Iron Lore: Malhavoc's Surprise?

[Mac Callum]

Wulf, untill you rip the levels out of it I don't think you will ever see a d20 product that satisfies your definition of GnG. The level based hitpoint gains make it impossible to have a mid level character be threatened by a few muggers.

I think this is right. Several mechanics in d20 (HP being one of them) make it inherantly heroic.

Although if you really want to put the fear of daggers back into your characters use the 'massive damage save threshold = con' rule. One good hit from an axe can kill any character capable of failing a save then. Of course then problems crop up if ressurection isn't plentiful and cheap.... "I thought we were the most powerful guys around. So how come everytime someone dies an equally powerful dude we've never heard of crawls out of the woodwork to sign up?"

Actually, I think the desire to play a GnG system stems directly from wanting to avoid being "the most powerful guys around." In a GnG setting (like Wulf describes), no one is terribly powerful. Everyone is vulnerable. That's why it's so hard to square with d20, which posits meaningful level advancement.

(And as for the definition of 'wahoo', I'm with Wulf. There is no need to further define it. Hong's Law applies.)

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Right, and maybe the mistake was mine, but I assumed that the power level would be the same but the style would be more low-fantasy. I guess I thought it's not power that's the problem, it's the application and execution of power.

Have you considered a CR bonus system, similar to your Creature Creation, for magic items? (Its just a wild thought...)

I'm just thinking outloud, maybe some of you have already considered this...

Or does this issue mostly come down to certain creatures that have specific abilities that are difficult to overcome so that their CR rating is wildly sensitive to campaign models? Maybe instead of whipping up whole new PC classes, abilities to compensate, and rule-subsystems around them... an alternate CR rating for creatures is all that is needed. Go through each monster, and give them a CR rating for "normal" D&D characters, and another for "mundane equipped" characters, with no magic spell support.

I mean, then DMs who had campaigns somewhere in between the two extremes can compare the numbers and evaluate what his, or her, own campaign would fit.

... but could someone sell a book for it... ?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Have you considered a CR bonus system, similar to your Creature Creation, for magic items? (Its just a wild thought...)

It's safe to say I've put some thought into low-level games vis-a-vis CR, yes.

And I'm pretty happy with what I've done myself as it stands, but not 100% happy-- and eager to concede that mearls can do it better and see his whack at it. The problem is that I ultimately felt that a "hand wave" or "different style of play" was sufficient for most things; but if mearls is sniffing down the trail of more crunchy, codified, rules-based fixes, I wanna see it.

Just subsuming the character's magic weapon and cloak into his BAB profile doesn't really satisfy me. It's just a different approach to what action points already cover.


Wulf

 

[JohnSnow]

I'm not arguing that IL doesn't immediately give off a low fantasy vibe, though I might argue that that's how it will actually play since upping the stats of the characters effectively lowers the threat of the high fantasy creatures*, but I would argue that there's a lot of low fantasy that has a pretty high level of wahoo.

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser running from muggers in a tent and later taking out some sort of Frost Wyrm with a cat and a pike come to mind and those aren't even the most egregious examples. Conan wrestling with gorillas in priest suits or surving a blow from a Pictish war axe only because he made his helmet himself in 'proper' barbarian fashion also stand out.

So unless Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser's high wahoo level disqualifies them as low fantasy then I think you just got a call a spade a spade and say it's the wahoo and not the fantasy level that bothers ya. Or both, hey, whatever.

Which is pretty much what I've been trying to say all along. You can scream until you're blue in the face that Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser (or Conan for that matter) are low fantasy and really need GnG rules, but the truth is that the narrative doesn't back it up. Both of them have some pretty high levels of wahoo in the heroes' abilities. What they lack is the senseless disregard for threats that comes with high-level D&D characters.

Various D20 solutions have been proposed. There's about 6 in Unearthed Arcana alone: (1) Lower the massive damage threshold, (2) use wound/vitality, (3) Replace hit points with a damage save, et cetera, etc.

The one thing UA did NOT do was try to rebalance the game to eliminate the "exponential spellcaster power" and "multiple magical item dependency" or "Christmas Tree Effect" (hereafter CTE) problems. And for the flavor of d20 Fantasy _I_ want, I need to address those issues. Ideally, I'd like them addressed in such a way that I can still use modules and monsters "out of the box." And THAT is what I am hoping to get from Iron Lore.

