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

Re: Questions

Expand Messages
  • Steve Kenson
    ... Essentially because playtesting showed it was easier for players to come up with distinct sets of good and bad aspects, rather than a full set of ten
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 11, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jun 11, 2010, at 7:32 AM, icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      1) Why divide Aspects into Qualities and Challenges? Speaking as
      someone who came to ICONS from FATE, the distinction seem artificial
      and unnecessary.

      Essentially because playtesting showed it was easier for players to come up with distinct sets of "good" and "bad" aspects, rather than a full set of ten "full-featured" aspects, and because some aspects players came up with for their heroes were distinct weaknesses and make more sense as compel-only challenges. Having challenges as a distinct category also required players to assign their heroes some "bad stuff" which suits the genre, rather than trying to put a good spin on all of their aspects.

      Still, if you prefer to have Aspects-as-Aspects and lump them all together (or to vary the number or whatnot), there's no reason why you can't.

      2) Scene Aspects: Do you think putting scene aspects back in would add
      anything to the game? I think putting scene aspects back in will give
      players another means to use their environment, and make the game more
      immersive..

      Seems to me like you answered your own question. :-)

      On Jun 11, 2010, at 7:32 AM, icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      I'd second these questions and broaden it to, what were tre reasons to remove what you did from FATE?

      I wouldn't say I "removed" anything – I think it would be more accurate to say I didn't add it in the first place. I took some elements from FATE, notably the Scale and Aspects, that I thought worked, and left the rest on the table.

      I can't cite you a lot of specific examples off the top of my head but chances are the answer is that I felt it was simpler or better suited to the comic book style or genre of the game, since those were the primary reasons for most design decisions. Your tastes (and milage) will vary, of course.

      Actually, one specific example is the Pyramid: too limiting for superhero concepts, not all of which fit into a nice hierarchical structure of best-secondary-tiertiary, etc.

    • Steve Zieser
      Well, when I bought Icons, I was greatly relieved to see the way Qualities and Complications were handled. I had played SotC before, and I found the endless
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 11, 2010
      • 0 Attachment


        Well, when I bought Icons, I was greatly relieved to see the way Qualities and Complications were handled.  I had played SotC before, and I found the endless tagging of aspects on characters and objects in the characters surroundings to be a bit overwhelming and, at times, confusing.  Icons still gives you some of that free for all fun aspects can bring, but makes them more palatable for those of us coming from more "rigid" game systems.  If Icons were using aspects in a SotC fashion, I would probably not have purchased it.
         
        Our GM suprised us at last night's Necessary Evil session by announcing we were switching to Icons, which thrilled me because I was trying to think of a way to suggest switching to it without offending him.  We rolled new characters instead of converting and are starting a new game in the Marvel universe, which looks like it will be very cool.  So, I'm very excited to see what next session brings!
      • Tommy Brownell
        I agree. The Fate-style tag everything stuff is a bit excessive for me and my group. I bet we could handle the ICONS version of just characters having
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree. The Fate-style "tag everything" stuff is a bit excessive for me
          and my group. I bet we could handle the ICONS version of just characters
          having aspects better.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Steve Zieser
          To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:21 PM
          Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Re: Questions





          Well, when I bought Icons, I was greatly relieved to see the way Qualities
          and Complications were handled. I had played SotC before, and I found the
          endless tagging of aspects on characters and objects in the characters
          surroundings to be a bit overwhelming and, at times, confusing. Icons still
          gives you some of that free for all fun aspects can bring, but makes them
          more palatable for those of us coming from more "rigid" game systems. If
          Icons were using aspects in a SotC fashion, I would probably not have
          purchased it.

          Our GM suprised us at last night's Necessary Evil session by announcing we
          were switching to Icons, which thrilled me because I was trying to think of
          a way to suggest switching to it without offending him. We rolled new
          characters instead of converting and are starting a new game in the Marvel
          universe, which looks like it will be very cool. So, I'm very excited to
          see what next session brings!





          No virus found in this incoming message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2931 - Release Date: 06/11/10
          01:35:00
        • michaeltaylor90291
          Also agree!
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 27, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Also agree!

            --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, "Tommy Brownell" <tommyb@...> wrote:
            >
            > I agree. The Fate-style "tag everything" stuff is a bit excessive for me
            > and my group. I bet we could handle the ICONS version of just characters
            > having aspects better.
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.