Topic: HARP D20-Fied Revisited

[RandalThor]

LM, yeah you always have those "the grass is always greener" people.

[Marc R]

I fully agree. I absolutely agree.

Then again, a faucet is really simple too, but the engineers and artists who design them go to school for 8-12 years, then use huge CAD systems to design them and agonize over details of their construction and style for months-years before a design is finalized. . .

i.e. just because an analysis of the guts of a game might get complex and mathy, doesn't make it so in play. . .I rarely consider the fine details of design, hydrodynamics and material strengths when turning on the hot water.

[RandalThor]

I fully agree. I absolutely agree.

Then again, a faucet is really simple too, but the engineers and artists who design them go to school for 8-12 years, then use huge CAD systems to design them and agonize over details of their construction and style for months-years before a design is finalized. . .

i.e. just because an analysis of the guts of a game might get complex and mathy, doesn't make it so in play. . .I rarely consider the fine details of design, hydrodynamics and material strengths when turning on the hot water.

Yeah, and when my faucet breaks I call a plumber. An individual who has trained for years to do the job. Can I have you on speed dial for my RM games? 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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

At the time that HARP was written, the only version of RM available was RMFRP. And as I have stated elsewhere, while running RMFRP is not much more complex than running HARP, the RMFRP character generation rules ARE more complex that those of either HARP or RM2 or even RMC (i.e. O/E/R skills, Training packages, too many skills, just too many choices overall for new players).

[RandalThor]

Like I said, as I sat down to play RM it was easy. Dealing with bonuses and modifiers and the like, no problem. But when I ran, it almost felt like I was not actually running RM because of the huge sections of all the books that I would have to ignore because I did not want to have to take hours and hours to figure out how to do something. Then have to do that again for the next thing. And the next...

When HARP came along I was thrilled (even though I had no group to play it with - heck I haven't played a minute of HARP yet and I am still more interested in it than RM.) and excited that ICE was putting out a game without all the complexity of RM, but that incorporates the cool stuff.

[Marc R]

Like you don't have us on speed dial right here. . .just have a laptop open to the forum. . .

[Right Wing Wacko]

Sounds like the goal for HARP is to be both easier and less contraining than RM to me. 

Isn't it?
Why or why not?

[pastaav]

Like I said, as I sat down to play RM it was easy. Dealing with bonuses and modifiers and the like, no problem. But when I ran, it almost felt like I was not actually running RM because of the huge sections of all the books that I would have to ignore because I did not want to have to take hours and hours to figure out how to do something. Then have to do that again for the next thing. And the next..

I totally agree that the presentation in RM sucks...heck...look at the bashing of RMFRP vs RM2 that happens all the time even though they essentially is the same game. People who actually knows RM after extensive play are still dumbfooled when they try to digest the text of the other edition and start to complain about believed complexity.

On the other hand I do think that HARP with books like Martial Law, Hack & Slash, College of Magic and HARP Bazars is anything but simple. You have a rather complex web of different rules that interact in subtle ways. Maybe my perspective would change if I played HARP more, but I would be impressed if anyone can anticipate how all those options interact before playing.

Looking at the core of Harp there is lots of flexibility there. Rules like those about blood talents to mix different races is really a complex issue, but the root of the simplicity of HARP is that it gives lots for the effort. RM does not fair as well in similar analysis. Training packages in the RMFRP way for instance give horrible longer development time for a character, but do not significantly improve the game experience. The training packages is flawedly costed and need to evaluated individually to determine their value , but they are much too many for any player to evaluate them. Similarly the mechanics of O/E/R is in itself not that complex, but the possibility to choose such and the difficulty with evaluating the impact of them very much makes them a bog down when doing character creation for little benefit. 

I think that is my major point here...HARP is better designed and more simple to use. Yet it is IMHO not about fewer options or less advanced concepts. HARP excel since it through careful design gives much benefit for the complexity it exposes to the user. RM totally lacks such design and thus require hours and hours of analysis before you can see what part of the rules that essential and what parts that is just fluff that give small tweaks to the character.

[Witchking20k]

Harps "ease of use" is basically centred around a more universal mechanic than RM.  Spell casting, moving manuevers, and attacks all use the same basic mechanic.  RM uses a few different rolls; RRs vs Directed Spells, Attacks, Spell Classes, Static vs moving manuevers.....I remember basically using combat only for about 2 years before I figured out spell casting (and even so I was corrected on one of my assumptions a few months ago on these forums, 12 years later!)

