Iron Heroes vs Conan

[masshysteria]

I want to run a kick down the door, low but scary magic, kill the big bad guy, save the world game. The Iron Heroes and Conan books have caught my eye and was wonder what you thoughts on the two are.

A few points:

(1) Magic will corrupt, so the players won't probably won't be magic-using base classes. However, evil sorcerers will be magic-users because of the prower it grants. It looks like Conan does this better. I've heard Iron Heroes magic system is a bit "wonky"? How so? What is it like?

(2) I don't need a fully fleshed out world. In fact, the world will probably just have whatever is cool for the current session: Roman gladiators and legionaries one day, hordes of undead the next, and an evil sorcerer kings the next. How do the two systems handle this? How easily adaptable are they? Can a GM wing it?

(3) Combat should be fun, brutal, and flow without getting caught up in a bunch of tactical exercises. I want the players to feel powerful. I assume this can be done with both, but in your experience how "fun and fast" is combat in Conan and Iron Heroes?

 

[GlassJaw]

In my experience, the Conan system is far superior to Iron Heroes, but mostly because that's the style I prefer. Conan is a great system and very brutal but the main reason I like is that it does a great job of capturing the style of the Conan stories. The mechanics translate well. There are a few extra mechanics to deal with but again, they fit in perfectly with the style of play.

So if you are familiar with the Conan style and that's what you want, you owe it to yourself to check it out. Iron Heroes is too "superhero-ey" for my tastes and the mechanics are very cumbersome.

I think the Conan magic system is perfect for what you want to do. There is only one magic class (the Scholar) and it's very easy to run a Conan game without any casting classes.

Mongoose has published a lot of supplements on the Conan world but the system is easily translated into a more generic setting of your own. Some of the books have creatures and monsters in them but you could easily throw in standard monsters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have no experience with Conan, and I only played one or two sessions Iron Heroes so far.

But I own the books and read them thoroughly.

(1) The Magic using class of Iron Heroes really has a lot of weaknesses. It is best to check the Malhavoc Press Message Boards for alternate write-ups.
But note that this doesn't matter a lot if you want magic out of hands of the characters. NPCs can use the standard spellcasting classes without problems. (You might want to adapt hit points and skill points to the IH system. There are a few guidelines available.)

(2) Iron Heroes has little world info, and nothing of it is part of the players handbook. I think the classes are very adaptable and open for any setting, as long as you have people fighting with swords and bows.

(3) Iron Heroes is fun, but one of its key features is the availability of a lot of options in combat. Depending on class and feats, you gather tokens that fuel special abilities (though you are never forced to use them). You have the options to make a lot of cool stunts to gain tactical benefits, all of them allowing you to do really anything you always wanted in combat, but usually had no idea how to do (if you want to stay in rules, and have more than flavour text). I love this approach, because quickly resolved combats without meaningful options are boring to me.
Combat is not any more brutal than D&D, I think. (Though this might actually change at higher levels, as there are several combat options to remove the opponents dex bonus to defense, and this changes a lot, as the class defense bonus of IH classes also applies to that. Combined with Power Attack or Sneak Attack, this can become very deadly. not to mention all the special abilities...)

 

[Matchstick]

I think you probably can't lose here. Though I've no experience with Conan I've heard that it's very good. And I think IH is very good as well.

As Chancellor Ridcully indicated, I don't think you really have to worry about the magic system if it's only going to get used by NPC's. In fact I think this leaves you some cool freedom to make different kinds of magic for different villains, making the game more unpredictable for the players.

I don't see any trouble with the IH classes being adapted to things like gladiators or undead. One thing though is that the Armiger (which to me might be the least appropriate IH class for a Conan style game) has been modified; should you want to use it you might want to find an updated version.

I have no idea how the Conan combat works, but IH is filled with combat options that can make melee a lot more novel. With a cheat sheet and a little familiarity they are quite easily used, and I don't think they add really any time to combat while bringing a whole lot of fun with them.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Stylistically, I've seen very little difference between IH and Connan. Both encourage characters to be movers and shakers in the world, both place a major emphasis on what characters actually do, and both let you kick the crap out of evil, at any level, with a whole lot of style.

