Iron Gauntlets: Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying, by Brett Bernstein, Politically Incorrect Games.  This review is of the print edition, which is 168p. long plus reference tables.

I want to like Iron Gauntlets; it has attitude, it has old-school heroic fantasy stylings; and, I'll note, it has a few neat points that are worthwhile. However, on the whole I don't find enough in the game to make it justifiable as an alternative to D20, OD&D, and countless other fantasy RPGs. There's nothing really new here, nothing that hasn't been done before.  And not enough that Iron Gauntlets does better to really justify its purchase, IMO.

The book itself is nice enough; full colour cover with the required cute elven wizardess, tough looking dwarf with a battleaxe, and ranger type dude that's uh... rangering.

The interior of the book is relatively well-illustrated with black and white pictures, but the art is clearly from various different sources, and has differing levels of quality, often on the same page.  The best example of this is in the Race section, where on the same page you have a very detailed and sort of old-fashioned drawing of a human in armour (probably taken from some other source and not drawn for the book itself, since the human has his back facing the page, and I doubt the artist would have done that had the drawing been FOR the archetypal image of a human), then two much less detailed but still very cool drawings of an elf and a dwarf, that clearly do seem to have been made for the book (or at least, some other similar purpose); and then finally a drawing of a halfling done by yet another artist, where the art is MUCH more simplistic than the other two, and of fairly poor quality.

Also, looking at the physical structure of this book right now, I'm not at all certain it would hold up to long-term wear and tear.

Now, onto the system: there's one interesting thing about this system.  Its not the same system as the Coyote Trail system I reviewed a little while ago; Coyote Trail is a 2D6 roll-under game, while Iron Gauntlets is a D10 dice pool game. And yet, the two books are completely compatible.  As in, you can "convert" from one system to the other just by switching the dice-rolling mechanic; you don't have to change any attributes or skills or anything.  The buggers who wrote this thing set it up so that the same set of stats would work for either of the two systems!  I don't think I've ever seen anything of the kind, at least not with two system mechanics that are so radically different.

On the whole, I have to say I like Coyote Trail's system much more than Iron Gauntlet's.  That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, though, since I famously hate dice pools, and since D10 dice pools in particular only make me think of one thing: White Wolf.  Considering that many people make that mental association, I'm not sure if they wouldn't have been better off going with some other mechanic.

Anyways, you get all the standard fantasy races as possible PC options, the four famous ones, plus centaurs, goblins, gnomes (who are actually the greedy fairytale gold-hoarders they are from myth in this game, something else I never saw before in an RPG!), and half-orcs.  Next you have your runequest-style backgrounds (cityfolk, plainsfolk, aristocrat, clergy, slave, mountainfolk, etc etc.).  And after that you have your classes ("vocations"): monk, architect (really? architect?), thief, ranger, spy, priest, cleric/knight, hunter, knight, warrior, merchant, prophet, scribe/bard, shaman, tribal elder, man at arms, or wizard.

Nothing much new there.

Then you have your abilities, your skills, character gimmicks (like feats, basically).  And then you're done your character.

Task resolution is, as mentioned, via dice pool. Your attribute determines how many dice you get to roll.  Your skill level determines the difficulty number for a success (a "step") in the pool. Most tasks require multiple successes.  And if you don't have a relevant skill, then you only succeed on a 1.  Given that typically an attribute will be on average between 2-4; and a skill (if you have it) between 3-5, I can somehow see people failing a LOT of rolls, or taking forever to do "extended tasks".  Of course, there are a lot of modifiers, and a luck attribute you can spend to improve your odds.

Combat is basically an opposed task, where you roll your attack dice pool, the other dude can roll his appropriate defence (but only if he uses an action to defend). Then you roll damage dice (determined via a base damage, plus an attribute mod, plus a mod for weapon type) against the armor rating of the defender (this time requiring a high roll, to get through the armor rating), and hits are scored as either fatigue or injury.  The "damage track" is the same in IG as it is Coyote Trail, but it does seem as though the damage system is probably a bit less brutal than in Coyote Trail, with more opportunity to resist taking hits.

