Topic: HARP D20-Fied Revisited

[Thom @ ICE]

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?

Yes, they break at multiples of 5 or 10, except that the modifiers are granular to individual integers and therefore the conversion to d20 loses some aspects of the system. Once you exceed 10 ranks in a skill your skill bonus becomes +2 for each additional rank which effectively becomes lost in a d20 system.  Additionally the stat bonus is only at +5 at 71-75 and +10 at 96-100. So effectively the difference between 76 and 95 on a single skill is lost.

There are multiple other issues also - so the simple division that you are suggesting has a lot of gaps.

[Marc R]

I don't really see the less math issue, smaller numbers perhaps, but not less. . .-1 instead of -5 is the same number of transactions.

Familiarilty to convert over d20 users by using a d20 in play, that I can see.

OTOH you lose granularity, things like +1 per rank or +2 per level, or +3 (+9) stat bonus don't translate casually into /5 use with a d20.

[Thom @ ICE]

One more note...
In the past few days a number of posters have referred to the d100 version as 2d10 or using 2d10 casually as another version of d20.

It should be noted that d100 and 2d10 imply two totally different things.  2d10 indicates an addition of the results.  d100 indicates treating one die as a ten's die and the other as a one's die - resulting in a flat distribution from 1-100.

While 2d10 and d20 both max at 20 - the 2d10 starts at 2 and the distribution curve is different.  Using 2d10 with the HARP rules is kind of like playing basketball with a football. You can do it, but applying the same rules to different results yields a different game.  Note - Some people have indicated that they don't care about that and like it (having made additional adjustments).  There are plenty of posts in this thread that discuss the difference between 2d10 and d20. If it works for you that is great, but just realize that you are not matching apples to apples there.

[Right Wing Wacko]

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.

My feelings exactly!
It can be fun either way, but one is kinda limited by d20...

[Right Wing Wacko]

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.  

Ahhh...
I had a player that hated d100 games simply because he couldn't roll all his pretty, differently shaped dice that he was soooo proud of.


As an aside... do you guys think it's "lazy" of your players for not learning a new system?... (or at least for not trying to learn?)

[masque1223]

As an aside... do you guys think it's "lazy" of your players for not learning a new system?... (or at least for not trying to learn?)

I don't, because they have learned a new system.  They've learned HARP.  They even learned it the D100 way, but after the first few sessions we switched to HARP D20ified to simplify the math, and because granularity is not a major concern for us.  It's not I converted Cyradon to the WOTC D20 system, it's still HARP.  The dice used are a small part of the whole system, and there are so many other things to love about it, especially as compared to the WOTC D20 system, that the dice used is trivial, to us.

One of my players in particular spends a lot of his time trying to solve physics and calculus problems that I can't even come close to understanding.  Hell, I don't even recognize half the symbols in use with those problems.  He does this for fun, which is insanity to me, but I'm not a big math expert like him.  But he has a different mindset when he's trying to get into his character's head in a game than when he's doing hardcore number crunching on his own time.  The more complicated the math when resolving rolls, the more it takes him out of character, and therefore he was the most vocal proponent of switching to the D20ified version.

If we were all still in high school, it'd be a different matter.  But we all work full time, we all have a very limited amount of time to play, and it's not worth it to be a stickler.

[Marc R]

I still don't understand how:

60+20=80 roll d100 and add 80

is any more or less complex than

12+4=16 roll d20 and add 16

The numbers are larger or smaller, but the math insofar as I can tell is exactly the same.

I suspect I'm not understanding something you've done, because I don't see how dividing all modifiers by 5 and adding them to a d20 is "simpler math" than adding modifiers to a d100 as is. I don't see it as being any more complex either (once you've done all the initial work to /5 all the mods that is).

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

It has nothing to do with the mechanics, it has to do with the aesthetics and the perception of complexity.

In short, it is more about the player's personal viewpoint and opinions, and the aesthetics of the size of the numbers used than it is about the mechanics involved.

[Marc R]

Actually

"I feel more comfortable doing math on a d20 scale"

means it improves comfort level, and has nothing to do with complexity. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what is being said by the other posters.

I suspect, that actually changes are being made that actually do affect complexity. . .like 1 rank = +1 (+5 d100) and ditching diminishing returns. . . .If you have a +2 stat bonus to climbing, and 15 ranks, and that comes to 15+2= +17 to climbing rolls. . .that is simpler than d100 harp. . .it's also significantly different in a non aesthetic way.

I'm not sure though, hence why I asked.

[RandalThor]

I think it also boils down to preconceived notions of the game in general. Many people are averse to RM and hence, HARP being an ICE game. Erroneously believing that it is going to be just as complex. So, even when they find out that it isn't, they still feel more "comfortable" using old-reliable - the d20. It fools their inner game-hater into thinking they are playing that other game, when in fact they aren't.

People do irrational things all the time/every day. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just is.
For me, I just want to use HARP's combat tables and Maneuver chart for Fantasy Craft.

As for the d20 vs 2d10 thing, I am sure that everyone understands that it is different, and entails more work on transition, than d100 to d20.

