Iron Lore: Malhavoc's Surprise?

[Felon]

Yes, A'Koss, that's probably the best design element I've read about so far.

This is probably the worst:

The character classes in Iron Lore all had to fill a few specific criteria. In considering how the game would work, I decided early on that I wanted classes that promoted action, adventure, and excitement. Iron Lore isn't a game about political intrigue, the unbearable angst of a tortured existence, or deep questions like, "What does it mean to be human?" Iron Lore is a game where, nine times out of ten, the correct answer (regardless of the question) is, "I shout a battle cry and charge into the fray!" If the question doesn't fit that answer, then maybe it's a question better served by a different game.

So what's the strategy here? Advertise how your game is shallow and that you aspire to provide us with the Jerry Bruckheimer version of an RPG? I won't say I hate every Bruckheimer movie I've ever seen, but I do want to see other movies when I go to the theatre.

Now combine it with it the following statement:

A friend of mine pointed out something very interesting about Iron Lore, something that didn't really emerge until the game was done. In Iron Lore, the rules pretty much tell you how you are supposed to act. Armigers stand at the front of the fight and soak up attacks. Weapon masters pick out one worthy foe to duel to the death. Archers find high ground and snipe at the enemy. There is a very clear connection between your class and how you act in combat, a connection made even stronger by the use of tokens.

So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?

I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.

 

[SixFootGnome]

Rail riding, or excitement?

I think that stripping out those choice paragraphs tends to emphasize one thing while removing the rest of what they're really talking about. I also think that the difference between tedium and straightforward fun is largely in implementation, much like a rail shooter or a little java game. Bejeweled is incredibly basic and yet exceptionally satisfying. Tic-tac-toe is pointless and dull. There are exceptionally fun 'rail shooter' sequences in some videogames, and then there are the majority that are tedious because there isn't enough for me to do.

I suspect that our characters can still plan how they're going to bust in there, or how to move through the dungeon to go find the evil warlord, and do downtime scenes where he tries to gain allies that will give him an advantage. I don't think that any of these types of things are going to be threatened, because most of those are really the players and the DM sitting there and talking things out. They aren't actually so rules-intensive.

If I reflect on the memorable scenes and experience from fantasy lit and the like stored in my brain, they significantly fall into two categories: those that are dramatic, and those in which the stakes are high and/or life and death. Not having rules there for the first of those two doesn't threaten me much, because I've generally found the DnD rules for them to be more tedious and joy-killing than useful.

I'm actually relatively psyched for Mike to just give me the rules for the part of the game that needs good rules. It won't stop me from having the other types of scenes that are primarily free-form.

 

[Werther von G]

So what's the strategy here? Advertise how your game is shallow and that you aspire to provide us with the Jerry Bruckheimer version of an RPG?

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think that Iron Lore is to the warrior what Ars Magica is to the wizard: it's a celebration of all that makes that archetype fun.

 

[sword-dancer]

If you poke around for the next older batch of web teasers (links earlier in this thread, too!) you'll see a teaser on Traits. Every character gets two to distinguish them, and they can be physical, mental, or background traits. Among the sample traits is one that makes you a ranking member of the clergy, with certain training and benefits.
.

I didn`´t mean´t child of Faith,I mean`t something along a Character whose abilities included preaching, giving spiritual comfort and so on, whose "tokens" could help the faithful by bettering their morale, or influence them toprper behaviour.

Honestly, I'd say that this handles their social role pretty sufficiently. Anyone might be a member of the clergy, and that wouldn't necessarily translate to being a hospitalier or crusader or spellcaster or anything else specific aside from being a member of the clergy

Therefore i don`t think it handles their role not reallysufficient(AFAIK yet).
btw most Crusaders weren`t clergy/monk but lay members who took the cross, and the Order of the Hospitalitiers were an order of fighting monks(not priests, the priests were Non fighting members, who sayed mass etc) .

For a Paladin in spirit, Solomon Kane would be a good example, Executioner would be in IL his main class IMPOV.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?

I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.

Don't knock that too hard, on the one hand I think that the basic construction of classes in this manner opens up lots of possibilities like the morality minded token user someone posited a few posts above this one, but I think the real thing to do is to remember that you can do an amazing amount of storytelling off this basic narrative premise.

When I read it, admittedly only after reading this thread, my instant thought was, aha Fantasy super-heroes.

or Kung Fu or musicals actually. It's that everything else is already subsumed into the character, the high attributes, the stunts, the huge number of skills, that it's the actual vocabulary of action not of skill or expertise - though from the looks of it those do count just as actions - that actually creates character.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I don't know if I'd go that far. I think that Iron Lore is to the warrior what Ars Magica is to the wizard: it's a celebration of all that makes that archetype fun.

Wow, I really like the analogy. Ars Magica is unabashedly a game where wizards are the Big Cheeses, and it certainly doesn't seem limited in scope or tedious. If Iron Lore can do for warriors what AM did for wizards, then it's goona be good. I look forward to it, especially considering Mearls is involved. The Book of Iron Might is one of my recent favorites.

 

[A'koss]

So what's the strategy here? Advertise how your game is shallow and that you aspire to provide us with the Jerry Bruckheimer version of an RPG? I won't say I hate every Bruckheimer movie I've ever seen, but I do want to see other movies when I go to the theatre.

I kinda get the impression that the comment was more of a dig at other non-d20 games like Vampire. I mean, what does D&D offer here, rule-wise, that IL won't? IL still has all the same skills AFAIK and the rest is boiled down to RPing. I mean, if I want to gaze at my navel, I don't think we need rules for that... 3e promoted itself originally as the "Kick down the door, kill the monsters and steal their stuff" game. There are no rules for political intruige, angst and various other forms of navel gazing in D&D but it doesn't seem to stop people from doing it anyway...

I know what you're saying, but in practical terms... what would you expect in the way of rules for this?

So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?

I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.

Is that a rules concern though? That seems more of a player/DM/campaign concern, if anything.

A'koss.

 

[BryonD]

So, all you ever do is scream "boo-yah!" and move from one explosive, action-packed scene to the next--with nary a moment to slow down, think, or savor anything--and your role in every fight is pretty clearly scripted. How does this not amount to tediousness?

I'm still interested in the book, but I can't say I think it's being presented in a good light by its author.

I'm still very interested in the book.

But I don't see much choice but to agree with you completely on this. To think that is supposed to be a selling point of the game is simply boggling.



I'm not concerned about the focus of combat over role play however.
To me the perfect RPG is a perfect conflict resolution system.

I don't need rules for how to role play. I've known how to pretend to be a sword wielding warrior since I was about three years old. So why should I pay for that? But a good, consistent system for establishing the ability of my character within a setting, I'm always willing to pay cash for good product there.

 

[BryonD]

There are no rules for political intruige, angst and various other forms of navel gazing in D&D but it doesn't seem to stop people from doing it anyway...

exactly

 

[Capellan]

To settle the question once and for all: you can run political intrigue with IL. I did it