The magic system is slightly more interesting; as its a free-form system. Apparently, the magic is pretty important to the authors of the game, since they dedicated one of the three back-cover blurbs exclusively to it (with such witty comments as "dynamic effects replace the need for endless list of spells"... wow, what game could that be a dig at? That sort of thing makes the game feel very amateurish and "Fantasy Heartbreaker"-ish).

There are four separate kinds of magic (overkill? Maybe not; you can never have enough funky magic systems for some gamers, and I suspect those are the ones this game is trying to appeal to).
First is Crafting, which is basically your wizardly spellcasting, memorization and all (interestingly, wizards here can't seem to be able to memorize more than 6 spells at a time, at the absolute most, and in most cases it'll be closer to 3). Magical checks have a difficult based on range, and a second check is required after each casting to avoid fatigue.
There are a number of different "schools" of Crafting, all of which have silly latinate names (like "Fabrica Ge", "Fabrica Mentus"; where "fabrica" is meant to mean fabric, like cloth; there's one that could give White Wolf a run for their money on fucked-up latin- "fabrica" in real Latin means "workshop"). Most of the times, you must combine effects from different schools to create a magical effect that you desire; such as combining "Fabrica Ge" and "Fabrica Materia" to alter your size.
Crafting wizards can also create magic runes, magic items, etc.

The second kind of magic is "Divinity-based magic". Basically, this is the clerical power of prayer.  Abilities are divided into certain broad categories (ie. Blessing, Cursing, Consecration, Prophecy, and "gospel"- which here means "radiating divine energies"), but the GM as the God in question pretty much gets to decide what actual effect their roll has, depending on what he thinks the God would grant. Its not totally up to fiat, as there are some guidelines provided for typical divine blessings for each category. Divine casters in this game can also create magic items, and give or receive divine endowments.

Third up is "essence based magic", which is the "essential" primordial power in all people, concentrated harmoniously to get magical effects. Monk stuff, basically. Abilities in this type of magic are divided into "paths"; you have the "inner path" (which is stuff like enhanced reflexes and senses), the "outer path" (stuff like empathy and radiating your energy), the "explosive path" (I kid you not; its basically combat stuff, attacks), and the "shadow path" (which is all about moving silently and stealthily).

Finally, you have "Totem-based magic", which is of course shamanic-style primitivism, where you have an animal familiar, make sacrifices to go on a spirit walk, transform yourself to gain animal-like abilities, etc.

At page 75, that pretty well sums up the "character" side of the Iron Gauntlets experience.  After that we get a bestiary (that's no monster manual, but its got enough to be useful), and then the GM section, which details things like how much XP to give, how to customize various details of the system to fit your own setting, ideas for campaigns, some very piss-poor random encounter tables (one single table for urban encounters with 10 possible results, one of the same for rural, and one table of 10 random monsters; it was like, for that little effort the authors would have been better off not including anything at all!).
You also get some guidelines in how to use the magic system to mimic some of the more standard fantasy magical effects, things like invisibility, lightning bolts, or telekinesis. A lot of their answers are kind of forced (ie. Lightning bolts can be caused if a god chooses to strike down a cleric's enemy that way when the cleric attempts to curse him), and on the whole I have to note that the magic system is on the lower-mana side of the spectrum for this kind of fantasy game.

After that you have some very undetailed sections on magic items and treasure finds (again, another absolutely PATHETIC random treasure table that's really nothing but an insult to those of us who like random tables); a section on traps that only has 6 entries, and two of them ("gargoyles" and "Medusae") are not actually traps but just monsters; and finally conversion notes to the "genre division I" system of Coyote Trail and something called Active Exploits Diceless.

By now we're on page 100, and we've gotten to the Setting. The setting in question is the generic fantasy world of Amherth, which sounds to me like some New England college town, but is in reality an extremely dull game setting. By dull I don't mean that it would necessarily be boring, but its just uber-uber-generic, without much that makes it stand out in any special way. I'd really rather they'd dedicated the pages they did to this setting to something like guidlines for the reader on how to generate his own setting, with lots of examples and mechanics to help. Or, say, fucking random encounter and treasure tables that weren't a heathen insult against all that gaming stands for!

