The HarnMaster combat system is easy to learn, intuitive, and descriptive. It allows for a variety of offensive and defensive manuevers as well as giving the GM freedom to add on to the system.
Post originally by Jay Triplett at 2003-05-05 09:25:19
Converted from Phorums BB System
I have put up a VERY simple web page at www.geocities.com/harnview/ for anyone interested in some ideas for memorizing the HarnMaster combat tables for faster combat. I hope to eventually expand this page and make it a little more stylish and broad in its content. For right now, however it is just a functional page for tips I use in my campaigns that I didn't feel appropriate to put in a review and to answer some of the questions I have gotten in e-mails.
Post originally by Daniel Greenfeld at 2003-05-05 11:13:36
Converted from Phorums BB System
...next time, don't spend electronic ink comparing it to a game you are unfamiliar with. You can't win any sort of arguements or debates when you don't know what you are writing or talking about.
I would have rather seen a more detailed explanation of the Harn system versus other systems that you do know. That would have been very interesting.
Post originally by Jake Norwood at 2003-05-05 11:43:33
Converted from Phorums BB System
I have to agree. Though I appreciate you're putting my game into the public even more, you've misrepresented it quite a bit because you haven't read or played it. I, too would have rather heard about Harn then hearsay about any game. Thanks for the review of Harn stuff, though. I think I'll be picking up a copy eventually.
Post originally by Bankuei at 2003-05-05 13:19:40
Converted from Phorums BB System
I really dig TROS(as you may have seen on the boards), but I've also never got a chance to check out HARN. What you've given me with this review has tweaked my interest, but I'd be very interested in hearing about the system as a whole.
Post originally by Spartan at 2003-05-05 16:35:39
Converted from Phorums BB System
Hi Banukuei,
There are several reviews of HârnMaster on rpg.net, as well as reviews of various publications in the setting (HârnWorld). Searching for Harn should do the trick. Also, there are a lot of online resources for Hârn. For instance lythia.com is a good portal to a bunch of Hârn stuff. It hosts the HârnFAQ as well, I believe. Also try harnlink.com, the largest listing of Hârnic websites around. Also drop by harnforum.com should you have any questions! See you over at the TROS forum!
Post originally by Patrick Nilsson at 2003-05-05 21:33:55
Converted from Phorums BB System
"Attacker gets a critical success and the defender dodges with a success: The attacker gets A1 (this means that the attack was successful and the attacker gets to roll one 1d6 in addition to the number of d6 damage his weapon allows)."
This is not correct. The number of A (attacker) or D (defender) strikes is used by rolling 1d6 per number presented AND adding weapon damage. For instance:
An attacker is able to achieve a A*2 strike on his opponent with a handaxe by using the edge aspect of the weapon. This would mean 2d6 (A*2) + 6 (edge aspect handaxe).
Lets say he rolled 8 and added 6 for a total of 14. The area where he struck, say neck, should be protected by leather E4 (edge 4 protection), and thus the effective impact would be 14-4=10 which is a serious injury of 3 (S3).
You do NOT roll d6 for the weapon impact. They are solid numbers. Handaxe for instance have 4 for Blunt, 6 for Edge, and optional 4 for point (but with a lower weapon quality).
Post originally by Tuomo Aimonen at 2003-05-06 02:05:59
Converted from Phorums BB System
In my opinion the greatest difference between TRoS and HM is 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.) 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.
-----------
There it was. I hope it helps somebody to get a sort of grip on the much spoken difference on the two IMHO best RPGs available. (Difference in the area of combat only ofcourse.) Over all I tend to favour HM because its hard for me to come over the player/PC divide in the TRoS combat system. We'll see how it turns out. Never the less TRoS is a brilliant system and definitely the first true challenger the HM has ever had. (Judged with other than commercial criteria ;-) )
Post originally by Jay Triplett at 2003-05-06 07:10:14
Converted from Phorums BB System
I was hoping you would respond, Jake. In fact I wasn't trying to compare the systems as much as I was trying to get some discussion going between people who have played both systems. I have recieved a several responses from people who would like to see the two systems compared in more detail. You are right. I cannot do that. I, myself, would like to know more about The Riddle of Steel, and I tried to get a copy from retailers in my general area, but none of the retailers I have talked to has heard of it, yet. RPG's are very expensive today. They are expensive to produce and expensive to buy, especially for people as young as I was when I started role playing. Some are boxed or shrink wrapped so you cannot look at the material before you buy it. It is not my concern to either promote Harn or demote The Riddle of Steel. I am just concerned that people get the style of game they pay for. Daniel Greenfeld's review is good, but I am still left wondering if I would like to play TROS. I was thinking the TROS system might make a great tournament style combat system for pit fighters or for coliseum games. I don't know enough about it to order it sight unseen. I am hoping that someone will give one or two blow by blow examples of Harn Combat compared to a blow by blow example of TROS combat, either in their own review or in a response to this review. Or perhaps there is a website that discusses TROS combat in more detail...?
Linear Mode
