HARP vs D&D

[Mean DM]

Actually that's not the case. It does not have to compare itself to d20/dnd or any other system at all, sorry but dnd is not god. All it has to do, and what it *has* done, is turn heads enough to get a small % of people looking at it. Then that small % makes up its mind and begins to talk about it, take it to gaming sessions, and play it at cons. The small % turns into a larger % and there you are. White Wolf never compared itself to dnd and yet it soared. You can say it filled a niche but it didn't, there were already successful games out that did what it did. You had CoC, nephilim, chill, nocturna, whatever the paladium horror game was. These were powerful systems that white wolf never compared itself to but had lots of fan base at the time. So your idea that everything has to compare itself to dnd by saying what it does differently is just as ludicrous as the idea that everyone thinks of %dice the exact same way.

With all due respect, I think you may have misunderstanding Nisarg's point. If I read the post correctly, s/he is saying that the "we are better than d20" mantra is a dead end sales approach. That's all. While I don't agree that the discount for d20 books from ICE makes them guilty of this, I totally agree with this in a global sense.

 

[Nisarg]

Actually that's not the case. It does not have to compare itself to d20/dnd or any other system at all, sorry but dnd is not god. All it has to do, and what it *has* done, is turn heads enough to get a small % of people looking at it. Then that small % makes up its mind and begins to talk about it, take it to gaming sessions, and play it at cons. The small % turns into a larger % and there you are. White Wolf never compared itself to dnd and yet it soared. You can say it filled a niche but it didn't, there were already successful games out that did what it did. You had CoC, nephilim, chill, nocturna, whatever the paladium horror game was. These were powerful systems that white wolf never compared itself to but had lots of fan base at the time. So your idea that everything has to compare itself to dnd by saying what it does differently is just as ludicrous as the idea that everyone thinks of %dice the exact same way.

Please reread my post. I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you suggest.

I'm saying a new system should NOT try to make its name by comparing itself to D&D. That it needs to make its own niche.

White Wolf's Vampire, for example, would have bombed if it had argued that its mechanics were better than D&D, because that would have missed the point entirely. WW would have been trying to steal away D&D players, a bit of a fool's errand. Instead, it did the smart thing and showed what Vampire is good at IN ITS OWN RIGHT; namely the "storytelling" kind of roleplaying, and "dark personal horror" (ie. angst). It even went the extra mile by doing a LOT of its marketing completely outside the RPG fanbase, getting in the people who were part of the vampire-craze goth-crowd.

Nisarg

 

[AIM-54]

That's the spiritual Mt.Everest facing HARP; the question "What can you do differently than D&D with it?" And answering that it handles skills differently, or it handles magic differently or something like that isn't going to cut it. If it wants to have success, it has to explain how it is doing something new and innovative gaming, filling a niche that neither D20 nor other popular RPGs do not already occupy.

I think the market any of these types of games is looking to fill is those gamers who have tired of rigidness of the d20 system and want something different. A lot of those gamers are playing d20. HARP doesn't need to take over 50% of d20 marketshare, it just needs to develop a following among the many gamers looking for more than scripted characters.

Having perused this thread, I'm much more interested in picking the game up and trying it out (moneys tight until the end of this month, otherwise I might have ordered it already), because gamers like me are out there and desperately want this kind of alternative to d20 for our fantasy gaming.

The niche is there and, though I can't be sure until I play it, I think HARP has as good a shot as any at being a viable product.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

With all due respect, I think you may have misunderstanding Nisarg's point. If I read the post correctly, s/he is saying that the "we are better than d20" mantra is a dead end sales approach. That's all. While I don't agree that the discount for d20 books from ICE makes them guilty of this, I totally agree with this in a global sense.

If that's the case then I apologize. The way I read it was that what HARP needed to do was to let everyone know how they were different from dnd and how they did things that dnd didn't. I just don't agree, I have never bought a book because of either sales tactic, either the "better than N" or "Different than N." I usually pick up game books on a gut reaction response to three things:

1) cover image
2) back splash page with info
3) interior artwork

Books that have bad art I rarely pick up without someone I trust recomending them to me. I collect different systems and learn them so that I cna always be ready for a game group. I never heard, nor saw, anything from ICE bashing d20 or saying that HARP was different or better.

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

Please reread my post. I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you suggest.

I'm saying a new system should NOT try to make its name by comparing itself to D&D. That it needs to make its own niche.

White Wolf's Vampire, for example, would have bombed if it had argued that its mechanics were better than D&D, because that would have missed the point entirely. WW would have been trying to steal away D&D players, a bit of a fool's errand. Instead, it did the smart thing and showed what Vampire is good at IN ITS OWN RIGHT; namely the "storytelling" kind of roleplaying, and "dark personal horror" (ie. angst). It even went the extra mile by doing a LOT of its marketing completely outside the RPG fanbase, getting in the people who were part of the vampire-craze goth-crowd.

Nisarg

Actually vampire could have pulled away a lot of dnd players. It did, just without trying. A lot of people were fed up with 2nd ed and so tried something new and found they liked wod. Now having said that I think HARP is in the same situation, they are pulling in a lot fo people, if you doubt this keep reading the board here and other places on how many people are fed up with d20 and tried HARP, finding they liked it. Maybe this fan base is where some people getting this "better than d20" stuff from (Which no one has yet to answer my question on, only dodging it).

 

[Nisarg]

I think the market any of these types of games is looking to fill is those gamers who have tired of rigidness of the d20 system and want something different. A lot of those gamers are playing d20. HARP doesn't need to take over 50% of d20 marketshare, it just needs to develop a following among the many gamers looking for more than scripted characters.