Anyways, the setting has:
-an ancient vaguely evil empire in steep decline
-an island full of merchants (actually called "guildeland"!)
-a northern kingdom full of vikings
-a mountainous region full of scotsmen
-generic fantasy republic A ("Westport")
-Generic  fantasy kingdom B ("Tyr")
-a southern jungle continent full of primitive hindus
-a far eastern land full of demons.

There's also a big desert, some islands for pirates, a freaking huge mountain range, a "black forest", some demi-human lands, and a very bad map on p. 100 that doesn't help at all. What there isn't any of is reasons why I should give a fuck.

The "Kingdom of Tyr" (and the "Republic of Westport") are detailed further on in their own chapter, where you get some slightly more interesting setting details, some more monster entries that are specific to Amherth, some more magic items, some "clipart" quality crests and standards of the two lands, and finally a 15 page adventure set in Westport.

The book concludes with a pretty lengthy and detailed OGL conversion guideline.

So here's the summary of the game:

The Good: The game is compatible with Coyote Trail with almost no changes, so I can use that system instead of the dice pool. Also, their heart is in the right place, I think. The magic system is also ok.

The Bad: Using a D10 dice pool. Its icky. That mechanical choice has been tainted forever.  Also, the setting is unbearably dull. I've seen sharper safety scissors.  I mean, its so dull its not even bad! At least if it was a bad setting, you could play it the opposite of how it was intended, or you could play it for laughs.

The Ugly: In the end, there's nothing that Iron Gauntlets offers that other systems don't already do, and better. Not just D&D, but so many others.  Warhammer was one that sprung to mind while I read the book, thinking how there's no overwhelming reason why I'd play IG instead of WFRP, and a few reasons why WFRP is more interesting and better.

So sadly, I can't recommend this game.  I'll grant them an A for effort, but that really only counts in the Special Ed classroom. Over here in the real world, especially in this post-D20 world, if you're going to come out with your own set of fantasy roleplaying rules, you had damn well better have something more going for you than half-assed enthusiasm.

RPGPundit

Fairly accurate review if you like D&D/d20. Fortunately, the game is primarily for those who do not. There are two basic camps - those who prefer wargame-like mechanics, lots of tables, and even more spells and those who like quick-play, on-the-fly magic, and less prep-time for the GM. This game caters to the latter - the less die rolling and varying mechanics, the better. It's not the type of game to satisfy your fixation with tables and mechanics to create things like a setting - that's left to your imagination. Its purpose is to give you consistent tools, so you can just play.

I'm sorry you found the setting to be dull - it is meant to be a generic starting point for GMs who don't have time to create their own elaborate settings. If you want something different, try Steampunk Musha for a feudal-Japan mixed with cowboys and demon/demon-hunter type setting.

Nevertheless, thanks for taking the time to review it even if it wasn't your cup of tea.

PS - fabrica is more about "creation" than the literal "workshop," and is therefore closer to "works," such as the foundation or origins of something.

Matt seems to feel a better connection with the game in his review:
http://www.therpgsite.com/node/508

Also, the setting is unbearably dull. I've seen sharper safety scissors. I mean, its so dull its not even bad! At least if it was a bad setting, you could play it the opposite of how it was intended, or you could play it for laughs.

Hahaha!  I wrote the setting material and adventures.  I should point out that "generic fantasy" was exactly what Brett wanted---something easily recognizable that GMs could just pick up and start playing with little prep time.  I tried to at least make the common tropes interesting, but. . .



Pete

Quote from: pigames.netFairly accurate review if you like D&D/d20. Fortunately, the game is primarily for those who do not. There are two basic camps - those who prefer wargame-like mechanics, lots of tables, and even more spells and those who like quick-play, on-the-fly magic, and less prep-time for the GM. This game caters to the latter - the less die rolling and varying mechanics, the better.