[RandalThor]

Erroneously believing that it is going to be just as complex.

Having said that, I have seen the tendency for the ICE people to go into uber-complicated mechanics when a new rule idea comes along, which is, to me, contrary to the basic idea of HARP: much more simplicity than RM. It is this tendency of ICE to go for the calculus / PhD in Economics and History style rules developing that has limited it's audience and kept the company as small as it is. (I, for one, would like to see the company larger than WotC, with all you guys being able to make enough money to be able to work full-time on the various RPGs.)

Now I am not saying that it all should be "dumbed-down" to a 3rd grade level, but to basically require people to have a 6+ year degree to fully understand how the game rules work is sort of counterproductive to a successful role-playing GAME. The emphasis being GAME, not work, not profession, not university thesis paper, but recreational activity.

So, for HARP, I say this: K.I.S.S. Don't go into quantum mechanics for the game - even if you are dealing with space travel and combat.

[masque1223]

I still don't understand how:

60+20=80 roll d100 and add 80

is any more or less complex than

12+4=16 roll d20 and add 16

If it was all 60+20, no problem.  It's when it's 67+26=93 that's it's a little slower for my players.  They're all used to the D20 scale, sure. I don't mind using that scale if it means I get to play HARP rather than that other system that I regard as vastly inferior.

[Cory Magel]

If it was all 60+20, no problem.  It's when it's 67+26=93 that's it's a little slower for my players.  They're all used to the D20 scale, sure. I don't mind using that scale if it means I get to play HARP rather than that other system that I regard as vastly inferior.

Don't mean to pick on your (or their maybe) logic, but how is 67+26=93 really any different from 13+19=42?

I'm with the "It's a perception thing" crowd.  All 'defense of RM' aside, I just don't buy that the math is really any harder for anyone who is halfway decent at basic math.

[pastaav]

It is this tendency of ICE to go for the calculus / PhD in Economics and History style rules developing that has limited it's audience and kept the company as small as it is. (I, for one, would like to see the company larger than WotC, with all you guys being able to make enough money to be able to work full-time on the various RPGs.)

I find these discussions weird. The point with ICE game has always been that ICE deal with the complexity and the players are given something that is simple in actual use.

A typical example of simplicity is that on a d100 scale +7 actually mean increased success rate by 7% for typical maneuvers. It is given that this require the player to add larger numbers, but in my world learning to add two digit numbers is simple while learning enough statistics to figure out success rates for non d100 rolls is tricky at best.

The problem for the historical ICE has been that they failed to communicate this. ICE has made loads of good design choices to make games that are lean in actual use. Unfortunately they put no effort in explaining the merits of the design to the players. Even worse they put no effort in describing the rules in a fashion that made it obvious how the rules are supposed to be used. Loads of people tested RM with idea that it was just a better AD&D and got their play bogged down by rules lookups when nothing in the books had been written with the intention of such rules lookups during actual play. That these people got angry and started to bash ICE and RM is no surprise.

In the end you have the situation that players that are engineers and scientists says "this game is awesome, ICE really managed to get good realism and fast play" while other people says "this game company sucks, every bloody description is awkward and nothing is ever explained in simple words...it is just tons of tables and no cross references".

Looking forward I really think that ICE need to make games and game supplements that explain the design of the books, but I think dropping the scientific angle is exactly counter to this idea. The perception of ICE as writing complex rules is not going to change and ICE is much better of trying build themselves something based on this than pretending that history of ICE never happened and that the customers has forgotten.

Actually I think one of the things ICE should consider is to drop the name of company. RM has marketing value to old customers, but I think the company name is ever clouded by associations that will make it harder to sell the books as simple in use. Even though new players might be too old to remember ICE of old the people running the stores will remember and not recommend the books to people looking for "high action" games.

[RandalThor]

Pastaav, I would agree if we were talking about RM, but we aren't. We're talking about HARP, which is supposed to be all-around more user friendly than RM. That means that the rules behind the rules need to be less complicated than those for RM, not just the in-game working rules (i.e., OB, DB, modifiers, RRs, etc).

And I don't think that just changing the name of the company will make Construct Companion or any of the spell design rules in any of the magic-companions any easier to use.

But, anyway, this is HARP and as I have been trying to get people to play, to shrug off their preconceived idea because it is an ICE game, the overly complicated postings I read on the forums keep putting holes in that boat. My friend, who is crazy smart with the ability to remember passages from books he read years ago (and likely tell you what page it is on from which edition), and instinctively know how to use the various rules & abilities from multiple books in the best way possible, thinks it's too hard to bother trying to learn an ICE game system because of all the things I tell him about from the forum.

There comes a point where the detail gets too much and the game gets lost. I believe anyway.

