Re: [icons-rpg] Why not?
- I would hazard a guess that the issue comes down to character advancement. Players like to see their characters advance, get better at stuff, and gain ... something; loot, skills, powers, etc. This is why class/level-based systems are so successful -- you have numbers on your character sheet that show you how well you're advancing (experience, character level, skill level, etc.)
While some games (basically, Traveller) are successful without this component, it's a pretty standard expectation in tabletop RPGs as well as video and board games.
Icons has methodology for this, but it's optional, and as are most of the rules, less crunchy than those in other games.
In step with this is the 'tinkering' aspect. In more detailed games, players can tinker with their characters -- min-maxing points, exploring advancement options such as feats, advantages, detailed weapons and power construction, and the like -- which keeps interest in the game and investment in the character in between gaming sessions.
Icons doesn't require this level of interaction or maintenance, and therefore may look to players as a 'pick-up' game. "If I don't have to do much, then I don't have to invest much," they may think.
In the end, however, it all depends on you and your group. The ratio between narrativist and simulationist play style, the detail of the universe, and the growth of the characters as personalities (rather than gun platforms), and so on, will all influence the staying power of your Icons series.--
Freelance Human Being
From: Fabricio <fabfranco@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:22 PM
Subject: [icons-rpg] Why not?Hello all,
I have read several reviews on Icons, and most of them (if not, ALL of them) praising the game. However, one statement almost always comes forth: "Icons is not really the game I would use if I were going to run a multi-year, multi-arc long game; that's what Mutants and Masterminds is for. But if I needed to run a supers game on a rainy afternoon or a convention or just something to have some fun with, then Icons is a great choice." Why so? Why can't Icons be a multi-arc long game? What doesn't it have to be so, in your opinion?
- On Jul 31, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Gareth-Michael Skarka wrote:
Well, for what it's worth -- the rules that will be appearing in ICONS TEAM-UP are specifically designed for running long-term campaigns.Hey, that is great news!As things now stand, pre-TEAM-UP, I think (this is mostly a guess!) one of the reasons players and GMs *might* shy away from long-term ICONS games is that players might expect more out of character advancement. This is probably a holdover from fantasy games. Gamers and GMs familiar with D&D and other such games might expect characters to "get better" (dramatically so) over time, and ICONS defies this expectation (with good reason).Chris
- Icons simply doesn't have experience point rules - which is fine for many games (mostly old school), but of course comic book characters never change, which is right on the spot.
- Slight disagreement.Comic book characters DO change, and in noticeable ways, but - with a few exceptions - it is almost never a steady increase like in most "Hero to Zero" RPGs...usually coming in big, plot relevant bursts.----- Original Message -----From: JakubSent: Monday, August 01, 2011 2:52 PMSubject: [icons-rpg] Re: Why not?
Icons simply doesn't have experience point rules - which is fine for many games (mostly old school), but of course comic book characters never change, which is right on the spot.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3803 - Release Date: 08/01/11
- Thank you, everyone, for your opinions and viewpoints. This group, from all the ones I've taken part in, is one of the kindest and supportive. Glad to be here.I just hope that you continue to put up with me in the consecutive questions about the game which come up to me.Fabrício Franco