I firmly believe that the D100 mechanic is just intimidating; not better or worse, I don't believe that the objective of this thread was to proclaim d20 harp, or in my case 2D10, is better or worse.  Just to discuss the challenges facing people who want to use that particular mechanic.

For the record, I just played with my group again this past friday and they voted to switch to D100, now that they feel more comfortable with the game.  So, I KNOW that my effort converting harp to 2d10 for a 3 sessions of use just converted 4 players to ICE products, which was my objective.  So, I am happy with the results.

[Marc R]

That being the factor laid out that felt real to me. . . .doing the system in a d20 method to make the game more appealing to players coming from d20 makes perfect sense. Makes the game seem more familiar, eliminates a potential intimidation issue (rational or not) and gets them in the door. . . .

(I'm not sure about claims of a more "universal mechanic". . .RM attacks are attacks, an elemental bolt is an attack, a sleep spell BAR roll affects an RR made by the target, and maneuvers are resolved all or nothing or percentages. . . . .all those mechanics exist exactly in HARP. . .the variations are more in the fact that everything was boiled down. . . so each of the above is just one column on the maneuvering table, modified by difficulty. . . .the major simplification would really seem to be the one roll combat mechanic with armor as DB vs attack against AT column/critical on two rolls.)

[Witchking20k]

Agreed.  I've been running RM for 12+ years and can essentially do it in my sleep, but learning it took forever.  Over time you can make the "intuitive leaps" between the different rolling mechanics more easily and understand that they are not all that diffrerent.  I think that losing the roll-under mechanic of the BAR was a big thing, Spell Classes (if this than that) are always tricky to teach, and players like having the spell scaling (spell mastery) laid out for them.

D20 was easier to break people in with, but you lose some grit to it I think.  Mathematics aside, I never would have been truly happy with it I think.  But, sometime one change is as good as the next, right?

In any case, if ICE can provide a tidy conversion of Harp to D20, I think it will only strengthen their market position; the players I am introducing to ICE (they decided on RM) are floored by the choices available to them.  So, if we can impress them with those aspects and comfort them with a D20esque mechanic, we all win.

[SamwiseSeven]

Hmm, looks like my little thread has got some action.  

I think because of those of us who come from an ICE RPG background (I teethed on RolemasterSS, though we ignored most of the rules) we are used to having math in RPGs.

There are lots of other RPGs that don't even use "math", and achieve the same goals (taking the role of a character).

Look at White Wolf and the New World of Darkness lines.  The only math in the game is a subtraction or addition of the number of dice you roll.  Everything else is looking at dice you just rolled and seeing if there are any 8s, 9s, and 10s.

Look at BRP, and the other D100 roll under mechanic games (which there are plenty).  These have a slightly more amount of math (double your skill, halve your skill, or perhaps add a small amount to your skill before you roll under) but then you roll under and see if you succeed.

I think the D20+Skill (with the stat added in already) comes next.

Then I think the D100 + skill comes in above the D20 version.  Sure, you are adding the same amount of things together, with slightly larger numbers, but for some people, this, and this alone, is the reason they won't touch a game.  And as a person that sadly can't play in many games that I like, I'm forced to try to run them for other people that I can convince to try it out.  I'll do what I have to, to get them to play.  I've had the most success with having people try a D20 version of HARP, than all of my other attempts using the rules as is.

For me, if I am having trouble converting players (mainly from D&D) and I can find a way to entice them over with lower numbers (and other house rules that remove more math, such as ignoring the -25 penalty for no ranks) then I'm all for it.

For those that have never tried to convince D&D players to convert, it is MUCH harder than you think it would be.  Many people have a loyalty, that passes reason, but I guess most of it is nostalgia, and the name.  Many people have had lots of fun over the years and associate that with the name.  Sadly, some have not had as much fun with crunchier rules, and therefore associate those feelings with the games we grew up playing.

For me, math doesn't have to be in my RPG.  I love a lot of storyjamming / story games that rarely use math either.

Am I a stupid guy, am I a smart guy?  I think I'm slightly above average to be perfectly honest, but there are some players that are a little slower, and should we discriminate against them, if they prefer to use systems with no math, or less math?  Like I said, I'm used to it, but others aren't.

To be perfectly frank, I think I love about 75% of HARP.  For the last 25%, I house rule it, and use the HARP D20-Fied download.

