Iron Heroes...what's your opinion?

[Henry]

How?

This is sort of a cognitive dissonance issue for me. I don't know how you could get messier than VP/WP.*


*ok, I do, but among the legitimate means of accomplishing this VP/WP seems distinctly silly and harder to explain.

YOu said you weren't that familiar with the VP/WP mechanic, and I think no one has spelled it out here, but Vitality points regenerate at a rate of 1 pt. per hour per level. Therefore,it's a harsher version of the reserve point system, with the occasional "gut shot" built in. A character involved in heavy combat, no matter their level, a CON 10 character will regain all their VP's within a 6 to 12 hour timeframe (longer if you're hardier).

 

[ThirdWizard]

To clarify, it's my opinion that when I read a Malhavoc product, the emphasis is on the new mechanics and character options, not necessarily the fluff or story behind them.

Ah, but wouldn't you say that there is more emphasis on fluff and story in IH than in the D&D Core books? At least I personally think so.

I definitely think a book chock full of options and abilities can get in the way of creative thought. Instead of creating a cool character concept, some players get their heads stuck in the books and analyze ever ability combination.

Now we are going in circles. You think the emphasis on combat options and abilities can get in the way of character concept, but you don't like Iron Heroes warning that combat options and abilities can get in the way of character concept.

Perhaps on some level I was. And I could be guilty of having some preconceived notion of what it was going to be even though I tried to stay as impartial as I could be while I read it. I still think I was but it's tough to not have some personal opinion spillover into everything you read.

Well, one of the telling statements by you in this thread is "It so wants to be Conan but it isn't." Because it really really doesn't want to be Conan. If you had realized this before you read it, perhaps that would have helped. It wants to be D&D. It wants to be High Fantasy with a cinematic flair and a pinache for daring do an danger. It wants to face off against dragon and demons and all sorts of giant monstrocities like purple worms in the same way that any D&D characters would. It wants to be concievably less deadly than D&D, too. While preserving that old notion of a sense of wonder at the magical.

So comparing it to Grim Tales or Conan is one of the biggest flaws in logic you make. Lots of people made this mistake, so its an easy one to make, though. Wanting to go "low magic" and "low power" seems to be the hip thing these days. Mearls just didn't agree.

Now onto something else:

One of your main complaints, if you will indulge me, seems to be that there is a theoretical structure of a campaign setting inside. It's as if Mearls has a campaign setting detailed somewhere but is only sharing bits and pieces with us when he sees fit. Thus, you feel like there is supposed to be a substantial world to run this game in, but we have no knowledge of what that world actually is.

In fact, I can't tell if that is the case, and he detailed a setting during playtest that got added in as fluffy bits in the book, or if he's just making it up as he goes along. Personally, I plan on scrapping it all and going with my own thing, but I can see how that would be frustrating. It leads to a certain expectation that isn't met. Of all your discussion against Iron Heroes, this is what I agree with most. It's not, to me, that the mechanics are disjoined from each other in the game, but that the implied setting is disjointed from itself (and possibly the underlying mechanics - its hard to tell).

 

[Malachias Invictus]

Although, I liked what they were attempting with the magic system, I think they failed in the end. The implementation felt clunky. I also expected the Arcanist to be on par with a D&D caster with magic items, just like the IH warrior classes are on par with D&D warrior classes with magic items. Not even close. Arcanist's are not only weaker than D&D casters with magic items, they are weaker than D&D casters who have no magic items!

*Big* agreement here. I think what a lot of us really want to see is an Arcanist that can kick ass along with the rest of the group, but who cannot overshadow the *skills* of the other characters with magic. I am trying to work on a good adaptation of Elements of Magic (with the help of a few folks here, at the Malhavoc boards, and at rec.games.frp.dnd) so that the Arcanist can be used for the most part as written with the modified magic system appended.

This makes them significantly weaker than the other IH classes and in my opinion renders the class largely unplayable as a PC class. Since the power level and balance was supposed to be on par with standard D&D sans magic items, I was extremely disappointed. A 10th level Arcanist should be able to drop the equivalent of at least one 10d6 Fireball per encounter without difficulty, IMO.

Agreed on all points. Hell, I think the Arcanist should be able to *exceed* that if he wants to take a risk.

I also didn't like how the Arcanist's magic fell back to the tired D&D standard of being balanced per day instead of per encounter.

Agreed, although I am not sure how to tackle that problem. I also dislike the fact that the same old, tired, unbalanced D&D schools of magic were used.

If anything, some sort of mana token pool would have been perfect for the Arcanist.

