TheRPGSite

To what extent do you feel it's possible to create an RPG-type game where all the players in the game are in competition with each other.  (This doesn't mean they're directly attacking each others character -- only that at the end of the game there is a single "winner")  What changes would this require in the style of gameplay from a regular RPG?  What if the GM was also a competitive player?  How would the role of the GM differ?  How would this change the quality of the game's story / virtual world?  Can you create this type of game without relying on a gameboard, cards, etc?

For this discussion, please:

• refrain from using any terminology from external RPG theories.  When trying to express an idea, do your best to use plain language.  If I wanted to see Forge theory terms, I would have posted this at the Forge. ;)
• avoid derailing this discussion with debating what is, or is not, an RPG.  Let's keep that discussion seperate from this one, and focus on an "RPG-type game" here.

In Harm's Way has a competitive side - the PCs are competing with each other for advancement in rank, where one will go on and the others be disposed of - and is a very traditional RPG. I don't write anything else. The GM is not competing, and I can't answer any of your other questions, as I didn't address them, but competition, in and of itself, is not an RPG-breaker.

-clash

Here's my post from the original thread.

QuoteIt is indeed very possible to have a great game which emphasizes competition between the GM and the Players. Hackmaster for instance is based around this idea. What's important in those sistuations is still trust though. The players have to trust that the GM will tie his hands behind his back enough such that there will be no inescapable conditions they themselves have not created.

Likewise the GM has to trust that the players will not cheat. Often when the game is a competition, the challenges are harder, the rewards less. Because the GM is at least partially* freed from the "give them a good time" philosophy, he doesn't have to worry about eventually putting a Hackmaster +12 in front of the PC that's been seeking it since childhood, unless that PC overcomes all the obstacles.

It requires a GM willing to "lose." By that I mean willing to no destroy the PCs at the first opporunity. If a win is defined as a PC death, and complete victory is a TPK, it's up to the GM to seek those methods fairly.

It also requires people capable of playing a game without getting personal. If someone is the type to pine for the fjords every time a character dies, competetive roleplaying is not for them. Likewise if a GM it the type of person that must win at any cost, competitive GMing is not for them (but they'd probably be custom fit for the player side of the table).

It's certainly not for everyone, but it's most definitely doable. And can be a blast with the right group.

* I say partially because the need for a good time is still there, but it shifts from standard RPG fare to being defined as "a good battle between GM and players." The GM has ultimate power within bounds, and the players have several heads instead of one.

Further on in the thread I stressed the need for trust of the GM, and a GM who is willing and capable of restricting himself fairly. I suppose a game built specifically for GM/Player competition could alleviate this somewhat, but competitive play should be possible in almost any system.

Descent (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17226) is a dungeon crawl game using modular boards and scenarios. One player acts as the dungeon master while the others take on the roles of adventurers cooperatively exploring a fantasy dungeon.

The game is directly competitive between the dungeon master and the players -- but it's all boardgame and tactics.  The DM doesn't "describe" what's happening in the game, and the player's don't "roleplay" beyond what they might do in any fantasy themed boardgame.

Is it possible to still have a DM who is describing the game world, and players who are "roleplaying" while having competitive play that includes the DM?

Definitely.

Quote from: StuartTo what extent do you feel it's possible to create an RPG-type game where all the players in the game are in competition with each other.  (This doesn't mean they're directly attacking each others character -- only that at the end of the game there is a single "winner")  What changes would this require in the style of gameplay from a regular RPG?  What if the GM was also a competitive player?  How would the role of the GM differ?  How would this change the quality of the game's story / virtual world?  Can you create this type of game without relying on a gameboard, cards, etc?

For this discussion, please:

• refrain from using any terminology from external RPG theories.  When trying to express an idea, do your best to use plain language.  If I wanted to see Forge theory terms, I would have posted this at the Forge. ;)
• avoid derailing this discussion with debating what is, or is not, an RPG.  Let's keep that discussion seperate from this one, and focus on an "RPG-type game" here.

