Slashdot Mirror
Iron Heroes: A low magic tabletop game
ajs writes "Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes is an advanced role playing rule book, based on Wizards of the Coast's d20 System (the rules that underpin the current edition of Dungeons & Dragons). What's unusual about it is that it presents both a setting and rules for "low magic" fantasy that doesn't sacrifice high adventure to get its gritty action." Read the rest of Aaron's review.
Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes
author
Mike Mearls
pages
240
publisher
rating
9
reviewer
Aaron Sherman
ISBN
1-58846-796-1
summary
d20 System variant Player's Handbook
Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes (I'm just going to call it Iron Heroes from here on) is published under Cook's imprint, Malhavoc Press, by Sword & Sorcery who are best known for their d20 System rules variants and supplements. Sword & Sorcery, in turn, is owned by White Wolf Publishing, well known for their World of Darkness line of storytelling games. Originally titled "Iron Lore", the title was changed before publication due to legal entanglements. But, enough about the publisher, let's discuss the book.
Mike Mearls, a regular contributor to Dragon Magazine and long-time d20 System author, has a vision, it seems. His Iron Heroes game gives us a window into a world where the fabled dragon-slaying knight doesn't carry a glowing trinket of a sword that solves his problems, but has to rely on his skills and experience. On its own, this would be a serious undertaking, but the goal of Iron Heroes is to balance such a world as closely as possible with the established mechanics, threats and rewards of the d20 System. This is something which I would have considered difficult enough to be impractical before I read Iron Heroes.
The book begins by explaining that inexperienced role players need not apply. This is intended as an advanced rulebook, and those not already familiar with d20 will have everything that they need, but may find the book daunting (this is the only major flaw I've found in the book). If you are aware of the d20 System, you will note that none of the usual d20 classes are there. Instead of the rogue, there is a thief. Instead of barbarian, there is a berserker. These are not capricious name changes, however, since the mechanics of each of these variant classes are quite different from their d20 equivalents. More on why in a bit...
To begin to explore the idea behind Iron Heroes, imagine the iconic fantasy setting that D&D generally presents. Now suppose that you make two changes: there are no overt gods interfering with the daily workings of the world (and hence, no divine magic), and magic itself is a wild and dangerous force, not to be toyed with lightly or without consequences.
These two changes produce a world in which the focus of high fantasy adventure turns from the wizard and the magic sword to the muscle-bound weapon master or the stealthy thief. To compensate for the fact that the characters will not have access to powerful magic, each of the core classes in Iron Heroes is substantially more powerful than their standard d20 counterparts. The base attack bonuses (BAB) increase at a faster pace and feats are gained much more quickly than in the SRD (the official, and freely available d20 System rules).
For the rest of the system, the mechanical differences can be summed up as follows:
Of course, the most glaringly different element of Iron Heroes from d20 is the magic system. Magic is dangerous and unpredictable in Iron Heroes, so while there is an "arcanist" class, their spells are used cautiously and often with consequences. The magic system itself is quite different from d20. An arcanist pulls "mana" from elsewhere and focuses it using a "method". Methods are the mechanical effects of a spell, but the strength and "special effects" (to use a Hero System term) of a spell are determined by the amount of mana used and the player's preference respectively. This makes for a magic system which is much more flexible than in standard d20, but not as free-form as, say, the magic system from White Wolf's Mage. Magic is also quite a bit more limited in Iron Heroes, but I imagine that that will be addressed by later supplements.
The system is not easily combined with an existing campaign, so don't look to Iron Heroes for classes to add to your existing characters or for NPCs to introduce into other games. In a world full of magic items, for example, Iron Heroes combat classes would be far too powerful, and Iron Heroes arcanists would be hobbled by the restrictions on their magic use.
In short: this game marks—for me—what the d20 System and the Open Gaming License are all about. It presents a rich set of mechanics that build in compatible ways on what we already have access to, and gives us new ground to cover in the already well-covered ground of the fantasy role playing industry."
You can purchase Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes (I'm just going to call it Iron Heroes from here on) is published under Cook's imprint, Malhavoc Press, by Sword & Sorcery who are best known for their d20 System rules variants and supplements. Sword & Sorcery, in turn, is owned by White Wolf Publishing, well known for their World of Darkness line of storytelling games. Originally titled "Iron Lore", the title was changed before publication due to legal entanglements. But, enough about the publisher, let's discuss the book.
