Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ColonelHardisson" data-source="post: 1642580" data-attributes="member: 363">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ColonelHardisson, post: 1642580, member: 363"] It may have seemed snarky, but it was a fair assessment. If one plays HackMaster [i]as-is[/i] (and, according to the rulebooks, that's the [i]only[/i] 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 [i]as-is[/i], 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 [i]don't[/i] 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 [i]not[/i] 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 [i]adding[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification