Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2800463" data-attributes="member: 32164">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification