Iron Heroes a flash in the pan?

[Staffan]

Is anything in IH OGC?

"Designation of Open Game Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above[¹], the following portions of Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes are designated as Open Game Content: the “Before You Start” section of the Introduction; the entirety of Chapters One and Four; the class advancement tables and “Class Features” sections of Chapter Three; the feats in Chapter Five in their entirety; the names, spell parameters (range, duration, etc.), and game mechanics of the spell methods in Chapter Ten; and anything else contained herein which is already Open Game Content by virtue of appearing in the System Reference Document or some other Open Game Content source. In Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine, all the material that also appears in the System Reference Document is open, and all other material is not."

¹: The product identity designation seems rather standard; all names and stories and stuff.

 

[philreed]

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.

Preach it!

It's funny that a game is considered "dead" if there isn't a new release every two to three months but if there are too many releases people complain.

Unfortunately, the treadmill effect seems to be here to stay.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Damn' right.
By the way, IH does have excellent support... in the form of its loyal fan base (the IH boards are pretty darn good) and especially through Adam Windsor, designer of the Dark Harbor adventure for IH, who is moderating the errata/FAQ, etc.

Seriously, though, Felon (if you're still reading this thread!): IH's major kinks pretty much HAVE been worked out in the online errata/FAQ. It's no more a work in progress (less, some might say) than D&D 3.5. The ongoing discussions on the boards have much more to do with tweaking the game to personal tastes than anything else.

 

[Capellan]

If all goes to plan, I should write over 200 pages of IH material next year. Does that count as still being supported?

 

[coyote6]

I may be running IH starting next weekend, so this is a topic of interest. I'd like to see the errata & advice compiled & organized; there's a lot of valuable info in the thread at the IH forum, but an ongoing thread isn't terrifically user-friendly.

By the way, IH does have excellent support... in the form of its loyal fan base (the IH boards are pretty darn good) and especially through Adam Windsor, designer of the Dark Harbor adventure for IH, who is moderating the errata/FAQ, etc.

FWIW, he's also a good GM (I got to play his Landhammer adventure at Gen Con SoCal).

 

[iwatt]

By the way, IH does have excellent support... in the form of its loyal fan base (the IH boards are pretty darn good) and especially through Adam Windsor, designer of the Dark Harbor adventure for IH, who is moderating the errata/FAQ, etc.

Seriously, though, Felon (if you're still reading this thread!): IH's major kinks pretty much HAVE been worked out in the online errata/FAQ. It's no more a work in progress (less, some might say) than D&D 3.5. The ongoing discussions on the boards have much more to do with tweaking the game to personal tastes than anything else.

The biggest issue with IH right now is that the vocal minority of the posters in the IH boards are all tinkerers. (I include myself ). That leads to long threads discussing alternative versions. Also, a lot of the rules questions aren't because of clarity issues, but are questions such as you'd find in any d20 system. Also, since there are some changes with respect to DnD (i.e AoOs, weapon descriptors, feat masteries) ther's also a lot of confusion, since you have to "unlearn" some of the things you'd learned for DnD.

 

[Felon]

Who cares?

I do, obviously.

The incessant demand for more product, and then the whining about there being too much product, will never cease to baffle me.

And the continued presence of trolls with 1,000+ postcounts on this board never ceases to amaze me. Please point out where I "whined" about too much product (unless of course you count all the errata as "product", which is dumb).

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

What is it about people who toss around verbs like "whining" and "crying" when such expressions aren't actually possible in text-based communication? Are you even cognisant of your trolling? Do you feel your love of IH entitles you to rudeness?

Seriously, though, Felon (if you're still reading this thread!): IH's major kinks pretty much HAVE been worked out in the online errata/FAQ. It's no more a work in progress (less, some might say) than D&D 3.5.

Hmm. I have to disagree. The D&D FAQ mostly covers little rules questions sent to Skipp Williams, the sage. It is intended to be a living, growing document. It is hardly indicative of D&D being unfinished in some respect. OTOH, there are fundamental errors and rules problems with IH (not to mention some misnamed classes) that cry out for a revision.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Really? I don't really see that in terms of game play. What sorts of problems are you concerned about, specifically?

 

[Particle_Man]

The three "Rule" books are out in pdf form. There are adventures out, and others in the works. There are iron heroes minuratures in the works. There is a guy working on the iron heroes forums with some erratta. There is an iron heroes fan web page that has lots of stuff for the game and is growing. What else would the game need? A setting book, perhaps? Do we actually need Complete Armiger, Complete Berserker, etc?

I think Iron Heroes will be around for awhile. It fits a niche that people have wanted (kick ass characters not dependant on magic items) and does it very, very well.

I will be running it in Janurary, when I finally get some free time. I look forward to the time-saving stuff on the GM side w/o the players losing their beloved crunchiness in their characters.

 

[MadWanderer]

The Game I had been waiting for.

IH is a slightly more complicated version of DnD but it fits the way I want to play things perfectly. I could make a list of things that annoy me in regular Dnd versus how they are handled in IH but I wont do that instead, I will join the chorus in saying that IH while it does have a few problems doesn’t need the errata to be playable.

Weak points:
• Magic: wasn’t the main focus of the book anyway.
• Extra rules: only a weak point if you want a simple system
• More focus given to combat

Strong points:
• Feat masteries
• Skill system
• Token system
• More focus given to combat
• More focus given to skills
• More focus given to social encounters via feats
• Better investigations/detective work scenarios
• Combat and skills challenges

Even before the errata was published I was running games for IH and everyone loved the systems. It was a lot of fun and easy to DM imo. Much easier than understanding 3.0 for the first time