RE: [icons-rpg] Seen as a player
- 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.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:26:44 -0800
Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Seen as a playerI 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?
- It should also show up in the Rules Appendix of Villainomicon, FWIW.
- That's excellent news. It's a really good resolution method, it deserves greater visibility.
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:12:36 -0500
Subject: [icons-rpg] Re: Seen as a player
- Sweet!Thanks, Steve. :)On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Steve Kenson <stevekenson@...> wrote: