Discussing problems with D&D/d20 rules...

[Tiefling]

Kalamar fans make the same claims about Kalamar, but Kalamar is ready-to-run in D&D.

So you're saying that a setting designed to be used specifically with D&D is inherently superior to one designed with whatever system you're fond of?

 

[Celebrim]

I think that there is too much bantering of the terms 'realistic' and 'gritty' without much discussion about what is really ment by that. The two terms do not refer to the same thing, and moreover one is not even complelte a superset or subset of the other. There are examples of realistic play that are not gritty and gritty play that is not realistic. Personally, I don't find grittiness as the term is often used a good goal in and of itself, and realism a dubious goal in and of itself (though I must admit that the latter relization took a good 15 years to realize).

Keith Mann made an important observation when he mentioned that the goal of Harn was consistancy not grittiness or realism. Consistancy is a very good goal, albiet one that is very difficult to obtain and probably shouldn't be the highest priority in a young DM first starting to run a new world. Hand (allegedly) provides an easy way to plug into a highly consistant world with a minimum of hassle and experience. That in itself is good.

But all this talk of realism and grittiness needs to be clarified, because some of you are using them interchangably, and sometimes by one or the other you are just (apparantly) meaning (effectively) 'bad luck can frequently kill your character'.

 

[drnuncheon]

Maybe not a true universal system ala GURPS, but it seems to me that they've been making an effort to get it to handle as wide a range as possible. And since it was originally designed for the fantasy genre, it doesn't seem to unrealistic to ask it to do low-fantasy.

I think it's much more realistic to ask it to do high-adventure super-spy (a la James Bond), pulp-hero action, space opera, and the like - because these things keep the core 'flavor' of cinematic action/adventure the same and only change the trappings.

You want to change the flavor and keep the trappings - for that I think a different system is probably the answer.

J

 

[Patrick-S&S]

Kalamar fans make the same claims about Kalamar, but Kalamar is ready-to-run in D&D.

Yes it is. However I have both settings and Kalamar may be the closest D&S setting that follows this "rule", but it falls short compared to Hârn. I am not saying Kalamar is a lousy setting but compared to HârnWorld it is not nearly as consistent or have the same debt that makes us Hârniacs like it so much. I was actually looking for another setting besides Hârn for ideas and such and bought a few Kalamar supplements because I had heard so much about it. I was not exactly thrilled with the content although it is far better IMO (take it as such) then say Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Birthright even. In that regard I know that they can not compare. Hârn wins dead on in that regard.

 

[Psion]

So you're saying that a setting designed to be used specifically with D&D is inherently superior to one designed with whatever system you're fond of?

Gee, would you like a mallet so you can better shove some words into my mouth?



No, but it is worth pointing out if you are trying to sell a game world with similar characteristics to an audience that primarily plays that system.

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: level advancement

In D&D, a 5th level fighter can charge a 1st level one with no fear whatsoever for his life. That shouldn't always be so in a "realistic" game.

It's not always so in D&D. That's why the system has critical hits and massive damage.

And really, someone who is two or three times as good at combat as his opponent ought to win 99% of the time. I'll bet that's the case in Harn or any other system you care to name too.

What Harn and the other "realistic" systems do is cover a smaller range than D&D, and they do it with more gradations.

J

 

[Tiefling]

No, but it is worth pointing out if you are trying to sell a game world with similar characteristics to an audience that primarily plays that system.

Why?

Edit: And is Kalamar really all that similar to Harn? It's not really low magic, and while it's pretty consistent, it doesn't really try to be "historically accurate." I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but they just don't seem similar at all.

 

[Psion]

Yes it is. However I have both settings and Kalamar may be the closest D&S setting that follows this "rule", but it falls short compared to Hârn. I am not saying Kalamar is a lousy setting but compared to HârnWorld it is not nearly as consistent or have the same debt that makes us Hârniacs like it so much.

Debt? What, is Harn on a payment plan or something?

At any rate, you being one of the Harniacs, I would only expect that you prefer Harn. I suspect that a KoK fan that has harn would tell you why Kalamar is better. And so it goes...

 

[Psion]

Why?

Try selling Mac software to a PC owner. Then you will know.

Edit: And is Kalamar really all that similar to Harn? It's not really low magic,

Post that over on the Kalamr board and watch David Kenzer's head spin (before he launches into his diatribe about how his world isn't like FR.)

and while it's pretty consistent, it doesn't really try to be "historically accurate." I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but they just don't seem similar at all.

Kalamar and Harn have very similar underlying philosophies. They both strive to make self consistent and beleivable cultures, have details like settlement and migration patterns, etc. I'll leave it to the fans of the respective setting to hash out who does it better, but I think you have to be blind to not see that they are coming from similar angles.

 

[LokiDR]

Just a couple of things about Harn:

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that Harn (i.e., the setting, HarnWorld) is intended for those who want "realism". I don't personally think that's true; Harn is very much a fantasy setting and it's well-suited to those who want to run a "fantasy" game. That said, Harn is more consistent than many other fantasy settings that I've seen. By that, I simply mean that things in Harn make sense: its cultures, its history, the settlement patterns of its inhabitants, etc. -- all of this things are logical. That doesn't mean that they're realistic (although, insofar as Harn is based on medieval Britain, it is quite historically accurate); it just means that the authors have created a fantasy world in a logical way. For me, as a GM, this is great. It gives me a solid foundation upon which I can build my own extensions to the world. Furthermore, it makes for great roleplaying, because the consistency makes it much easier to suspend disbelief and really immerse yourself in the game.

Keith

If it is fantasy, why is there such an effort to "make sense" of a game world? This was written by a history professor, right? History is pretty concerned with accuracy, which seems related to realism. Likewise, I think of logic and realism going hand in hand. Logic is based on the world we live in, so I would say the more "logic" you apply to a game world, the more realistic it would become. The easiest way to susspend disbelief is to walk out your front door. If you disbelieve that, you are a better gamer than I could ever be Anyway, that is the impression I am getting from all the statements here, not from reading the setting.

You said D&D could be realistic if you tweak it enough. I agree, but you can play high fantasy in ShadowRun if you tweak it enough. Why would you go through that work? Would it take the same kind of effort to make Harn into high fantasy, complete with floating castles? I just want to know where the setting sits as it was written.