You're really talking about two different things:

1. Can you have an RPG where the players are all competing with each other in one form or another. The answer to this is "sure". Paranoia is such a game, Amber is such a game; to a certain extent some games of CoC are such a game, where the competition is to see who dies last. :D
Lots of games can be that way.

2. Can you have an RPG where the players are competing with the GM, or with everyone else including the GM? This is a much more dubious scenario.  Arguably, Hackmaster is like that; but then Hackmaster is really just one big parody of what some people imagine 1st edition AD&D to be like, with rules lawyering turned to 11.

I couldn't see any other kind of actual RPG that would work that way, no.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartDescent (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17226) is a dungeon crawl game using modular boards and scenarios. One player acts as the dungeon master while the others take on the roles of adventurers cooperatively exploring a fantasy dungeon.

The game is directly competitive between the dungeon master and the players -- but it's all boardgame and tactics.  The DM doesn't "describe" what's happening in the game, and the player's don't "roleplay" beyond what they might do in any fantasy themed boardgame.

Is it possible to still have a DM who is describing the game world, and players who are "roleplaying" while having competitive play that includes the DM?

Hmm, an interesting proposition.

You COULD have an RPG that was a dungeon crawl (or something similar) where the "GM" is nothing more than the player who makes the random rolls to determine what the group encounters. The GM could then also have his own PC and participate in the game along with the other players, with the exact same rules.

However, to really be true player/GM competition scenario, the determinants for the setting (the dungeon or what have you) would have to be 100% random, including the details of which monster attacks who, etc etc.  If the "GM" got to decide anything, then he would instantly be in a position of advantage over the rest of the group, and his PC would be nothing more than a "GMPC".  Typically, this sort of situation can lead to a lot of GM-abuse, though there's no particular reason why it has to, if your GM is fair. But it would still be an illusory "competition", if your GM was able to "decide" that the monsters would never attack his PC first, or whatever.

In other words, to be truly "competitive"; the GM would have to no longer be a GM in the real sense of the word.  He'd be more like the "banker" in Monopoly. Just another player with some extra responsibilities.

RPGPundit

I've been thinking a lot about competitive play as it pertains to my game.  The player bit is *very* solid (I think so, anyway) but I'd really, really like to get the option for competitive GM play in there as well.

I think the key is in how the different players score points.  The players might score points by doing the standard -- explore, combat, treasure -- but the GM needs to score points a bit differently.

This is the tricky part.  Ideally they would get points from doing "standard" GM type things -- running NPCs, describing the dungeon, etc.  But that doesn't seem entirely practical and every way I've looked at so far seems open to abuse.

I'm spending a lot of time looking at games like Descent, Scotland Yard, Shadow of Dracula, etc -- I think they have elements that might lead to success in this endeavour.

Have you seen Rune?

http://www.runegame.com/runerpg.php

Robin Law's game of competitive Viking Battle?

The players swap the GM role after every encounter, and theres a points system for building encounters.

The GM scores points for doing damage to characters and making them fail tasks. Looks well worked out.

Yes, I've had a look at Rune -- some good stuff in there, although it's not what I want to end up with at all.  It's *way* too complex to build encounters -- one of my design goals is a game that you can setup and play quickly.  I'd also like to have one player be able to play as the GM from beginning to end, rather than have all the players take turns with the GM role.

It's an interesting game though. :)

Quote from: RPGPunditArguably, Hackmaster is like that; but then Hackmaster is really just one big parody of what some people imagine 1st edition AD&D to be like, with rules lawyering turned to 11.

Gotta disagree with that. It is definitely the most enjoyably funny game system I've ever read, but it is also an excellent game system. People use it for serious campaigns all the time. Swing on by their forums and ask around if you don't believe it. Most people there play serious, parody free games.

