Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 386413" data-attributes="member: 1106">From what you've written below, I think you managed to miss it.It's a parody of (A)D&D and a tribute to it, not a joke.  To be a joke implies that "Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality".  Given that the game is designed to run non-trivial campaigns in and that you probably know this, I suspect that your term is purposefully chosen to imply the converse.  HM is a parody - "A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule", and a tribute - "A gift, payment, declaration, or other acknowledgment of gratitude, respect, or admiration."I wasn't talking about the "hard" rules, which you seem obsessed with.  I was referring to the rules which contain fluff, such as spells, classes, monsters, magic items, style and ideas - not THACO.  They are where the heart of the D&D game is - in a whole bunch of easily latched onto archetypes, cool spells, cool monsters, and cool magic items...and "default D&D setting" assumptions, such as dungeons and theives guilds and demihumans.  As argued by Monte Cook in the past, some rules do nothing to hurt D&D's appeal (such as abstract hit points), but the appeal lies primarily in the D&D genre, the feel of the game (slaying things and stealing treasure), and an abundance of stuff to play around with.If you think these fluff-included components of the game don't matter, try ripping them all out of 3E and see what you're left with: bare d20 rules without a genre, not D&D.Nice straw man, and one that has nothing to do with my argument.  I notice that you're back to THACO again - you're really obsessed with the hard rules side of D&D, neh?  Almost as if you think it's the only part that matters.Where did I say this?  Nowhere.  You're tilting at windmills and making assumptions about my stance.  It is you who was (and is) on the attack here, with your trollish post that assumes that the only reason to play Hackmaster is for purposes of nostalgia, and that the only thing that matters about D&D is slick rules.  My argument is that hit resolution isn't even the tip of the iceberg of what makes D&D D&D, and despite your claims that you do, you show no sign of understanding that.I didn't write that, and don't agree with it.  WotC have based their publishing policy of big hardcovers on 1E anyway, with (for example) the Manual of the Planes and Deities and Demigods.  The devil is in the details though, and the style is definitely different from 1E.  Better?  Depends on what you're after.  Is Hackmaster's style different to that of 3E?  Definitely.  Is that good?  Again, depends on what you're after.Ah, we're in unrelated tangent land again.  I take it you're into superheroes, then.I don't like old modules, much - most of them, quite frankly, sucked.  You have it right in that as far as the popularity thing goes, that's not what Hackmaster's designed to be.  You still don't have a point, except that you're still assuming that I'm attacking 3E's right to exist.  You're very predictable, you know - assuming that I am teh enemy whereas I'm really sitting on the fence.  You attempt to paint me as extremist fanboy, and have begun to shadow box against straw men of your own devising because your argument is failing.  I have news for you buster - given that I like both systems for what I consider their strong points, and recognise their weaknesses (and have done so on this thread), who's likely to be more objective?  The likes of yourself, with the frothing 3E fanboy, trying-to-be-funny immature troll which was your debut into this thread?You're still quoting people who aren't me in an attempt to to refute me?Progression is indeed usually the only way to move forward and improve the state of the art, but sometimes all that is abandoned is not inferior to that which it is replaced with.In the case of Hackmaster and 3E, I believe that 3E fulfils a role of utility - it doesn't impose many assumptions about your play style, and attempts to accomodate the majority of D&D players and newcomers.  This is a good thing.  Some of the details clash with my sense of aesthetics, and have changed the tone of the game for me in a direction I don't like (the flavour content and cool factor of the selection of monsters in the MM when compared to past editions, for instance), and some of the rules seem to get in the way (the amount of time spent on statting NPCs compared to past editions, for instance) but for the most part, with the other monster books arriving and computer stat generators existing, it's all good.That doesn't stop me from recognising Hackmaster's strengths (cool new concepts, spells, classes, monsters, magic items, ideas, rules which reinforce roleplaying, and a fresh and irreverent attitude to both rules and module writing mixed with a faux oldschool style) and it's weaknesses (level limits, overhead of character creation, THAC0, overhead of other rules such as alignment tracking).  It also lends itself to a specific, somewhat whimsical style of play and a certain sense of fun or humour (aided by knowledge of in-jokes), and therefore doesn't cater for D&D gamers who don't want that play style....although there's a good deal of stuff to pillage for such games regardless, especially spells and monsters.I'd prefer 1E AD&D or oD&D to either of them for certain purposes as well - such as when DMing off-the-cuff.  When doing so, I'd be tempted to use monsters from the Hacklopedias, spells from the HM PHB and certain sections of the HM GMG if running a game in a specific style, because they're fun and they happen to be compatible.  In short, I think I recognise the stuff HM does better than 3E, and vice versa.  Maybe it doesn't for you, but at least please stop pretending that all who like the game are fanboys blinded by nostalgia.  There's so much more to D&D than how you determine "to hit".</blockquote>

Verification