Iron Heroes a flash in the pan?

[boredgremlin]

I dont like it at all. I have been GMing one for a few weeks due to a slim majority vote among my group after a TPK ended our last game prematurely. I am just hoping the players who wanted to give it a shot will get bored with it soon so the rest of us can move on to something that has fewer nitpicky little options to keep track of in combat.

 

[Odhanan]

Isn't this how d20, or at least a D&D-style d20 game, is supposed to work?

I agree. Character classes are supposed to be tactical choices in D&D. How you confront obstacles, whether combat, NPCs, whatever. In the case of Iron Heroes, there is an emphasis on action, as in "action movies". A precise character class should not shine all the time whatever the situation. It shines in a precise situation or with a particular skill, and has weaknesses that keep the game interesting for the game participants since they've got to cooperate with different character types to be effective.

It is exactly like this in IH, as in D&D, as in Arcana Evolved, as in Castles and Crusades, as in d20 Modern, etc: each type of character has strengths and weaknesses, and that's how you get more than two-dimensional characters in terms of game mechanics.

The stengths and weaknesses of characters in IH being here determined by their style in action sequences.

 

[Skyman]

One other aspect of IH that I think has a lot of misconceptions is that it's not good for roleplaying. Personally, I find it far easier to run in-depth rping with it than with DnD.

The simple lack of divination spells that give alignments, detect thoughts, speak with the dead, etc. makes it a lot easier for the DM to create suspense and ambiguity. The system itself is mainly focused on combat, but that fits with how I like games just fine - lots of rp and discussion (which I don't mind not rolling at all for) and the ocassional super frantic and deadly fight. A Game of Thrones d20 is my favorite system for low magic fantasy, but IH is better for 'high power epic' style games.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Skills are also more useful in IH, and there are RP-oriented feats (Devious Manipulator, etc.), which I think add to the RP-friendly nature of the system.

Yeah, it's too easy to look at systems with lots of mechanics and say that they're clunky; check the edition-clash thread on the General Discussion boards (people saying that about 3e vs. prior editions). However, detailed rules don't necessarily mean getting bogged down in them, especially when those rules cover options and character development choices rather than required reading.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Is anything in IH OGC?

I've thought from the begining that, while not maybe a full game I'd want to play, there are certainly some gamist ideas within that I'd find nice to yoink for my own, varied, d20 games.

Most of the stuff I'm doing with gaming, right now, however, is freelance writing, so I can't really see my way to buying stuff that I might LIKE and be unable to build on and offer up the community body to laud and pile respect upon.

Like any sub-set sub-genre of d20 ... there are a few people out there who hail IH as the coming of the Game Lord. And just as many people who can't stand it. Same thing happened when Castles and Crusades came out.

--fje

 

[rom90125]

I just purchased IH and read thru it this weekend. While I am glad to see that there is an active user community (see 'fixes' to the Arcanist class) I am still looking forward to starting my next campaign based on the IH ruleset. I think the strength of IH lies in it's reevaluation of skills, and the introduction of Feat Mastery. It was refreshing, imho, to read Mike's take on how to use 'old' skills in a fashion that worked for IH.

IIRC, isn't it stated in the beginning of the book that the text should not be considered canon (unlike WoTC FR)? Regardless, I've read many times that Monte isn't big on treating text as canon....it is merely a tool for the DM/GM/Players to use.

I would say that IH is in the same niche as C&C and True20; something that still uses the OGL SRD, but gives a different interpetation.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

How likely are we to see a second printing? I know for damn sure that I will be buying it if it comes out.

 

[tetsujin28]

Is IH still supported at all now that Mearls is working for WotC?

Who cares? There's three great books out for it that are all you'd ever need. The incessant demand for more product, and then the whining about there being too much product, will never cease to baffle me.

 

[tetsujin28]

Unfortunately, the ongoing errata thread is enough to give me second thoughts about using IH at all, and to hope against hope for a revised edition.

The actual changes amount to something less than 200 words, hardly anything to cry about.

 

[tetsujin28]

Many points in the debate are really overstated. There are a couple of editing problems, but nothing's really broken. Even the magic system is fine, mind you. This is just a question of tastes (i.e. "evocation not strong enough", etc).

Exactly. Magic in an IH game is really more of an add-on, than a necessity, anyway.