Mastering Iron Heroes? Worth it?

[ruleslawyer]

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

Sure. The only question is whether you think the mechanics for handling it in IH are better. I use villains IMC too; however, the IH villain classes give me excellent design tools for running CR-appropriate villains on the fly. Likewise, the zones give you a nice, well-laid-out description of various zone types (and, yes, mechanics for creating new zone types, unlike DMG II). I find the zone rules a more complete and smooth-running set than something I could just make up out of my head on the fly.

 

[Particle_Man]

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

So you are saying that one could either buy the [CHEAP!] pdf of Mastering Iron Heroes, or one could spend considerably more money and buy "Conan, Star Wars, Exalted, Eberron, Starship Troopers, Midnight, Buffy, Angel, Savage Worlds, Aberrant and Cthulhu"?

 

[SJE]

So you are saying that one could either buy the [CHEAP!] pdf of Mastering Iron Heroes, or one could spend considerably more money and buy "Conan, Star Wars, Exalted, Eberron, Starship Troopers, Midnight, Buffy, Angel, Savage Worlds, Aberrant and Cthulhu"?

No I'm saying that since I've bought (and ran) "Conan, Star Wars, Exalted, Eberron, Starship Troopers, Midnight, Buffy, Angel, Savage Worlds, Aberrant and Cthulhu", Mastering Iron Heroes is now totally superfluos.

Like I said in my original post- is this book worthwhile for an experienced GM? No. But I'm sure its very useful for new GM's who havent played anything except SRD d20.

As for this whole love-thing for a mulit-statted villain, I suspect I would only use them once, so what use are the other 19 CR versions to me? Besides I tend to go with partially statted NPC's and improvise as apropriate anyway. D20 suffers from stat bloat enough, that I wouldnt want to encourage the practice of duplicate statting.

Is this a worthwhile book for some people? I'm sure it is. Is it for me as a GM with my own rules lite style (If looking up a rule would take more than 15 seconds, then I just improvise it with a reasonable guesstimation. Paying attention to the players and interacting with them is the important thing in running a game, not having your head in book wondering if your zone CR is legal for their level)? No.

But thank you for your help and information, its much appreciated and helped me make an informed decision.

SJE

 

[SteveC]

No I'm saying that since I've bought (and ran) "Conan, Star Wars, Exalted, Eberron, Starship Troopers, Midnight, Buffy, Angel, Savage Worlds, Aberrant and Cthulhu", Mastering Iron Heroes is now totally superfluos.

Like I said in my original post- is this book worthwhile for an experienced GM? No. But I'm sure its very useful for new GM's who havent played anything except SRD d20.

As for this whole love-thing for a mulit-statted villain, I suspect I would only use them once, so what use are the other 19 CR versions to me? Besides I tend to go with partially statted NPC's and improvise as apropriate anyway. D20 suffers from stat bloat enough, that I wouldnt want to encourage the practice of duplicate statting.

Is this a worthwhile book for some people? I'm sure it is. Is it for me as a GM with my own rules lite style (If looking up a rule would take more than 15 seconds, then I just improvise it with a reasonable guesstimation. Paying attention to the players and interacting with them is the important thing in running a game, not having your head in book wondering if your zone CR is legal for their level)? No.

But thank you for your help and information, its much appreciated and helped me make an informed decision.

SJE

I don't know if you have necessarily gotten the best impression on what is in the book from some of the earlier descriptions. It sounds like your assumption is that the Zone rules are some vague guidelines for how to make terrain a part of combats. There's a lot more to it than that. What they do is to take the general idea and give specific examples and mechanics in a manner that's balanced by character level. For me, that's useful information. Feng Shui is a book that every GM who runs a game with themes of over-the-top action should own. The discussion on running dramatic combats is something that everyone should read. That said, it doesn't really give you an idea of how much damage toppling a huge stone pillar over into the midst of your foes should do, let alone how much it should do based on the power level of your campaign. I love these sorts of mechanics, and I usually just make up a ruling on the spot for the damage. What the rules in MIH did was give me a framework to work from for how much damage to apply to make things consistent.

The book also contains a number of meta rules for campaigns: character creation, NPC creation, wealth, experience points, fate points and so on. It also has a set of rules for converting between standard D&D and IH, and a section on magic items and the drawbacks they would have in the IH campaign.