I am open to any ideas about how to implement this with Elements of Magic.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

Regardless of the means in which they acheive it, the "goal" of each system is the same: to allow character to recover more quickly between battles in a setting in which magical healing is rare or non-existant.

Perhaps I just disagree as to the primary goal you assign to VP/WP systems. In my opinion, the primary goal is to provide increased lethality in a hit point system. Given that VP/WP are completely compatable with magical healing (for example, they are a suggested variant for D&D in Unearthed Arcana), I don't see the recovery sans healing magic as the primary goal, but rather a feature. For the reserve point system, it is *clearly* the goal, since other than having a different method of hit point recovery, the hit point system is identical to the standard D&D hit point system.

Yes, the VP/WP system does have a higher degree of lethality built-in (which I prefer, but that's neither here nor there in this thread) but I feel the mechanics are much cleaner.

"Cleaner" is irrelevant when the mechanic does not serve its function. VP/WP, with its increased lethality, would be an extremely poor fit for Iron Heroes.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

While I agree IH is not advertised as setting-specific, I feel that's one of the problems. The ruleset is VERY specific to something, the reader just doesn't know what.

*This* reader does. Apparently, quite a few others feel the same way.

Honestly, as a DM, I wouldn't really know how to run an IH game. The mechanics are clear and precise but what do you do with them in an actual campaign?

Personally, I am running a magic-item free (more or less) D&D game. Quite frankly, the "medieval town/city" setup prevalent in most campiagn material fits Iron Heroes *better* than it fits D&D, due to the differences in magic. It is also far easier to promote actual travelling from place to place, which is a good way to introduce side treks and the like.

You say IH is a generic system and I say it's not. The ruleset is too hard-coded to be generic. It's even more inflexible than standard D&D. If you want a generic system, you have to go the other way.

I have yet to find a truly generic system (that includes GURPS, which I have played a fair bit).

The difference with GT is that is truely allows you to use it for any setting that you can imagine.

Although I have not read Grim Tales, I have found that statement to prove untrue with every other system I have experienced. Then again, this depends upon your definition of "setting".

And the cool thing about GT is that if you give it to 10 different people, each person will be inspired to create 10 different settings just by reading the mechanics.

That *does* sound intriguing.

I don't get that feeling from IH. Conan knows what it wants to be, it tells the reader what it is, and it delivers. Grim Tales know what it is and lets the reader decide what to make of it. I don't think IH does any of that.

I, obviously, disagree. Magic system aside, Iron Heroes delivered what I wanted.

 

[Ruvion]

[ignore please...]carry on

 

[Ruvion]

I, obviously, disagree. Magic system aside, Iron Heroes delivered what I wanted.

Ditto.
One of the best find I've seen within the last few years.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

Originally Posted by Malachias Invictus
The roleplaying section *insults your intelligence*? If you recall, I asked for specifics. Specifically, how does it insult your intelligence.

Because in the intro it states that the book is an advanced ruleset for people familiar with RPG's.

Okay. I am pretty certain they are referring to the relative complexity of integrating stunts, skill challenges, and Feat Masteries into the system, but okay.

If that's the case, I don't need a chapter telling me that I'm going to forgot how to role-play my character because of the orgasmic combat experience Iron Heroes provides. It's just foolish.

I feel you are being quite disingenuous with the above. That is one sentence in the introduction, not the whole chapter. Did you fail to notice the sample, suggested setting? I assume that you did, since you were complaining about the lack of setting in another post. Did you miss the part about how to integrate religion? There are plenty of folks who are experienced at roleplaying but have never operated without the guideline of alignment, particularly in Iron Heroes' target market. I think the roleplaying section (which I just got through reading) is fine. Claiming it insults your intelligence makes you come off as being far too easy to offend.

 

[Victim]

Quite frankly, it sounds to me that IH does Conan better than the Conan RPG does. Multiple attacker bonus?! A Conan RPG should have a lone wolf bonus, if anything, since a true warrior relies on the strength and speed of his sword arm, not having lots of friends. And a vitality system is inappropriate when Conan emerges from his fights wounded all the time.

The classses in Iron Heroes also tend to strongly suggest certain encounter structures. Beserkers and Armigers thrive on swarms of guys. Archers, weapon masters, and executioners like few tough guys. Hunters and Archers probably want some terrain they can exploit. Each class is like a vote towards certain encounter types.

 

[Malachias Invictus]

One of your main complaints, if you will indulge me, seems to be that there is a theoretical structure of a campaign setting inside. It's as if Mearls has a campaign setting detailed somewhere but is only sharing bits and pieces with us when he sees fit. Thus, you feel like there is supposed to be a substantial world to run this game in, but we have no knowledge of what that world actually is.

Pages 153-155 detail a sample setting.