Iron Heroes...is it really different from core D&D?

[iwatt]

I won't dsipute the number crunchiness of IH, as I couldn't do so and remain truthful. However, I am curious how anyone could consider IH anything besides low-magic. It wasn't even meant to have a caster class; that was tacked on near the end of development (which is why the magic system is so wonky).

and although it's number crunchy, there's less stacking problems than in D&D since their aren't that many sources of enhancement coming at the player. But to be fair, IHs does demand player skill in resource management. Multiple token pools and multiple abilities powered by these tokens do complicate things for the players.

 

[Gundark]

Multiple token pools and multiple abilities powered by these tokens do complicate things for the players.

Bout freaking time. I have to say I really like how IH makes the DMs life easier. I'm in the mid levels now with my AoW game and it can get a little daunting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

and although it's number crunchy, there's less stacking problems than in D&D since their aren't that many sources of enhancement coming at the player. But to be fair, IHs does demand player skill in resource management. Multiple token pools and multiple abilities powered by these tokens do complicate things for the players.

Though the resource management is an intended feature of the game. It is what makes combat exciting and the decisions you make interesting, and it rewards players mastering the game and understanding how to use the options - just what Monte and Mike believe is important for a game (and I agree with them).

I'm kinda tired of the huge power gains that comes to all D&D games

I am afraid it will be difficult to avoid such power gains in a level-based systems. I believe they are a important feature of most games, too - you want to see getting your character better, you want to be rewarded for what you did.
It is probably not an absolute neccessity: Games like Call of Cthulu or Shadowrun start with fairly competent character which aren't getting much better (and usually die early in case of CoC). The motivation has to come from interesting adventures (though in case of Shadowrun: Enough Nuyen to buy better Cyberware works too, and brings us back to the "power creep" experience)

This "power creep" concept of D&D allows entertainment and long-time motivation for the players even if the stories their characters have a part in aren't that original or interesting. I don't think that's so bad...

 

[Garnfellow]

I won't dsipute the number crunchiness of IH, as I couldn't do so and remain truthful. However, I am curious how anyone could consider IH anything besides low-magic. It wasn't even meant to have a caster class; that was tacked on near the end of development (which is why the magic system is so wonky).

In my experience, people who are looking for low-magic systems are usually driven by at least one of these motivations: (1) it fits the campaign setting, (2) they want something grim and gritty, or (3) they want a dramatically simpler ruleset.

Many gamers assume low magic also means low power and rules-light -- but IH proves this assumption false. IH's ecological niche is a low-magic, high-power, fairly complex game. In contrast, one might say True20 is a high-power, rules-light game that can contain low- or high-magic; Grim Tales is a low-magic, low-power, moderately complex game.

I think all three systems are excellent; it's just a matter of selecting the appropriate tool for one's intended game. (Although I am still mildly miffed at IH's somewhat . . . half-baked nature. There's so much good stuff in there, it's a shame the game couldn't have gotten another round or two of design and editing to iron out the bugs.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I am afraid it will be difficult to avoid such power gains in a level-based systems.

Major power gain? Yes, that's unavoidable in a level based system. The question is, how granular is the advancement, and how many levels do you get?

In a game based on, say, 20 levels, there's not a lot of room to slow power gain while still giving players meaningful mechanical advancement. If you expand that to 100 levels as the 'core' assumption, however, you can have significant mechanical advancement without necessarily changing the play experience in the same way.

 

[iwatt]

Though the resource management is an intended feature of the game. It is what makes combat exciting and the decisions you make interesting, and it rewards players mastering the game and understanding how to use the options - just what Monte and Mike believe is important for a game (and I agree with them).

Hell, you and me both. It doesn't remove the fact that it's a complex ruleset that requiers, nay demands, player involvement. About 2/3 of my gaming group is of the Casual gamer subtype. They definetly are not the target for IHs.

Now don't get me wrong, it's my favorite game to play in, and is alot of fun to GM as well. But I'll have to do it in PbP, since my face to face group are demanding a more rules light game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Major power gain? Yes, that's unavoidable in a level based system. The question is, how granular is the advancement, and how many levels do you get?

In a game based on, say, 20 levels, there's not a lot of room to slow power gain while still giving players meaningful mechanical advancement. If you expand that to 100 levels as the 'core' assumption, however, you can have significant mechanical advancement without necessarily changing the play experience in the same way.

Well, eventually you will have grown from level 1 to level 50 or 80, and you will still feel the difference. But it will probably a lot more difficult to make a "smooth" advancement curve.
D&Ds advancement system with the 20-level baseline does not only give you simple increases in numbers, it also gives you new options. (Each Spell Level gained gives a new option, as does each feat)
A 100-level game offering new options every 1 to 3 levels would probably end up very complicated. (That said, maybe new options aren't always want - sometimes it is fun to experiment with the abilities you have for some time before going on to new ones)

From computer games *) like Diablo II or Titan Quest that feature a higher level baseline, the "real interesting" changes rarely happen and they form some kind of "Metalevel". The rest seems just number crunching ("Wow! Now my Firebolt deals 14-28 damage instead of 10-20!" opposed to "WOW!! Now I can cast Fireball!)

That said, there is probably still something between the 100-level "no progression felt" and 20-level "rapid improvement" extremes...

*) Computer Games cannot fully compare to pen & paper games, but we are only discussing the effects of game mechanics, so I think it's okay.


I wonder if there is a theoretical research insitute for questions of game design. I know game theory is a part of mathematics, but this mainly is about finding optimal strategies or determine how people "play a game", not about how to design a game.

 

[Matchstick]

Hell, you and me both. It doesn't remove the fact that it's a complex ruleset that requiers, nay demands, player involvement. About 2/3 of my gaming group is of the Casual gamer subtype. They definetly are not the target for IHs.

Now don't get me wrong, it's my favorite game to play in, and is alot of fun to GM as well. But I'll have to do it in PbP, since my face to face group are demanding a more rules light game.

I run IH for a group of gamers. I wouldn't call them casual, since they are all experienced gamers, but they are all adults, most with children, and don't have a lot of time outside the game to think about the game. What I'm finding is that the players can pretty easily learn the complexities of their own characters just through playing and advancing. By the time they level and get a new ability they have using the old one (or ones) down.

The difference is possibly the experience of my players. And of course everyone is different. In other words I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm just throwing out my experiences.

I've always thought IH would be perfect for a Middle Earth game. Anyone else ever thought that?

 

[iwatt]

The difference is possibly the experience of my players. And of course everyone is different. In other words I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, I'm just throwing out my experiences.

Thing is my players were perfectly happy with 2E. They basically changed because I wanted to. But since we play only once in awhile, they keep forgetting their character abilities. Besides, we play for 3.5 hrs on tuesdays evenings, so as much as I'd love GMing IHs for them, we've pretty much decided to go rules light.

 

[Matchstick]

Yeah, I can see that pretty easily. Everyone's situation is different.

Heck, gotta give them credit for changing because you wanted them to. That's some nice players!