Should you buy the book? Sounds like you've decided not to, which is fine (of course!) For others, I think it should be pointed out that there is quite a bit of rules for any GM, including experienced ones, to use. It's not just 96 pages of rules for damage from different environment sources. The test I would use is: do you have all the ideas you want for an IH campaign just from the core books? If so, you don't need MIH. If you'd like some additional ideas for making a campaign and running a game, take a look. Further, if you like Mike Mearls' writing style and tend to agree with some of his notions about metagame issues, you definitely want to take a look at this book.

 

[JohnSnow]

No I'm saying that since I've bought (and ran) "Conan, Star Wars, Exalted, Eberron, Starship Troopers, Midnight, Buffy, Angel, Savage Worlds, Aberrant and Cthulhu", Mastering Iron Heroes is now totally superfluos.

Like I said in my original post- is this book worthwhile for an experienced GM? No. But I'm sure its very useful for new GM's who havent played anything except SRD d20.

Well, since you started the post, I'll say that you're probably right as to whether this book will be useful to you.

However, as to your more general question, I am a veteran and experienced GM, not a new one who hasn't "played anything except SRD d20." And yet, I find Mastering Iron Heroes to be an extremely useful book. Why? Do I lack the ability to make things up as I go? No, I just am not normally inclined to include a whole lot of interactive elements in my environments because as cool as I think they are, I hate making up mechanics. Why? Well, I like to be consistent in my rulings and I hate having a long list of houserules.

Is this a worthwhile book for some people? I'm sure it is. Is it for me as a GM with my own rules lite style (If looking up a rule would take more than 15 seconds, then I just improvise it with a reasonable guesstimation. Paying attention to the players and interacting with them is the important thing in running a game, not having your head in book wondering if your zone CR is legal for their level)? No.

To adjudicate on the fly in a consistent manner, one has to have rules to double check one's consistency. To some people, that consistency isn't important. To others, it is. I've had this argument with C&C advocates - they don't understand why D&D has rules for determining the DC of a given jump from the distance. Since, they argue, the point of the story is to challenge the characters, you should just make up an appropriate level DC. My counter-argument is that the DC for jumping over a 15' pit should be the same today as it was last week. I might work backwards from a DC that's an appropriate challenge to determine how wide a pit should be, but the DC shouldn't just arbitrarily be 5 higher for the same size pit because the character now has a +8 to his jump check rather than a +3.

Zones work the same way. They provide a framework that a GM can use while planning an adventure to determine whether his interactive elements are appropriate challenges for his player's characters. They also encourage the GM to consider the environment more, so that the players have more options in combat.

Sure, characters can always choose to do things in combat than "I whack him." The thing is that players (at least, the people I play with) are notorious for conducting post-mortem cost-benefit analyses on their character's actions. If Bob got a substantial tangible benefit from making use of the scenery in combat, he's going to try to do it next time. If it conveys the same level of cost-benefit tradeoff, he's going to conclude this is a reasonable tactic to employ on a regular basis.

On the other hand, if it doesn't work the second time, or Bob's friend Dave can't do something similar, because the GM rules differently this time than he did last time, they're going to conclude (rightly) that the GM is just making things up as he goes along. Suspension of disbelief will be lost, players will conclude that inventive tactics are unreliable, and combat will return to being a series of "I whack him," "I shoot him," or "I cast a spell on him" because more inventive tactics have no tangible benefit.

The rules for Zones provide guidelines to produce that consistency for characters interacting with their environment. The Iron Heroes rules for stunts and challenges do the same thing - provide tangible benefits at some cost. Sure, people COULD have done it before, but players won't generally bother unless they can trust their GM to be consistent.

That's why games have rules - so that players can have some sense what their tradeoffs are going to be.

SJE, if you're one of those rare DMs who can be utterly consistent without guidelines, more power to you. If you have guidelines, then you've already created your own houserules for zones, and probably don't need the ones in Mastering Iron Heroes. But for those who aren't infallible in their on-the-fly adjudication, and don't already have those houserules (or think the ones they have created could use a bit of polish), the book is really quite useful.

And there's more in it than just zones and the villain classes.

My two cents.

 

[Akrasia]

... The thing is that players (at least, the people I play with) are notorious for conducting post-mortem cost-benefit analyses on their character's actions. ...

Tangent: Hi John, has the membership of the group changed since I left? Is the group still meeting? I hope things are still going well (despite my absence!).

(As an aside, I think you greatly exaggerate the dificulty in maintaining consistent GM rulings; at least I never found this difficult.)

