Alternate Die Resolution

I've searched the forum for any suggestions in regard to 'fixing' the die rolling mechanics of the ICON system for LUG's Star Trek but have been unable to find any. One idea that's popped into my mind is using a single d6, plus a drama die, and adding the relevant skill level to the d6 roll to determine the character's success i.e. X Character has Skill 4 and rolls a 3 on the die to give a total of 7. THis would be instead of rolling 4d6 to determine the result. Obviously this would also mean increasing the difficulty target numbers (probably by 2 or 3) to take account for the higher results obtained by using this method.

This has NOT been playtested but was wondering what your thoughts might be!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverback

THis would be instead of rolling 4d6 to determine the result.

---

My last game using LUG Trek rules has been a while, but do you really role 4d6 to resolve a test?! Got to dig out one of my old rulebooks to check it out.

I don't quite get, what you mean. Usually you roll Attribute dice and add the skill value anyway, so I don't quite see the change.

Example: A character with Coordination 3 and Energy Weapons: Phaser 2/ 4 would roll 3 dice for Coordination, take the hightest result and add the +4 on the roll in case she fires a phaser.
Usually Edges like Dexterity and Reaction add dice if appropriate but we have a house rule that it adds a point like a skill, if the player chooses - which makes attribute tests easier.
But besides that I don't think the dice-system needs any fixing.

Yeah, what's the change?

I mean if you got a controlling attribute of 2 you roll 2d6, one of which is the wild die.

Take the single highest number, and add it to skill. If the wild roills a 6 take both numbers rolled and add together, then add to skill.

And I agree, the system isn't broken, in my opinion, it's easy to use, and doesn't require any extra charts like, say, masterbook (anything) to figure the modifier, based on the roll.

I think it pretty much reflects Star Trek, the whole way the rules are set up, and skill-based, to boot. I love it.

Quote:

---

THis would be instead of rolling 4d6 to determine the result

---

Where are you getting 4d6 from?

If the attribute is 4, you roll all 4 dice, and take only the highest single number, and add to skill. Dropping it down to 2 dice rolled is reducing your chances of rolling higher numbers on the other dice that would now be missing.

I mean, that's why people put points into making their attributes level 4, instead of the average level 2.

Quote:

---

Usually Edges like Dexterity and Reaction add dice if appropriate but we have a house rule that it adds a point like a skill

---

I have long considered doing this, too, giving the PC not only the attribute dice, but an extra pip of add, on top.

The TOS rule book hints that it might have originally been intended that way (and perhaps was latyer changed), if you read between the lines in some paragraphs.

I have still not implemented it though. I might, down the road. It makes sense to me.

Sorry guys, dunno what I was thinking with my first post! :confused:

What I meant to say was that instead of rolling multiple dice and taking the highest roll, etc. and so forth why not use a single die roll. Something along the following lines:

d6 + [(Attribute-1) + Edge + Skill + Advantage + Disadvantage] = Test result total

With this option you can choose to scrap the Drama Die altogether OR, as an alternative, limit the total bonuses added to the d6 roll to a maximum of 6 and keep the Drama Die roll as part of the process.

The idea behind the above mechanic is to try and eliminate some of the 'problems' with the resolution mechanics of the ICON system.

Hopefully I've made sense this time! :D

Scrap the drama die??! Lords, what heresy. lol.

I don't see any "problem" with resolution as it is.

If there was no drama die, half of the people I have as PCs would never be able to make the skill checks I set for them. And they like rolling the pile, looking for that "6", even if not on the drama die.

What "problem" do you see?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverback

... limit the total bonuses added to the d6 roll to a maximum of 6

---

Why would you want to do this?

Seems like you have issues with the system itself, what might they be?

Things like the possibility of Deanna Troi out arm wrestling Data. You know the oddball results, etc. I was just thinking of a way to 'better' represent the different skill/attribute 'levels' between characters and the obvious way seemd to be using the bonuses and penalties as adjustments to the die roll rather than adding to the total number of die rolled.

One of the design concepts of the ICON system was to make skill more important than raw attributes. By changing the system you wind up making attributes almost eqivalanet to skill levels. Since attributes are used for multiple skill rolls, it makes attributes much more important than skill levels.


If you want an alternate method if die resolution, I'd suggest looking at the Sillouette system. The die resolution system is fairly similar to ICON, except that if the highest die total is tied (for example, rolling 2 sizes or even 4 fives) yu add 1 to the final result for each addtional die that tied. For instance, rolling two sizes gives a total of 7, and rolling four fives would be an 8.

It is a fairly easy system to incoporate into ICON and makes higher attributes a bit more useful t=han in ICON without making attributes as good as skills. Of course the difficulty scale would need to be tweaked a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LUGTrekGM

Why would you want to do this?

Seems like you have issues with the system itself, what might they be?

---

I have no real 'issues' with the system. I just feel that the die resolution mechanism is a little 'clunky' and can mean that less experienced characters could potentially outperform the best Federation personnel on a regular basis.

The die rolling idea I thought about was purely about representing the difference between these characters in a more 'defined' manner. It will still allow less experienced characters to outperform those with greater experience but much less often.

But hey, after all it's just an idea! :D

Quote:

---

I have no real 'issues' with the system. I just feel that the die resolution mechanism is a little 'clunky' and can mean that less experienced characters could potentially outperform the best Federation personnel on a regular basis.

---

How do you see this as happening? On a lucky roll?

I mean if a character has a skill of 1, and rolls say attributes of 2, they can max out with a skill of 13.

If they have a skill of 5 or 6, (ie.e the most highly skilled) they can max out with a skill of 17 or 18.

Of course this is not including advantages, and courage points...

If a low-skilled person tries to do a task with diff 17 or so, and miss it badly they will (optionally) get a critical fumble, where someone with more skill will just fail

Can you give some specific examples of this Troi v. Data, or other examples, please?

maybe it is a difference in our perceptions of what the rules are trying to do, vs how we each implement them.

I'll find the relevant sheets, and look up the specifics of skill, in the meantime.

It could purely be my misperception of the resolution system as it's still relatively new to me as a game.

Things like the possibility of Deanna Troi out arm wrestling Data. You know the oddball results, etc.

This isn't a problem with the die-rolling conventions, it's a problem with the GM. Data is a machine who can lock his joints, rendering it moot - it's a "you can't possibly succeed, dont' even roll" situation. Deanna out-arm wrestling Worf on the other tentacle, can be explained by it being a fluke, or her reading his "tell," or psyching him out.

I've never had a problem with the die-rolling conventions in ICON. This strikes me as an over-complicated "resolution" to a non-existant "problem."

The area where the die resolution system seems to come 'unstuck' is where Attributes alone are concerned as, no matter how high the Attribute, the score offers no bonus to your roll apart from the increased dice pool that your character can call upon. This is where my example of Troi versus Data crops up (or any other low Vs high Attribute resolution or Opposed Check). Theoretically Troi (Fitness 3) can out arm wrestle Data (Fitness 6, Strength +1) or any other stronger character purely by rolling a higher score than the other character whether or not the Drama Die comes up a 6 for Troi, or a 1 for Data.

However, if the characters were allowed to add in their Attribute scores as a modifier the likelihood of these 'fluke' results become much rarer. I still think that if a GM HAS to intervene to overrife possible die results TOO often then it's a fault in the system and NOT the GM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton

Things like the possibility of Deanna Troi out arm wrestling Data. You know the oddball results, etc.

This isn't a problem with the die-rolling conventions, it's a problem with the GM. Data is a machine who can lock his joints, rendering it moot - it's a "you can't possibly succeed, dont' even roll" situation. Deanna out-arm wrestling Worf on the other tentacle, can be explained by it being a fluke, or her reading his "tell," or psyching him out.

I've never had a problem with the die-rolling conventions in ICON. This strikes me as an over-complicated "resolution" to a non-existant "problem."

---

I disagree. It isn't a problem with the GM, but the game mechanics. After all, the game designers wrote up Stats for Troi, Data, and Worf-it's not the GM's fault if the rules and writeups don't work.

I ran into this same problem a few years back with the "Captain Kirk can lift more than a Gorn" situation. In ICON Kirks Atlhetics skill means more than the Gorn's STR attribute. Run "Arena" with ICON rules and Kirk will probably kick the Gorn's scaley butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

If you want an alternate method if die resolution, I'd suggest looking at the Silhouette system. The die resolution system is fairly similar to ICON, except that if the highest die total is tied (for example, rolling 2 sizes or even 4 fives) you add 1 to the final result for each addtional die that tied. For instance, rolling two sizes gives a total of 7, and rolling four fives would be an 8.

It is a fairly easy system to incoporate into ICON and makes higher attributes a bit more useful than in ICON without making attributes as good as skills. Of course the difficulty scale would need to be tweaked a little.

---

I've got this now and see what you mean about the mechanics it uses. My other 'option' is to convert the entire system to True20 which is more work than I really wanted to do!

Correct me if I am wrong but if "Deanna" rolls wild 6, she gets another add from her 2nd die, whatever that may be.

If "Data" rolls a "1" nothing happens, because you need to roll ALL 1's wild to fumble, thus it goes to the highest numbered die.

Plus the idea that If asked Data wrestles Troi, who wins? Data does... no die roll needed, mostly because of the machine aspect.

Or compare attriburtes flat out, no die roll. Data is stronger, and although there is a question of teactics, skill and endurance, I would again, have no problem with just saying "Data Wins" just based on stats, no need to roll.

However, strange things do happen, such as thin women lifting cars off of their children, thorugh adrenalin rush. This to me is where "Wild 6" comes in to play.

Plus the example of deanna rolls six, she can beat Data, sure.. but what if they both roll 6? Data is going to have higher overall numbers for second die, right?

I still see it as taking one extreme example, and using that as if it was a general way in which resolution was handled.

Then you could get even more analytical and suggest that if Data and Troi arm wrestle, Data is going to actually reduce his power output, in an attempt to not "Hurt" Deanna during the contest. If she says, No Data, push as hard as you can, he can dislocate her arm, yes? So, how much strength is really working here.

That's a side argument, and not really adressing your statement, but I would consider it as a factor.

No system is perfect, and at least from where I am at, it easier by far to just leave it as a very workable, easy to use system, rather than trying to mess with it, or agreed, wholesale conversion to something like d20 (bleh).

In the end, I think it comes down to what you, or anyone as GM feels that the "Wild 6" represents. To me, it is luck, resourcefullness, adrenalin, focus on task, and heroism, that often comes in to play when Star Fleet officers attempt to do things outside of what they thought they were capable of.

If deanna is gonna sit in ten forward and wrestle an android, for thrills, okay, fine.

If she has to do it to Save her life...she might be able to. every once in a while going past her limits, just because she's a heroic character in the Star Trek Universe.

I will state, for the record that there are a lot more rpg systems that are a LOT more "Broken" by far, than LUG/Icon is.

But, perhaps Steve Jackson will accept your example situation as yet another "Murphy's Rule".

The Trio-Data situation might be an extreme example, but is isn't a unique one. Consider Wolf vs. Data in hand to hand. According to the CODA rules and character write-ups, Worf would have the advantage. According to what we have seen on TV, Dta would toss around like a ragdoll.

In a more common example, Troi can lift and move a large rock at a BETTER chance of success than Worf, since her higher Atlethics skill is worth more than Worf's Strength attribute.

High Attribute score in ICON don't mean that much. Once you hit 4, you wind up hitting diminishing returns. That's one of the thing that the designers of ICON adressed when they wrote CODA (CODA patched up many of the problems that ICON had--and introduced its own problems).


Yup, there are other games that are "more broken" than ICON. There are games than are "less broken" too. So what. We've been tweaking all sorts of stuff for ICON, CODA, FASA, and other games since this site was started. This topic in particular was something that was one of the eairliest point of debate on this site. Pretty much right up ther with the "using Shipboard Systems to pilot a shuttlecraft" debate, or the "treat edges as strait modifers rather than adding extra dice" debate.

We probably would be debating about ICON's game mechanics a lot more if ICON was still being produced and supported. Likewise we WERE debating abut CODA's game mechanics a lot more before that system dropped into limbo.

Remeber when this board used to be active? People used to question and tinker with stuff all the time. That's good. It means the game is living and evolving.

It seems to me, that with all the rule analysis the stories are getting lost, making the rules and die results become the story.

I've always felt that the referee / GM should judge the situation, and failing that, or can't decide, THEN rely on the rules.

ICON might be out of print, but around here, it is still very much alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LUGTrekGM

It seems to me, that with all the rule analysis the stories are getting lost, making the rules and die results become the story.

I've always felt that the referee / GM should judge the situation, and failing that, or can't decide, THEN rely on the rules.

ICON might be out of print, but around here, it is still very much alive.

---

What stories are getting lost? I don't see anyone here saying that their stories are getting lost becuase of the rules. What I am seeing are people who question the ICON game mechanics as being labled poor GMs.

I also disagree without about the GM using the rules as a last resort. Run a campaign that way and it would be pretty boring for the players. The GM could just decide by fiat in the players succeed or not. There are some diceless games that work that way, but most gamers aren't satisfied with them, and would rather use dice and a resolution system that more impartial and that they have some sort of ability to affect.


As to ICON's status around here-It might be alive, but it isn't very healthy. These boards use to be vary active, with lots of people discussing lots of topics. Now, look at it. There are only about a dozen threads active on the entire forum. The ICON section, outside of this topic, hasn't had a post in two weeks. So it's not like there are bunches of ICON stories being siderailed by Silverback's topic. If anything it helped to breath a little life back into this site.

