Quote from: James McMurrayHow do you handle all the new stuff in HM when using the 1E DMG? Do you throw those rules out the window?

Some of them are so organic that they could easily be used without having any further elaboration in the DMG.  Comeliness is actually from the original Unearthed Arcana (in case you didn't know).

Honour is the only rule I can think of that isn't just for joke purposes and that would either have to be altered (Houseruled) or removed.

That's it. That's how close the two games are.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SosthenesWhile I agree with you, that specific comparison isn't fair. I could run lots of games with some kind of PHB and the AD&D 1 DMG, probably better than with the original master's guide.

Like which? I mean actually run it, in the sense that the rules were compatible.


RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartIf you're really into dice-fudging, illusionism, railroading, etc -- you could play just about any game without any books at all.

That's obviously not what we're talking about here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSome of them are so organic that they could easily be used without having any further elaboration in the DMG.  Comeliness is actually from the original Unearthed Arcana (in case you didn't know).

Honour is the only rule I can think of that isn't just for joke purposes and that would either have to be altered (Houseruled) or removed.

That's it. That's how close the two games are.

RPGPundit

Spelljacking? Talents and Quirks? Critical hits and fumbles? That's all I know for sure are in the GMG because I haven't read it (being just a player and all). None of those require house ruling or removal to be used in a serious game, but if you're going to play Hackmaster and not AD&D they'll definitely need to be handled by the GM.

Heck, without the HM GMG you don't even know what the players and monsters have to roll to hit their opponent's armor class. I don't remember offhand though if the 1e attack charts were in the DMG or not. If they were then you could use those.

And yes, I knew about comeliness. As I've said several times I've played D&D since the little red boxed basic set, and as I've already said in this very thread, I played AD&D for years, both editions. I've even played a little Chainmail, although that was long after it had been printed, as it's release was before my time.

Quote from: James McMurraySpelljacking? Talents and Quirks? Critical hits and fumbles? That's all I know for sure are in the GMG because I haven't read it (being just a player and all). None of those require house ruling or removal to be used in a serious game, but if you're going to play Hackmaster and not AD&D they'll definitely need to be handled by the GM.

I'd dump spelljacking, and probably critical hits and fumbles as well (though if I were doing it the other way around, using the HM GMG and the AD&D PHB, those are two that I'd DEFINITELY keep, they're great fun); and I'd probably keep Talents & Quirks as they stand with a bit of houseruled interpretations.

QuoteHeck, without the HM GMG you don't even know what the players and monsters have to roll to hit their opponent's armor class. I don't remember offhand though if the 1e attack charts were in the DMG or not. If they were then you could use those.

Just as in Hackmaster, the AD&D 1st Edition DMG had the attack charts.  HM did it that way BECAUSE of AD&D. So no problem there.

RPGPundit

So then you wouldn't play Hackmaster. You'd play a partially gutted game that resembles it. That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: James McMurrayYou don't need mechanical limits if you have honorable ones. That may not be an option for all groups of course.

Capes was recently pointed out to me as a GMless game. The person who posted it seemed to really like it, although the brief bit I read about it didn't sound like my cup of RPG.

Eh... but honorable limits A. require the GM to be able to accurately assess both the in game threat presented by what he uses and his players ability to deal with it and B. make things less interesting. I mean, an honorable limit is kind of like playing through Doom only using the pistol. Yes it's a challenge. Yes its fun. Doom, however, should still be challenging and fun if you play through without limiting yourself. I guess it's just a preference thing.

Capes is GMless but, IMO, a little too crunchy. Universalis is my GMless game of choice. Neither really meets the criteria of having a clearly defined "winner" or "loser" but that could be easily added.

I've never played a competitive focused game that limited the GM's powers, so can't speak to that side. But I've never been bored when running or playing the other kind.

Quote from: James McMurraySo then you wouldn't play Hackmaster. You'd play a partially gutted game that resembles it. That's all I'm saying.

I really don't get the "sanctioned Hackmaster" joke.

It's primarily just a means of determining if the characters in your home game will be valid in a Hackmaster tournament. It's not really a joke, but a subset of games to help identify how close your character follows the rules in the books. The only time it ever matters outside of internet arguments is at a tourney.

For instance, a character created and played in a campaign that didn't include elves would be sanctioned assuming he followed the rules on his character sheet. A character made from a homebrew race wouldn't, because he doesn't use canon rules only.

To use Pundit's example, if he were to straight up use the AD&D GMG it wouldn't be sanctioned Hackmaster, but if he were to use the HM rules and strip out the things he doesn't like (like crits or spelljacking) then it would be.

Followup: and only total idgits will tell you that you have to play a sanctioned Hackmaster game to have fun. Not even the designers go there.

I know what "sanctioned" means, after all Living Greyhawk players have something similar. But some people's urge to "keep it sanctioned" goes beyond that. I don't think they're playing tournaments all the time -- or that they'll do that with their main characters.
Every rule is right, there's no need for house rules. Might be a bit funny, considering that there were games who meant that seriously (Raving MadCracken's abominiation comes to mind).

But this coming from a game that's that heavily patched with house rules, it's a bit creepy sometimes when you listen to the people defending this One True Way...

Quote from: SosthenesI really don't get the "sanctioned Hackmaster" joke.

I get the Hackmaster joke, I just think it's about as funny as "Larry the Cable Guy".

Also, if Hackmaster is a parody and there are people that play Hackmaster in a serious manner, are they also part of the parody?

There are some folks that treat it like a religion. Those are the idgits I referred to.

We try to keep our games as house rules free as possible (in pretty much every system), but not because it's the only way to have fun and doing otherwise is a crime against the game.

Quote from: rcsampleI get the Hackmaster joke, I just think it's about as funny as "Larry the Cable Guy".

Also, if Hackmaster is a parody and there are people that play Hackmaster in a serious manner, are they also part of the parody?

Only if they act like parodies. Like the aforementioned Sanctioning Police.