HARP vs D&D

[Nisarg]

Nisarg, unless you have actually tried HARP, there is no way you can possibly know that whether or not it is just "rolemaster-lite" or not. That is like saying that D&D is nothing more than "Rolemaster Lite" or "Palladium Lite" (Note: when 3.0 first came out, several distributors WERE referring to it as RM-Lite....).

...

Nisarg, you would do yourself more credit if you actually looked at other games before spouting off about how much worse than d20 they are.... Who knows, you might be pleasantly surprised....

Rasyr, If by "tried" you mean played I must admit I have not. If however you mean "read" (and I think you can in MOST cases get a good idea of a game just by reading it), I have indeed done so.

On the plus side, its a game that rules-focused tactical players would appreciate (This is NOT in any way a "dis", that is a perfectly legitimate way of playing). On the down side, it is NOT in any ways "rules-lite" (I know I called it "rolemaster lite" but if you know what Rolemaster was like, something can easily be rolemaster lite and still be more complex than D&D). Character creation is all over the place (though this is as much a problem of the chapter layout as the book).

There are 8 base stats (which is more than most rules-average games, and certainly more than your typical rules-lite game), and some of the stats felt redundant to me.

The skills and talents aren't much harder than skills and feats in D&D; but certainly no easier to handle either.

Actual skill resolution is based of a table, something that is quite throwback to the 80s IMO. Granted, its way better than the 1001 tables that Rolemaster of old had. But still...
And the maneuvering complexity is considerably more awkward than D&D's skill resolution. Its here where I say that its "harder" than D&D. I imagine also in actual play it would take a lot longer to work out the roll required (with modifiers) than in D&D, if for no other reason than that you're working out numbers on a bigger scale, and with wackier modifications (D&D you're usually looking at mods of +2, +4, etc.. here its like +6 for one thing, +14 for another +9 for another). Also, having a D100 that's roll-high seems counterintuitive. Its the one place where roll-low would seem to make more sense.

Obviously, if skill resolutions are complicated, you can imagine how combat is.. with the modifiers and such, it would make combat drag on quite a bit longer than D&D. There are also 14 critical tables; now there I'm not really complaining because critical tables are always fun.

On the whole, HARP is more math-dependant, roll-dependant and crunchy than D&D. This isn't a terrible thing, but its certainly not going to be of appeal to people who want something rules-lite. It doesn't do anything faster or better than D&D, just different. In some ways, its more of a throwback to an older style of game design.

And call it a Danceyism if you like, but "network externalities" are important. There's nothing in HARP to make me think that people will want to leave D&D to play it, it offers nothing new, and will have less players to draw from. True that you won't get crap products from bad publishers, but you will only get products from HARP's publisher, which means you'll only really like it if you like their "style". D20's OGL means that there will be a lot of companies, some of which will make junk, and some of which will make excellent products, and those excellent products from one company will have a very different style and appeal than the excellent products of other companies.

So there you go, that's my mini-review of HARP. I hope I have justified my position and quashed all claims that I am speaking out of ignorance when it comes to actually being aware of the system in question.

Nisarg

 

[Dagnir]

I think it is kinda sad when gamers don't try things first before the comment on them. I have been a fan of Ice for many years now. Even though i didn't like the RMSS but i did like Rolemaster 2nd ed. So when i see that ICE came out with a new product i had to check it out, and to be honest i like rolemaster more then i did AD&D. I will say that 3.5 is a better game then 3.0. It gave us some more flexibility and a ranger class worth playing. (sorry my personal gripe with 3.0)

So when i say ICE making HARP i had to check it out and see what it is about. I am glad to say that my players that i did run a couple of sessions for did like it and they even bought a couple of copies of it.

I just wish gamers now will open their minds to something new instead of the norm is all. And i agree with Rasyr, before you bash something or even comment on something at least try it out once and get a full opinion on the subject.

I hope that i didn't offend anybody but just wanted to state my opinion and believe i should defend a product i love.

 

[Crothian]

I just wish gamers now will open their minds to something new instead of the norm is all. And i agree with Rasyr, before you bash something or even comment on something at least try it out once and get a full opinion on the subject.

While that sounds good, its just not possible. I have the book, I read it cover to cover and based on that I know it is not for me and my group. There are just too many RPGs out there to try to give each and every one of them a try. People should read the book before making comments, but they don't need to play the game first.

 

[Aaron2]

While that sounds good, its just not possible. I have the book, I read it cover to cover and based on that I know it is not for me and my group. There are just too many RPGs out there to try to give each and every one of them a try. People should read the book before making comments, but they don't need to play the game first.

I agree. I don't have the time or the players to play every game I -want- to run, let alone every game that I might consider running.


Aaron

 

[Numion]

In my mind the main reason I wouldn't bother trying HARP is that the game is 90% of time explained to me or defined as "not D&D / d20". It's rarely explained or advertised on its own merits, but as a combination of comparisons and knocks vs. D&D.

