Harniacs vs. d20/D&D players

[Mythtify]

Never played in Harn. Sounds like its a bit too much like the real world for my tasts.

Dungeons and Dragons can have very detailed games. Its all a matter of the amount of work the DM wants to put into his game.
If you feel players are leveling to fast, decrease exp awards. To many magic items? Don't give the party any magic items. To many spell casters, limit them. Hack'n' slash a pain, then use the story experience awards option.

You can use D20 rules for Harn? Great, lets get together and play a DnD game set in Harn and have a good time.

Anybody up for a game of Deadlands?

 

[Greyvanth]

LOL. Have you read Harn? It covers tectonic plate movements, ocean currents, prevailing wind patterns, etc. And every village has every unimportant peasant detailed out! Plus, there are lullabies, oaths, curses, prayers, songs, commerce and transaction guides, the inner workings of guilds, ale and bread recipes, beekeeping lore, and all manner of detail in just about every mundane subject. Now that's a level of detail unseen in any other game!

Brother! Sounds a lot like the level of detail that went into that book by - what was his name? Toker? Joker? JR Ewing? JRR Tolkien? I can't remember but he wrote a bit of over-detailed tripe called Lord of the Rings or something like that. I think he put 50 years worth of writing a 10,000 year or so history to make his story better. What a laugh, eh?

Yah I know - but I couldn't find the sarcasm smiley.

 

[Greyvanth]

LOL. Have you read Harn? It covers tectonic plate movements, ocean currents, prevailing wind patterns, etc. And every village has every unimportant peasant detailed out! Plus, there are lullabies, oaths, curses, prayers, songs, commerce and transaction guides, the inner workings of guilds, ale and bread recipes, beekeeping lore, and all manner of detail in just about every mundane subject. Now that's a level of detail unseen in any other game!

Brother! Sounds a lot like the level of detail that went into that book by - what was his name? Toker? Joker? JR Ewing? JRR Tolkien? I can't remember but he wrote a bit of over-detailed tripe called Lord of the Rings or something like that. I think he put 50 years worth of writing a 10,000 year or so history to make his story better. What a laugh, eh?

Yah I know - but I couldn't find the sarcasm smiley.

 

[Greyvanth]

My name is Scott ...... and I'm a Harnoholic ...

I remember when I switched to Harn. We had just finished the DragonLance series (took us 3 years 0 Great Stuff!). In that time we added a ton of Houserules to the AD&D game; Critical hit tables and such littered the table and it played well. It was a blast to use the Crit table after a player rolled a natural 20 on d20 (or was it a modified 20, or a natural modified d20 - er - a modified ) ... sorry.

My first Harn combat was a bar brawl in Trobridge Inn. Suddenly our strikes were hitting actual (well fantasy actual) body locations. We got tired and weaker as the seconds of combat rolled by. My PC companion tried a drop kick from on top of a bar table and slipped falling and cutting his hip on some broken pottery - this was all using the actual rules and not a narrated GM game (which I could never get into). I loved it and stayed for the last 20 years.

I didn't leave D&D because it was a lousy system - it isn't. d20 has made it great again. I switched to Harn whole-heartedly because weeks after that first game I could still remember the bar fight and others we had played as if they were real memories full of real-lifelike detail weeks later.

Something about the "detailed" and "realistic" way HARN played cemented the smallest detail into my mind. Not that I don't have great memories from AD&D but they are general impressions of events not (for me anyways) step by step, detailed adventures. I think the culprit may have been the HP system but that is another thread all together. Today My gaming group of 20 years can get together and laugh (cry for the Laranian Knight) as we regale each other with tales of Harnic adventure in detail. It has also been fun to write and bind a book of our adventures each Christmas that we write and give to all the players.

You should all stop by and join me in a Bar Brawl sometime - I really think you would like it.

If you do try Harn - make sure your first game is with an experienced HARN GM. The system taken cold is kinda like the first time you read The Hobbit or LotR - slow and boring to start but worth it if you get past the first chapters.

 

[Falstaff]

 

[Storm Raven]

What I mean by Harn requiring a more intelligent type of gamer is that the materials read like a college level medieval history book.

No, they don't. I have read many college level medieval history books, since that was necessary for my degree, and the Harn materials don't even come close. Compared to actual history texts, the Harn books are amatuer productions that cloak themselves in the appearance of deep, insigntful material, but fall well short of the mark. They are very much like a decent movie version of an actual history text.

Harn is nice, and as you have said, very detailed. But don't try to dress it up with importance it doesn't have.

 

[Storm Raven]

Hi there! Yes, there is a huge difference between the writing level of 1e (Gygax & Co.) vs. later editions. Gygax made you think, whether you wanted to or not, because you simply didn't have a choice if you wanted to play.