Then if I want to houserule damage, I can houserule damage. Personally, I screwed around with the VP/WP idea before deciding that it complicates things too much and that a lower MDT (I personally like CON + HD) was all that was needed. That leaves the notion of hitpoints as a hand-wavey combination of actual toughness and "heroic luck." But it still allows for the GnG reality of some things that characters ought to fear (falls from great heights, critical hits) actually being dangerous.

As I said before Wulf, I understand that you've decided Iron Lore isn't what you thought it might be, but it seems to me like you're tearing it down without seeing the finished product. I get that you feel Conan/Fafhrd/Grey Mouser are best represented by "Grim and Gritty" fantasy (which you coincidentally happen to have a product for). I just happen to have a different take on those stories than you, AND I don't particularly see how you can judge the whacky, wahoo factor of this product based on seeing ONE ability that you think is "over-the-top." Like I said, I get it. You think arrow ladder is dumb. Does that hold true for all the other abilities we've seen, or are you deciding that Iron Lore is silly/Xena-ish because you have decided (in your obviously superior knowledge of what constitutes "acceptable" low fantasy) that this one ability somehow "poisons" the whole concept?

Just curious.

 

[JohnSnow]

One other comment, earlier, when discussing the ELMer FuDD problem, Wulf, you said: "a handwave is a handwave after all."

Sorry to say this, but I disagree. And allow me to explain.

D&D gives high-level characters a number of "story" powers. Their intention is to enable certain kinds of storytelling. You give characters teleport because you want them to be able to bounce across leagues of distance in an eyeblink so that they can have far-flung adventures. From what Mearls calls "story" (and others call fluff), this makes good sense. But from the standpoint of what Mearls calls "rules" (and others call crunch), teleport is a highly problematic ability. Yet, it's codified in the D&D game's "rules." You can eliminate it, but you're messing with rules if you do that. Moreover, that "story-based" ability has rules/tactical consequences. Like, for example, the "high level party teleports home whenever their hit points run low" problem. However, if you leave the "crossing vast distances" ability (a "story" problem) to "story" solutions, then you can "handwave" it (the "this Griffin is willing to take you there" solution) much more consistently and with much less effect on the "rules-balance" of the game.

If I understand this correctly, Mearls is talking about creating rules-based solutions to "rules" problems but leaving the "story" solutions to the DM. For instance, a dragon has a certain DR, does a certain amount of damage from a certain range, and has the tactical ability to remain out of melee range IF it can fly. All of these capabilities give a dragon a CR. Addressing these "tactically" through the rules does NOT require handwaving - it requires rules-based answers. For instance, if the dragon tries to stay out of melee range, the PCs need either (a) ways to attack it effectively from a distance, or (b) ways to bring it into melee range. In the interim, their defensive capabilities should be such that IF they play smart, they can survive the dragon's attacks until they can accomplish (a) or (b). Those are rules-based solutions to rules-issues. And I THINK that's what Mike has in mind. But I haven't the slightest inkling of how he plans to solve this one.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You think arrow ladder is dumb. Does that hold true for all the other abilities we've seen, or are you deciding that Iron Lore is silly/Xena-ish because you have decided (in your obviously superior knowledge of what constitutes "acceptable" low fantasy) that this one ability somehow "poisons" the whole concept?

First, thanks for your acknowledgement of my superior knowledge. It's appreciated.

Second, I make the decision based on the same things everyone else is-- the information I have available. The arrow ladder ability, coupled with the (new, very cool) Token mechanic, leads me to make an educated guess (again, based on my superior judgement, thanks) that it is probably not a single outlying data point. I expect we'll see other abilities in the same vein.

That is to say, if I were designing Iron Lore, and I created an ability like Arrow Ladder, and I were fishing around for other powerful abilities to round out the other classes, having set the precedent, I might include a few more like it.

And, if arrow ladder is a single outlier that doesn't fit the thematic focus of the rest of the work, it should properly be edited out of the book.

As I said before Wulf, I understand that you've decided Iron Lore isn't what you thought it might be, but it seems to me like you're tearing it down without seeing the finished product.

There's really two different conversations going on here. One is on the nature of GnG and it's not appropriate to this thread other than its tangential relationship to Iron Lore.

Having decided and accepted that Iron Lore won't be GnG, I really don't see any point in continuing that discussion here.

Because it leads to people asking why I'm tearing down Iron Lore, which is something I am specifically trying not to do.