QuoteHowever, to really be true player/GM competition scenario, the determinants for the setting (the dungeon or what have you) would have to be 100% random, including the details of which monster attacks who, etc etc. If the "GM" got to decide anything, then he would instantly be in a position of advantage over the rest of the group, and his PC would be nothing more than a "GMPC". Typically, this sort of situation can lead to a lot of GM-abuse, though there's no particular reason why it has to, if your GM is fair. But it would still be an illusory "competition", if your GM was able to "decide" that the monsters would never attack his PC first, or whatever.

No competitive game should ever have a GMPC in it unless the GM is known to be unsmirchably fair. Even if he is that fair but it isn't known, the presence of the PC will probbaly cause problems. More than most, a competitive setup needs a strict demarkation between different sides of the screen.

Speaking of screens, the screen should be transparent as well, because hidden die rolls detract from the competitive environment.

QuoteThis is the tricky part. Ideally they would get points from doing "standard" GM type things -- running NPCs, describing the dungeon, etc. But that doesn't seem entirely practical and every way I've looked at so far seems open to abuse.

I think any setup you make that allows competitive GMing without strict hamstringing of his powers is going to be open to abuse.

Quote from: James McMurrayGotta disagree with that. It is definitely the most enjoyably funny game system I've ever read, but it is also an excellent game system. People use it for serious campaigns all the time. Swing on by their forums and ask around if you don't believe it. Most people there play serious, parody free games.

Well, um, I'm sure that its an "excellent game system", given that I LOVED that system back when it was called AD&D 1st edition.

RPGPundit

Agon (http://www.agon-rpg.com/) is a cool game of mythic Greek monster hunting in which the GM is flat out using all of the resources at his disposal to get the heroes while the players are trying to gather the most glory so their hero will be remembered throughout time.

It is good fun and definitely competitive.

The GM builds each island with points and has a resource well to draw from.

Its different but certainly competitive (with a GM) and really fun.

Actually, (not trying to pimp here at all) Squirrel Attack! does this very well. Essentially, each squirrel has a set of Goals that they attempt to achieve during the adventure. The GM is the ultimate arbiter as to whether the goals were achieved and awards points. Some are as simple as 1 point for each nut brought back to Nuttopia while others get a bit more subjective like converting the dogs to communism.

This point system could easily be overlayed on any standard game and is very simple and straight forward. It relates to the goals and traits of a character and how well the player is able to portray and attain those goals. Guidance needs to be rendered by the GM to make sure acceptable goals (you don't want too hard or too easy) but it does work well in play. We had a great game at GenCon.

Bill

Thanks for the suggestions.  

I've been looking at some very cool German Boardgames, and was inspired to write up a new approach.  I'm really excited about this idea now -- I think I've finally got it figured out for my game! :D

:wizard:

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, um, I'm sure that its an "excellent game system", given that I LOVED that system back when it was called AD&D 1st edition.

RPGPundit

Hackmaster is much more than that, although people that haven't read or played it rarely realize it, and that's a common misconception amongst the uneducated. It's part 1e, part 2e, part rolemaster (a small part), and part brand new. While it would be easy to pick up and convert pretty much anything from 1e or 2e (or even OD&D) there are many great rules added on and lots and lots of rules that were changed.

The skill system is vastly superior to anything O/AD&D ever did. The honor rules are great, and the handling of alignment is too.

Quote from: James McMurrayHackmaster is much more than that, although people that haven't read or played it rarely realize it, and that's a common misconception amongst the uneducated. It's part 1e, part 2e, part rolemaster (a small part), and part brand new. While it would be easy to pick up and convert pretty much anything from 1e or 2e (or even OD&D) there are many great rules added on and lots and lots of rules that were changed.

The skill system is vastly superior to anything O/AD&D ever did. The honor rules are great, and the handling of alignment is too.

Dude, Hackmaster is essentially AD&D 1st Ed. turned up to 11, with house rules.  A shitload of houserules, granted, some silly and some serious; but that's no different to what Arduin was, or what so many other early fantasy RPGs were, and HM is much more blatant about it at that.  Some of these house rules are, I agree, very very clever.
Some of them are not so much, and I'd simply ignore them if  I ever ran Hackmaster.