I fully believe math doesn't need to be in a RPG to achieve its aims, but I don't have a problem using RPGs that use math either.  Like everything else it comes down to taste, nostalgia, and what you can actually get other people to play.  I have lots of RPGs that I've never played or ran, because I'm the only one I know that likes them...

Sadly, I wasn't able to entice anyone to play HARP (even the D20 version) at our local gaming convention in Pittsburgh (GASPcon), but I still passed out the books I bought to some RPG players that came for the 1st time.

I think some of the pro D100 posters have been a little harsh in how they've worded their strong feelings.  Maybe they perceive some slight against what they love so much, and have hurt feelings.  
I had no intention of angering anyone.  D20 works better for me, and D100 works great for most of you, and that's perfectly fine for me.  

I'm not going to force-feed you spicy foods because I happen to like them.  But don't tell me I'm an idiot for liking food that makes me sweat.  

I play RPGs to take a little mental vacation from Real Life that has a tendency to kick me in the head every day.  I need the escape.  For me it doesn't matter if that escape needs math, numbers, pennies, or whatever the mechanic is for that game.  I play and run games to have fun, interact with old and new friends, and forget about the dark cloud above my head for a few hours at a time.

[Marc R]

Actually, I think there was some confusion in play. . ."Math too complicated" is a cop out. . ."d20 scale math more comfortable" is a logical statement that makes sense.

Comfort doesn't equate to simple/complex. . .and RM isn't per-se one of the systems that are absurdly complex. . . .d20 for one, is a damned complex game, it's just fairly smoothed out in resolution, but how many classes/races/feats are there across how many books?. . . .GURPS isn't exactly Fudge, and HERO can get freaking byzantine to the point where you end up with players (not PCs) fighting at the table over minor rules interpretations.

Playing HARP to something like the "Drunkard Rule" and dividing by 5 to use a d20 is essentially no real variation at all. . .it doesn't make the game less complex in any way shape or form. (It makes the GMs life a trifle more complicated to use the books /5 constantly actually). . .if it makes it possible to draw in d20 background players by making them feel more comfortable, then that's great. . .but it has absolutely zero to do with complexity or simplicity, it's a slight variation in method with the same probability curves.

Changing things like dropping -25 for 0 ranks, making every rank a +1 in d20 scale. . .those definitely simplify things. . .but that has zero to do with a d20. . .you could just as easily play HARP d100, drop the -25 for zero ranks and declare all ranks worth +5 in d100 scale. . .and it would be the same thing.

This is akin to saying "I always drive under 55 MPH when wearing my blue hat, my car gets better miles to the gallon when I drive under 55, so by that logic, wearing a blue hat improves the efficiency of my engine."

Using a d20 merely reduces the scale of the game by a factor of 5, without increasing or decreasing the complexity.

If you then, at the same time, reduce the complexity of the game with house rules, it has become less complex, but has nothing to do with the fact you're using a d20.

I personally wasn't getting snarky here anywhere in this thread, I was merely questioning this statement that d20 = simple, when as far as I can tell, that's simply not the case. . .it strikes me the other posters were also trying to point out that you were making two statements, then mixing them, then putting forth a conclusion that seems unsuported.

"I used HARP with a d20 to make my game more friendly to d20 players, then simplified it with house rules, thus proving that running HARP with a d20 is simpler."

just comes across as illogic.

Kudos for making things work, kudos for drawing in d20 players, and kudos for having fun. . . .but if you make a statement that doesn't parse, it's not "Overly Harsh" for people to point that out.

Not dogging you, or your game, merely again pointing out that your simplifications, and your use of a d20 in play are two isolated, unrelated elements. Simplifying your game made it more simple, not /5 and using a d20.

[Thom @ ICE]

In a slightly shorter way - Sorry if I came across as harsh - never my intention (nor was it ever my intention to force anyone to play HARP d100 if they prefer HARP d20).

Initially the d20 approach was that there were no differences and d20 HARP was the same but only simpler because they were using the d20 or 2d10.

LM has already covered the "simpler" issue and the 2d10 vs d20 issues at length...

As for me, my argument was always the loss of granularity, which I believe was pretty much agreed to by everyone - though it was noted as not being important for their game which I could never criticize.  In that case, we're in agreement.

Keep on using d20, d100 or whatever other method you want if it brings you to HARP.  

[Witchking20k]

Cheers to that.  We are all of the same mind, loyalty, and good intention.  I like the "comfortable" commentary too, as touched on by LM, because I think thats what is important.

