Love for Hackmaster?

[the Jester]

I believe you are thinking about the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG.

I think you're right. There are definitely no funny dice with strange symbols in Hackmaster. The funnel remark made me think of DCC as well.

D'oh, you guys are both totally right!

 

[The Human Target]

I answered Dislike It - Has Some Merits because, while I do appreciate a lot about it and its predecessor, I would never actually run it or play it. But both editions are enjoyable reads and I can certainly understand why both editions would have their fans.

That's where I'm at with it.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I voted for "Other" because I *love* Hackmaster...4th edition, not the HM Next one.

Whilst I did/have pre-ordered the PHB, Hacklopedia and GMG, and bought two of the adventures as well as the PDF and print copy of the Basic book....it's just not "Hackmaster" to me. Cool enough system from the looks of it, but when I suggested to my group that our next mini-campaign be "A shot at the new Hackmaster Basic game", the unanimous opinion of my players was Uh...why? We have HM4e...

*sigh* Maybe one day I'll trick them into a single session one-off of Hackmaster Next...but even I don't really get excited about that. I've tried, and all I can think of is "Neat...but I can do that in real Hackmaster too...".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[dd.stevenson]

I can imagine some pretty sweet roll20 scripts that would make running hackmaster a lot easier. Assuming I had those set up, and some players that were up for it, I would be willing to give the game a shot.

But as far as pure tabletop play goes, I don't think hackmaster is the right game for me.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Hiya.

I voted for "Other" because I *love* Hackmaster...4th edition, not the HM Next one.

This.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

No oppinion, here. While I found the original HM fun to read, all what I learned about the new one didn't entice me to buy or read it.

 

[Scorpio616]

Tried it, but the person running it doesn't have the time/energy to run a game. I was still trying to figure out if it was rules legal to attack with a big weapon, then break off from combat, giving a free attack, to reduce time on swings.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Tried it, but the person running it doesn't have the time/energy to run a game. I was still trying to figure out if it was rules legal to attack with a big weapon, then break off from combat, giving a free attack, to reduce time on swings.

(Bolded for emphasis)...and therein lies your GM's problem. From all I've gathered reading HM5, the way the game 'works' is basically second by second, using common sense for specifics. The game gives 'rules' for how to run combat. There is no "legal" way to run anything simple because the system is assuming EVERYONE at the table can use their brain to play out (re: 'time') something. Anything. Everything. In short: if you have a GM at the table, what he/she decides is what the rules say. For example, a 10' Pole has a listed cost of 10cp. Does that mean that every 10' poll costs 10cp, at all times...everywhere in the world...in all circumstances? Of course not! That would be silly. The cost should be variable as there are a myriad of things that could influence it's price. Likewise, a 'rule' stating "Combat Choice A gives result B" is the baseline 'rule'. Should it always be that way? Of course not! Like the 10' pole, there are always exceptions and variables that would change that rule. Ergo, "if it was rules legal" is a silly and pointless statement with regards to a player somehow trying to "beat" the game.

For the big weapon/break off/free attack/reduce time thing...would that work in "real life" if it were actually happening? Once everyone at the table thinks about it...no. The end result is he would have to actually 'break off' combat. If the big-sword-guy turns and flees as far away as he can...then he had broken off combat and attacking is moot because he's nowhere near combat. A player blurting out "I break off combat" is fooling himself. If I were DMing, I'd give the bad guy standing next to him a free attack...at +10...and combat would continue as if the player blurted out "Any more Coke in the fridge?".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Ravenheart87]

Tried it, but the person running it doesn't have the time/energy to run a game. I was still trying to figure out if it was rules legal to attack with a big weapon, then break off from combat, giving a free attack, to reduce time on swings.

Stepping away won't end the engagement with the enemy. You can use Fighting Withdrawal or Flee, but the enemy can follow you and attack. Unless somebody keeps him from doing so, you have to be very lucky to not get hit with a d10 defense roll. Also see rule one:

RULE ONE: In HackMaster, any rule ambiguity related to character creation and PC powers is construed against the player character. If you, as a player, find yourself arguing that a rule is ambiguous, your GM must simply weigh both side's benefits to your player character and choose the most logical choice in his opinion. If one choice seems too heavily in favor of your PC and not directly stated in the rules, he has no choice but to rule against your character.

 

[Lawngnome4hire]

There are certain things about the system I really like, like the count up mechanic, and knockbacks. But other things I really didn't care for. The whole engage mechanic I felt is a bit wishy washy, for a system with as much crunch as Hackmaster has I felt it should be more clear whether you are engaged in melee or not. The shield mechanics just seem unnecessarily cumbersome. I also don't like how they've split the cleric class into essentially a different class for each god, and then not included anywhere close to all of them in the PHB. I'd prefer a more setting neutral approach to clerics, and something that isn't so massive they can't fit it in the PHB.