Will Next be able to do HackMaster?

It's important to remember that much of the language in HM4e is tongue in cheek. More about attitude and firing up the GM than anything else.

Like a drill sergeant preparing his troops for battle. Or the fans of a football team painting their faces in thier team's colors and trash talking the opposing team.

All in good fun.

Despite the fact in our regular game the GM should up ready to do battle and the players did the same it was all in good fun. A chance to be challenged and not have any punches pulled. "Bring it!" "Give me your worst!"

Or more to the point, "Let the dice fall where they may"

I can't remember any player or GM leaving in anger. The "GM vs. Player" rhetoric just added to the fun and spirit of the game.

HackMaster new edition embraces much of that attitude but leaves most of the silly over-the-top humor behind.

Libramarian said:

Check out these two passages from the D&D DMG and the HackMaster GMG:





Lol those are pretty opposite. How could you give newbie DM's both of these narratives about what their role is without confusing them horribly?

The HackMaster one sounds more fun to me personally, but they're both pretty extreme.

I'm sure the core DM advice text in Next will take a more middle of the road approach.

I think that's kind of unfortunate though. I like games that really present a clear and vivid image of the ideal GM. It's more fun to read at the least.

Click to expand...

In your OP, basically ask about Hackmaster, like you have never read the game, Saying "from what i hear...". Now you are posting quotes from the HM-GMG. So do you really own a copy of HM, even a PDF copy?

I've also read this whole thread 3 different times, and am thoroughly confused. At one point the conversation talks about HM4e, and comparing it to DnD4e, then skips to HM5e and back to 4e (HM or Dnd, im unsure at this point).

Regardless, HM4e and HM are two totally separate games. One (HM4e) is a licenced parody of 1/2ed D&D with mandated humor requirements, which, regardless, still won top honors and Best RPG awards. It played great whether you included the over-the-top humor or not. The other (HM) is a new game, built on the skeletons of Aces and Eights (actually A&8 was built on the skeleton of HM, and was used as a guinea pig for the HM system, winning awards of its own), and, honestly, totally kicks butt as a gaming system.

As far as the OP and title are concerned, I personally feel that "Next" is copying the manner in which KCo (and Paizo) has created their system. Is this a bad thing? Definitely not. Bring on the gaming products. However, I really can't see a system that will bring all interations under one roof.

HM is really what 3.0 should have been. It's a refreshing redesign of OD&D.

To quote the free HackMaster QuickStart Guide (which, admittedly, I wrote...)

The GM vs. player attitude
In previous editions of the game, the developers went to great lengths to propagate an attitude of conflict between the GameMaster and the players. Actually, that’s not true – they wrote a few hilarious jokes implying that this “attitude of conflict” existed, and some people took it way, way too seriously. In reality, please note the following:

GMs – the player is your friend. His existence justifies the insane amount of money that you’ve spent on supplements and sourcebooks. You must challenge him but do not make the game unfair. Likewise, he must make sure you are properly adhering to the rules – after all, it takes a long ass time to roll up a good character and, before long, a player might have hundreds of hours invested in the character that you are callously trying to kill with your elaborate – but nonsensical – underwater spike trap. It’s hard work, but you must always strive to present a fair playing field which is littered with warnings of certain death. That way, they have no reason to complain.

Players – the GM is your friend. You just gotta show up with some dice and – if you’re nice – snacks for your GM. He has to spend his free time thinking about stuff for you to do. He needs to weave metaphorical tapestries, to spin complex stories, and to develop dungeons, roleplay scenarios and more. If he gets lost in the story sometimes – and tries to shoehorn you toward certain death – be patient with him and help him understand the error of his ways (note that this is not gamer code for “beat him with a tire iron”). The game is not designed for you two to be at odds – unless you agree in advance that this is the kind of game you want to play.

And that’s the point, really. Agreement in advance is key. You don’t need to use every niggling rule, but you need to agree in advance as to what rules you are using. Not to mention you need to also agree about trusting the GM to make a call on the fly.

There aren’t rules for every impossible situation. Sometimes the GM is going to make a gut call on a rule (like how many seconds does it take to climb that 20 foot wall over there). Unless his call is ridiculous, go with it. But make sure that what is ruled once is ruled again, so when the hobgoblin you are fleeing from gets to climb the same wall in ½ the time, the player is well in his rights to call the GM on making a mistake (and only then do you go for the tire iron).

That said, I doubt it would be very difficult for a new D&D edition to have a few pages in the DM Guide discussing different play styles. I mean WW was able to do that in all of their World of Darkness games with advice on how to run dark and gritty, character driven, metaplot, actiony, etc etc...

I for one do believe that D&D 5E can be a good enough "Rosetta Stone" to pull over 90% of the community back together. At the very least, I applaud and support their efforts, but I do believe they can also do it.

As for the thoughts on HM, the voices of factual truth have spoken, hopefully they will be listened to.