At Last Forgot said:

The exception here might be those playing the Pugilist from Earthdawn 3e. I'm sure that there are other game lines that have mechanics for setting up multi-turn combo chains too. Still, those can be even less fun than "I hit him again" games unless you like running a spreadsheet to determine when to make the finishing move (I was once in a D&D 3.5 playtest group that would have loved such a thing).

Siranui said:

Despite me feeling that flurries of blows happen with edged weapons more often than you do, we've come to this agreement

It's excessively difficult to create a simulation system for all forms of weapons and situations, and to boot it's not really that fun to most people I've played with. Armor points, wounds, toughness, combat turns, multiple attacks, movement rates, strength bonus, initiative, surprise, to hits...all of them 'lies' and abstractions so you can move the game along.

That's not to say that they shouldn't be challenged sometimes, though. Some of the best game systems out there have challenged the 'standard' ways of doing things in RPGs. We're so used to 'choose a class, roll initiative, have your attack and have more if you're good, cross off some hit points, go up a level' routine that it's stopped many games feeling different enough. I'm happy to give D&D slack because...well, it's D&D and in a class of it's own, but I don't like to see the 'traditional' mechanics thoughtlessly deployed in every game that I play.

I would like to add that people should consider a missed attack roll doesn't necessarily mean that a combatant has been striking at their enemy and missed. A 90 on the roll might as well mean that the attacker has not seen any opening and choose to not strike at all. So Lightning Attack is actually up to 3 strikes in 6 seconds. Which is certainly doable.

Alex

Oh I don't disagree that it can be challenged from time to time, but FFG didn't go that route, nor do most RPGs. I would suspect it's because simulation is very complicated, and complicated rules make people shy away from it, and that doesn't result in bigger sales.

I also suspect it has to do with the theme you want. Want epic combats, use hit points and wounds. Want really cinematic combats, use 7th Sea's style of injury. Want a little more realism, use something closer to WW's health levels.

I'm just glad my FFG games aren't yet more MMO than RPG, and still have some 'classic' RPG elements. :-P

ak-73 said:

The point is not that 3 attacks in 6 seconds is possible; the point is that it's not really an impressive rate of attack at all. Most people could pull it off with minimal training.

Maybe that's because a Marine rather uses mighty swings and scything or chopping movements in order to slaughter his way through a horde, which take more time than just short stabbing actions. Also taking a step to the left or right in order to reposition could be included, looking for a gap in the enemy's defence etc... in the end the combat system is an abstract one, as are all RPG systems, so not everything has to be 100% applyable to reality.

HappyDaze said:

I'd consider 6 attacks per second (WC chain punches?) more impressive, agreed.

Alex

Charmander said:

Oh; I think they've challenged the existing axioms a couple of great ways, to be honest. I'm specifically thinking of the whole Squad Mode stuff, Cohesion and the Solo Mode abilities. It's always great to see at least *one* completely new concept, and I hadn't really seen anything similar before. I really like some of the things that FFG dreamed up. There are a lot of things that I've pondered 'should' be in a 40k RPG over the last 20 years, and yet FFG still managed to pleasantly surprise me.

There's something else that struck me as 'new', but I can't remember what it was. The idea of selecting skills off 4 different lists (class, chapter, deathwatch and general) was also pretty cool.

Simulation doesn't need to be complex, though. Elegance in rules is something that designers should strive for, and you can get 'realistic' rules that are far more elegant than -say- D&D or even Rolemaster. Now given an equal degree of elegance in both systems, the abstracted one is going to be more simple, but not all systems have that same degree of elegance. I tend to like the most detailed results possible, but with the minimum of mechanics.

I don't think that you're in a minority in viewing the whole MMO-style of play to be terrible. It makes me die a little inside every time someone rolls out a battlemap to arbitrate a fight with one ogre in the middle of a desert.