But the game is, at its core, AD&D 1e; denying that is just a denial of reality.  Its a great Homage to not only AD&D1e, but to all the early RPG gaming experience, with a tongue-in-cheek parody style.

And remember that AD&D 1e was basically D&D with a bunch of house rules, too.

RPGPundit

How many times have you read the PHB and GMG? How many times have you played it? GMed it?

Well, I like competitive RPGs are fun. The stickler in their design is the GM and his role. Make him a referee for the players and it's hard to make him a player. Make him competitive and you somehowhave to find a way to limit the GM mechanically. Which is kind of hard to do.

You can completely get rid of the GM, which is a pretty neat, but against requires some direction and mechanic to compensate for the late of GM.

You 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.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow many times have you read the PHB and GMG? How many times have you played it? GMed it?

Hackmaster? I've read both of those books over a couple of times in their entirety.  I've never actually had the chance to run it, nor have I looked at any of the supplements.

But I think that looking at the core of what the game is about, is enough for me to feel qualified to comment on it.

RPGPundit

Well, qualified to comment perhaps. But capable of making sensical statements? that's yet to be seen.

You can call it 1st edition with house rules, but the sheer number of house rules required to morph 1e into HM is staggering. Might as well say that SR3 is SR1 with house rules.

You can also try and say that it isn't used as a serious game, but you'd be wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you.

Quote from: James McMurrayWell, qualified to comment perhaps. But capable of making sensical statements? that's yet to be seen.

You can call it 1st edition with house rules, but the sheer number of house rules required to morph 1e into HM is staggering. Might as well say that SR3 is SR1 with house rules.

You can also try and say that it isn't used as a serious game, but you'd be wrong. I'm sure that won't stop you.

Well, that certainly didn't take long... so much for "keeping your claws out of my ass".

You're the one who's wrong. HM is a parody, IT SAYS SO IN FUCKING p.2 OF THE GM's GUIDE.
Can it be PLAYED seriously? Of course.  But the game itself is designed and defined as a parody, and most of the rules that weren't from 1st ed. AD&D (with a few notable exceptions like Honour) were designed for the express purpose of parodying the perceptions people like you have of 1st ed. AD&D.

Now let me ask you something, since you were so kind to throw around the insinuation that I hadn't read HM:  Have you ever fucking read the 1st Ed. PHB and DMG? Because the statements you're making above about how different the former is from Hackmaster would seem to tell me that you must not have, or you must have a very bad memory; since other than some completely tacked on house rules, the games are FUCKING IDENTICAL.

If I ignore all the stupid humourous rules about how players can't read the DMG and must blindly obey the rules and sign the GMing contract and all the other stuff that comes straight from KoDT, I'm playing AD&D. With some extra house-rules, but its AD&D, 100%, no mistaking it for anything else.  Hell, even "honour", the advancement system, and the skill systems; innovative as they are, fit right into AD&D's style without making it feel like you're playing anything else.

I mean, fuck's sake, there's a REASON why these guys had to make a contract with Wizards.

Look, I figure you felt insulted because you thought I was slamming HM (I wasn't), or slamming your serious HM game (again, I wasn't, nor was I saying you can't play HM); plus you had the Beta Male thing going there as fucking usual, but making an argument you can't possibly win isn't a good idea.

And starting up this shit of poking at me at every turn is really going to be counterproductive for you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditall the stupid humourous rules about how players can't read the DMG

I haven't read Hackmaster, but the 1st Ed. PHB does tell players not to read the DMG. :)

I thought the Hackmaster deal was reached after WotC published all the KotDT comics as part of the Dragon CD-ROM, and the settlement they reached was KotDT were allowed to have the 1st Ed. Rules.  Is that right?

QuoteWell, that certainly didn't take long... so much for "keeping your claws out of my ass".

Uh-huh. You stepped in my kitty litter. Besides, the last time I checked pointing out that someone is wrong wasn't a personal attack. YMMV.