I realise this is pretty small of me, but I do have some emotional investment in D&D.

ps. 3.0E referred to as Rolemaster lite? Thats funny .. and not that far-fetched (I've played Rolemaster on and off since '91, mostly off)

 

[AIM-54]

I disagree. I have both looked at many systems and played many and I don't think you can really comment on how well or poorly one runs until one has played it a few times. This does not mean one cannot get a feel for the game and decide if it's "right" for you and your group after a careful look at the book, but it is somewhat fallacious to be 100% confident.

But the majority of d20 gamers are so bound up in the "superiority" of their comfortable system that they are unwilling to try anything else. I was fortunate that when I started gaming it was with a group that was flexible and willing to try anything that one of us was interested in playing, whether or not we kept it up after an initial trial period. I had a lot of fun and got to try a lot of new things. I have the misfortune now to be in a much less flexible group and it is grating at times to say the least.

I don't know too much about HARP, but I'll be trying it out this October at the NOVA-DC-MD Game Day and I'm excited to see how it plays.

 

[Mean DM]

Has anyone here taken a look at the new HARP rpg from ICE yet? From what info I have gathered so far (I haven't seen the rulebook yet), it looks pretty much like D&D (frpg, standard races and classes) with a D100 system. I would love to hear what experiences people have had with it and how it compares to D&D.

I have only read through HARP a few times, but I like what ICE has done. IMO HARP strikes a nice balance between the strengths of both RM and DnD. For those that like one or the other, HARP probably is not their cup of tea. For me, I am looking forward to giving it a try with my group. I especially like the treatment of magic.

As far as how it compares to D&D; well, if you want a more complicated version of D&D with less network externalities (smaller fan base, way less material, etc) then go ahead and try HARP.

I think that smaller fan bases are sometimes an asset, and should not be the primary measure of a game.

 

[Rasyr]

Rasyr, If by "tried" you mean played I must admit I have not. If however you mean "read" (and I think you can in MOST cases get a good idea of a game just by reading it), I have indeed done so.

Operative word there being "most".

On the plus side, its a game that rules-focused tactical players would appreciate (This is NOT in any way a "dis", that is a perfectly legitimate way of playing). On the down side, it is NOT in any ways "rules-lite" (I know I called it "rolemaster lite" but if you know what Rolemaster was like, something can easily be rolemaster lite and still be more complex than D&D). Character creation is all over the place (though this is as much a problem of the chapter layout as the book).

Now, please note that I have never, ever claimed that HARP was a "Lite" game. Character creation, IMO, is not all over the place, it is handled in several chapters, one following directly after the next. Profession, Race and Culture, Skills & Talents. (Rolemaster character creation, now THAT is all over the place heheh). Also, by your definition, d20 is Rolemaster Lite.

There are 8 base stats (which is more than most rules-average games, and certainly more than your typical rules-lite game), and some of the stats felt redundant to me.

Really? Which stats felt redundant to you?

The skills and talents aren't much harder than skills and feats in D&D; but certainly no easier to handle either.

No, they are handled differently is all.However, one thing that is different is that in HARP you can purchase any skill or talent any time you go up a level.

Actual skill resolution is based of a table, something that is quite throwback to the 80s IMO. Granted, its way better than the 1001 tables that Rolemaster of old had. But still...

Correction, some skills are resolved using a single table, the majority of skills are resolved using no table at all, the all-or-nothing skills do not use the table for resolution. It is used for extremely complex actions (Percentage), for skills that can aid another skill (Bonus - note, the better you are in the first skill, the better the bonus for the second skill), and the RR column, and the Utility spell column.

In fact, over on the Dragonfoot forum, I even offered a method of resolution that used no tables at all, for any of the skills/spells. Simply use the difficulty severities as breakpoints (i.e. a total roll of 127 is more than is needed for a Hard Maneuver, so the opposing roll needs to make a Hard Maneuver (120+) to succeed against.

And the maneuvering complexity is considerably more awkward than D&D's skill resolution. Its here where I say that its "harder" than D&D. I imagine also in actual play it would take a lot longer to work out the roll required (with modifiers) than in D&D, if for no other reason than that you're working out numbers on a bigger scale, and with wackier modifications (D&D you're usually looking at mods of +2, +4, etc.. here its like +6 for one thing, +14 for another +9 for another). Also, having a D100 that's roll-high seems counterintuitive. Its the one place where roll-low would seem to make more sense.

So, because you cannot add % numbers as easily as the numbers from a d20, it is harder???? Roll-high is counter-intuitive? Sorry, but I cannot see how roll-low makes more sense, unless that is, you want to limit things to an arbitrary maximum?

Obviously, if skill resolutions are complicated, you can imagine how combat is.. with the modifiers and such, it would make combat drag on quite a bit longer than D&D. There are also 14 critical tables; now there I'm not really complaining because critical tables are always fun.