At the end of the day, its all about fun, and the rules are made to be broken and forged anew if required.  My commentary is based upon the fact that inorder to get a gaming group going I had to join a D&D4e game, then convert them to Harp/RM.  I wanted to run quick Harp game while the GM is recovering from H1N1 to keep the group alive, and chose a very Heroic scale (2d10) to attract interest and make a 2-3 session game memorable.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Too bad nobody tried HARP at GASPCon... :'(

[RandalThor]

And as I have stated elsewhere, while running RMFRP is not much more complex than running HARP,

I don't agree - except from the player's point of view. The GM, on the other hand, has copious amounts of learning to do to play the "full" RM game. I look at the Castles (& Treasures?) once in a while and realize that it would take me way too long to learn how to use the rules, much less actually use them to put together something as simple as a 3 story, square tower. So, for the GM, running RMFRP/SS is quite a bit more difficult than HARP, IMO.

Pastaav, I agree that the supplemental HARP books haven't been kept strictly to the game's core concept, but I do believe they are still easier to learn/implement than their RM counterparts.

I think this statement sums up the main reason RM hasn't gotten as big as other games:

I've been running RM for 12+ years and can essentially do it in my sleep, but learning it took forever. 

If it took "forever" learn Monopoly would it be as big a game as it is? I don't think so.

If it takes longer to learn a game than it takes to play a game (meaning a session - not the lifespan of a campaign, few look that far ahead) then it is likely not going to succeed very well. If at all. It is the whole amount of effort vs. the amount of return situation. I don't like to cook for three hours just to eat for 15 minutes. The same goes for gaming, though to a lesser degree as I like gaming a lot. (OK, I like eating a lot too and my waistband can prove it.  ) How many people do each of you know that have complained about the first RM session being mostly character creation? Other than myself, just about every RM gamer I have ever known has said that. That is just another symptom of the same problem: too much complexity for the majority of gamers out there. Though, I agree (and said as much in an earlier post) that some of the reluctance to switch is because of the basic human nature to stick with what you know instead of striking out into unknown territory. ("Thar be Dragons, I tell ye!")

[RandalThor]

I think that this statement:

For me, math doesn't have to be in my RPG.  I love a lot of storyjamming / story games that rarely use math either.

And the one mascue1223 said about their math-loving player sums it up for me, as well. I prefer it if the rules aren't so complex that they constantly take me out of the game to deal with them. The more seamless that is, the better in my opinion. Plus, I want to play the game more than I want to work on the game and easier rules help in that regard.

Case in point: One of my favorite gaming sessions had almost no dice rolling at all, and none at all demanded by the GM. I acted in character, with two totally different characters, for about 8 hours and loved every minute of it!

[Marc R]

I concur, but then again, I've come to conclude that I've come to somewhat disdain combat monstering, if only because it is exactly what ends up turning a session into loads of die rolling. . .

Role playing, as in running about talking to people, is mostly die free (perhaps a lore or perception check here or there). . .I've had 8 hour sessions of RM in which loads of stuff got done. . .and I've had 8 hour sessions covering one long sprawling combat. . .The latter are like a fine but overpowering spice. . .I don't want to spend hours in tactical mode rolling dice, I'd rather be roleplaying.

One of the reasons I love RM, and HARP also, is that both are so absolutely nasty deadly. . . .assuming the GM isn't fudging things, you should get killed somewhere around your 20th combat. . .I drifted to RM from other games, in that the crew I played with didn't fudge things. . .so the roleplayers got to keep playing, and the combat monsters spent all their time in the shop recovering from injuries or rolling up new characters. . .

Strangely, a reverse angle approach to the result. . .because RM/HARP combat can be so complex time sucking and deadly, we do a lot to avoid combat, or to set up combats so we start and end it in the surprise round. . . .it's an aversion therapy result. Make combat complicated and deadly so players avoid it? 

[RandalThor]

Well, to be fair, combat is complicated and deadly and should be avoided or dealt with as quick and decisively as possible. Which is why in all of my RM gaming I take it seriously and try to get every advantage I can. In other words, I treat it like I would real combat. Which is one of the aspects I love about RM (& by extention, HARP). If you are smart about it, you will enter every combat with the opponent surprised. It is the best way to give yourself a  much higher chance of survival.

That's not to say that the occasional fight isn't fun. I do like action movies. So being in a cool, dramatic fight scene/encounter can be very enjoyable as well. Just don't want to have to continually consult a book to explain what I can and cannot do every round. Just the way I like.