QuoteCan it be PLAYED seriously? Of course. But the game itself is designed and defined as a parody, and most of the rules that weren't from 1st ed. AD&D (with a few notable exceptions like Honour) were designed for the express purpose of parodying the perceptions people like you have of 1st ed. AD&D.

Uhhh... dude... Read what I wrote. We're saying the same thing here, at least about whether it can be played seriously or not.

I would be interested to know what "people like me"'s "perceptions of 1st ed. AD&D" are.

QuoteHave you ever fucking read the 1st Ed. PHB and DMG? Because the statements you're making above about how different the former is from Hackmaster would seem to tell me that you must not have, or you must have a very bad memory; since other than some completely tacked on house rules, the games are FUCKING IDENTICAL.

LOL! Yeah. I've read them. Played them for years, but if you actually read what other people posted on your boards you'd know that already. I've certainly used them enough to know that "FUCKING IDENTICAL" apparently doesn't mean to you what it means to the rest of the world. Or perhaps your definition of "some" is different. Different classes, different races, different skill system, lots of different spells, different character creation system, different kits / package rules, different multi-classing rules, add-ons like critical hits, quirks and takents, and Honor rules vastly different than 1e's honor rules.

Need I continue, or are you done trying to use terms like "fucking identical"? LOL

QuoteWith some extra house-rules

There's that word "some" again. LOL

Look, I'm not doubting it's based on 1st edition AD&D, with some second edition and rolemaster thrown in. But the idea that "apart from some house rules" they're the same game is ludicrous unless you define "some" to mean "a large number."

QuoteAnd starting up this shit of poking at me at every turn is really going to be counterproductive for you.

What the hell? Have you been reading these boards? I'm posting all over the place. You made a statement and I contradicted it. That's not "poking at you at every turn," it's trying to engage in a "fucking conversation" to use your lingo. In fact, I first mentioned Hackmaster in the competitive play thread, whereupon you leapt on the and I said that yes, it is a parody but is also a great system and lots of people use it for serious games. Next thing we know there's an entire thread devoted to telling Hackmaster players that their game is nothing but a joke.

Get your timelines straight.

Quote from: StuartI thought the Hackmaster deal was reached after WotC published all the KotDT comics as part of the Dragon CD-ROM, and the settlement they reached was KotDT were allowed to have the 1st Ed. Rules. Is that right?

Yep. HM is a mish-mash of 1e, 2e, new stuff (quite a bit of that), and some homages to other game systems like Rolemaster.

Any two games where I could perfectly play an entire fucking campaign using the PHB from one, and the GM's Guide from the other system is basically the same game.

I could easily do this with Hackmaster and AD&D 1st Edition.

RPGPundit

How do you handle all the new stuff in HM when using the 1E DMG? Do you throw those rules out the window?

Quote from: RPGPunditI could easily do this with Hackmaster and AD&D 1st Edition.

While 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.

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

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.

Speaking of Hackmaster tournaments, from what I understand they come pretty damn close to what's being talked about here. The GMs powers are limited in that they can't add anything to the scenarios. And from what I understand there's usually a competition amongst the GMs, usually measured in pain dealt to PCs.

Sorry Stuart, just trying to turn this back on topic for you. :)

Heh, thanks. :)

Yes, the original topic of the thread IS:  Competitive Play.

Although I'm now convinced this is both possible, and very cool . :)

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.

No, I would play AD&D, using the HM manuals, proving that HM is AD&D with "add-ons". The fact that I can't use all the Add-ons when I play isn't really germaine to the discussion; since the topic is whether or not HM is really "AD&D with fixings", not the inverse.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayIt'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.

Yea sure.. or its, you know, a PARODY about how anal some people imagine rules-lawyery 1st Edition AD&D players were.

RPGPundit

Okay dude. Whatever already. You've stated your piece, I've stated mine. Can we move on? Or maybe at least limit it to the thread that you started specifically for Hackmaster discussion?

By the way, this topic is actually "Competitive Play" not "Hackmaster: AD&D or Not."