Sorry, but I still do not see HARP skill resolution as complicated. For basic resolution (not the alternatives, but the basic all-or-nothing, no table required resolution), you have to get over 100. The difficulty severities are multiples of 20, thus a Hard maneuver would either need an adjusted total of greater than 100, or an unadjusted roll of 120+ (depending upon where you put the difficulty mod).

On the whole, HARP is more math-dependant, roll-dependant and crunchy than D&D. This isn't a terrible thing, but its certainly not going to be of appeal to people who want something rules-lite. It doesn't do anything faster or better than D&D, just different. In some ways, its more of a throwback to an older style of game design.

The only thing here that I see as valid is the "math dependant" comment. HARP is no more or less crunchy than D&D, as for roll dependant, in some instances (like spell resolution) yes, but in others (like combat) HARP uses less rolls. In HARP combat, an attack (AND any damage) is resolved with a single roll. If that roll is not a positive number, then the attack either missed or did not hit hard enough to do damage (GM's call), no tables needed. If it is a positive number, then and only then do you look up the result. Combat in D&D however does take more rolls, simply because the attack and the damage are separate rolls.

Also, once again, I would like to point out that NEVER have I said that HARP is a "lite" system. It is lighter than RM most definitely, and IMO lighter than D&D, while being more flexible than both at the same time (Note: that culture is NOT tied to race in HARP, and that half-races are possible between any of the available races, rather than limited to certain specific ones).

And call it a Danceyism if you like, but "network externalities" are important. There's nothing in HARP to make me think that people will want to leave D&D to play it, it offers nothing new, and will have less players to draw from. True that you won't get crap products from bad publishers, but you will only get products from HARP's publisher, which means you'll only really like it if you like their "style". D20's OGL means that there will be a lot of companies, some of which will make junk, and some of which will make excellent products, and those excellent products from one company will have a very different style and appeal than the excellent products of other companies.

The biggest problem with the OGL is its lack of quality controls, period. As for other companies producing HARP material, well.... We are in the process of making a deal with one well known D20 producer for them to do HARP products, and we have another company signed up to write HARP modules for us as well.

We are not trying to build HARP into a "flash" success. We are building it slowly so that it is strong and will survive for a long long time....

So there you go, that's my mini-review of HARP. I hope I have justified my position and quashed all claims that I am speaking out of ignorance when it comes to actually being aware of the system in question.

Not really, you have quashed some, but others still abound. Apparently, from your comments about percentile systems in general, you went into reading HARP biased against it.

All in all, if a person wants a rules lite game, then neither HARP nor D&D can qualify (Castles & Crusaders may qualify, am eagerly awaiting its release to find out)



BTW, glass.... the name is Tim Dugger, and you are correct, I am the guy who wrote HARP.

 

[buzz]

I was looking into HARP out of curiosity, and because of some fond memories of playing RM back in college. I have not read the rulebook cover-to-cover, so keep that in mind when reading these comments.

I also think that HARP is less complex than D&D (note: the type of dice used, and whether or not a person can add smaller numbers better or worse than larger ones has no bearing on the complexity of a game).

While not drastically different in complexity from D&D, there are a few things that struck me as being a bit more complex.

While it's true that it uses a similar "roll + adds/higher is better" mechanic, it does so with d100, and the modifiers you're adding and subtracting are generally double-digits (e.g., roll 76, add 34, subtract 66). This is no big deal for some people, but it is slightly more cumbersome. I have a hard enough time adding up d6's when I play HERO.

In combat, you're adding your numbers and subtracting the defender's numbers each hit, not just comparing each roll to a target number. If you hit (i.e., total roll over 0), a table needs to be consulted. On top of this, you're rolling init every round, and determining init involves more addition/subtraction of double-digits. Manuevers and spells also require their respective tables.

HARP also has its fair share of combat manuevers. While these add a lot of good detail to combat, it also adds some complexity.

Anyway...

I did like the sound of magic, which seemed much better than magic in RM. The flip side is that HARP is still new, so there's a fairly lmiited selection of spells in comparison to D&D. This critique also spills over into other areas, such as the selection of monsters and equipment (though, of course, there are supplements coming out that address this).

In general, HARP did sound pretty cool, and the books have some very nice art. Overall, though, I'm passing on it unless I come across a good deal, simply because the overall gameplay experience described by the system did not seem that much different to me than D&D. I can't see selling my groups on it over D&D, a game we know how to play and which serves the same function. If I'm going to invest in another fantasy game (particularly one that has a low likelihood of being played), I lean more towards games that are more distinct from D&D, such as Burning Wheel or Ars Magica.

mhensley, I'd suggest perusing http://www.harphq.com/ when making your decision. There are a lot of previews available for download, and a pretty friendly community frequenting their forums. They also have a neat deal where you can trade in d20 books for a $15 discount off of the main rules, so if you have any d20 stuff you can't seem to get rid of...

 

[buzz]

But the majority of d20 gamers are so bound up in the "superiority" of their comfortable system that they are unwilling to try anything else.

Is this kind of ridiculous, unfounded statement really necessary? Are ad hominems supposed to sell me on HARP? I don't get it.