Hackmaster!

[Mark Plemmons]

Do you think it's more work than GMing D&D3E? That's a serious question--i've not read HackMaster in detail yet, and never played it, but i've seen how much work my GM put in when we were playing D&D3E (enough to burn him out), and talked to plenty of other GMs who've switched to other systems precisely because of the amount of effort D&D3E required. I'd actually be surprised if HackMaster was any *more* effort to prep/run.

I think it depends on the DM. There aren't really that many more rules in HM than there were in earlier editions of D&D. The major additions are the Honor System, and Quirks & Flaws, both of which add a lot of flavor to the game, but can easily be left out if you don't want to use them.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Hackmaster is much less work than dming 3e in any sane game. C'mon, did anybody EVER use weapon type vs armor type? I will gladly admit Hackmaster has a few goofy rules, but it's much saner than any game that has a half werewolf/halfgolem/halfdragon/halfogre ranger/rogue/druid/shadowmaster/wizard/archmage/munchkin of the whatever.

Check out a Hackmaster (or OD&D) monster statblock compared to a 3e statblock. 2 lines or so vs 3 pages.

Not that I'm bashing 3e, though I realize it sounds like it. I PLAY 3e, but damned if I'll ever dm it again.

 

[Aaron2]

Hackmaster is much less work than dming 3e in any sane game. C'mon, did anybody EVER use weapon type vs armor type? I will gladly admit Hackmaster has a few goofy rules, but it's much saner than any game that has a half werewolf/halfgolem/halfdragon/halfogre ranger/rogue/druid/shadowmaster/wizard/archmage/munchkin of the whatever.

Ok, I see. Hackmaster (assuming you you ignore every complicated rule) is simpler than 3e (assuming you use every complicated template/class). Got it.


Aaron

 

[rowport]

Aaron-

Now, that's just plain snarky. I was happy to see the relative civility of this thread... and then read your post. :\

 

[MerricB]

Do you think it's more work than GMing D&D3E? That's a serious question--i've not read HackMaster in detail yet, and never played it, but i've seen how much work my GM put in when we were playing D&D3E (enough to burn him out), and talked to plenty of other GMs who've switched to other systems precisely because of the amount of effort D&D3E required. I'd actually be surprised if HackMaster was any *more* effort to prep/run.

Right. Two parts to that.

In my opinion, Hackmaster is much easier to prep for, mainly because it doesn't use the detailed stat blocks of D&D 3E. (I've just spent a happy three hours adapting a Dungeon adventure for my game, bumping up the challenges involved by a couple of levels - that would be much quicker in HM).

However, in the actual play of the game, Hackmaster is more intensive. There's a bunch more book-keeping to do, and because of the adversarial relationship between the DM and player endorsed by standard Hackmaster, the DM must always be on his or her toes.

Cheers!

 

[Saeviomagy]

Aaron-

Now, that's just plain snarky. I was happy to see the relative civility of this thread... and then read your post. :\

Stuff like that is the equivalent of saying "the tabloids should be able to just make stuff up, and noone should ever question it's newsworthyness".

It's all very well questioning 3e complexity, but if you're going to do it by adding in every possible complex rule, and then saying that it's far more complex than some other game, the least you could do is use all the rules of the other game...

Or you could just stick with the basics of both. In which case, they probably end up more or less identical. Roll a dice, high is good, low is bad and the badguy dies after X whacks with a sword.

Personally I don't like hackmaster. I DO like the look of the rules, but frankly I've got a problem with any system that publishes... how many books of monsters is it? I mean sure it's a joke, but it's a very expensive joke...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Aaron-

Now, that's just plain snarky. I was happy to see the relative civility of this thread... and then read your post. :\