Siranui said:

Harnmaster. I think Harnmaster is the most elegant system. Not without flaws but something about its crunch appeals to me - and I don't just think of the amputation rolls. :-)

As for MMO-style, I am so old-fashioned I don't even know what that is.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Good point on the quad mode stuff though- it's one of the few 'teamwork' rulesets I've seen that actually does something, even if it did take me forever to understand the whole in and out and cohesion bit.

Harnmaster? Holy crap - if I ever need obscure RPG references I know where to get them now, though I think that proves some of my point

MMO style meaning taking 'classes' from MMOs such as tank, healer, dps, etc, requirements of the party, mobs of enemies, the powers and stuff you get having cooldowns and the like, reduction/removal of non-combat skills, often times a focus on miniature based combat....Basically taking World of Warcraft and making a P&P version of it. It was the final sword in the heart of D&D for me.

Charmander said:

Harnmaster obscure? Not really. Perhaps fallen into obscurity over the years. But what can you do if you publish a fantasy rpg and people only play D&D because of its brand (which got a new push through various computer games).

Seriously, I do not see D&D having much going for it that would justify its standing other than its name. Irrespective of which edition you take as an example.

But I am disgressing.

Charmander said:

There are real life people who are actually wasting their time on such? Sounds as much fun as assembly line work. And just as rich in variation.

I mean I like skirmish-level war games, I have co-written an unpublished one even. But I don't see what it has to do with role-playing except adopting some mechanics.

Alex

I remember buying Harnmaster, but never played it because Runequest 2 was cooler, with less chance of dying of infected wounds... I don't think it too unfair to call it pretty obscure, given that Rolemaster, RQ, WFRP and Pendragon were all more popular! I rather liked Pendragon's mechanics. Really simple, yet more 'detailed' than D&D ever was, without the tedium of Rolemaster's million critical charts (which -don't get me wrong- were great fun as a player when you were dishing them out, but the thought of running the game gives me nightmares).

4e is -as you say- essentially a skirmish wargame. It doesn't pump my 'nads, either. If I want a skirmish wargame, I'll play a decent one, instead one with 20 rulebooks, all of which add nothing to my gaming esperience. 3e went the same way eventually, but seemed better and more role-play focused when it came out. It even had a couple of new concepts which were good (Like AOOs: A penalty for doing stupid stuff in melee, which had only vaguely existed before by way of WFRP 1e's 'free hack' rule).

For me, MMO-style gaming is all about an obsession with a battle-grid, 'party roles', 'balance' between classes, over-abstraction in all the wrong places, and phat-lewts. If I want that, I'll boot up the PC. If I just want to kill stuff, I'll play Feng Shui, because it's more fun. 4e also seems to embrace the idea of coming up with mechanics and then trying to justify them in-game. I don't want abilities that 'push the opponent back 2 tiles, or 4 if it's a wednesday'.

/rambling rant

Siranui said:

I'm familiar with all of those systems and I don't think Harnmaster was any more obscure than RQ, WFRP or Pendragon back then (Rolemaster was of course more mainstream), certainly not if judging by the number of supplements published.

Harnmaster was different, it was more mediaeval which is probably why it is obscure from an American point-of-view. The US gaming public seems to dislike feeling the distinct European roots of fantasy.

Siranui said:

That reminds me of some abilities in DW though. I strongly dislike Soak Fire, for example.

Alex

It's perhaps just a local thing then, and Harnmaster just wasn't 'in' in my region. Though I'm now trying to think of any published stuff for it in magazines of the time and I'm drawing a blank. Heck: Even WD printed stuff for Pendragon and Dragon Warriors.

Soak Fire is a great example of a mechanic that makes little 'real world' sense. Even as an abstraction. Psionics in 3.5 became the home to lots of similar things, what with a class gaining the ability to '10 foot step' and suchlike. Yeah, great: Really handy ability. But how?! It's a clear indication that designers had stopped looking at things as an RPG and were instead looking at them as a boardgame.

