Hackmaster!

[nsruf]

Just to put this in perspective: i don't think it's significantly worse than D&D3[.5]E. Or, to use your own words, "That is exactly what has kept me from DMing it so far....

Hehe, to each his own. I consider 3E far less complicated (not less complex) than HM, simply because of the consistent use of a single mechanic. If I want to know how X is done in HM, I have to read up on X and it's probably being handled like no other thing in the game. Roll high, roll low, roll d20, roll d6, take into account this class ability or that talent - and of course, it's all been clarified in the GMG, or maybe in some obscure back issue of KOTD, or one of the class books, or...

I considered this kind of thing shoddy design in AD&D 2E, but HM has reached a completely new level, IMO. I mean, I lurk at the Kenzer boards regularly, and after the game has been out for 3 (?) years, people still discuss how initiative and movement are supposed to work. Such a game just doesn't appeal to me, sorry.

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),

I just got sort of burned out on a high-level 3.5 campaign. We started at level 10 to find out what the revision had to offer and reached level 15-16 in 24 sessions. Most of my prep-time went into doing NPC stat blocks, which kinda sucks after a while. And the game play degenerated into a spell-slinging contest, where the non-spellcaster types just waited for the wizard and cleric to cast the next biggy spell (divination or travel) that would determine what happened next.

So I am far from a slavering 3E fanboy In particular, I don't care for the game after level 10 or so, and could do with slower advancement so level 10 takes longer to reach. But I never had a problem with the core d20 mechanics at low levels. They are intuitive, fast, and allow for a good deal of customization. HM fails in the first two instances, IMO.

Or to put it bluntly: 3E burnt me out after 9 month of high-level play*, while HM burnt me out after trying to read the GMG

* And I still like low-level games.

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.

Yes, there is no alignment chart in my game. Sounds like a minor point, unless someone knows the chart we are talking about I just have a paladin lose some or all of his abilities after doing something stupid. Much easier.

And I don't really bother about alignment for classes that have no restrictions, because there are no penalties for changing. This sounds like a bug in 3E, unless (like me) you don't care much for alignment anyway.

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?

Well, there are rules and rules. Banning a prestige class or strange weapon isn't "not playing by the rules" - these are optional gimmicks, anyway. But changing the way something basic is handled, something that comes up every game session (task resolution, initiative, advancement, etc.), that's more interesting.

So what core mechanics did I change in my 3E game?

a. XP system: I don't give kill XP or track individual actions. Instead, I evaluate overall performance on a scale of 1-10 after the game using some criteria, and then multiply by an appropriate number of XP.

b. Fate points: this is not a change of existing mechanics, but an addition.

Now why did I change the XP system? First, I don't like tracking in minute detail what characters do during the game and how it affects them on some abstract scale. Second, I wanted to avoid the "one more goblin to level up" syndrome.

And I think the above paragraph illustrates perfectly why HM is not for me

 

[Numion]

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.

I don't know if anyone used weapon type vs armor, but can you answer did anybody EVER use a half werewolf/halfgolem/halfdragon/halfogre ranger/rogue/druid/shadowmaster/wizard/archmage/munchkin of the whatever?

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.

Because HM was never that balanced to begin with? People tend the remember ye olden days fondly when their house rules were great, while nowadays you actually have to think to improve the game.

 

[diaglo]

People tend the remember ye olden days fondly when their house rules were great, while nowadays you actually have to think to improve the game.

i'm sorry your old days sucked. but some of us had good games.
and we improved them all the way along the campaign.

i actually contest the new rules damper thinking.

 

[Breakdaddy]

i actually contest the new rules damper thinking.

I think you mean contend here, chief.

 

[francisca]

I mean, I lurk at the Kenzer boards regularly, and after the game has been out for 3 (?) years, people still discuss how initiative and movement are supposed to work.

Are these people who have been playing for all three years, or newbies? Big difference. If a new player is coming to Hackmaster/AD&D from d20, I am sure it is daunting to look at segments, etc.. So your point is still taken, to a certain degree.

 

[diaglo]

I think you mean contend here, chief.

no i meant contest.

a race to see who could drag this thread off track first.

 

[Numion]

i'm sorry your old days sucked.

Don't be, they didn't.

i actually contest the new rules damper thinking.

Or is it just a by-product of getting old?

 

[nsruf]

Are these people who have been playing for all three years, or newbies? Big difference. If a new player is coming to Hackmaster/AD&D from d20, I am sure it is daunting to look at segments, etc.. So your point is still taken, to a certain degree.

The questions get asked by newbies. What bothers me is that the veterans who chime in to answer usually can't agree on the definite way to handle things. Or somebody else chimes in with "OMG, we've been doing it wrong all the time".

But they all play sanctioned, of course...

 

[Aaron2]

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.

I haven't seen the various Fighters Guide to Wurld Dominination books so I don't know what percentage of those is new rules. But, the vast majority of non-core WotC d20 books don't contain new rules, just new monsters, spells, and prestigue classes. I don't know if ignoring a class or spell is equivalent to ignoring a rule since it just isn't possible for a party to know every spell and have one level of every class anyway.

3 page stat blocks, and 4 different pages of to hit bonuses depending on what spells are active are just too much.

For me the simple monster stat blocks is a two-edge sword. On one hand, it is easy to write out, but on the other hand, it also means that there are two seperate sets of rule, one for characters and one for monsters. The large 3e stat block would be a bigger problem if it wasn't for the SRD. As it is now, I can cut and paste a monster into an adventure in just a few seconds. The size of the stat block doesn't hurt. I also find that the ease of adding classes to monsters, IME, more than makes up for tracking the extra detail.


Aaron

 

[Henry]

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.

The problem with the analogy is that the previous posters I believe were referring JUST to the core books (the PH and the DMG, versus the HPH and GMG). If I use ALL of the WotC stuff, it may well be too unweildy, just as if I use a ton of optional rules for Hackmaster. The core system still has certain elements (Honor, Critical hits, Percentile scores on Abilities, 1,000,0001 variations of Fireballs and Raise Dead spells) that to me make it more complicated to track. To me, ideal rules systems should have as few charts to memorize as possible, with the formulas for progression being easy to use. It takes a lot more wrote memorization (or a good Hackmaster's screen) to run Hackmaster than 3E.

(Don't let me get started on the old "Game Balance" issue, because the two games enact balance in totally different ways, and the issue is outside the scope of this thread).

However, I don't disparage Hackmaster as a good game, because the charts and convoluted honor system are part of its charm. The Esoterica is what makes it the game that it is.
[/QUOTE]