1) Both rule sets have one or more PC caster classes. These can be banned, for players, without a problem.
For NPC casters, I prefer IH as not only does it encourage you to use whatever you want (such as standard D&D casters) but the Dreaded Sorcerer villain class (see Mastering Iron Heroes) is quite possibly the best evil magician of all time.
Connan villainous casters, as far as I've seen, have all been based upon the PC casting class.
I'd give the edge to IH here (unless you want to eventually include PC casters, then it goes to Connan).

2) The Connan world has a lot of detail and flesh, as it's all based upon the primordial world created by Robert Howard. Iron Heroes has the Swordlands, a vague and loosely defined world in which humans were made by powerful magical beings called The Masters and now live in the recovering waste of what's left after the masters' magical civil war; since the swordlands has practically no definition, it would be extremely easy to adapt it to your purposes.
Both systems can be adapted to other settings, though the races, skills, weapons, etc of Connan have a great deal of the setting's flavor built into them.
IH's undefined sample setting easily meets this criteria better, so point two goes to it.

3) I've found IH combat to be more fun, but that's entirely subjective.
IH introduces several new mechanics (stunts, challenges, token pools) that really let the PCs do some amazing things. Unfortunately, new mechanics mean new learning, so until people become comfortable with their characters and their options, combats actually take a little longer though they are usually more colorful and just as brutal. Once everyone has learned how their characters work, everything flows as fast and powerfully as the players allow (we've all played with that one guy that takes ten minutes to say 'five-foot step and full attack' ).
Connan combats tend to be fast and brutal but they are fairly simple as there are few options beyond those found in D&D. Simple quickly becomes boring.
I'm glossing over some things because I don't want to give you the blow by blow comparison and explanation; I don't want to spend that much time on this (sorry :\ ). Hopefully someone else will give you an in depth analysis, but I stand by my summary.
I'll tentatively give this point to IH.

So, on the three criteria presented, I find IH to come out ahead across the board. Though you really can't go wrong with either system.

 

[GlassJaw]

Connan

Only one middle "n" in Conan.

 

[Azgulor]

While I concur that both games can probably fit the bill, I prefer Conan over IH. Originally, I thought IH was supposed to be a gritty, low-magic game and was hoping to combine it with Conan. The important distinction between the two is that IH is built to be on a power level on par with D&D (just without requiring that they be adorned with magic items). This led to some class abilities that just killed the feel I was going for. (The archer's ability to build "ladders" with their arrows is the worst offender I can remember.)

Conan characters can be powerful and heroic, but there is a more visceral feel to the game in my experience. Also, the sorcery system is definitely dark and works very well. In the core rulebook, there is not a lot of setting info. The races and setting-specific elements can be coverted to a homebrew setting with little or no effort.

If you're looking for "cool options" in combat, Conan does have combat manuevers. If those don't go far enough for you, I would suggest blending in the Book of Iron Might. I did so for my campaign and they work very well together.

Azgulor

 

[Pbartender]

The important distinction between the two is that IH is built to be on a power level on par with D&D (just without requiring that they be adorned with magic items). This led to some class abilities that just killed the feel I was going for. (The archer's ability to build "ladders" with their arrows is the worst offender I can remember.)

I like IH a lot, but this particular point can really stick in a person's craw, if that not the style your looking for... Think of Legolas in the Lord of the Rings movies and you'll have a perfect example of higher level Iron Heroes action.

Iron Heroes isn't especially grim or gritty, it simply eliminates the D&D reliance on magic items and spells while preversing the overall power curve. My players and I like it, because we can essentially use IH to play D&D without all the funky stuff that gets on our nerves, while still getting to do extraordinary things in-game.

Both systems will work just fine... It's all a matter of your preferred style.

 

[Qualidar]

(3) Combat should be fun, brutal, and flow without getting caught up in a bunch of tactical exercises. I want the players to feel powerful. I assume this can be done with both, but in your experience how "fun and fast" is combat in Conan and Iron Heroes?

I haven't played in a Conan game. I've only played one Iron Heros game, and my impression is that it does not meet the criteria of "not getting caught up in a bunch of tactical exercises". My take was that IH embraces the tactical aspects. It's D&D combat turned up to 11. That amping it up made it more interesting to me, but I don't think it's what you're looking for, based on your post.

~Qualidar~

 

[ValhallaGH]

Only one "n" in Conan.

Technically there are two.
And I've always thought there should be a third 'n'. That doesn't mean there is but I often put it in there when I spell it.