Mastering Iron Heroes? Worth it?

[Odhanan]

I'm definitely not being clear. When I said computer game-like, it wasn't meant as an insult. I think it can be fun.

I guess I felt it needed an answer in the way it seemed, to me, to say "computer games aren't the same thing as roleplaying games, therefore anything that remotely looks like it was taken from a CRPG mechanic is an anathema to roleplaying." I now realize that's not what you're saying, but I feel maybe some of our fellow ENworlders might jump from one thing (reliance on miniature and tactical aspect of the game - what you're saying, I think, which is perfectly true), to the next (if it's tactical, it's not roleplaying - which visibly you are not saying).

Game mechanics are never impeding roleplaying, since roleplaying does not, in fact, rely on mechanics but on verbal and physiological (i.e. how a player acts, appears, and expresses what the character feels) components of the game. So, some ways in which computer games are working may improve the tabletop RPG experience. When it facilitates the interaction of the characters with the environment (i.e. saves time mechanically rather than thinking about how to wing it during the game), it even can actually improve the role-playing experience, since what you don't waste in mechanics can be invested into further immersion in the game world.

That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[philreed]

That's what I'm trying to say.

Looks like we're on the same page, then.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Here's the link to the preview for zones on the IH site:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_MasterIL_preview1

 

[mearls]

Yeah, someone please elaborate. I'm really not getting how slapping the label "zone" on a pool of acid is in any way adding content to my game that didn't exist before. It sounds more like general advice than an actual codified rules subset ("add interactive elements to your battlefield like falling rocks and pools of lava").

It's funny, because in a way I agree with you. Zones are one of those things, along with drawing bigger dungeon rooms, that 3e sort of assumes you'll use, but no one really figured that out and put it in the DMG in big, bold letters.

The rules for zones, IIRC, give guidelines and rules for balancing their effects across character levels. The idea is that a pool of lava can be cool, but it's just going to kill low level PCs. The book gives you guidelines and samples to help keep things interesting without making them too deadly or too weak.

I think the key to the zone rules is that, by talking about terrain effects and giving some rules, they make DMs think a lot more about interactive terrain. If you're already doing that, they might not give you any extra help. But if terrain isn't something you think about a lot when building encounters, they can be very helpful.

I've also found that the act of telling players about the zones present in an encounter really helps encourage players who might not normally try wild stuff to use terrain.

People seem to like them. I think the rules are one of those things that, once people see them, it's like a light comes on, and they realize that they like using interactive terrain, that it makes the game more fun, and the rules for zones give them a concrete, tangible tool to do that.

 

[Insight]

One thing I'd like to point out about the concept of 'zones'. Many players and GMs will not even consider using something like 'zones' without seeing it in print. I don't know why this is, but I believe it has something to do with d20 sucking the imagination out of the game.

So to me, putting 'zones' in print is important to the less imaginative players and GMs among us who would never consider using environment in a combat encounter.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't actually have time to expand on this today but there are specific rules for each zone -- and guidelines for designing new zones. It's certainly a lot more than just hazards or weather conditions as described in the DMG.

I wasn't thinking of the hazards and weather (or even the terrain features bit) - what I was thinking of was the descriptive text that talks about making fights more interesting by setting them on floating islands in a lava field, or continually moving cogs or some other such idea.

i.e. the DMG mentions them, but doesn't give practical ideas about how to actually do it, and the zones basically give more practical ideas about it.

Cheers

 

[Garnfellow]

People seem to like them. I think the rules are one of those things that, once people see them, it's like a light comes on, and they realize that they like using interactive terrain, that it makes the game more fun, and the rules for zones give them a concrete, tangible tool to do that.

Is it true the chapter on zones is closed content? It sure sounds like something that really ought to get reused. A lot.

 

[SJE]

One thing I'd like to point out about the concept of 'zones'. Many players and GMs will not even consider using something like 'zones' without seeing it in print. I don't know why this is, but I believe it has something to do with d20 sucking the imagination out of the game.

So to me, putting 'zones' in print is important to the less imaginative players and GMs among us who would never consider using environment in a combat encounter.

I dont see it myself. Most gamers get into our hobby because they want to use their imagination. They've seen cool films or read great books and want to participate in such coolness themselves.

So, its fairly easy figure out that if a sword fight is cool, its even cooler if held on a rickety, swing rope bridge. Or if the Dark Lord of the Sith is coming for them, then they want a very long hole through the station to either push him down or jump down themselves.

If DM's seriously dont have the imagination to use scenary as part of an exciting fight then I'd prescribe a booster shot of Feng Shui and then watch the sparks fly!

From this thread, I've realised that Mastering Iron Heroes is an unnecessary book for me as its all stuff I do anyway in Conan, Star Wars, Exalted, Eberron, Starship Troopers, Midnight, Buffy, Angel, Savage Worlds, Aberrant or Cthulhu anyway.

SJE

 

[Victim]

Zones are how you tell the players that using scenary doesn't suck. Why knock some barrels into a guy if you can stab him dead? I'd tend to think that the scenary used most often has player understood mechanics; it's easy to guess at how much damage falling or lava will do, so players can make a choice about whether or not the action is worth the cost (what the character could do on his turn if he didn't use the zone).

 

[Felon]

The rules for zones, IIRC, give guidelines and rules for balancing their effects across character levels. The idea is that a pool of lava can be cool, but it's just going to kill low level PCs. The book gives you guidelines and samples to help keep things interesting without making them too deadly or too weak.

OK, so that's what I think a lot of folks are trying to ascertain here. Is the zone concept presented with some codified, unifying mechanics, or are zones just present as a bunch of different unrelated examples of interactive terrain features, like those presented in the DMGII (e.g. fighting on an ice bridge, or in a burning building)?