Post originally by Spartan at 2003-06-15 14:40:30
Converted from Phorums BB System

James Beggs: "Although its been awhile, though, Combat seemed a little... complex. Perhaps not quite so bad as TRoS, and certainly not as bad as Rolemaster, but still, it was bulky. At least, thats how my ten years of old memory recall it.

What do you think?"

A very good question. Personally, I don't find HM combat to be really complex at all, especially with the 3rd Edition. I came to HM directly from Rolemaster, and it blew me away. HârnMaster gives most of the detail of RM with about half the work. It's perhaps slightly more complex than D&D 3E, but once you get to higher levels, D&D with all the stacking feats and whatnot becomes WAY more complex. The nice thing about HM is that once you've got the basic mechanics down, it's super easy, and gets even easier. There are no addtional rules as characters progress... after the initial learning curve, you're all set. Playing a knight or mage or priest or rat-catcher all uses the same mechanics... roll d100, anything ending in 5 or 0 is critical. Roll d6's for damage. Somtimes you use 3d6 to roll under an attribute if there's no appropriate skill, say for a Stumble roll. That's 3d6, roll under or equal to your Agility. That's it. There is no more. In the 1st Edition of HM, the rules were quite complex. In subsequent editions, all the bulky rules from 1st Ed. were deemed optional and relegated to the sidebars of the text, so they can be included or not at the GM's/group's option. Regardless, Chargen can take some time, but it's still easy to do... the rules are laid out well and are easy to follow. Personally, I preferred the uber-detail of HM1, but for the majorit of gamers, HM3 fits the bill of balancing realism, detail and playability admirably. I've never introduced HM to anyone that didn't like it, FWIW.