HARP Vs. MRunequest Vs. Pathfinder

vomitbrown · January 25, 2009, 12:54:29 PM

Hi,
I've been looking into getting back to epic fantasy roleplaying for some time now. These three games all interest me, but I wondered which one you guys think is better suited for epic,multi-year campaigns. I know that Pathfinder is still in the beta period and I have a pretty good grasp on 3.5 D&D, so this leaves HARP and MRunequest. Which of the two games lends itself better to homebrew worlds which grow with every adventure.
Thank you for your input.

estar · January 25, 2009, 01:34:21 PM

Quote from: vomitbrown;280356Hi,
I've been looking into getting back to epic fantasy roleplaying for some time now. These three games all interest me, but I wondered which one you guys think is better suited for epic,multi-year campaigns. I know that Pathfinder is still in the beta period and I have a pretty good grasp on 3.5 D&D, so this leaves HARP and MRunequest. Which of the two games lends itself better to homebrew worlds which grow with every adventure.
Thank you for your input.

Pathfinder has the same issue as 3.5e as character grow far to fast in relation to the rest of the world. I.e. a city guard doesn't have any chance of killing a 15th level characters or even a 10th level.

HARP and MRunequest both work by making the characters more capable rather than more invulnerable. I found this approach make for a longer game where the players are involved with the setting.

stu2000 · January 25, 2009, 01:38:23 PM

Harp lends itself best to long-term, gradual accretion. I feel like Pathfinder accelerates quickly, becoming epic early and capping out, eventually. Runequest becomes epic in sort of fits and starts in my experience. It grows strangely. I like that, personally, but Harp is generally easier to follow as it becomes more epic.

vomitbrown · January 25, 2009, 01:51:19 PM

Thanks for the prompt response!
HARP claims to have a very simple and extremely flexible system. ICE talks a very good "game," but does the system reflect this simplicity? Runequest is based on the BRP, which I know is a simple and amazing system, but I don't know anything about HARP.

stu2000 · January 25, 2009, 02:43:19 PM

Harp is a simplification of Rolemaster. It's pretty simple in play, but you do have to manage (add and subject) three-digit numbers in your head quickly. Some people get irritated with that. I don't know. It's really not bad. There are no thrice-nested tables that typically bothered people in RM. I find it simple.

vomitbrown · January 25, 2009, 06:15:48 PM

Mmmm just for the sake of argument, let's say I added Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System to the mix. I'm pretty enamored with that system's simplicity, but I don't know how it would run in a fantasy environment.

stu2000 · January 25, 2009, 06:45:25 PM

Well. There you go, then.
Use BRP, shake out the epic elements from RuneQuest, and let the characters develop more evenly. Easy as pie. Take the epic elements from RuneQuest and just add them in when you feel like it.

vomitbrown · January 25, 2009, 10:01:25 PM

Damn,
I'm totally stuck on HARP or the BRP. HARP's dreaded math isn't too horrible and i've read some really good reviews. Like I said earlier, BRP is such a great-time honored system.
I want to take a totally hands approach with this campaign. I want to create the world and the feel of the game. I want to mix in stuff that I've picked up from years of fantasy roleplaying and literature.
It all boils down to what system is easier to "play" with.

jeff37923 · January 25, 2009, 10:07:37 PM

If you think that characters level too fast in Pathfinder, please take note of Table 4-1 on page 13 of the Beta Playtest where you are given three different experience point advancement options to choose from with which to decide how rapidly PCs advance. You choose the rate at which PCs advance.

David Johansen · January 26, 2009, 12:20:34 AM

Well, while I'm not the biggest fan of the new ICE, I'd go HARP because it's a fine little system in one book. It's not glorious and depravedly wallowing in it's own baroque nested table glory like Rolemaster Standard System which I'd pitch at you without reservations. But it's a nice clean little system that's got most of Rolemaster's strong points and few of its bugs intact.

But seriously, get Rolemaster Standard System because bugs are tasty and being abandoned by ICE in favour of RM2 means the complete game is an achievable goal. Well, except the Martial Arts Companion, that one's lost to the ages.

bottg · January 26, 2009, 03:19:16 AM

Why not try the free HARP lite rules (i will try and find a link later) and see what you think. I really like HARP. As you say, the maths is not that bad.

There are some excellent companion books as well, expanding the magic system (more caster types, spells and magic items) and also the combat systems (alternatives, new critical types etc)

Zachary The First · January 26, 2009, 07:01:57 AM

Direct PDF link for HARP Lite

bottg · January 26, 2009, 09:47:45 AM

Quote from: Zachary The First;280479Direct PDF link for HARP Lite

Thanks for that. I was on my way out and didn't have the chance....

vomitbrown · January 26, 2009, 11:57:57 AM

Quote from: David Johansen;280458But seriously, get Rolemaster Standard System because bugs are tasty and being abandoned by ICE in favour of RM2 means the complete game is an achievable goal. Well, except the Martial Arts Companion, that one's lost to the ages.

The idea of getting into Rolemaster in these 4th Edition days sounds pretty damn cool. There's something "i'm old-school hardcore" about it. But, why would I get into Rolemaster when HARP, which is RMlite, is around and supported?

Drohem · January 26, 2009, 12:11:54 PM

You should check out Rolemaster Express. It is a simplified version of Rolemaster Classic. The PDF is relatively cheap, and it's a good way to ease back into Rolemaster.