[Witchking20k]

One thing that I have noticed playing D&D4E for a few sessions (before promptly converting the group to Harp 2D10), there is way more skills & abilities in Harp.....maybe that adds to the percieved complexity?  The players were intimidated by the sheer volume of choices, and of course the math involved in tallying skills, but were very open to the game itself.  I think that the 2d10 strategy was a good way to break them in, and after their comfort level adjusts that a D100 game would be fun for them........but, these are guys in 3rd year engineering & sciences, math is not fun for them.....lol

[pastaav]

Pastaav, I would agree if we were talking about RM, but we aren't. We're talking about HARP, which is supposed to be all-around more user friendly than RM. That means that the rules behind the rules need to be less complicated than those for RM, not just the in-game working rules (i.e., OB, DB, modifiers, RRs, etc).

Sure, I get what you mean, possibly my limited experience of playing Harp could be a factor. On the other hand I have spent some time looking at HARP rules and I am not too sure about the nature of the simplicity.

I do think that HARP is more easy, but I am reluctant to say that it is more shallow than RM. Very few elements in HARP seems more simple, the single exception would be the dice mechanics. When I look at Harp I mostly see a game that is built with a different purpose than RM. One way to phrase it would be that HARP seems more suited for shorter adventures than epic campaigns. The player can faster level up and need less levels to realize his ideal character concept. On the flip side the system need to toughen up the monsters a fair bit to balance the front loading of characters. I think, but can of course not prove it since I have not played any HARP campaign, that HARP pay for the flexibility and ease of use by having a more limited range of levels when you are at the sweet spot when the advance of the characters "make sense". 

I am not currently considering switching to HARP from RM, but is seriously considering running any sci fi campaign in HARP instead of SM. I think that in such a setting HARP would better fit what I am looking for.

And I don't think that just changing the name of the company will make Construct Companion or any of the spell design rules in any of the magic-companions any easier to use.

Obviously not...but that assumes Construct Companion and the spell design rules are hard to use in the first place. I do argue that the final result to detailed and cool and that ICE took care of the hard complexity. The problem is the mostly with perception. Awfully many people are assuming all ICE games to be complex and will when reviewing the system go looking for the complexity instead of looking for how they game can benefit from the ideas within.

But, anyway, this is HARP and as I have been trying to get people to play, to shrug off their preconceived idea because it is an ICE game, the overly complicated postings I read on the forums keep putting holes in that boat. My friend, who is crazy smart with the ability to remember passages from books he read years ago (and likely tell you what page it is on from which edition), and instinctively know how to use the various rules & abilities from multiple books in the best way possible, thinks it's too hard to bother trying to learn an ICE game system because of all the things I tell him about from the forum.

That argument does not make sense...how would the difficulty of learning of an ICE game system change depending on how advanced analysis unrelated people do at the ICE forum?

[RandalThor]

Both Tim Dugger and Heike A. Kubasch state in the games forward that it was designed to be "less daunting" to new players. This implies that RM is "daunting" in some way - I believe it is because of the extreme complexity in many areas of the game. I agree that sitting down and playing the game (barring any rules disputes) is easy and I have played the game quite a bit over the years. But I am pretty-sure that the way I played/ran is seriously toned-down compared to most RM players. I did not dig into many of the behind the scenes rules - even when GMing - because of their complexity. I would just assign the numbers I thought fit the situation. (As for the CC and other rules: I am not a genius, but I am not stupid either and I get confused in the first few paragraphs. Overly complex.)

As for which is easier, just sit down and make a RM character while someone familiar with HARP does the same. I guarantee that the HARP character will be done well before the RM one. Simpler & easier. (This is not to say that the player will come up with a concept quicker, just the sit down making the PC will be.  ) Other areas are just as easy compared to RM.

The game was designed from the ground up to be a quicker, easier alternative to RM without giving up on the cherished aspects of RM. Namely: tiered success, ability not inherently tied to level (i.e., you don't have to take more ranks in your sword), greater range than other games, & a level of realism not incorporated into many other games.

That argument does not make sense...how would the difficulty of learning of an ICE game system change depending on how advanced analysis unrelated people do at the ICE forum?

Unless you are Dr. Brennon from the TV show Bones (or just like her*), when you keep hearing things about something, you tend to believe it. Not saying it's right, it just is. As my friend kept hearing about all the overlycomplicated rules discussion on the web boards, he got less and less interested in trying HARP. He was, and still is I believe, in an easy game kick. Which started immediately after he quit an d20 game. He wants a game that is not too complicated because he doesn't want to have to constantly make rule changes and have in-game conflicts due to rules confusion - an inevitable side affect of overlycomplicated rules.

Also, I was pointing out that of the two of us, he (my friend) would have the least difficulty with learning and understanding the rules and he didn't want any part of it due to the responses on the message boards.

*MUST have empirical evidence before you believe anything.

[Marc R]

Shrug. . . .for really simple, there are games that are REALLY simple. . .beyond those, they tend to be various shades of complicated.

Generally, with the actual simple games, people start getting bored with the lack of variations/richness. . . I find it amusing when those same people then complain about a game being overly complicated. **


** As opposed to being Dr Brennan, said people are "Goldilocks" and everything is either too hot or too cold.

[RandalThor]

Oh, I just reread the introduction and found out that the key words for HARP are "simplicity" and "flexibility". Sounds like the goal for HARP is to be both easier and less contraining than RM to me.