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

Re: [icons-rpg] Re: trick arrows

Expand Messages
  • Brandon Blackmoor
    On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:12 -0500, Gareth-Michael Skarka ... It doesn t really matter how the character got built. Once the character is written up, pretty
    Message 1 of 49 , Jun 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:12 -0500, "Gareth-Michael Skarka"
      <gms@...> wrote:
      > Or rather, ICONS doesn't have a way to do it with
      > players who use the optional points-buy system
      > instead of the normal random creation

      It doesn't really matter how the character got built. Once the character
      is written up, pretty much any character who isn't a one-trick pony will
      have 1 Determination unless they buy more. And given the choice to have
      +1 Prowess *all* of the time, or +2 Prowess *once*, how many people
      would choose the latter? Not many.

      > If ... you refer to the core mechanic of gaining Determination
      > as "stupid"

      The Determination game mechanic itself isn't stupid. Keying off Aspects
      for bonuses to a roll/retcon/etc. is a fun and workable mechanic.

      However, having to key off an Aspect every single time you take an
      action in combat is *not* a fun and workable mechanic -- that's bad game
      design. And really, Wizardry is the only power where that's an issue. So
      yes: there is a need for a power that allows characters like Green Arrow
      or Zatanna, because Wizardry isn't it. I can see what niche Wizardry is
      *supposed* to fill, but it doesn't do it.

      And I won't go off on a rant about publishers who insult their customers
      when the customers point out a flaw in the system. But I will ask that
      you not do it again, please.

      Kind regards,
      Brandon Blackmoor

    • jhmcmullen
      I agree with you, in theory, but if your players are not in the habit of having Compels, it can be difficult. Also, you want them to have Determination, so you
      Message 49 of 49 , Jun 16, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree with you, in theory, but if your players are not in the habit of having Compels, it can be difficult. Also, you want them to have Determination, so you need to encourage not-hoarding it.

        I have gone the route of giving Determination for roleplaying anything that inconveniences the character, and I hope to make Compels more meaningful down the line.

        --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, Mike Olson <devlin1@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Should we only get Determination when the GM *makes* us play
        > > in-character, or also when we do it voluntarily?
        > It's not so much about simply playing in character -- a good compel should
        > force you to make a difficult choice. For example, if your character has an
        > aspect of "Charitable Soul," giving some change to a beggar in the street
        > would be appropriate behavior, but it shouldn't be worth Determination
        > unless there's some real risk or sacrifice involved. If you only had enough
        > money for the bus and needed to get to a job interview, suddenly helping out
        > that beggar takes on more significance. Do you sacrifice your own happiness
        > to help someone else? If so, it's worth a point.
        > Or, to look at it another way (and up the stakes a bit), if you accept a
        > compel from the GM, you should expect it to lead to trouble pretty directly.
        > Maybe that's not just a beggar -- it's the Beggar King, supervillainous
        > champion of the dispossessed, and he's played on your reputation as a soft
        > touch to trick you into falling into his trap.
        > To go back to Batman: If Bruce Wayne has to attend a board meeting, it's not
        > really a compel unless he does so at the expense of something else. If it's
        > a choice between maintaining his public persona or solving the Riddler's
        > latest puzzle before a bomb goes off somewhere in Gotham, that's a good
        > compel. There's risk for the character.
        > Self-compels are practically a necessity, too. Players should feel free to
        > pitch in, because it's difficult for the GM to keep up with everything on
        > their own. For example, if I'm playing Batman (I was going to say "If *
        > you're* playing Batman," but dammit, *I want to be Batman*) and I'm supposed
        > to be at the Gotham Observatory exactly at noon to get the next clue from
        > the Riddler, I could self-compel my "Bruce Wayne, Billionaire Playboy"
        > Quality to say, "As it happens, I have a board meeting at Wayne Enterprises
        > at noon, and if I'm not there, someone's going to make a bad business
        > decision in my absence." (I dunno, maybe Clayface has assumed the identity
        > of some senior VP for nefarious reasons -- you get the idea.) The GM can
        > sort out the rest, or ask me to do so later, but I'm introducing the idea
        > that there are non-combat consequences to meeting up with the Riddler at the
        > appointed time.
        > So it's not just playing in character -- it's making in-character choices
        > that are largely not in the character's self-interest.
        > Also, as the GM, it's best not to dictate to the player the exact thing that
        > happens with a compel. It's enough to offer the Determination and say, "Boy,
        > it sure seems like a 'Protector of the Downtrodden' would do something about
        > that, doesn't it?" The player shouldn't feel like they've lost control of
        > their character. That's a common misstep I've seen.
        > --Mike
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.