Sorry, but I don't really buy that. I don't doubt that YOU buy that, because you have a mental image in your head of D&D being this game chalk full of charts and tables, and feel that the lists of premade spells are annoying.  Well, good for you, but the REALITY of what D&D is in actual play is such that I can't really see IG being any faster, and it certainly doesn't have less "varying mechanics" than D20.

I mean, are you sure you're even talking about D20 here dude? Are you sure the game you're pissed off about even exists? If it does, check to make sure it doesn't say "2nd edition" on it somewhere.

QuoteIt's not the type of game to satisfy your fixation with tables and mechanics to create things like a setting - that's left to your imagination. Its purpose is to give you consistent tools, so you can just play.

Ok, let's accept that. The point is, you still created a fantasy heartbreaker. You're talking as though the only possible alternatives would be playing D&D or Iron Gauntlets, and we both know that's simply not true.  If it were true, then maybe yea, IG would be the coolest most innovative thing since.. well, since D&D.
But it isn't.  And you still haven't said anything about why IG would be a better game to play than WFRP, Runequest, GURPS fantasy, pendragon, rolemaster/HARP, or COUNTLESS other fantasy RPGs?

I mean, the game is definitely not rules-lite enough to appeal to anyone who really digs rules-lite games, to them your game will seem too close to D&D. Its not even Forgey, its not wierd and gimmicky or elitist and pretentious especially in that really particular and kind of pathetic "D&D is inferior!" fantasy heartbreaker kind of way. And obviously it won't appeal more to tactical guys, you admit that yourself.
Nor is it "narrativist" in any way.

Hell, the only group I could see it really appealing to is White-Wolf fans because of the D10 dicepool mechanic, and I suspect even they would feel it was still too close to D&D for them to be interested.

QuoteI'm sorry you found the setting to be dull - it is meant to be a generic starting point for GMs who don't have time to create their own elaborate settings. If you want something different, try Steampunk Musha for a feudal-Japan mixed with cowboys and demon/demon-hunter type setting.

Yeah, I've heard rumours that you guys are releasing or will be releasing a number of potentially very cool and interesting settings using the same system.  I think that's great.

QuoteNevertheless, thanks for taking the time to review it even if it wasn't your cup of tea.

You're welcome, and I'm sorry I couldn't end up liking it. Like I said, other than the resentment against what I believe to be a D&D that exists only in your head, I feel that your hearts were in the right place with this game.

And I'm not saying its bad. I'm not saying the system sucks, or even that the setting sucks.  That's the thing, its NOT EVEN BAD. Its just nothing special.

QuotePS - fabrica is more about "creation" than the literal "workshop," and is therefore closer to "works," such as the foundation or origins of something.

Huh? Are you saying this is what fabrica meant in Latin?? Or in the game?

Because I have to tell you, in Latin "fabrica" meant a "place where a legion constructed their weapons and materials", or "a workshop".  As a verb, it came to mean "to build (an art or craft)".

But it never meant "fabric", as in "weaving", which is what IG clearly uses the term for, I quote: "crafting magic is based on flaws in reality... these flaws are called fabrics because they are interwoven".  So you are clearly using the term "fabrica" as a false latinate term you have derived from fabric, as in "woven". You go on to use the term "Fabric" in the description of each of the various "fabricas".  So don't try to tell me that you were using the term in its correct Latin sense. Please, don't go the route of idiocy that Achilli carved out so masterfully for you, instead just admit that you picked the term "fabrica" because it sounds kind of vaguely cool and there was no actual knowledge or comprehension of Latin involved.

RPGPundit

Quote from: pspahnAlso, the setting is unbearably dull. I've seen sharper safety scissors. I mean, its so dull its not even bad! At least if it was a bad setting, you could play it the opposite of how it was intended, or you could play it for laughs.

Hahaha!  I wrote the setting material and adventures.  I should point out that "generic fantasy" was exactly what Brett wanted---something easily recognizable that GMs could just pick up and start playing with little prep time.  I tried to at least make the common tropes interesting, but. . .



Pete

Sorry Pete.  There is such a thing as TOO generic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSorry Pete.  There is such a thing as TOO generic.

