I don't tell my players exactly for which action they get how many XP. And anyway, shouldn't players pursue goals because they make sense and not because they get XP for them?

Rewarding players for pursue (not only accomplish, just pursue) goals that makes sense (where "make sense" means being coherent with their character motivations, make gaming enjoyable and so on), is a way of encouraging this behaviour, making the game more enjoyable.
Players are more motivated to act in a certain way if they know that their actions will be rewarded somehow (and that's why you can't complain if a game that rewards only killing monsters and taking their stuff produce only hack'n'slash campaigns). It's a game, after all.

[Raf Blutaxt]

I agree that the way XP are handed out  determins the style of the game but this is also a very powerful tool for gm's. If I give out more XP for creative solutions and in character decisions, my players will automatically shift to a playstyle that is dominated more by these aspects than simple hack'n'slash.

Something that just came to me about your original complaint with the XP system is that most personal goals, when they become more important in the campaign shift to being party goals anyway. so if for example Grog the fighter has the personal goal of avenging his family which was killed by someone, the initial investigation might bring only him XP, as he does it on the side wile the party tries to incite a rebellion against the evil duke. But when he discovers that the duke was also involved in the murder of his family, killing the duke might become a party goal and a personal goal for Grog. So if the party succeeds with overthrowing the duke and killing him, all players are rewarded with the XP for achieving the major party goal and Grog's player gains a bonus for achieving his personal goal on the wway  If used like this, the XP system motivates players to make more input to the story helping the gm in turn to make the plot more interesting for everyone.   

[Right Wing Wacko]

Something that just came to me about your original complaint with the XP system is that most personal goals, when they become more important in the campaign shift to being party goals anyway. so if for example Grog the fighter has the personal goal of avenging his family which was killed by someone, the initial investigation might bring only him XP, as he does it on the side wile the party tries to incite a rebellion against the evil duke. But when he discovers that the duke was also involved in the murder of his family, killing the duke might become a party goal and a personal goal for Grog. So if the party succeeds with overthrowing the duke and killing him, all players are rewarded with the XP for achieving the major party goal and Grog's player gains a bonus for achieving his personal goal on the way  If used like this, the XP system motivates players to make more input to the story helping the gm in turn to make the plot more interesting for everyone.   

This is a lot like we play. We also find it the best way to use the XP system in HARP.

We actually like the HARP XP system and think it works great for fantasy RPG's. It stops the mentality of "kill, kill, kill" for xp and rewards creative thinking... IMHO of course.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

We actually like the HARP XP system and think it works great for fantasy RPG's. It stops the mentality of "kill, kill, kill" for xp and rewards creative thinking... IMHO of course.

Well, that WAS the intention of it (one of them anyways).