Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Seen as a player

Expand Messages
  • Soylent Green
    Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
       
      What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
       
      First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
       
      Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
       
      There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

      I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
       
      1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
      2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
      3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
       
      I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
       
       
    • Chris McGuire
      The one-shot session I ve run of ICONS, I was lax on the invoking Qualities. I went over it with all the rules at the top, but didn t press the issue until
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The one-shot session I've run of ICONS, I was lax on the invoking Qualities.  I went over it with all the rules at the top, but didn't press the issue until the last 30 minutes or so of the game.  For me, it was about easing my players into it and letting them get used to the different ways they could use Determination Points to help them and then to start bringing in the invoking part later.
        They did remember to point out their...err, I'm forgetting the term....Drawbacks?  They reminded me to compel those to get DPs several times throughout the session.
        As it was my first time running it, I referred to the Success Level chart quite a bit and sometimes I did really only care if they flat out succeeded or not.  But, for me, using the levels more would come with more experience running the system.  Same with implementing Slams and Stuns.
         
        So maybe the GMs were just trying to learn and get a handle on the rules more than deliberately changing or ignoring rules?
        On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
         

        Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
         
        What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
         
        First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
         
        Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
         
        There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

        I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
         
        1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
        2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
        3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
         
        I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
         
         


      • Craig McRoberts
        A note on the Slam and Stun rules: As a GM, I ignore these from time to time, based on my players desires. If they re after a cinematic, comic book-style
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          A note on the Slam and Stun rules: As a GM, I ignore these from time to time, based on my players' desires. If they're after a cinematic, comic book-style battle, I happily enforce these. If the battle is more of a footnote or less of a major point, I let them go. It just depends on what the players are wanting out of it.

          Sent from my iPhone

          On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:12, Chris McGuire <christmcguire@...> wrote:

           

          The one-shot session I've run of ICONS, I was lax on the invoking Qualities.  I went over it with all the rules at the top, but didn't press the issue until the last 30 minutes or so of the game.  For me, it was about easing my players into it and letting them get used to the different ways they could use Determination Points to help them and then to start bringing in the invoking part later.
          They did remember to point out their...err, I'm forgetting the term....Drawbacks?  They reminded me to compel those to get DPs several times throughout the session.
          As it was my first time running it, I referred to the Success Level chart quite a bit and sometimes I did really only care if they flat out succeeded or not.  But, for me, using the levels more would come with more experience running the system.  Same with implementing Slams and Stuns.
           
          So maybe the GMs were just trying to learn and get a handle on the rules more than deliberately changing or ignoring rules?
          On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
           

          Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
           
          What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
           
          First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
           
          Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
           
          There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

          I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
           
          1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
          2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
          3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
           
          I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
           
           


        • Soylent Green
          It is possible they were learning. They seemed quite confident but then a lot of GMs to project that air of confidence even when they are totally lost :-)
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            It is possible they were learning. They seemed quite confident but then a lot of GMs to project that air of confidence even when they are totally lost :-)
             
            Personally when GMing I deliberatly choose to be lax with Quality invocations. I feel the free-from descriptor element of Qualities and Challenges is much more interesting than their mechanical use and if I try to strictly enforce the invocation rules two thing can happen: players either will chose Qualities that are more tactial than descriptive or stretch the meaning of the Quality implausibly just to get to spend the DP.  So I guess that counts as a deliberate house rule.
             
            On the other hand the first few sessions I ran of ICONS I did get the Stunt rules and teh Slam/Stun rules wrong so that would count as a genuine mistake, arguably due to the rules not being as clear as they could be. 
             
            As an aside I do focus a lot on the level of success concept and use extensively the "accumulated successes" techinque hinted at in a few of the adventures.  That really should have been in the core book it's very flexible and adds a lot of depth to the game.
             

            To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
            From: christmcguire@...
            Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:12:54 -0500
            Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player

             
            The one-shot session I've run of ICONS, I was lax on the invoking Qualities.  I went over it with all the rules at the top, but didn't press the issue until the last 30 minutes or so of the game.  For me, it was about easing my players into it and letting them get used to the different ways they could use Determination Points to help them and then to start bringing in the invoking part later.
            They did remember to point out their...err, I'm forgetting the term....Drawbacks?  They reminded me to compel those to get DPs several times throughout the session.
            As it was my first time running it, I referred to the Success Level chart quite a bit and sometimes I did really only care if they flat out succeeded or not.  But, for me, using the levels more would come with more experience running the system.  Same with implementing Slams and Stuns.
             