Which reminds me: I'm not into 4e myself, but someone the other day commented to me that one of the senior guys in charge came from a boardgame design background, but has recently been replaced with someone with RPG experience. I guess that explains a lot about 4e. I get the feeling that 5e isn't far off, as WoTC's release schedule has dwindled, but apparently they've taken on more staff.

I'm sold.

I like these Mechanics abstract or not. When it is all said and done, we are all group story telling and having fun. Whatever is going to move the story along and allow more creative roll playing and social interaction, is best rather than loosing ourselves in the mechanics.

The mechanics in this game, simple and abstract though they may be,still allow a tactical bonus where one should be and a tactical penalty where warranted. By the way the horde mechanics are a work of art.

Remember guys this is the RPG version.

Siranui said:

Perhaps so- I've heard of all the others you listed, even dabbled in them from time to time, but never Harnmaster .

Charmander said:

Probably because it was Canadian-based, IIRC?

Anyway, it's a low magic fantasy setting, quite mediaeval with lots of amputation rolls, people who survive fights wounded being in danger of dying from infection, frequent breaking of weapons unless they are good quality and the like. It has no hit points only effects of different wounds. First time I ran it is a GM, one of my henchmen killed a farmer's son PC with a single lucky hit to the head with his club. Not as planned.

Alex

And of course: buying a sheep is cheaper than a night with a prostitute, too.

For me, Harnmaster was rather let down by a combination of a brutal combat system with no mechanic for PC heroism such as fate points/luck/whatever. It seemed to be likely to cause quite a few of the situations that you mention.

Siranui said:

Well, the brutal combat system and the infection system, to be fair, is in line with epics like the saga of Dietrich of Bern or the Nibelungensaga. What is not in line with it is, as you say, that PCs can die rather messily with ease.

But that's what a GM is for. I'm not in favour of a fate point/re-roll system. Personally I prefer the GM fudging some of the dice, unless the dice go really bad against a player (it's a game after all and there should be some risk) or the players make some really dumb move.

That said I was never so much a fan of the world (although low magic fantasy appeals to me much more than D&D's "I am level 3 and I got 5 magic swords and 4 sets of magic armour"). But the system had something with its averaging 3 attributes and then applying a factor depending on the skill mastery level. Or the detailled body locations. The way to resolve critical successes/failures was very elegant (every number divisible by 5 is a crit).

Alex

ak-73 said:

FWIW D&D is largely based on the quality of your DM- you can go low magic if you like (which I, too, prefer), but there is no argument from me about it being less realistic.

Anyhow, congrats to all on finally killing a thread regarding devs and their weapons!

Except that it is kinda balanced with the expectation that players are laden with magic. Having played low magic D&D, it didn't work to well. I'd have rather been playing Pendragon/RQ/DW/RoS/T&T/WFRP. OK: Maybe not T&T...

Except that it is kinda balanced with the expectation that players are laden with magic. Having played low magic D&D, it didn't work to well. I'd have rather been playing Pendragon/RQ/DW/RoS/T&T/WFRP. OK: Maybe not T&T...

Siranui said:

It's definitely based around you getting bonuses that come from the magic items as all of that is tied into their leveling scheme, so you are right in that you have to either provided those bonuses through other 'mundane' methods or resort to house rules and adjust your challenge rating table down (whch isn't that much of a house rule because you should be adjusting the table for group size and composition anyhow). But you can easily break the game with a setting twist and a crap DM.

And Tunnels and Trolls? Uncle! I give in, you've out-geeked me in the RPGs you've tried out!

I am new to this game. Couldn't a Gamemaster fix this by using a sniper on the dev. while others or other hordes charge,surprise or ambush the group and or the dev? Could he use a mutant creature with razor claws,teeth or other natural weapons with toxin,unnatural toughness and strength and who knows what else to distract the dev.? Could there be a fell weapon that could be used on the dev.? How about giving a sniper a plasma gun to use on the dev.? Can a small detachment of enemy with higher penetrating weapons,suprise and concentrated fire flank the dev. after the horde engages the group? Couldn't the enemy use the gang-up bonus on the dev?