HarnMaster is a very solid, rock of a game with some innovative features that are classy, stylish, and add realism to the game. The system is cumbersome in some places, but this can usually be overlooked because of its realism and the ease with which modifications can be made to the game. I highly recommend it.
Post originally by Bonehead at 2003-04-21 15:15:22
Converted from Phorums BB System
"Harnmaster play is slow and very descriptive. When I am a player I get the feeling that I am actually in a real life situation. To anyone who gets excited about this, think about it for a moment. It can be very frustrating. I can place my attacks wherever I want to, but so can the NPC."
I disagree with you. You say combat is slow and never bring up parries, dodging, shield blocks, or footwork. Not to mention tempo, beats, block/strikes and more.
A game with detailed hit charts that moves slow isn't realistic. It is simply wacking at other players. Where is the skill and strategy involved? Where is the dynamism and energy of combat, besides in waiting for the dice to fall?
This is why I like www.theriddleofsteel.net. All of the detailed injuries, plus many real-world combat options, mixed in with management of tempo and commitment, in a super-fast combat system. You make the difference, not so much your luck with the dice.
Post originally by Mike Demetro at 2003-04-21 16:37:30
Converted from Phorums BB System
To be fair the description is a bit misleading. I have run HarnMaster despite being a fast & loose GM who usually avoids heavy games.
HarnMaster is not completely without tables but it has just a few very easy ones.
It is detailed and FEELS very realistic but it is not slow or hard.
OK it IS slower and harder than tunnels & Trolls but perhaps not more than say D&D3.
What it is perhaps is a lot more harsh and brutal, especially if you use the full options.
The rules change roleplaying A LOT because when combat is dangerous, players will resort to talking, then arguing, then brawling and then threats and only then deadly combat.
For certain types of groups HarnMaster is horrible because it does not support a recreational violent style of play but for some groups tired of the usual thing, maybe HarnMaster is exactly what they want.
I do have to say it feels more realistic, detailed and sophisticated and that changes play alot.
Sophisticated and roleplaying intensive is not a better way to play but it is very different and as valid as anything and so should be supported.
I hope there is always a variety of different high quality games for every taste so we can CHOOSE.
HarnMaster is not Tunnels & Trolls but it is not Rolemaster either. That can be a blessing.
Post originally by Wombat at 2003-04-21 20:55:45
Converted from Phorums BB System
Well, "realism" is the most self-defined term going to rpgs.
For example, some people find "Riddle of Steel" realistic -- it patterns late medieval/earl renaissance swordwork fairly effectively, but misses almost everything else. Yes, it is deadly (a common and rather poor defintion for "realistic"), but it is also quite limited.
Some people find Harnmaster realistic because it allows for many kinds of armour and weapons with tiny differentiations (another definition of the term). Like RoS it has no hit points, which again many people put into the "realistic" camp and it is quite easy to die in combat (or at least be so severely wounded that continuing is not an option).
Back in the day Runequest was considered "realistic" because you didn't have just "armour" but rather different locations and it was possible to loose a limb in battle.
But is "realism" merely "deadly combat"? I find this a rather limited view of reality. Certainly very little of MY life has ever involved combat and I look for reality in other areas of gaming.
Overall I like the feel of Harnmaster, but I find it rather clunky for character creation, a slow and rather laborious process that ultimately hinges around a few key rolls. In this regard I find systems like Ars Magica more "realistic" in that your character is designed around personal, quirky views (the same could be said for GURPS or the WoD books). Then again, how often do we truly get to choose your paths in life? In that way maybe just rolling up a character utterly randomly and just dealing with what is thrown at us is "realistic".
In the end, combat ain't the only the only reality in games.
Post originally by Annoyed at 2003-04-21 21:26:36
Converted from Phorums BB System
"This is just another complex dice off game that happens to be lethal."
It seems that you make assumptions about a game you have yet to play or even see. I have both Riddle of Steel and HârnMaster and although they are different in style both systems are realistic in a sense. HârnMaster do have options such as dodge, block, grapple, counterstrike, attack at various bodyparts etc.
