To give a real world example, I may want to run a company so my personal goals may be to go to University, learn the company's direction, befriend board members etc. The company's goals would probably be to earn money, keep the share price high, maintain market share etc. While my goals (personal) and the company goals (party) are both important, the party goals would be worth more xp because if they are not achieved the company could go bankrupt therefore my goals become irrelevant.
So instead of rating the XP system as one of the worst aspects I think it is, quite contrary, one of the best.
Party Goals: Goals that are important to the party as a whole.
Personal Goals: Goals that are important to one individual.
Major Goals: Major Goals are set up in advance. Beginning an adventure, making a commitment to an organization, etc. are all openings for Major Goals.
Minor Goals: Minor Goals are more spontaneous in nature. Things such as acting out a character's trait (there must be a real risk in doing so, of course), achieving a step towards a major goal, coming up with a clever idea, or surviving a combat.
1) Magic
The magic system is fantastic, and there's a small shrine in my closet to HARP because of it. But the Rolemaster model for spell possession infuriates me. I much prefer the spell ideology in Dungeons & Dragons, in that Mages (people who study magic) have access to all the spells, and people who dabble in magic simply get LESS of those spells. A "Warrior Mage" to me is a Fighter/Mage. And there are three spells that are mechanically identical: Stellskin, Stoneskin, and Barkskin. Shame!
But luckily, HARP is a beautifully flexible system. I'm currently working on cutting the number of spells and organizing them into schools of magic. My goal is to essentially fall back to the D&D model for magic-users. A Mage will have access to all of them, a Specialist gets a bonus to casting ones of his specialization (and perhaps also a Power Point discount of one point), but be unable to cast those opposite his School. Hybrids will have access to a small number of spells, either based on school or not (haven't decided).
I've got my own handful of minor beefs with HARP - though it is still my favorite system to play.Yeah... I wanted to say this, but I wasn't sure how to word it. This sums it up. It's going to be a pain in the ass, but I think it would do HARP some good for someone (I'm essentially volunteering myself aren't I?) to build Monsters from the bottom up.
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.
I'm not sure what to say... Most of the "flaws" listed here are 'features' in my mind...
Having a seperate list for Party and personal goals allows for something called ROLEPLAYING!
GM's Tips:
They're ideas and tips. And I'd rather a game tell me "Have fun, even if it means ignoring the game." Than say "And remember kids, THIS TEXT IS LAW."
Totally agree with you on this, I simply don't understand why personal goals should pay less than common ones. Having personal goals giving more or less the same number of XP than party goals IMHO increases the chances of having conflicts between the goals of individuals and those of the whole group.The above formula is IMO simply wrong. I agree that it can be fun to also have goals for the individual PCs that now and then conflict with those of the entire group, at least with players that can do good roleplaying. But, in the extreme, to have only conflict situations is probably fun for only the fewest players. It is IMO important to have a good balance, so that the players see that the plot makes some progress and that they also have some extra opportunity for good roleplaying. And, from my experience, the lower value of individual goals creates this good balance. If this is different for your group then you are free to change the values, but I think for most groups the values are fine (at least when looking at the comments in this thread).
More conflict = more roleplaying = more fun. :)
I firmly disagree, I prefer a game telling me:Yes, I also prefer rules that work. And I think this is exactly what the HARP rules do. The GM tip "don't let the dice rule the game", the one you criticized in your initial posting, only tells the GM that he should learn when he should roll the dice and when he should decide how the story progresses. I have seen GMs use the old RM encounter tables and unleash a dragon on a low-level party just because he did some unlucky rolls on these tables. The result was of course the demise of the party. This is just an example where you have to learn as a GM that sometimes a second roll is needed or sometimes picking from a table instead of rolling the dice is the better result. This has nothing to do with not having fun when following the rules. But you just can't codify every single possible occurrence in an RPG game, and therefore the GM sometimes can't find every answer in the rulebook but has to apply common sense.
"Here, these are the rules of the game, they're fun to play with, enjoy!"
Rather than one telling me:
"Here, these are the rules of the game, but you almost certainly aren't going to have any fun following them, so please ignore them".
If not only because I paid to have a rulesbook, and I would like to play a game described in it, rather than having to make up my own game...
The GM tip "don't let the dice rule the game", the one you criticized in your initial posting, only tells the GM that he should learn when he should roll the dice and when he should decide how the story progresses.
I was referring to the part where the book says that the GM should change the results of the die behind the screen without getting caught by the players. Deciding when to roll is entirely a different thing and I agree with you on that.
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.
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.
Didn't we already have a thread a few months back, that covered the issue of GM cheating?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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. ;)
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"
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?
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.
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.
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.
I personally have some difficulties deciding which kind of ahem... difficulty to assign the goals...In my group we have created some examples for the different difficulties. You can find this in the HARP house rules document on my homepage, if you are interested.
Oh, thank you! I'll give it a look. But now I'll have to read through the Dragon Age rpg I just bought...<evil chuckle>
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.
I find it appalling that it's nearly 2010 and ICE has no solution for any of its product lines.
There is a lot of character creation tools, spreadsheets for combat tracking and other utilities to be found in The Vault (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=0). I don't know whether it's nowadays necessary for a company creating an FRPG game to also supply such tools as you requested. IMO the fans can as well create such stuff themselves - as is the case already for HARP and RM.
As I said, I've found the current collection of spreadsheets, etc. in The Vault to be clunky and slow and not what I'd like.So perhaps the issue is not that ICE (or whoever) does not offer the tools, but instead that the offered tools don't suit your needs. That might as well be the case with an "official" character creation or combat tracker etc.