            So maybe the GMs were just trying to learn and get a handle on the rules more than deliberately changing or ignoring rules?
            On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
             

            Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
             
            What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
             
            First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
             
            Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
             
            There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

            I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
             
            1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
            2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
            3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
             
            I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
             
             



          • Chris McGuire
            Accumulated successes? Which adventure(s) is that rule in? The only one I have so far is Murder of Crowes and I don t recall anything about it in there. I
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Accumulated successes?  Which adventure(s) is that rule in?  The only one I have so far is Murder of Crowes and I don't recall anything about it in there.  I am going to pick up some of the Adamant $1 pdfs today so it'd be good to know which one has that rule in it.

              On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
               

              It is possible they were learning. They seemed quite confident but then a lot of GMs to project that air of confidence even when they are totally lost :-)
               
              Personally when GMing I deliberatly choose to be lax with Quality invocations. I feel the free-from descriptor element of Qualities and Challenges is much more interesting than their mechanical use and if I try to strictly enforce the invocation rules two thing can happen: players either will chose Qualities that are more tactial than descriptive or stretch the meaning of the Quality implausibly just to get to spend the DP.  So I guess that counts as a deliberate house rule.
               
              On the other hand the first few sessions I ran of ICONS I did get the Stunt rules and teh Slam/Stun rules wrong so that would count as a genuine mistake, arguably due to the rules not being as clear as they could be. 
               
              As an aside I do focus a lot on the level of success concept and use extensively the "accumulated successes" techinque hinted at in a few of the adventures.  That really should have been in the core book it's very flexible and adds a lot of depth to the game.
               


              To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
              From: christmcguire@...
              Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:12:54 -0500
              Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player


               
              The one-shot session I've run of ICONS, I was lax on the invoking Qualities.  I went over it with all the rules at the top, but didn't press the issue until the last 30 minutes or so of the game.  For me, it was about easing my players into it and letting them get used to the different ways they could use Determination Points to help them and then to start bringing in the invoking part later.
              They did remember to point out their...err, I'm forgetting the term....Drawbacks?  They reminded me to compel those to get DPs several times throughout the session.
              As it was my first time running it, I referred to the Success Level chart quite a bit and sometimes I did really only care if they flat out succeeded or not.  But, for me, using the levels more would come with more experience running the system.  Same with implementing Slams and Stuns.
               
              So maybe the GMs were just trying to learn and get a handle on the rules more than deliberately changing or ignoring rules?
              On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
               

              Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
               
              What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
               
              First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
               
              Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
               
              There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

              I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
               
              1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
              2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
              3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
               
              I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
               
               




            • Soylent Green
              It is breifly mentioned in The Skeletron Key. I think it s also in the orignal pre-order adventure, but I don t have it. The basic idea is that for a complex
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                It is breifly mentioned in The Skeletron Key. I think it's also in the orignal pre-order adventure, but I don't have it.
                 
                The basic idea is that for a complex task you need either a massive success, or two major or four moderates. It sort of like give hit points to any sort of challenge which could be a chase, hacking a computer or an hitting the streets to gather information. I find this really sings if you also have some sort of limit, something like each attempt takes 1 hour or each failure raises the difficulty levels by one.
                 

                To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                From: christmcguire@...
                Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:29:40 -0500
                Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player

                 
                Accumulated successes?  Which adventure(s) is that rule in?  The only one I have so far is Murder of Crowes and I don't recall anything about it in there.  I am going to pick up some of the Adamant $1 pdfs today so it'd be good to know which one has that rule in it.

                On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
                 

                It is possible they were learning. They seemed quite confident but then a lot of GMs to project that air of confidence even when they are totally lost :-)
                 
                Personally when GMing I deliberatly choose to be lax with Quality invocations. I feel the free-from descriptor element of Qualities and Challenges is much more interesting than their mechanical use and if I try to strictly enforce the invocation rules two thing can happen: players either will chose Qualities that are more tactial than descriptive or stretch the meaning of the Quality implausibly just to get to spend the DP.  So I guess that counts as a deliberate house rule.
                 
                On the other hand the first few sessions I ran of ICONS I did get the Stunt rules and teh Slam/Stun rules wrong so that would count as a genuine mistake, arguably due to the rules not being as clear as they could be. 
                 
                As an aside I do focus a lot on the level of success concept and use extensively the "accumulated successes" techinque hinted at in a few of the adventures.  That really should have been in the core book it's very flexible and adds a lot of depth to the game.
                 


                To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                From: christmcguire@...
                Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:12:54 -0500
                Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player


                 
                The one-shot session I've run of ICONS, I was lax on the invoking Qualities.  I went over it with all the rules at the top, but didn't press the issue until the last 30 minutes or so of the game.  For me, it was about easing my players into it and letting them get used to the different ways they could use Determination Points to help them and then to start bringing in the invoking part later.
                They did remember to point out their...err, I'm forgetting the term....Drawbacks?  They reminded me to compel those to get DPs several times throughout the session.
                As it was my first time running it, I referred to the Success Level chart quite a bit and sometimes I did really only care if they flat out succeeded or not.  But, for me, using the levels more would come with more experience running the system.  Same with implementing Slams and Stuns.
                 
