Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ColonelHardisson" data-source="post: 190629" data-attributes="member: 363">Good, thoughtful, and fair review.HackMaster really is a very playable RPG. The GMG, as I've said many times, is one of the best RPG books ever published, and the PHB isn't far behind. The trouble is, Kenzer had to tread a fine line - sure, HM is a parody, obviously. It tried to incorporate many of the concepts, and certainly the feel, of what is portrayed in Knights of the Dinner Table. Conversely, though, Kenzer took AD&amp;D, 1st and 2nd edition, and worked to improve and update the game for today's gamer. I believe they did a good job. You really can play HM as a straight-ahead, as-serious-as-you-wanna-make-it RPG. The bulk of the monsters in the Hacklopedias, for example, are simply the original critters from the 1e and 2e monster books. Sure, some of the pictures are goofy, but they're the same critters. The character creation system can be as goofy or serious as you want, and uses building points, quirks, flaws, and skills to help create characters who are either very interesting, or very weird - it's really up to you, depending on how you go about it.There are plenty of things about HM I don't care for - basically, all the 1e and 2e stuff that I didn't like when I was playing AD&amp;D. But there is much more that I do like, and which can be ported over to a 3e campaign.If HM isn't your cup of tea, that's cool. I just wanted to try to help clear up the misconception that HM is just an overblown joke. It's not. I can see, however, how one could get that impression from just looking at one Hacklopedia.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ColonelHardisson, post: 190629, member: 363"] Good, thoughtful, and fair review. HackMaster really is a very playable RPG. The GMG, as I've said many times, is one of the best RPG books ever published, and the PHB isn't far behind. The trouble is, Kenzer had to tread a fine line - sure, HM is a parody, obviously. It tried to incorporate many of the concepts, and certainly the feel, of what is portrayed in Knights of the Dinner Table. Conversely, though, Kenzer took AD&D, 1st and 2nd edition, and worked to improve and update the game for today's gamer. I believe they did a good job. You really can play HM as a straight-ahead, as-serious-as-you-wanna-make-it RPG. The bulk of the monsters in the Hacklopedias, for example, are simply the original critters from the 1e and 2e monster books. Sure, some of the pictures are goofy, but they're the same critters. The character creation system can be as goofy or serious as you want, and uses building points, quirks, flaws, and skills to help create characters who are either very interesting, or very weird - it's really up to you, depending on how you go about it. There are plenty of things about HM I don't care for - basically, all the 1e and 2e stuff that I didn't like when I was playing AD&D. But there is much more that I do like, and which can be ported over to a 3e campaign. If HM isn't your cup of tea, that's cool. I just wanted to try to help clear up the misconception that HM is just an overblown joke. It's not. I can see, however, how one could get that impression from just looking at one Hacklopedia. [/QUOTE]

Verification