The on line app sounds cool, but as someone with limited internet connection (none at home), I would appreciate a fully downloadable version.Have you tried the Open Office chargen template? It is downloadable (as is Open Office, free, open source software FTW) and I know I personally love it. If ICE were to provide chargen software I'd certainly try it out, or even buy it (like I did with GURPS Character Assistant), but I'm personally hard pressed to think of functionality for chargen purposes that I can't currently meet with the fanmade OOo template.
I have gotten the Open Office before, and I always have conflict with which app to use (OO or Microsoft Office) when I go for a new word, excel, etc.. project. I kind of need my computer stuff to be pretty simple, the less complication there the better as I can get frustrated with it pretty quickly.I solved that for myself by deleting M$ Office.
ICE has actually tried to get CharGen software done several times. And something went wrong every time. Here are a couple of examples:
In one case, the programmer flaked out (on his business partner as well, leaving her high and dry, not to mention us). In another, a fan who was working on a chargen program got mad cause none of the other fans who were acting as testers would help him make a html version of a character sheet, so he quit and disappeared. And in another, very sad instance, the programmer committed suicide (not because of what he was working on). Somebody else has since tried to continue with that app, but it was Windows only.
After that suicide, ICE has essentially just given up trying for a while...
Now, what ICE would eventually like to have is an online app. Where folks could log in, create characters, and come back later and level them up, and where each level is stored as a distinct character. Where others could come, search through all of the characters, and and can view/use whatever ones that they want. (i.e. what Joe creates for his game, becomes a potential NPC/character for Fred's game, or Jack's game, etc..). Where the character could be exported in a standardized XML format so that they could be imported into other computer based apps.
Now, what ICE would eventually like to have is an online app. Where folks could log in, create characters, and come back later and level them up, and where each level is stored as a distinct character. Where others could come, search through all of the characters, and and can view/use whatever ones that they want. (i.e. what Joe creates for his game, becomes a potential NPC/character for Fred's game, or Jack's game, etc..). Where the character could be exported in a standardized XML format so that they could be imported into other computer based apps.I think this would be a great idea for someone to develop.... especially with the new Fan Sites that ICE is promoting from their homepage (short form: $3/month = ironcrown.com, harphq.com or metal-express.com subdomain...)
Once I had something that worked, Id present it to ICE and see if I could get a free subdomain out of it...
if you made strong ones, you'd just end up with more multiclassing.
I do something like what Chosen said: I get rid of the Physical category altogether and move them into other categories (armor & endurance to combat, jumping & swimmin to athletic) and I move the resistances (stamina to athletic, will to concentration, and magic to mystic arts). Plus I create a new category: Technical. This category covers the more complicated craft skills, such as (various)smithing, gem cutting, calligraphy, etc.. Things like thatching, dung collecting (thank you Warhammer FRP! ;D), and the like are back in the craft skill under the general category.
Just my own way...
Carousing is one of those MUST HAVE skills. :)
For Athletic & Physical there are definitely some opportunities to consolidate, but other aspects should either move into Combat (Armor) or move into a new one for Metagaming skills (Endurance) and bring over the others from General (Resistance Skills)
Weapon Skills are to Combat, what Spells are to Mystical Arts. You need to keep them in there. (IMO)
Good ideas! I don't like putting Endurance in an non-favored category for any archetype as all characters need the ability to increase their hits. I'm likely to add the toughness talent to fighter archetypes in the future to represent their buffness like athletes today generally have better endurance than the average bean counter in the office.
I'd rather have pure mages etc have the disadvantage evelop of not being able to develop Endurance as a favored category, and let that be the realm of fighters and semi spell users......players start play with a fair amount of hits...I think the growth in that number should favor arms users....
I do something like what Chosen said: I get rid of the Physical category altogether and move them into other categories (armor & endurance to combat, jumping & swimmin to athletic) and I move the resistances (stamina to athletic, will to concentration, and magic to mystic arts). Plus I create a new category: Technical. This category covers the more complicated craft skills, such as (various)smithing, gem cutting, calligraphy, etc.. Things like thatching, dung collecting (thank you Warhammer FRP! ;D), and the like are back in the craft skill under the general category.
Just my own way...
Curious - How do you reassign the favored categories under this scenario?
I'd rather have pure mages etc have the disadvantage evelop of not being able to develop Endurance as a favored category, and let that be the realm of fighters and semi spell users......players start play with a fair amount of hits...I think the growth in that number should favor arms users....
Hmmmm. I guess its a tit-for-tat scenario. One thing about spell users is they have a much higher DP commitment/level than a typical fighter developing 1 weapon, endurance, and armor.....maxing these 3 skills out would be 9x2=18 DPs/level. A spell caster might have 6-7 spells to start and aquire more over time; so every level the spell caster might have 2-3 ranks per spell to buy...making it difficult to rapid develop Endurance.This is VERY true, and the fighter in my group literally let DPs go since he had "nothing else to put them in."
No argument here. I wasjust pointing out that to be effective the fighter has much less DP investment over time. Some other skills like tactics, style lore etc would be a good addition to the Combat Category......I'd like to find a solution that doesn't require re-making a skill sheet ;).
I think that monsters need to be re-done anyway, so I plan to re-make them with strengths and weaknesses to certain crit types. So against a walking skeleton, the fighter will use his Mace or Warhammer instead of his sword.