                So maybe the GMs were just trying to learn and get a handle on the rules more than deliberately changing or ignoring rules?
                On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
                 

                Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
                 
                What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
                 
                First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
                 
                Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
                 
                There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

                I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
                 
                1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
                2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
                3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
                 
                I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
                 
                 








              • Chris McGuire
                Cool, I like that. I was thinking of picking up Skeletron Key as one of the pdfs today, too. Thanks!
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Cool, I like that. I was thinking of picking up Skeletron Key as one of the pdfs today, too.
                   
                  Thanks!

                  On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
                   

                  It is breifly mentioned in The Skeletron Key. I think it's also in the orignal pre-order adventure, but I don't have it.
                   
                  The basic idea is that for a complex task you need either a massive success, or two major or four moderates. It sort of like give hit points to any sort of challenge which could be a chase, hacking a computer or an hitting the streets to gather information. I find this really sings if you also have some sort of limit, something like each attempt takes 1 hour or each failure raises the difficulty levels by one.

                  Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:29:40 -0500

                  Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player

                   
                  Accumulated successes?  Which adventure(s) is that rule in?  The only one I have so far is Murder of Crowes and I don't recall anything about it in there.  I am going to pick up some of the Adamant $1 pdfs today so it'd be good to know which one has that rule in it.

                  On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
                   

                  It is possible they were learning. They seemed quite confident but then a lot of GMs to project that air of confidence even when they are totally lost :-)
                   
                  Personally when GMing I deliberatly choose to be lax with Quality invocations. I feel the free-from descriptor element of Qualities and Challenges is much more interesting than their mechanical use and if I try to strictly enforce the invocation rules two thing can happen: players either will chose Qualities that are more tactial than descriptive or stretch the meaning of the Quality implausibly just to get to spend the DP.  So I guess that counts as a deliberate house rule.
                   
                  On the other hand the first few sessions I ran of ICONS I did get the Stunt rules and teh Slam/Stun rules wrong so that would count as a genuine mistake, arguably due to the rules not being as clear as they could be. 
                   
                  As an aside I do focus a lot on the level of success concept and use extensively the "accumulated successes" techinque hinted at in a few of the adventures.  That really should have been in the core book it's very flexible and adds a lot of depth to the game.
                   


                  To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                  From: christmcguire@...
                  Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:12:54 -0500
                  Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player


                   
                  The one-shot session I've run of ICONS, I was lax on the invoking Qualities.  I went over it with all the rules at the top, but didn't press the issue until the last 30 minutes or so of the game.  For me, it was about easing my players into it and letting them get used to the different ways they could use Determination Points to help them and then to start bringing in the invoking part later.
                  They did remember to point out their...err, I'm forgetting the term....Drawbacks?  They reminded me to compel those to get DPs several times throughout the session.
                  As it was my first time running it, I referred to the Success Level chart quite a bit and sometimes I did really only care if they flat out succeeded or not.  But, for me, using the levels more would come with more experience running the system.  Same with implementing Slams and Stuns.
                   
                  So maybe the GMs were just trying to learn and get a handle on the rules more than deliberately changing or ignoring rules?
                  On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
                   

                  Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
                   
                  What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
                   
                  First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
                   
                  Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
                   
                  There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

                  I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
                   
                  1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
                  2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
                  3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
                   
                  I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
                   
                   









                • eric troup
                  I can say that as a GM, I had similar experiences. I didn t forget the slam-stun rules, but they did trip me up a bit, especially when trying to factor in
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I can say that as a GM, I had similar experiences.  I didn't forget the slam-stun rules, but they did trip me up a bit, especially when trying to factor in Invulnerability.  (Does Damage Level mean the original damage level of the attack, or the damage which remains after Invulnerability or other armor is factored in?) It was hard to keep them straight, especially in the heat of combat where I didn't want to stop to flip through the book and figure them out (although we did.).  The other thing which gave me cause for grief was how Determination worked.  Because of my knowledge that the game was FATE-inspired, I kept thinking there was some circumstance wherein a re-roll could occur when using Determination.  We read over and over the rules as written, and for some reason still unfathomable to me, my brain kept filling in "re-roll" instead of "try again."  It finally clicked, and all was well, but I still maintain that more misunderstandings and problems have occurred because of Icons being linked to FATE (and an underabundance of examples in the book) than anything else.


