Iron Heroes...what's your opinion?

[AIM-54]

Everytime I think about it, I get a Billy Idol tune (with different words) stuck in my head: "flanking by myself." That alone gets people moving on the battlefield. If you move from 1 to 2 and attack at 2, you gain flanking and all the associated benefits against A:

1A2

Then there's the harrier, whose main job is to run around attacking as many enemies as possible. And there might be objects throughout that you can topple on your enemies, so running over to that shaky pillar and dropping it on them behooves you.

Sweet! The more I hear, the more I think I'll like it!

Sorta gets at what the Scout is able to do, but for everyone. I like that. I like that a lot.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

I'd have been happy to see the Skill Groups rewritten to be the skills of the game. That way there'd only be 11 or so skills to keep track of , putting a little more emphasis on quick flowing action instead of picky detail.

The Token concept/mechanic i'm fine with, i just can't stand that they are called tokens.

 

[Virtue]

Monte Cook And his high horse

I think Monte Cook is a gaming genius but i belive he has gone over board with all these varriant rules i dont have enough time in my game for the base rules sometimes he has extra varrient rules for everything
I still love alot of Montes old work but some of his new stuff is just way to much

 

[wizofice]

Iron Heroes was actually written by Mike Mearls, who now works for Wizards of the Coast. He is definitely into playing with the engine, which I guess is a matter of taste.

 

[AIM-54]

I think the idea is that the base rules have certain assumptions that don't fit what some people desire out of their fantasy gaming. Thus, alternate rulesets that allow those people to have a ruleset that better matches what they want out of their game.

For gamers that want tactically interesting combat without overly powerful magical characters to hog the action, Iron Heroes provides options to run it, without coming up with their own house rules.

Ultimately, to each their own.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

After reading through some previews, I just can't get around the tokens. :/ That turns me off the system there.

There are a few classes that go without them - Man at Arms, Harrier, Arcanist.
If it´s just your dislike of using micro-management, they might be sufficient. Otherwise, you´re probably right and it´s not suited for you.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I think Monte Cook is a gaming genius but i belive he has gone over board with all these varriant rules i dont have enough time in my game for the base rules sometimes he has extra varrient rules for everything
I still love alot of Montes old work but some of his new stuff is just way to much

There's nothing saying you have to use them all. It's all about choice. Pick what you like and leave the rest. I've seen a lot of people complain about D&D as having way too many rules, as well, as if somehow every single splat book that's put out has to be used or you're not playing D&D. I mean, the Gaming Police aren't gonna kick in your door if you only use the core books. Everything beyond the core is optional - you don't have to use it. Same principle applies here - just because Malhavoc prints it doesn't mean it needs to be added to your game.

And as wizofice said, this is a Mike Mearls book we're talking about anyway.

 

[Odhanan]

I think the idea is that the base rules have certain assumptions that don't fit what some people desire out of their fantasy gaming. Thus, alternate rulesets that allow those people to have a ruleset that better matches what they want out of their game.

I think Iron Heroes is a game that reveals its inner qualities when in the hands of RPG groups who like to tinker the rules. These groups will greatly appreciate some elements and not like others that they will houserule according to their playstyle.

The prime example of this is the Armiger. You will find people who think the Armiger is perfectly okay if played smart with the RAW, while others will think of many modifications to bring to the class. This is because the Armiger is a subtle class that works best with stunts and challenges. You've got to think tactically and know the right rules to shine with it. Others don't want to have to do that to play the cool protective tank, and that's their right - they then houserule the Armiger. Fair enough.

I think it all comes down to playstyles, and there's nothing wrong in modifying the RAW to make it fit what you want out of an Iron Heroes' session.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

I think Iron Heroes is a game that reveals its inner qualities when in the hands of RPG groups who like to tinker the rules. These groups will greatly appreciate some elements and not like others that they will houserule according to their playstyle.

Absolutely.

The prime example of this is the Armiger.

I thought the prime example was the magic system ;-)

I think it all comes down to playstyles, and there's nothing wrong in modifying the RAW to make it fit what you want out of an Iron Heroes' session.

Bingo. I would like to add that it is not just playstyles, but also play *settings*. Some folks are using Iron Heroes as a post-Apocalyptic setting, some as an ancient setting, some as a Conan/Conanesque setting, and some as a "D&D the way it oughta be" setting. I am using it for Greyhawk, and it *rocks*.

MI

 

[Odhanan]

I thought the prime example was the magic system ;-)

LOL
A large majority agree that the magic system is either unfinished or flawed. Personally I like it and would use it as a base for a more developed, flavourful spellcasting (we are discussing of a variant with Wiz of Ice and other friends using spirits and possession for spellcasting. Really a cool idea. I'd like us to develop it and build on the existing system rather than destroy it, but haven't been tinkering the idea enough just as of yet - too much material to read for the 14th).

Bingo. I would like to add that it is not just playstyles, but also play *settings*

Yep. It's about gameplay and game settings. You're right.