Having perused this thread, I'm much more interested in picking the game up and trying it out (moneys tight until the end of this month, otherwise I might have ordered it already), because gamers like me are out there and desperately want this kind of alternative to d20 for our fantasy gaming.

The niche is there and, though I can't be sure until I play it, I think HARP has as good a shot as any at being a viable product.

That's always the defence of the "fantasy heartbreaker", that they're selling to the people who are "sick of D&D/D20". With all due respect, the flaw in this plan is that the majority of people who end up disliking D20 will dislike HARP for many of the same reasons: vanilla fantasy style setting, rules-crunch system, no real difference in the storytelling-tactical spectrum (or if anything, more to the tactical). People quit D20 to go play Exalted or Vampire or Nobilis, not to play "d20 but better". If they like the basic tropes of D20 but have issues with some of the rules, they usually just create house rules.

And even if this is true, it is an argument for leaving D20, it is NOT an argument for going TO HARP. HARP would need to do more than just that, to draw a viable base of players.

Nisarg

 

[Rasyr]

With all due respect, I think you may have misunderstanding Nisarg's point. If I read the post correctly, s/he is saying that the "we are better than d20" mantra is a dead end sales approach. That's all. While I don't agree that the discount for d20 books from ICE makes them guilty of this, I totally agree with this in a global sense.

I don't think that any of ICE's marketing says that "we are better than d20" even though we may think so (note: THAT was NOT a slam against d20 -- a a company, we inherently have to think that our product is better than the competition or else there is little point in staying in business hehe).

I agree with the sentiment as well. Note that I do not think that ICE follows the pattern he mentioned. Whenever I talk about HARP, I try to stress its flexibility, as I feel that IS what it excels in, that and its balance with keeping things as simple as possible. Some games do flexibility better, some do simplicity better, but, I do think HARP strikes an excellent balance between the two extremes (note: neither flexibility or simplicity are mutually exlcusive, but seeing a well done combination of the two is pretty rare).

 

[Kaleon Moonshae]

That's always the defence of the "fantasy heartbreaker", that they're selling to the people who are "sick of D&D/D20". With all due respect, the flaw in this plan is that the majority of people who end up disliking D20 will dislike HARP for many of the same reasons: vanilla fantasy style setting, rules-crunch system, no real difference in the storytelling-tactical spectrum (or if anything, more to the tactical). People quit D20 to go play Exalted or Vampire or Nobilis, not to play "d20 but better". If they like the basic tropes of D20 but have issues with some of the rules, they usually just create house rules.

And even if this is true, it is an argument for leaving D20, it is NOT an argument for going TO HARP. HARP would need to do more than just that, to draw a viable base of players.

Nisarg

Actually I wasn't defending the company, I was stating fact. If you read what a lot of the people who like harp say, they seem to kinda say the same thing that I did. BTW if I left dnd it wouldn't be because I was tired of generic fantasy, namely dnd isn't generic in any sense of the word in any of my campaigns. I would leave it because of the classes, the magic, and the whole d20 is teh b3st idea (which is the big thing some people are getting fed up with because they miss the old days of multiple systems). Having said that HARP is *one* of the options I have that looks interesting if I ever decide to leave witht he other being Chaosium Elric. (oh and IRon Claw, if I can ever find a group to run it with)

 

[AIM-54]

That's always the defence of the "fantasy heartbreaker", that they're selling to the people who are "sick of D&D/D20". With all due respect, the flaw in this plan is that the majority of people who end up disliking D20 will dislike HARP for many of the same reasons: vanilla fantasy style setting, rules-crunch system, no real difference in the storytelling-tactical spectrum (or if anything, more to the tactical). People quit D20 to go play Exalted or Vampire or Nobilis, not to play "d20 but better". If they like the basic tropes of D20 but have issues with some of the rules, they usually just create house rules.

And even if this is true, it is an argument for leaving D20, it is NOT an argument for going TO HARP. HARP would need to do more than just that, to draw a viable base of players.

Nisarg

You seem to have this "d20 but better" notion stuck in your head and I think you do a great disservice to those that are dissatisfied with aspects of the d20 system that what they're looking for is what d20 provides but better. Whatever that means.

I think a lot of people are more interested in being able to play in a fantasy setting without being constricted by the rigidity of the d20 system. They want more flexibility in the mechanics. It's not better, it's not worse, it's different and allows you to create a game with a different feel; one you're not going to get in d20 no matter how hard you try. Some of the hard core d20 devotees I know have a hard time comprehending how the mechanics can change how a game feels. I once tried to share the Shadowrun world with some of these friends through d20 Modern, because they would not play the real game. d20 Modern, which isn't even very good at what it's supposed to do (IMO), cannot create the same atmosphere as the SR system, simply because there are certain SR mechanics that contribute to how the game feels and runs. Try explaining this and they make comments on how the mechanics don't matter it's about the story or whatever. Well, not in my experience.

Anyway, my point is that a different mechanic or series of mechanics can often open up new and different role-playing experiences. Indeed, there have been enough threads on this very forum lamenting the wargame feel of 3.0/3.5 versus earlier editions. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it is an issue out there, being discussed by the D&D/d20 community.

 

[Particle_Man]

Let's take a "for example" on a magical quandary that has plagued many rules systems:

How does HARP handle illusions? Do some of them have the option of being "partially real" with respect to damage or solidity of effect? If so, what controls are put in place to make sure they a) don't outshine the other, "fully real" spells (whatever you have for fireball, or summon monster for example) or b) don't allow a low-level caster to make a "partially real" demigod that can kill every low level opponent, even if only "partially real"? Can any illusions "Scare you to death/unconsciousness"?

Just curious. I have illusions on the brain right now (I should stop feeding straight lines like that to the net, but there ya go)