http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9298.phtml

A friend pointed this out to me. The reviewer compares HarnMaster to TROS even though he has admitted never looked at the TROS system. He goes on to misrepresent TROS, which is not hard to do considering his ignorance. Like most Harn folk, he seems to think that more dice and vague damage tables means more realism.

Surprisingly, he also argues that his experience with “live” simulated combat leads him to believe that he is an expert on the sort of injuries you get from being hit by a weapon on the battlefield. That is like a paintball player making the same claim about modern rifle combat!

The review of HarnMaster seems dead on, based on my unflattering memories of the HarnMaster system. But his take on TROS is obviously based on second hand information, and could be seriously taken to task by anyone verbose and polite enough to risk the flame wars of rpg.net. That person is not me. I don't post to rpg.net for a variety of reason I am sure most of you would understand.

Jake's already been there and posted a short, polite reply which said everything that needs saying.

All honesty, the reviewer lost me when he started detailing all the possible combat table results from Harnmaster -- well before he got into mentioning TROS at all. My guess is that the only people he's likely to prejudice are those who like what they hear about Harnmaster right away, and they'll be few and far between, is my thought -- Harn always sold for the world, not the rules.

(Which makes it a perfect TROS match, anyway, since much as I like Weyrth, it's TROS' combat rules which really sell it.)

Harn combat is actually a mess. I cannot stand it! The damage seems hokey to me. YMMV.

The combat system also is what sold me on the game.

Harn's not that bad.

I've played a bit of Harn (2nd ed.) and frankly, that review made it seem a lot more complicated than it is (assuming they haven't changed that much for the 3rd). Harn actually may be the best fantasy simulationist RPG. This assumes you as a player are a hard core simulationist who wants to know exactly how much your armor weighs, how many bushels of grain your fief has harvested before winter, and if you have raised enough taxes to keep your Ivinian overlords happy.

While some can argue about which combat system is better, TROS clearly bests Harn in integrating character and narrative into the game mechanics. And combat is always more exciting when it matters.

Philip

Coplen wrote: Harn combat is actually a mess. I cannot stand it! The damage seems hokey to me. YMMV.

The combat system also is what sold me on the game.

Coplen wrote: Harn combat is actually a mess. I cannot stand it! The damage seems hokey to me. YMMV.

OK,

I'm going to regret this but since this came up here as well, I'll post this here too.

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, as a hard core simulationist, to come over the player/PC divide inherent to the TRoS combat system. 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 ;-) )

I'll propably get fried for posting this here, (too) but I just want to know whether any of you have ever been bothered by the Player/PC combat skills divider. (Propably not I guess.)

Tuomo Aimonen wrote: 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.
-----------
Over all I tend to favour HM because its hard for me, as a hard core simulationist, to come over the player/PC divide inherent to the TRoS combat system. 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 ;-) )

I'll propably get fried for posting this here, (too) but I just want to know whether any of you have ever been bothered by the Player/PC combat skills divider. (Propably not I guess.)

Tuomo Aimonen wrote:

I'm going to regret this but since this came up here as well, I'll post this here too.

Tuomo Aimonen wrote:

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.

I'm not sure what you are saying, in terms of which game is more immersionist?

I've played HM, although 1st edition, and I haven't seen the rules for TRoS aside from reviews, the combat simulator, the quickstart, and what I can glean from you guys, but....

I did think that HM's combat system was bulky, but it did offer a lot of options - and I kind of liked the comparison of manuevers, the marginal or critical successes, etc. And I kind of enjoyed the character generation system - it was lengthy, but you could get a lot of details, and the astronomical influences was kinda neat.

Furthermore, the magic concept was neat - low level magic, and you have to INVENT your own spells. And frankly, hearing about how sorcery in TRoS is almost too powerful, I was leaning more towards getting HM 3rd edition over TRoS.

The two factors that made me finally decide to get TRoS instead of 3rd edition HM was that:

A) It seems that TRoS may be more streamlined, overall.

B) The passion system, making the game more character-driven, seems very neat!

C) The cost of entry: to get HM with what I would consider the core rules (including magic and religion), you have to spend $100, rather than TRoS' $35. Thats a BIG DEAL to me!

I called Columbia games and actually talked to one of the writers, and asked him if the prices were in canadian rather than american dollars. Nope, it was american. Then I told him that that was the final deciding factor in getting TRoS over HM, and we discussed it.

He told me that that would have to be something they would have to think about seriously - but that since it is looseleaf format, inserting at least a small part of their magic and religion would be simple to do, taking just a few days at most.

I told them that I thought that would be a wise business decision, but that I really didnt like spending THAT much money on core game mechanics, so until they did.... I'd be trying out TRoS.

Morfedel wrote: C) The cost of entry: to get HM with what I would consider the core rules (including magic and religion), you have to spend $100, rather than TRoS' $35. Thats a BIG DEAL to me!

toli wrote: I'd have to agree that HM is over priced. I would have thought that loose leaf would have made it cheaper (no binding fees), but no.

Well, there is the additional solution of putting the material into sheet protectors.

But that adds yet more price to the already-expensive product.

What gets me is the comparisons between TROS and HarnMaster (HM) or Role Master (HM). I don't see how those fit. TROS has huge differences:

1. TROS uses a dicepool system instead of a percentage system.
2. TROS experience is partially focused on roleplaying over skill use.
3. TROS combat displays tempo and dynamic commitement over complicated dice charts (you could ditch the damage system and the game play would remain nearly the same).
4. TROS feels dice light. Sure, sometimes your dice pool can jump in size, but the dice are rolled once for an action (yeah, you roll dice once per action in RM, but the same could not be said for HM).
5. TROS has fast play. Besides damage charts (which could be taken out), everything you need to really know is on the character sheets. Not so for the other games.

So to summarize, you have a dicepool system that focuses on roleplaying over skill use, single roll per action dynamics, and chart light play being constant compared to a pair of skill heavy games, multiple rolls per action, and arguably chart heavier games.

Personally I think TROS is closer to ONE (Godlike) or Exalted/Trinity than it is to HM or RM.

I think TROS is a lot like Rolemaster in a sense. Both games give you a general weapon pool. In RM it is % in TROS it is # of dice. They then both make you decide how much of your weapon 'ability' to put toward attack or defense. Most other games don't really do that. I definitely agree that the TROS system is easier and more elegant than RM by far but the basic principle of the choice between attack and defense is there.

As for HARN, I had some extra $$ and OBAM wasn't out so I bought HM3. It isn't even on glossy card stock anymore (Like HM2, which I used to have but with which managed to part ways). While a lower quality product, it is certainly easier to photocopy, bind and then put away the original for safe keeping...

NT

toli wrote: I think TROS is a lot like Rolemaster in a sense. Both games give you a general weapon pool. In RM it is % in TROS it is # of dice. They then both make you decide how much of your weapon 'ability' to put toward attack or defense. Most other games don't really do that. I definitely agree that the TROS system is easier and more elegant than RM by far but the basic principle of the choice between attack and defense is there.

I haven't played Hero or C&S so I can't comment on those games. If you think that I am dead wrong, you are over interpreting my comment.

All I said was that RM was a lot like TROS because you have to make a choice as to how you want to allocate your combat ability to defense and offense. That aspect is different from most other games I've played where you have an attack probability (%, d20 roll or what ever) and a separate more or less unaffected defense probability (armor class, % to parry or what ever).

I'd agree that RM still has the your turn/my turn hack away aspect to combat.

TROS is really the only game I've played where success in combat is not just probability and statistics....


NT

Eamon Voss wrote: What gets me is the comparisons between TROS and HarnMaster (HM) or Role Master (HM). I don't see how those fit.

I've always thought a good gauge of "gritty realism" is:

"can you die from one dagger wound?"

TROS, RM, Harn and even Runequest all seem to fit this bill to me, although they differ in many other ways.

NT

toli wrote: I've always thought a good gauge of "gritty realism" is:

"can you die from one dagger wound?"

You know what he means, Brian.

"Can anyone, anywhere die from a dagger wound if things go way against them."

I don't think D&D qulaifies for that (though now you'll point out that the right character with the right feats, rolling a critical...). :-)

In any case it's indicative of an ideal, not a specific application.

Mike

Eamon Voss wrote:
Personally I think TROS is closer to ONE (Godlike) or Exalted/Trinity than it is to HM or RM.

Brian Leybourne wrote:

toli wrote: I've always thought a good gauge of "gritty realism" is:

"can you die from one dagger wound?"

That doesn't quite work, since a level 1 wizard or sorcerer can die from a single dagger wound in D&D, but nobody would call that a gritty game :-)

Brian.

Yeah, I know what you're saying, mate. I was just being difficult :-)

Devils advocate and all that.

Brian.

No problems here....

Brian Leybourne wrote:

Coplen wrote: Harn combat is actually a mess. I cannot stand it! The damage seems hokey to me. YMMV.

The combat system also is what sold me on the game.

Uh.. maybe I'm being thick, but...

What?

A "messy hokey" system sold you on the game? Are you a massochist?

Brian.