                    On 30 Nov 2010, at 05:27, Soylent Green wrote:

                     

                    Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
                     
                    What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
                     
                    First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
                     
                    Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
                     
                    There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

                    I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
                     
                    1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
                    2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
                    3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
                     
                    I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
                     
                     


                  • Soylent Green
                    Actually, I d forgotten about that try again concept; the notion that to make a Determined Effort you need to have tried and failed (or it must be the sort
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 30, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Actually, I'd forgotten about that "try again" concept; the notion that to make a Determined Effort you need to have tried and failed (or it must be the sort of action that you only get one shot at).

                      Kind of ironic that that a thread I started about how GM get ICONS rules mixed up catches me out too!

                      Still I am not sure I ever so the value limiting Determined Efforts to second attempts and I'll adopt it.

                       


                      To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                      From: yakkoman@...
                      Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:26:44 -0800
                      Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player

                       
                      I can say that as a GM, I had similar experiences.  I didn't forget the slam-stun rules, but they did trip me up a bit, especially when trying to factor in Invulnerability.  (Does Damage Level mean the original damage level of the attack, or the damage which remains after Invulnerability or other armor is factored in?) It was hard to keep them straight, especially in the heat of combat where I didn't want to stop to flip through the book and figure them out (although we did.).  The other thing which gave me cause for grief was how Determination worked.  Because of my knowledge that the game was FATE-inspired, I kept thinking there was some circumstance wherein a re-roll could occur when using Determination.  We read over and over the rules as written, and for some reason still unfathomable to me, my brain kept filling in "re-roll" instead of "try again."  It finally clicked, and all was well, but I still maintain that more misunderstandings and problems have occurred because of Icons being linked to FATE (and an underabundance of examples in the book) than anything else.


                      On 30 Nov 2010, at 05:27, Soylent Green wrote:

                       
                      Having run a quite a few ICONS games, I recently was lucky enough to get to actually play in a couple of ICONS games. Both games featured different GMs and for the most part an entirely different set of players. The games were good fun, but it was also interesting to see how other GMs handled the rules.
                       
                      What I found fascinating isn't so much that both GMs made a bit of the mess of the rules (I'm not a stickler for rules as written) so much as by that fact they both messed up the rule in similar ways.
                       
                      First thing I noticed is that while both GM took care to explain how about how you are meant to invoke a Quality to spend DP, in the heat of the game that is the first thing that went. I think it's fair to say that, after the first few scenes of either game, the majority of DP were spent without any Quality invocation whatsoever. It just faded away.
                       
                      Both GMs also missed out entirely on Slam and Stuns. In two games neither GM ever asked a player to make a check  for potential Slam. I'd go further and say the whole concept of success levels (Moderate, Major and Massive),  simply did not feature at all as the GM just seemed more comfortable with binary successful results.
                       
                      There was also a lot of confusion over DPs with the Stunt rules applied incorrectly and during play Fate style Fate points mechanics (+2 or reroll) often replacing the official DP rules (though I think this was more a house rule sort of thing than a mistake).

                      I think what I witnessed is a combination of things:
                       
                      1. Rules the GM deliberately discards or alters so that it works better for him and his group. 
                      2. Rules which sound good on paper but get in the way during play and are informally discarded.
                      3. Rules that are unclear in the rule book or less than intuitive and which the GM either forgets in play or gets wrong.
                       
                      I wonder if others have had similar experiences?
                       
                       



                    • Steve Kenson
                      ... It should also show up in the Rules Appendix of Villainomicon, FWIW. _____ Steve Kenson stevekenson@me.com www.stevekenson.com
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 1, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:04 AM, "Chris McGuire" christmcguire@... wrote:
                        Accumulated successes? Which adventure(s) is that rule in?

                        It should also show up in the Rules Appendix of Villainomicon, FWIW.
                      • Soylent Green
                        That s excellent news. It s a really good resolution method, it deserves greater visibility. To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com From: stevekenson@me.com Date: Wed,
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 1, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          That's excellent news. It's a really good resolution method, it deserves greater visibility.
                          To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                          From: stevekenson@...
                          Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:12:36 -0500
                          Subject: [icons-rpg] Re: Seen as a player

                           
                          On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:04 AM, "Chris McGuire" christmcguire@... wrote:
                          Accumulated successes? Which adventure(s) is that rule in?

                          It should also show up in the Rules Appendix of Villainomicon, FWIW.


                        • Chris McGuire
                          Sweet! Thanks, Steve. :)
                          Message 12 of 12 , Dec 1, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sweet!
                             
                            Thanks, Steve. :)

                            On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Steve Kenson <stevekenson@...> wrote:
                             

                            On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:04 AM, "Chris McGuire" christmcguire@... wrote:
                            Accumulated successes? Which adventure(s) is that rule in?

                            It should also show up in the Rules Appendix of Villainomicon, FWIW.


                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.