No, Gygax was a poor writer. The hallmark of a poor writer is someone who uses the word "utilize" instead of "use". The hallmark of a poor writer is someone who uses ten words where five will do. The hallmark of a poor writer is someone who uses an obscure term that means the same thing as a commonly known term when he just could have used the commonly known term.

Gygax is the sort of writer who "utilizes" ten obscure words instead of five recognizable words.

Other RPGs of the time, such as Chivalry & Sorcery, Call of Cthulhu, or Traveler) were even MORE complicated to learn.

Traveller was not more complicated to learn.

Later editions of D&D (and most other RPGs) attempted to bring the writing level down a notch (or several, by some opinions) to reach a wider audience.

Or, they attempted to actually write the books well, as opposed to writing them verbosely with as many arcane references as possible.

D&D has been "dumbed down" post-Gygax. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to the individual. I see it as both good and bad. The game is now easier to understand than ever (except for AoO's, LOL), and anyone can quickly and easily pick up the rules in short order. It also means that you aren't getting the same mental workout 1e gave you.

You see, this sort of stupid comment is what makes people react badly to your poorly thought out posts. First off, superior clarity in writing is not "dumbing down" a book. The dumb version of a book is the one that contains poor writing. The smart version is the one that doesn't. 3e avoids the obscurity and long-windedness of Gygax's style, while packing in significantly more information in between it's covers. That is a smartned up version of a game, not a dumbed down version.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

No, Gygax was a poor writer. The hallmark of a poor writer is someone who uses the word "utilize" instead of "use". The hallmark of a poor writer is someone who uses ten words where five will do. The hallmark of a poor writer is someone who uses an obscure term that means the same thing as a commonly known term when he just could have used the commonly known term.

Gygax is the sort of writer who "utilizes" ten obscure words instead of five recognizable words.

[/b]

Traveller was not more complicated to learn.

[/b]

Or, they attempted to actually write the books well, as opposed to writing them verbosely with as many arcane references as possible.

[/b]

You see, this sort of stupid comment is what makes people react badly to your poorly thought out posts. First off, superior clarity in writing is not "dumbing down" a book. The dumb version of a book is the one that contains poor writing. The smart version is the one that doesn't. 3e avoids the obscurity and long-windedness of Gygax's style, while packing in significantly more information in between it's covers. That is a smartned up version of a game, not a dumbed down version. [/B]

Gygax has a very lively, personable style. That's one of the reasons why I stuck with AD&D when it first appeared; Gary has a way of making one feel like a real, living person is behind the books. He posts here, so I'll let him choose to answer you in detail about his word usage, but overall he helped expand my vocabulary. A good writer is one that challenges the reader on some level; a poor writer is one that panders and assumes the reader is either dumb or lazy.

Traveller definitely was more complicated to learn, compared to D&D and maybe even to AD&D, especially if you used the books beyond 1-3 from the boxed set.

Again, Gygax's style was quirky, but it lent a certain ambiance to AD&D. Are we supposed to let the language dwindle down to baby-talk because people refuse to pick up dictionaries or encyclopedias? I'd rather be reminded of the richness and depth of the English language than to get to the point of seeing all books reduced to the level of "Dick and Jane" primer: "See the Fighter fight. Fight, Fighter, fight."

I think 3e is a better game, but I don't think 3e's books pack in more info then, say, the 1e DMG. Gygax was trying to evoke a mood and feel appropriate to what type of game AD&D was, and I firmly believe he succeeded admirably. I still have and regularly reference, his DMG, simply because the parts where he actually writes - rather than the tables and such - makes the game more easily understood. And anyone who tried to decipher Attacks of Opportunity when the 3e PHB came out knows that "clarity" was not achieved completely with the new, dry, clinical, textbook style.

 

[TiQuinn]

Are we talking about Gary Gygax, author of fiction or Gary Gygax, game designer?

The requirements for the two differ, IMO. Clarity and simplicity is paramount for the latter. Don't confuse simplicity with using dumbed down language. This isn't a matter of "See Redgar fight. Fight, Redgar, fight!" It's a matter of explaining a complex set of rules so that players and DMs can have a clear grasp of the rules and immediately start playing the game.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, the 1e DMG is definitely a D&D (AD&D) book, and it's pretty easy to grasp. It's been in use and praised by many since its release 20+ years ago, so Gygax's style apparently made things clear for quite a large number of people. The poster I was responding to was polarizing things, which prompted my response - Gygax's style didn't hurt the game, and helped endear the game to a generation.

Again, my example of AoO shows that a more supposedly "clear" style does not ensure success in explaining the game.