Mike Mearls, a regular contributor to Dragon Magazine and long-time d20 System author, has a vision, it seems. His Iron Heroes game gives us a window into a world where the fabled dragon-slaying knight doesn't carry a glowing trinket of a sword that solves his problems, but has to rely on his skills and experience. On its own, this would be a serious undertaking, but the goal of Iron Heroes is to balance such a world as closely as possible with the established mechanics, threats and rewards of the d20 System. This is something which I would have considered difficult enough to be impractical before I read Iron Heroes.
The book begins by explaining that inexperienced role players need not apply. This is intended as an advanced rulebook, and those not already familiar with d20 will have everything that they need, but may find the book daunting (this is the only major flaw I've found in the book). If you are aware of the d20 System, you will note that none of the usual d20 classes are there. Instead of the rogue, there is a thief. Instead of barbarian, there is a berserker. These are not capricious name changes, however, since the mechanics of each of these variant classes are quite different from their d20 equivalents. More on why in a bit...
To begin to explore the idea behind Iron Heroes, imagine the iconic fantasy setting that D&D generally presents. Now suppose that you make two changes: there are no overt gods interfering with the daily workings of the world (and hence, no divine magic), and magic itself is a wild and dangerous force, not to be toyed with lightly or without consequences.
These two changes produce a world in which the focus of high fantasy adventure turns from the wizard and the magic sword to the muscle-bound weapon master or the stealthy thief. To compensate for the fact that the characters will not have access to powerful magic, each of the core classes in Iron Heroes is substantially more powerful than their standard d20 counterparts. The base attack bonuses (BAB) increase at a faster pace and feats are gained much more quickly than in the SRD (the official, and freely available d20 System rules).
For the rest of the system, the mechanical differences can be summed up as follows:
- Feats are more tree-like, allowing progression and specialization in each feat.
- Skills and other actions can be used in creative ways by players and game masters alike, with a well balanced system for determining difficulty of unusual "stunts" and "challenges".
- Traits, a "variant rule" in standard d20, are a core mechanic in Iron Heroes.
- Since magical healing is rare at best, characters have reserves of hit points that they can make use of between encounters.
- Armor class is replaced by defense and damage reduction. Defense is the active capacity that a character has to avoid a blow. Armor, on the other hand, reduces damage taken by a character, using the standard d20 rules for damage reduction.
Of course, the most glaringly different element of Iron Heroes from d20 is the magic system. Magic is dangerous and unpredictable in Iron Heroes, so while there is an "arcanist" class, their spells are used cautiously and often with consequences. The magic system itself is quite different from d20. An arcanist pulls "mana" from elsewhere and focuses it using a "method". Methods are the mechanical effects of a spell, but the strength and "special effects" (to use a Hero System term) of a spell are determined by the amount of mana used and the player's preference respectively. This makes for a magic system which is much more flexible than in standard d20, but not as free-form as, say, the magic system from White Wolf's Mage. Magic is also quite a bit more limited in Iron Heroes, but I imagine that that will be addressed by later supplements.
The system is not easily combined with an existing campaign, so don't look to Iron Heroes for classes to add to your existing characters or for NPCs to introduce into other games. In a world full of magic items, for example, Iron Heroes combat classes would be far too powerful, and Iron Heroes arcanists would be hobbled by the restrictions on their magic use.
In short: this game marks—for me—what the d20 System and the Open Gaming License are all about. It presents a rich set of mechanics that build in compatible ways on what we already have access to, and gives us new ground to cover in the already well-covered ground of the fantasy role playing industry."
You can purchase Monte Cook Presents: Iron Heroes from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This was about Iron Heroes, of course, but if you thought my review sounded like something that would interest you, I suggest taking a look at all of Malhavoc's books. Monte Cook has his name on Iron Heroes, but Arcana Evolved is actually his work, and it's equally good, IMHO. They both have their own setting, but AE takes it a bit further. It has some published fiction to give you a sense of the world, its own spell lists (many of the spells being core d20, but some are removed and many are added), and it's more compatible with the core d20 classes than IH is.
We attack your site with a +5 Slashdot.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
...To compensate for the fact that the characters will not have access to powerful magic, each of the core classes in Iron Heroes is substantially more powerful than their standard d20 counterparts...
Oh, good. I was just saying to a friend of mine the other day, that the 3.0/3.5 D&D rules don't crank up the power gaming factor enough for me over the 1st and 2nd edition rules. And here, we go, instant karma.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Since the link isn't working, I'll ask here: what classes are in the game?
