On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:32:08 +0000 (UTC),
mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>In article <4rf313t1fn0ljlua5bv80o2jre90141bd3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>Erol K. Bayburt <ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>This sort of thing reminds me that I really need to find and read over
>>a copy of Iron Heroes. From what I've heard of it, it is a solution to
>>the problem of assuming that characters have bonuses from items, even
>>if it's an extreme one that assumes/requires that *no* items even
>>exist.
>
>We ran one game in Iron Heroes. I found myself deeply allergic to
>its tone and style, but I think it has a lot of really good ideas
>which could be salvaged and used elsewhere.
I suspect I'd have the same reaction.
>
>It has a really strong "mooks/heroes" contrast, even more than
>v3.5 does, and also uses magic as a plot device more than as a
>feature of the world. There is quite a bit of magic around, it's
>just not PC magic and there are no real rules for much of it.
>(Admission: I ran this for months without ever reading all of
>it, because of the tone. I may have missed things.)
A mook/hero contrast I wouldn't mind so much, as long as it avoids the
D&Dism of "PCs must start as mooks and *become* heroes, rather than
getting to *start* as heroes." Magic that's fiat, plot device, and
NPC-only would really bug me, even as the GM.
>>I wonder how it would work if medium-to-high level characters were
>>given a "heroic" bonus to saves, AC, etc, that didn't stack with
>>bonuses from magic.
>
>I think that could work very well, if it were high enough.
>I'd want to get rid of the bonuses from magic altogether, though,
>because they are a bookkeeping nuisance and (to me) flavorless.
>The +1 ring of protection is about as boring as a magic item
>can be.
If the +1 ring were one of a half-dozen AC boosters, yes. Maybe not so
much for low level characters with few magic items of any sort.
On further thought wrt slot and stacking limitations, I'm not too keen
on getting strict with slots, but would like to see a lot fewer bonus
types for stacking. E.g. no more than three possible bonus types to
AC, and thus no more than three AC-boosting magic items - including
the one that boosts Dex.
>
>One lesson I took away from my Feng Shui games is that with the
>exception of stuff which relies on subterfuge, character
>shticks should be *visible*. A character whose sword bursts into
>flame to the dismay of his foes, or who is covered head to toe
>in the scales of a black dragon, adds more to the game than a
>character who has an invisible plus with the same general effect.
>But you can't afford to make things colorful if each character
>has too many of them. I'd really like to trim the numbers down.
Agree about trimming the numbers down. Have mixed feelings about items
being colorful/visible vs not. I think it's more im****tant that the
item & its effects be visible to the player - i.e. a relatively big
bonus, for the character's power-level. Gaudy but wimpy items might be
a little better than quiet & wimpy ones, but "big" pluses are better
than either, and not so dependent on visibility for their coolness.
Edgar Ironpelt's flaming burst greatsword "Dunar!" was a great,
character-defining magic item, but so was Don Maximillian's magical
rapier-and-dagger set: The two weapons when used together functioned
as a "+5 Defender." Bonuses could be ****fted between the rapier (bonus
to hit & damage) and the parrying dagger (bonus to AC). This didn't
have any flashy special effects, it just let Max look more competent.
--
Erol K. Bayburt
ErolB1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