Of the two I select HM because of the whole concept even if the fighting is slightly a tad bit better for TRoS. HM however flows much more smooth in spite the one page combat chart. If I had to select I would have bet my money of HM. But as I wrote they are both great systems.
Post originally by Tom B. at 2003-04-21 22:49:40
Converted from Phorums BB System
I actually feel that this review is misleading in many areas.
We never found combat to be slow. It's actually one of the quicker systems we've used. It carries a realistic feel, because you have to make tactical decisions...do you parry? dodge? attempt a counterstrike? If your opponent gets a good hit you'll be hurt...you might drop your sword or be stunned. Where will he hit you? A spot where you are well-protected, or will he find a way past your armor?
The charts are on one sheet, so they are quick and easy to reference and help keep the flow of the game going. Nowhere near as intrusive, as Rolemaster, for instance.
For someone with zero chart tolerance...(shrug). No, I guess you won't like it.
After two years of campaigning in Harn World (using Harnmaster, of course), I must say, that there's far too much dice-rolling involved during combat. To each it's own, but I prefer a one or two roll resolution for combat, even if it means to look the result up in a table.
Post originally by Spartan at 2003-04-22 01:49:49
Converted from Phorums BB System
In addition to what other people have said, I think that TROS and HârnMaster have similar aims and they both do them very well. I have every edition of HM and I did the errata for TROS. In both systems, the combat feels very, very real. TROS has more tactical options, and HM has more granularity. They both play rather fast once you're familiar with them. TROS might have a longer "lookup time" due to its pages of charts, but they are not referenced often. HM's combat matrices take about the same amount of time as comparing successes in TROS. I'd put both systems at a similar speed for combat. Someone who likes one sytem will feel comfortable with the ethos of the other, even if the mechanics are different.
TROS players and HM players are kindred spirits, and there is considerable overlap between the two games' fan bases, AFAICT. As to say which is more realistic, it's hard to say. Some days I think it's TROS and other days I think it's HM. It's all about imparting the "feel" of realism, IMO, since rolling dice and swinging swords really have nothing in common.
Both HM and TROS are awesome systems, and I love them both. Play what you like... if it feels "real" to you, and that's what you're after, then more power to you.
Post originally by Tuomo at 2003-04-22 02:37:18
Converted from Phorums BB System
In my opinion the greatest difference between TRoS and HM is indeed granularity. To state it more clearly: for a PC to be a skilled fighter in TRoS the player has to be a good fighter too, (At least theoretically good) in HM the combat is a tad bit more abstracted which erases the difference between what the character can do and what the player can do.
I mean that surely choosing the right specific blows that will bring down ones opponent is a part of the PCs skill. TRoS accounts only (In the form of CPs) for the tecnical expertise of the characters and neglects the tactical expertise that each specific character has. Even the best of players will find it very hard make dumb combat moves on purpose no matter how inexperienced or poorly skilled his/her character is. (And just how dumb moves would THIS exact character make.) On the other side if the player doesn't know a thing about combat just how is He/She supposed to play well an experienced warior. This is in my opinion a slight problem with TRoS.
Some definements of my terms:
(Technical= the actual excecution of the blows and other movements of the body - tactics chosen by the combatant, Tactical= Decisions about when, how and where to strike, move or block or whatever.)
Although in HM the general tactics can be chosen by the player the presice execution of the fight rests on the skill of the PC and not the player. (This remains so because the the HM tactics are so broad that even the most thickheaded people would know that much about fighting) The HM weapon skill includes both the tactical and technical skills of the character in a adequate manner and still leaves a lot for the player to decide. Even at this level of abstrction HM combat gives a good graphic picture of what is happening between the opponents. Also the handling of armor in HM is in my opinion much better than in TRoS.
All this being said on the technical level of combat TRoS is the best system of medieval combat simulation ever made and the system has other great merits too. (I am planing to use TroS in my next campaign to try it out.) HM sacrifices some visuality to overcome the PC/Player divide and TRoS sacrifices some of the exact simulation of the PC to gain a spectacularly immersive fights.
Which is better or more realistic is hard to say. Both I would say but neither is as realistic as would seem on surface. (And no other game highlights each others sacrifices like HM and TRoS.) It comes down to what you want from your playing.
Linear Mode