Of the base D&D classes, only two (warriors and barbarians) have zero magic-derived abilities. A couple more (rangers, rogues, maybe monks and paladins) could be fairly easily adapted to be magic-free. But is that it? Or did Monte cook up (pun intended) some new and innovative magic-free classes for us?
This isn't the first such setting. The Harn setting was a low-magic medieval/fantasy setting that really discouraged over-the-top mages. I played in the setting a few times, but found it duller than hell. It's fun to read, though.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If people are excited about this, maybe it's time they broadened their horizons and examined some non-d20 games. Really! They do exist! You don't have to settle for the Microsoft of roleplaying.
If you want gritty low-magic, Chivalry & Sorcery and HârnMaster have been around for two decades. Newer games such as Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel also provide nice gritty action. Or explore completely new genres with Serenity, Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, and Tekumel.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I've read the book, and I really like the idea of classes not dependent on magic items. There are two principle troubles I have with Iron Heroes:
(1) Armor provides variable damage reduction. That means that every successful attack involves another die roll. This requires discipline, or it will really slow the game down. Every extra: "make an x roll" instruction from the DM is a slow mechanic. The power of the d20 system is its speed and ease, and I think this idea runs counter to that.
(2) Many of the new feats and classes are strongly reliant on a battle grid. That means Iron Heroes is a tactical game in addition to a roll-playing game. That's not necessarily bad (in fact, it's fun), but it might not be everyone's cup of tea.
Overall, I'd say there's lots of good stuff, though. Didn't Cook write the rule system for Fallout? That had the best rule system of any computer RPG I've ever played. His expertise shows in the rules for this game.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Monte Cook making a low magic game? Geez, Monte has a reputation for making extremely magical and powerful additions to DnD.
Actually, it's a Monte Hall low magic game. Instead of dice, every "roll" involves choosing one of three doors, one of which contains a good outcome and two of them a bad outcome. The Dungeon Master then reveals one of the other doors to reveal a bad outcome, and you get to decide whether to change your selection (of course, 2/3 of the time it's better to switch but most people can't figure out the logic so it's a bit of a moot point). In any event, the only people playing this mod are usually disaffected stats students.
People keep reinventing the wheel. It is neat that this is a D20 system, but low magic systems are plentiful.
My favorite low-magic system is slightly biased towards mages, namely Ars Magica. It is on its 5th version (2nd was my favorite.)
It has a magic system where you can create spells on the fly, healing is difficult, and god is real (and so is the Devil)
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Hah! d20 is for inferior minds!
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2.ed, now THAT is role playing!
Long live Forgotten Realms and Elminster!
When in danger, whewn in doubt! Run in circles, scream and shout!
Now, I have a sample size of one, so I don't know if this is just a case of a DM with very different ideas of what should go on in a game of D&D or what, but it seems to me that RPGs aren't what they once were. When I go to local game stores, I just can't find much that captures what they were like back in the day. Is there something out there for people like me, looking for a more old-school kind of game outside of an MMORPG?
RPGs seem to have become way too bloody serious. I just want to kill some kobolds.
"Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
"Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
It's nice to have a d20 system that provides what some players and GMs are looking for, but most great GMs I've played with (and I've tried to aspire to) have made roll-your-own solutions.
It doesn't matter what system you play with. The setting, the gameplay, the amount of die rolls -- it just depends on the GM.
All the DnD games I DMed were low-magic. Getting a +1 sword was a Big Deal (tm). And typically, items with beneficial effects also had drawbacks -- i.e., that +1 sword drew a lot of not-so-positive attention from NPCs. Playing magic-users or clerics was discourage (though not that big a deal, since I required 'natural' die rolls for stats -- it was a rare cleric who was wise enough / pious enough to cast a lot of healing spells)
My point is that while differing rules systems can provide better frameworks for a good game, it's up to the GM and the players to make a good game. It really helps if the GM and the Players are all very honest when they discuss what kind of world it's going to be.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The book begins by explaining that inexperienced role players need not apply. This is intended as an advanced rulebook, and those not already familiar with d20 will have everything that they need, but may find the book daunting (this is the only major flaw I've found in the book).
"Inexperienced role players need not apply"? A more appropriate sentence would be: "This book is only for rollplayers* with at least three advanced mathematics degrees."
Seriously, though, I've read it, and if you're the type who likes tons of solid rules about what you can and cannot do in combat, along with more Final Fantasy style limit break special moves than you can put in a Bag of Holding, it's the book for you. But you'd better be ready for some slow combat, 'cause there's lots of stuff for you to keep track of.
