Whither HARP?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

What are generally considered to be HARP's weaknesses? I'm just curious, not looking to start a flamewar.

Well, there are still more charts than a D&D player would be used to. You're also using higher numbers than in d20, so the math can be more difficult to run on the fly. It's still far from needing a calculator to play, but it can slow the game down sometimes, especially for players who aren't quick with arithmetic.

There are several optional rules for speeding it up and reducing chart lookup and artihmetic, however.

Interesting that it sounds similar to Alternity in some ways (though obviously the dice mechanic is different).

There are some similarities, yes. It even includes diminishing returns for skills at higher levels, like Alternity does, though it handles it differently. One reason that I prefer HARP to Alternity is that it's a roll-high system, so there's more room for skill improvement, and the Talents system allows for character traits that don't fit within the skill system neatly.

I'm actually using HARP and HARP Sci-Fi to run a campaign that I was originally planning on running in AD&D 2e and Alternity, and later attempted in D&D 3.5 and d20 Modern.

What's the science fiction title? I might keep an eye out for it.

HARP Sci-Fi. If you can't find it locally, they have an online store at ironcrown.com.

 

[Aus_Snow]

not big maths

No, but big[ger] numbers, overall. As in, you're dealing with percentile and stuff. This alone puts come people off, or at best necessitates the constant use of calculators, for them.

That's not an issue for me personally, and really, it's a pretty cool game. Somewhere between D&D and Warhammer, in terms of game system, but with more an eye towards the D&D side of fantasy, flavour-wise. That would be where I'd peg it.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Does HARP have a class/system for Necromancy?

Yeah, the regular magic system includes spells for animating the dead, raising the dead, and controlling and/or banishing the undead. They're normally Cleric spells, but a Mage can gain access to all Cleric spells by buying a 30 DP Talent. (You typically gain between 40 and 50 DPs per level.)

The College of Magic supplement has a more robust Necromancer, as its own Profession, that also gains access to debuffs and some good attack spells. Necromancers also have Combat and Subterfuge as Favored Categories, so they're good for Hexblade type characters, especially if mixed with Warrior Mage.

Hm, from memory (don't own the book):

- Character creation is more medium than lite.
- Not as much flavor as some of its competitors, such as Runequest, Warhammer, Basic Role-Playing, etc. Plan to do a lot of world-building.
- Combat has a learning curve to it. Many beginning players will not know how to manage a good balance of offense and defense, and risk leaving themselves open to being hit, which is a bad, bad thing. Compare to something like D&D or GURPS where your defenses are mostly passive and precalculated.
- Somewhat chart and calculation heavy, not big maths, but it's not something you can easily run on the fly.
- Features Grix, the kindler, gentler, less interesting cousins of the common orc, instead of half-orcs or Wookiees or whatever

I can agree with these points, for the most part.

On the other hand, once you've got the hang of character creation, you can bang out a character in roughly the same amount of time as a mid-level D&D character, and high-level HARP characters are not particularly more difficult or complicated to design. And much of the difficulty with charts and computation can be solved by copying the charts you need and keeping them in front of you during play.

 

[der_kluge]

I used to have a great love of HARP, and ran a game of it at the DC game day, with Rasyr at my table, to boot.

I have a lot of the books, and even tried my hand at doing some freelancing for them for a time, but that didn't pan out unfortunately.

I LOVE the character creation system. It really is a thing of beauty. You can create any kind of character you want - you could make a fighter, for example, with just enough ranks in one spell, like telekinesis. So, if you wanted a fighter who could pull people towards him, and then slice them in two - you could do that fairly easily in HARP. Such a thing would be nigh impossible in D&D, because you'd be a multi-classed fighter/wizard, and you'd have to take 7 levels of wizard to pull of something like that. In 4th edition - forget it.

The combat system really is the stumbling block for me. I can appreciate it, but it's not for me. Thing is, you have to roll for everything, even spells. But the good part is is that you could roll *well* and have a spell do more than you expect. But, you can also fumble a spell.

The lethality is also much, much higher. So, you can die a horrendous death even as a powerful PC with a few bad dice rolls. The combat is also a lot more complex - it's all percentile, and everything is in a table that you have to look up. And then there are rules for stunning and parrying that make it that much more complex. For as simple as it is, I like D&D's "I roll to hit, and I do this much damage" kind of a system. HARP is more like "Ok, I'm using an edged weapon, so I roll, and look up the edged weapon chart, and I do a stun and a certain amount of damage..." and I don't know exactly. It's been a while since I've ran it.

The character creation system is a thing of beauty, but it can lead to a bit of min-maxing. For example, you could make a wizard and you could dump every conceivable skill point you have into "mana" at the expense of neglecting things like "saving throws" which are also skills, and BAB, which is also a skill, and even hit points - which are also a skill. So, you could essentially have a 20th level wizard with +1 to his BAB, +1 to all his Saving throws, and 6 hit points - but with enough spellcasting power to choke a damned kingdom.


I used to have a fairly in depth review on here if someone wants to look for it.

 

[smug]

The character creation system is a thing of beauty, but it can lead to a bit of min-maxing. For example, you could make a wizard and you could dump every conceivable skill point you have into "mana" at the expense of neglecting things like "saving throws" which are also skills, and BAB, which is also a skill, and even hit points - which are also a skill. So, you could essentially have a 20th level wizard with +1 to his BAB, +1 to all his Saving throws, and 6 hit points - but with enough spellcasting power to choke a damned kingdom.

This is what I love about skill-based systems (although of course it takes some effort in GMing for it not to become game-breaking, but that's logical in game terms because otherwise the world would be run by wizards like that. Unless you want a world run by wizards like that, in which case, the game also provides and with little GM effort to boot!). As for the combat, I'm a Rolemaster fan...

If I had the choice, I'd play Rolemaster Classic, but if Rolemaster's complexity was an issue, I'd play HARP.

Of course, I'm stuck playing D&D (but as we're moving to Pathfinder, there's some interest there...).

btw: every time I see Moz live, I nearly break down in tears. Especially the first time, when he played Paint a Vulgar Picture. Absolutely my favorite Smiths track ever.

I dont think there's a bad Smiths song. It ended too early, but it was perfect while it was going.