So, assuming we all agree that Iron Lore isn't supposed to be GnG, we can get back to discussing its merits, instead of dragging me into discussions (against my better judgement, as usual) as to why Iron Lore falls short of a target that Mike isn't even aiming at.

Again, I confess that the error was mine in thinking that Iron Lore was going to be something else. Every preview we have seen of what Iron Lore actually IS looks fantastic.

Just because I prefer chocolate cake doesn't mean that mearls doesn't make a kickass pie.


Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If I understand this correctly, Mearls is talking about creating rules-based solutions to "rules" problems but leaving the "story" solutions to the DM. For instance, a dragon has a certain DR, does a certain amount of damage from a certain range, and has the tactical ability to remain out of melee range IF it can fly. All of these capabilities give a dragon a CR. Addressing these "tactically" through the rules does NOT require handwaving - it requires rules-based answers. For instance, if the dragon tries to stay out of melee range, the PCs need either (a) ways to attack it effectively from a distance, or (b) ways to bring it into melee range. In the interim, their defensive capabilities should be such that IF they play smart, they can survive the dragon's attacks until they can accomplish (a) or (b). Those are rules-based solutions to rules-issues. And I THINK that's what Mike has in mind.

That's it exactly, John.

Edited to add this: And I'm even more interested in the Spectre, because unlike the Dragon ("If it bleeds, we can kill it...") which is a "supernatural" foe that can be defeated with mundane means, the Spectre is a supernatural foe that requires supernatural means to deal with effectively. How does a Hunter, an Executioner, and an Archer kill a Spectre? We don't know yet, but Mike has promised that they'll be able to do it.

But I haven't the slightest inkling of how he plans to solve this one.

This is the nature of my burning professional curiosity and the reason I continue to participate in a thread I should have (continued to) abandon.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm starting to think though that folks who are suggesting just putting a cap on advancement have the right idea. It just might not be possible to express a 12th-20th level d20 character without the wahoo creeping in.

To my mind this seems about right in that I would assume GnG describes, among other things, a subset of heroic fantasy. At some point in heroic fantasy you're going to 'transcend' the Grimm part and be in a very different range of the Gritty. The world of the Illiad is GnG, but the gods never were and at some point Achilles is really only barely qualifying for the realm of the human and way too close to the realm of the gods. I think Homer does a good job of giving that reality a very GnG spin but it doesn't change the fact that Achilles wrestles with a river and is only saved by a god transforming himself into a sheet of flame.

On the other hand I have serious doubt about whether or not even a twentieth level character should be Achilles. Ajax or Odysseus, sure, but Achilles and Hector have something weird and situational going on.

This is the nature of my burning professional curiosity and the reason I continue to participate in a thread I should have (continued to) abandon.

I do hope you can be kept here. I think the GnG issue mostly comes from questions about the overlap of GnG with Heroic fantasy. That is how if F/GM are GnG but they are also Heroic Fantasy then how does one judge which you should be faithful to in creating a F/GM game? Your superior expertise and the fact that you've demonstrated a system for quantifying half of that problem in the past and articulated this problem here is a big part of that. I certainly don't think its the only thing you have to contribute or that you should be held to doing so only. And I'm grateful for the vast majority of both conversations thus far and happy there's a thread for the tangent.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Just because I prefer chocolate cake doesn't mean that mearls doesn't make a kickass pie.

I was with you until here, but come on, man. Chocolate cake? I have now lost all respect for you. I'm glad to have my inferior knowlege if superior knowlege means you like chocolate cake.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

That's it exactly, John.

Edited to add this: And I'm even more interested in the Spectre, because unlike the Dragon ("If it bleeds, we can kill it...") which is a "supernatural" foe that can be defeated with mundane means, the Spectre is a supernatural foe that requires supernatural means to deal with effectively. How does a Hunter, an Executioner, and an Archer kill a Spectre? We don't know yet, but Mike has promised that they'll be able to do it.



This is the nature of my burning professional curiosity and the reason I continue to participate in a thread I should have (continued to) abandon.

Yeah, Dragon I'm ok with. In fact the last Playtester Spotlight seemed to have a nice nod in that direction with the Berzerker luring it in and the Archer finishing it off.

The Spectre is the riddle at this point. I had been less curious about it than the dragon simply because there had been non magical means of dealing with part of that issue in AE, but none of those have shown up in any of the classes we've seen so far so there's got to be some sort of systemic rather than character based fix.

The description of the improvised weapon fight in the last Playtester Spotlight may have been a good clue in that direction.