IMO, this is more of a miniatures wargaming ruleset than a roleplaying ruleset. If you're more into roleplaying, you're probably better off with a more abstract combat system; then you can do whatever sort of cinematic moves you want, with a single role.
* Misspelling deliberate
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Why? Simple: his books, though certainly original, are consistently the least balanced in the DnD world.
One perfect example of this is The Book of Vile Darkness (BoVD). Anyone that's actually used this book knows that the creatures inside are far more powerful than they are listed as. The result is an imbalanced game where the players and DM alike constantly have to second-guess the information inside the book. Wise DM's often outright ban it.
What about Malhavoc Press? Those books make the ludicrous foes found inside the BoVD look like child's play. Malhavoc Press books consistently bend and break the DnD system, and an experienced DM carefully restricts their useage.
So, does my rant have a purpose? Yeah, it does. Monte Cook should be relegated to an "idea man," where he comes up w/ ideas and leaves the implementations to people that know what they're doing. Unfortunately, he has a direct hand in his creations. This results in the George Lucas effect, where something that could have been wonderful is turned into a horrid aberration. All you really need to know is to stay away from any product with his name on it. (The only exception being the core DND books.)
And, no, I'm not trolling. I'm speaking from a wealth of experience with this man's books.
/dev/random
Any game that relies upon individual combat for progression will end up being tactical.
If for no other reason than the players will want to be VERY specific when their characters are in danger.
I recently played D&D for the first time in a bazillion years, and it was something of a disappointment. I just wanted to do that first adventure, D&D basic, go down into the dungeon, and find some evil druids in the last room. Instead, we wandered around a town in the Forgotten Realms for a while, worried about boring minutiae ("What colour do you want the stitching in your robes to be?"), and in general had a boring old time.
Sounds like you're a Power Gamer or Buttkicker in group full of Character Actors & Storytellers (if you follow the player types in "Robin's Laws of Gamemastering"). You just have group mismatch. You want action and monster-slaying. They want setting detail and role-playing. They'd probably be just as bored to tears in a game like you want because they'd get no thrill from the same things you like.
I'm personally boggled by the fact that they were playing D&D. D&D (particularly 3.0/3.5) is much more geared towards fast, kick-in-the-door style play than drama. There are other systems that aren't so crunchy and filled with combat-oriented mechanics that would suit them better.
If you want to find some "old-school" play, then look to very young gamers. People don't usually find a taste for Character Actor or Storyteller* style play until they've had exposure to it. Once you get into college aged gamers, you tend to find Power Gamers and Buttkickers crowded out or in a subtle war for control of a group against other player types (and you really don't want to join the latter disfunctional kind of group).
If your local game shop handles coordinating meeting other players, see if they have a way of listing play-style preferences instead of just game preferences. With D&D and White Wolf games, you're going to get a huge grab bag of different people because many people who play those games do so because of popularity or because it's the only games they've ever learned. Such groups are frequently torn between people who want very different things out of gaming or are all centered on some random play-style that may have very little to do with the game title they're playing.
* Note that Storyteller sytle play is all about moving forward a story along a cinematic or plot-driven basis. It has nothing to do with White Wolf's "Storyteller system" which is far more facilitating towards Power Gamers and Character Actors than Storytellers. See Feng Shui for a Storyteller (and Buttkicker) focused game.
(Oh, and just to be on-topic, the idea of a low-magic D20 system game just makes me personally curl up into a ball and shudder. That's just my play preferences, though.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Monte Cook's stuff is all great for a very particular style of RPG play that I personally despise -- the "life is cheap" style of gaming. There are no heroes, because PCs can and will be dropped like flies almost at whim. Evil is stronger than good, and the world is very bleak. It's a very old-school way of play where you don't really identify well with your characters either due to lack of interest or as a defensive mechanism if you're trapped in a game with GM like that.
Personally, I dislike Monte Cook's stuff too.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I want to cast magic missle!
I have a fair amount of experience with it. We did some betatesting for the bestiary book that came out for it and ran an online game through OpenRPG for about 6 months. I've also run a couple of one shots.
1) there are magic items, but they are generally cursed. Like... gives you +1d6 to damage, but you berserk blindly killing everyone around you.
2) the powers of magic items are often rolled into feats.
3) you get more feats. Generally, one every other level. Some classes get more (men at arms defining ability is them getting a feat every other level in addition to the regular feat every other level.. thus they get a feat every level)
4) the skill stunt rules and attack challenge rules are very fun. they really make the system. Nothing you couldn't port over to D&D, but it would be hard to get people to do them due to general lack of skill points (the thief in IH gets 12 skill points per level vs the AD&D rogue at 8). The attack challenges would be easy to port, but no one would do them since AD&D has AC inflation (in IH, you get a base defense bonus, but suffice to say, you can lose it easily and people can then power attack you into oblivion).
5) It is very fun. It can also get old. If you want a light game, I would definitely recommend it. If you want a heavy game, it can work, but is a little harder. If there is something you have a hard time doing in AD&D (for instance, a swashbuckler or an archer type that isn't munched like crazy), IH probably has the fit for you. I felt it was particularly strong in mounted combat, ranged combat, and special maneuvers.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
When I was in the US several years ago I visited a mall, and noticed that they had a D&D shop next to the mall eatery. You know, a shop where they sell board and roleplaying games targetting the geek/nerd community.
In any case, what surprised me most were comments I heard while I was sitting there eating. Many people had a very, very negative image of the shop. I counted at least eight negative comments during the 15 or so minutes I was sitting there.
I have to wonder how much the negative image such gaming has in the eyes of popular culture leans people away from investigating it. It is quite likely that many of those who made the negative comments had never actually played any of the games in question, yet they still felt the need to believe the negative (and false) stereotypes associated with such games.
Perhaps the industry should work on legitimizing such games in the eyes of the general public. Even a single celebrity endorsement might turn the tide.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I play Iron Heroes regularly now, having switched over from regular D&D in the fall. In short, Iron Heroes is fantastic! The lack of magic everywhere makes for a game that feels more like Conan or Willow as far as cinematic action goes. Someone asked about classes... The classes are not divided among social roles anymore either; they are divided up among combat styles. Off the top of my head, there is an Archer, Armiger (gets huge bonuses in heavy armor, acts as a tank), Berserker, Executioner (assassin-like character), Harrier (speed, moving through combat, and dodging), Hunter, Man at Arms, Weapon Master (specializes in a single weapon and kicks ass with it), Thief (great at diplomacy and manipulation), and an optional Arcanist class (which is much weaker than a standard "mage," but much more flexible in terms of spell effects). I think I may have left one or two out, but basically you can play any type of hero you want using this system without being bound by "Bards all sing songs" and "Fighters all wear plate and swing swords." The characters get really powerful on their own, without the need for powerful magic items and spells to buff them up. So the players in my game have not been fighting eachother over who gets the best treasure. It makes the game a lot more about adventuring than about the reward at the end of the adventure. It's allowed me to create a more story-driven than reward-driven game for my players. As for magic, it's there, but very weak. The arcanist can shape spells to the area, shape, and range that he wants. You can also cast more spells than in standard D&D, and more powerful spells... but if you cast a spell that is too difficult for you, you risk taking abilit damage. The main game mechanic is based on "tokens" that the PCs get, which allow them to do more powerful things. If you play WoW, think of this like a Warrior's rage. Archers get tokens for spending time aiming, berserkers gain tokens whenever they get hit or when a friend takes damage, armigers get tokens for using their armor well, thieves can get manipulation tokens against NPCs... all these tokens replace the extra power that magic items once gave to PCs, and it gives the PCs more control over the special moves that they can do. The system also changes combat to become more cinematic by inventing ways to combine skill checks into combat. So if you want to run up the huge ogre's club to stab him in the face, you can... if you want to use a knife to slide down a tapestry and avoid falling damage, you can... stuff like that, that you've seen in the movies. So players get a lot more into combat as well. I was really getting jaded from playing the same old D&D, and then countless d20 custom rules just to keep the game from getting stale. IH has really changed the scene by putting the game back in the hands of the characters and not the gear that they carry around. I hope this answers some of the questions you guys posted about the system. I'll check again tonight for more answers.
matthewmeyer.net
This is not innovative in any way - much better games have existed for nearly twenty years - games that created innovative ideas which seemed to have become industry standards, like point-based chargen and skill-based character design. The release of a low-magic version of a game that has barely evolved since the late eighties is not news.
James P. Barrett
The fight between Gandalf and Saruman in the film was... probably not how it went. I imagine it as being a mirror-image of the confrontation with Saruman after the ruin of Isengard - just as Saruman caved in before Gandalf the White without putting up a fight, I imagine Gandalf the Grey didn't really attempt to resist Saruman. It would be pointless. It's also not made clear that the weather on Caradhras was Saruman's doing; it might have been Sauron's influence, or even malevolence on the part of the mountain itself.
However, open magical combat was seen on Weathertop, and at the climax of Gandalf's duel with the Balrog of Moria on Zirak-zigil. Those both made a considerable mess.
As for the magical swords, Glamdring was effective against the Balrog, Narsil was able to cut clear through the... flesh?... of the hitherto invulnerable Dark Lord, and as Andúril, the Flame of the West held similar terrors for all creatures of the Darkness - with some indications that it literally does flame. However, it's unclear whether its powers here derived from the sword itself, or from its being in the hand of the rightful King. And while Boromir's sword bounced off the hide of the cave troll of Moria, Sting, the elven dagger of old Gondolin, cut it deeply.
As for the One Ring: well, that's powerful mojo any way you cut it, unless, as you say, you pretend the story ended with The Hobbit and that Gandalf never found that *Identify* scroll in the vaults of Minas Tirith...
You're right in saying that the world of Middle-Earth is one of generally low magic, in the roleplaying sense, but the heroes of the War of the Ring are exceptions. There are only five Wizards in the world, but they're powerful. There are many rings of trivial magic like invisibility, such that a Wizard might safely leave in the hands of a clueless hobbit, but may the Valar save anyone who dares meddle with one of the twenty Rings of real Power. High-powered magic exists only in rare cases, usually as a relic of the Elder Days.
Moreover, the model of magic is rather different in Tolkien's world. It's subtle. Galadriel does not draw a distinction between the works of superior elven-craft and works of magic - she doesn't even clearly understand how such a distinction can be drawn. Magic is the result of a deeper understanding of the underlying, spiritual nature of the matter of Arda, not of any mysterious external force.
Incidentally, in writing the above it occurred to me to try to gauge the strength of the Balrog of Moria by comparing it to the entire Dwarf-city it supposedly overthrew - thereby demonstrating how mighty Gandalf and Glamdring must have been to harm it. But I just can't see it happening. The masked dwarves of Belegost were at the Battle of Tears Unnumbered, where they fought bravely and well against the dragon-horde of Morgoth - while Men betrayed the Eldar and the great armies of the Noldor were destroyed. Yet Belegost was a much smaller Dwarf-realm than Khazad-dum.
I wonder if perhaps the ruin of the kingdoms of the Noldor caused a collapse in demand for mithril equipment? Certainly none of the kingdoms of Men could afford such expensive armament. With the mithril market in deep recession much of Khazad-dum would likely be abandoned as Dwarves sought a living elsewhere in the world, leaving the deep mines empty as a hiding place for the Balrog fleeing the destruction of Angband.
And perhaps once the rise of the Dunedain provided a market once more for such exotic materials, the Dwarves returned to their deep mines, and got a nasty surprise...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
The most carpul tunnel-inducing game I ever played was Shadowrun (though I'm sure others can name worse).
Aftermath! back in early 1980s (don't ask me how old I am) used a system combining a d20 to hit (including many complicated modifiers), a d100 for hit location, and variable damage dice. Armor reduced damage after damage was calculated, and the amount of damage prevented by a particular type of armor could vary depending on the type of damage inflicted (projectile, bashing, etc.).
It was a ludicrously complicated game, and combat between four or five PCs and a half-dozen opponents could easily take an hour to complete. Still, we loved it. Then again, we had more time than we knew what to do with. To think that I could have been learning the piano or playing on the football team or actually working on my homework during all those hours that were consumeed by battles between the grim survivors of the apocalypse and their mutant enemies.
As for elegant RPG systems, the second and third editions of RuneQuest win, hands-down in my book. RQ was attribute and skills-based. Everything, including magic, had skill percentages attached. Becoming better at skills became more difficult as you improved, so building up a truly powerful character took real effort. There were no feats or talents, but RQ's simplicity encouraged more role-playing and less power gaming. It also encouraged you to be careful with combat, because even the most powerful character could be taken out with a couple of lucky shots.
These original RQ rules served as the basis for the Call of Cthulhu rules, and a host of other games (like Stormbringer!) which have since faded into the same obscurity that long ago enveloped Aftermath! I play d20 games now, primarily because my gaming friends and I only get to play about four times a year, and we decided to standardize on one set of rules that would apply to a variety of genres. Still, the use of PC classes to define characters seems limiting to me, and the hit die mechanics of combat make for (in my opinion) an artificial distinction between weak characters and godlike characters. In all of the best fantasy and sci-fi fiction, even the most powerful character can be taken down by a lucky or inspired but weaker character. That just doesn't happen in d20, which leads to more wargaming/power gaming, and less roleplaying.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