It may have seemed snarky, but it was a fair assessment. If one plays HackMaster as-is (and, according to the rulebooks, that's the only correct way to play it - the game has a very tongue-in-cheek attitude, aping Gygax's imperious style in the old 1e books), it's even more complex to play than 3e played as-is, by a long shot. There are d10,000 critical hit and random encounter tables, for example. There are armor hit points, pretty rigid training rules, and, well, as has been said, a ton of bookkeeping to perform. While I generally agree with MerricB's assessment, I think the trade-off (3e's big stat-blocks, HM's intricate use of tables and charts and mound of bookkeeping) still goes in 3e's favor. However, I don't view this as a real disadvantage for HM - in my opinion, the bookkeeping and such is all part of a larger HM metagame. That is, getting into the HM mindset is all about diving right into rules-lawyering and bookkeeping - it's not for gamers who want a streamlined, effortless game. I mean, really, one only has to look at the HM GM Shield (my all-time favorite gaming accessory) to see that the game is all about adding to the complexity, not subtracting from it. And that's a good thing, to HM fans like me.

That's not to say 3e isn't complex. It's just much less complex than HM. And I'm a big fan of both; both games fill different niches, and both niches appeal to me.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Or you could just stick with the basics of both. In which case, they probably end up more or less identical. Roll a dice, high is good, low is bad and the badguy dies after X whacks with a sword.

Well, while I agree with most of your post, the thing is...the HackMaster rulebooks have a lot of "basic" stuff that, according to the books, HAS to all be used. To do otherwise is incorrect. While it's tongue-in-cheek, as I said above, it is something to think about - if you take away all the complexity of HM, you're left with 1e AD&D, basically, with some 2e additions. The appeal of HM seems to have originally been to model an actual game after the fictional game in Knights of the Dinner Table, which, as anyone who's read the comic knows, seems amazingly complex - and that's the way the players like it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, while I agree with most of your post, the thing is...the HackMaster rulebooks have a lot of "basic" stuff that, according to the books, HAS to all be used. To do otherwise is incorrect. While it's tongue-in-cheek, as I said above, it is something to think about - if you take away all the complexity of HM, you're left with 1e AD&D, basically, with some 2e additions. The appeal of HM seems to have originally been to model an actual game after the fictional game in Knights of the Dinner Table, which, as anyone who's read the comic knows, seems amazingly complex - and that's the way the players like it.

Yeah - HM is very gamist. That is: You don't use it to tell a story, or simulate reality. You use it to play the game that HM is. If that makes any sense. I do like that about it (although I think I'd be hard pressed to find players that would appreciate that aspect of it, and I'd much rather play the game rather than try to run it).

I was just making a point that saying that HM is a very simple system, simpler than 3e is a really silly claim to make. Getting upset when people call you out on it is even sillier.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Ok, I see. Hackmaster (assuming you you ignore every complicated rule) is simpler than 3e (assuming you use every complicated template/class). Got it.


Aaron

Well, let's say I adopt ALL the hackmaster rules and ALL the 3e rules - just WOTC stuff not D20. Hackmaster is STILL easier to run. For one thing attributes and to hit modifiers stay roughly the same. There's no cat's grace/owl's wisdom, etc - very few buff spells at all, really.

As far as bookkeeping is concerned, don't you track alignment in 3e? There may not be a chart, but it still has to be done, unless you let paladins get away with child molestation and raping the barmaids. I don't use the alignment chart, armor vs weapon types, and probably a good many other Hackmaster rules. Then again, how many people allow every 3e rule? No one bans incantatrixes? How about the original bladed gauntlet? Miasma?

Very few gamers use all the rules, and most have house rules of their own, be it Hackmaster, D&D, or Monopoly. I play D&D and Hackmaster both, and I gotta tell you, GMing Hackmaster is a breeze after a 3e session. That's not to say D&D is a bad game, it's just more work than I want to put in. 3 page stat blocks, and 4 different pages of to hit bonuses depending on what spells are active are just too much. An npc once cast dispell magic on the party wizard and we had to wait 20 minutes while he recalculated his ac, to hit bonus, saves, etc. Sure, that problem exists in HM, too, but it's exponentially greater in 3e.

And ignoring rules in Hackmaster is much simpler than 3e. Try playing without feats, it screws up the whole game. If I take talents out of Hackmaster, it's no big deal.