RPGPundit

 Normally, I would agree, but in this case that was kind of the point:  


-an ancient vaguely evil empire in steep decline
-an island full of merchants (actually called "guildeland"!)
-a northern kingdom full of vikings
-a mountainous region full of scotsmen
-generic fantasy republic A ("Westport")
-Generic fantasy kingdom B ("Tyr")
-a southern jungle continent full of primitive hindus
-a far eastern land full of demons.

There's also a big desert, some islands for pirates, a freaking huge mountain range, a "black forest", some demi-human lands,

See, this pretty much covers any type of standard fantasy character concept you can come up with---vikings, bards, pirates, tribesmen, nomads, knights, etc.  This makes it good for GMs who don't have a lot of time to prepare, but especially good for players who just want to game without spending a lot of time learning backstory and world history.  The player can come up with a character type (viking for instance), and have it easily fit into the world.  The setting also covers a lot of the standard tropes (evil empire in the east, long-lived elves in the west, free kingdoms, ancient ruins, etc.) that make it easier for players to visualize because it's familiar.  

I can tell by your other posts that you're more thorough and setting-immersive than that and don't mind the prep work (I am too), but some GMs prefer fast and easy settings, and that was more the target audience.  You might check out Steampunk Musha at some point.  It's about as far from generic as you can get and it's good, too.  

Pete

I have nothing against d20, but you have to bear in mind that not everyone likes to play it. I never said IG was any better than say HARP. It is what it is, and people like it. Not everyone has to like it, just as you don't like white wolf or others don't like d20. Just because you have d20 memorized, doesn't mean that others do. Some people find it difficult. Some people find HARP difficult. Some people find IG difficult - everyone has a preference. But IG is a lot quicker to get into than d20 which requires a lot of reading - I'm just going by what the majority of people have told me - I'm not making anything up here. That's the reality.


Thanks.

Quote from: pspahnYou might check out Steampunk Musha at some point.  It's about as far from generic as you can get and it's good, too.  

Pete

I would like to! Feel free to send a review copy my way... :naughty:

RPGPundit

Quote from: pigames.netI have nothing against d20, but you have to bear in mind that not everyone likes to play it. I never said IG was any better than say HARP. It is what it is, and people like it. Not everyone has to like it, just as you don't like white wolf or others don't like d20. Just because you have d20 memorized, doesn't mean that others do. Some people find it difficult. Some people find HARP difficult. Some people find IG difficult - everyone has a preference. But IG is a lot quicker to get into than d20 which requires a lot of reading - I'm just going by what the majority of people have told me - I'm not making anything up here. That's the reality.

I think that the key is that with fantasy RPGs, in particular if they aren't setting-specific (ie. like Warhammer or Talisanta or something), you have to be able to fill in the phrase "My game does X better than Y"; where X is a feature that makes your game worthwhile, and Y is every other fantasy RPG, pretty much. It has to have a raison d'etre.

It sounds like you're arguing that your raison d'etre is that your game supports quicker play, specifically quicker than D&D. I'm not convinced that's true, because your game is still pretty complex (it might not be AS complex as D&D, but its certainly not rules-lite), and to top it off D&D has the unfair advantage that pretty much everyone already knows most of how to play it, whether or not they find certain parts of it to be complicated.  It may take people a while to work their way through what feats they want a character to have, or which spells do what, but the basic 90% of the system they already know about and have known it for years.  Iron Gauntlets' gimmicks might be easier to learn than feats, and its spell system quicker than D&D's, but you also have to learn the other 90% of IG's system. So there's a higher startup investment.

But beyond all of that, even if you suppose that your statement IS true for D&D, its not particularly true for many other RPGs, and there's not much else I've seen in it that made it special, made it stand out above pre-existing fantasy RPGs.

If your default setting had been a little less "default"; that might have made up for it. IG is begging for a really cool unique interesting gaming setting that matches well for its system.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that the key is that with fantasy RPGs...

I don't dispute any of that. All I do is listen to what my customers want and try to give it to them whilst providing something familiar and usable