 

[SJE]

SJE, if you're one of those rare DMs who can be utterly consistent without guidelines, more power to you. If you have guidelines, then you've already created your own houserules for zones, and probably don't need the ones in Mastering Iron Heroes. But for those who aren't infallible in their on-the-fly adjudication, and don't already have those houserules (or think the ones they have created could use a bit of polish), the book is really quite useful.

And there's more in it than just zones and the villain classes.

My two cents.

Heres the thing.... you dont have to be 'utterly' consistent. Reasonably consistent is just fine. So, sit back, relax, put the rulebook down and let the game flow.

You dont have to be infalliable or know all the rules. The one secret to a good game is this-

Trust.

The players have to trust that you as the GM are going to collaborate with them to create a cool and rewarding game. They trust that you wont be unfair or petty and will listen to what they want to do and work with them to make it as fun as possible. That you'll give each and every one of them your attention and their chance at some cool 'screentime'. And as a GM, you need to return and earn that trust.

If you have that, then all the rest of the game will flow just fine.

So to my mind, the important thing is that the GM is consistent in promoting fun and coolness in his game. Whether the DC varies a little here or there, or you make up some poison rules on the spot is irrelevant. Players want GM consistency, not rules consistency. I've seen rules lawyer GM's ruin games with favouritism or abuse of the spirit of the rules. And then I've seen whole groups get incredible enjoyment out of a legendary near free-form game where the GM simply said "Roll something. High is good" and then worked with the personality, strengths, weaknesses and backgrounds of the character to give them a fair and consistent result.

My experience- a book of zones doesnt make your game this incredible, interactive, cinematic experience. Watching a cool movie and saying "I want to use that in my game" does

SJE

 

[amethal]

Have you read my review of Mastering Iron Heroes? (Hopefully there is a link underneath my name.)

I'm not big on doing reviews - Iron Heroes is all I've done, and then only because I like it a lot and there weren't any other reviews at the time (dunno if there are any more now).

I found Mastering Iron Heroes to be a disappointment in the sense that it wasn't much help if the DM already has the DMG. Having read other people's comments on this thread, this may have been a feature rather than a flaw - if so, I still don't like it .

The web enhancement gives a good example of the zones you can find in a humble farm - I recommend having a look.

As other people have said, action zones are a means of codifying situations which already exist in D&D, and trying to have a structured approach to design of the battlefield. Its a real shame they are closed content.

If you want to add rules for swinging on a chandelier to your own published adventure, you'll still have to make them up yourself.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Heres the thing.... you dont have to be 'utterly' consistent. Reasonably consistent is just fine. So, sit back, relax, put the rulebook down and let the game flow.
[SNIP]

So to my mind, the important thing is that the GM is consistent in promoting fun and coolness in his game. Whether the DC varies a little here or there, or you make up some poison rules on the spot is irrelevant. Players want GM consistency, not rules consistency. I've seen rules lawyer GM's ruin games with favouritism or abuse of the spirit of the rules. And then I've seen whole groups get incredible enjoyment out of a legendary near free-form game where the GM simply said "Roll something. High is good" and then worked with the personality, strengths, weaknesses and backgrounds of the character to give them a fair and consistent result.

My experience- a book of zones doesnt make your game this incredible, interactive, cinematic experience. Watching a cool movie and saying "I want to use that in my game" does

SJE

Tru dat. However, it's still a huge work-save, IMHO, to have a good ruleset about how stuff like lava bridges, icefalls, and sinkholes work. I just think that imagination is better directed toward describing the scenario in-game and having fun with your players' decisions than twiddling around with how the mechanics work. Free-form mechanics are fine, but it's a bonus (not required) to have a decent set of hard mechanics to hand in case you need them.

 

[Odhanan]

You dont have to be infalliable or know all the rules. The one secret to a good game is this-

Trust.

I utterly agree with this.

However, as a DM or player, trust is earned. It's not something that gives us "permission" to be unfair and/or lazy. It's something we get because we are (among other things) consistent and because we remain so.

Why does a player trust us, DMs? Because s/he knows we're running the game for the fun of everyone, basically. How do we ensure that everyone has fun? We make sure everyone has the spotlight for him/herself at some point, that everyone as a say in the way the game flows, that everyone has a fair chance to succeed or fail.

Which brings us to the consistency of DM rulings. The most... consistent, indeed, way to make our rulings consistent is to know the rules, or adapt rules so that in-game situations are fair to everyone. Zones are tools the IH rules give to have a consistent interaction with non-character encounter elements. Some DM will find them useful for the consistency of their rulings. Others won't.

It's alright to have different opinions.