Man, do I really miss the days when Christian, Don, REG, Owen, Dan, Ken, and a bunch of others would be going over a dozen different topics in a dozen different threads with different peple forming up on different sides in each topic. Now, most of the people who used to ebate things don't visist much, and not that many are playing much Trek, LUGTrek or otherwise. I wonder just how many of our memeber are running/playing in an LUGTrek campaign these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

What stories are getting lost? I don't see anyone here saying that their stories are getting lost becuase of the rules. What I am seeing are people who question the ICON game mechanics as being labled poor GMs.

---

It's a wonderfully warm reception I've received. Something akin to being captured by cannibals and boiled alive.

Not from me. I am just trying to see how you, personally, might find the rules as written to be broken.

I am trying to understand this point of view, in case I meet a potential LUG player, who might have the same viewpoint.

I made no accusations against anyone, nor could I, since I have never been a player in anyone's game who is a member of these forums.

And when I said around here, I meant Dayton, Ohio, not "Tis forum" Which is a virtual non-space.

If the rules are broken in your mind, they are. Likewise they are not broken in my mind. Whether thay are broken or not in reality, cannot be determined, as it is completely a metter of personal preference and perception, based on what each individual referee is seeking.

My continual asking of questions was motivated by limited responses along the lines of "The rules are broken" No naming specific rules.

Thanks for the time spent in helping me to determine critical points of difference.

Quote:

---

We probably would be debating about ICON's game mechanics...

---

I'm not here to debate, just to understand what was being labeled as broken, specifically.

Debating has always been a waste of time for me, as I feel like someone is trying to "Convince" me of something, usually with near-religious fervor, when a simple presentation will suffice for me to decide if I am willing to re-evaluate my beliefs regarding a specific idea, or procedure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

I also disagree without about the GM using the rules as a last resort. Run a campaign that way and it would be pretty boring for the players. The GM could just decide by fiat in the players succeed or not.

---

Well I think this strongly depends on the style of game and narrating. I for one put much emphasis on story, drama, etc. and therefore tend to ignore results, if it would otherwise ruin a situation with good potential. This goes along with my method of not having the characters die unless they do something obviously stupid and fail to roll high enough. I try to actually develope the character and by that tell a story and if I am very very lucky have my players think about a topic or an idea.
In such a game the rules or posible holes in it are not too important. I for example regulate difficulty not only by the actual task, but also by the way the player describes the way she does things. The more details there are the easier it usually gets.

Of course there are other styles and games. You can also choose to have a very realistic gamewith the goal to make it as real as it gets. This is perfectly ok but I figure in such a case such rule holes really become a problem. I remember we discussed a similiar topic back, when we first saw stats for the TNG-Crew, in my group, but figured it would not affect our game so much, since everybody knew they could not defeat Data in arm-wrestling, even if the rules could allow it.
However I don't think ICON was designed for such a realistic approach - not necessarily for the other extreme either - and therefore it probably is not suitable for it or at least as suitable as other systems.
The main advantage with ICON is that it is easy to learn, fast and the same mechanics work for any task. In such a game however realism will always be lacking.

In case you are searching for a more realistic system, you might want to try the old space master rules, which are very realistic and detailed - of course at least at the beginning they are very slow.

Erik,

I agree with you that a lot of this can break down to style of gaming. As a GM I also try to emphasis the story elements, but tened to work more thing "under the hood". Most of the GM's I've gamed with who have been of the story first school were very poor GMs who "story driven plots" were little more than a short story where the PCs were constantly being dragged around by thier nose. While actors on a TV show are hired to follow a script-gamers are not. It wasn't much fun playing in a game where the GM constantly controlled out actions becuase they didn't fit into his story. I prefer to give my players a lot of freedom with thier ability to control their characters.


As far as the ICON rules go. I don't have many problems with them. There are some things I don't like about them, but there is no such thing as a perfect RPG. ICON works reasponably well for what it is designed for. There are some things that ICON doesn't handle well. Most of these weak spots have been mentioned on these boards in the past.

What surprised me was the "knee-jerk" defensive reaction that SIlverback got when he started this topic. It seems that the LUG players have gotten a lot more sensitive about the ICON rules that they were a few years back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverback

It's a wonderfully warm reception I've received. Something akin to being captured by cannibals and boiled alive.

---

I know. What surprises me is that the people on this site used to go over topics like this all this time. In fact we did this exact topic a few years back and someone else pointed out the silloutte system's task roulsution method to me.

If you do a search for attributes or skill test with ICON you can still find a lot of old topics where people were going over stuff like this and making rules suggestions and changes to ICON. In fact, that is sort of how a lot of the people who ended up working on some offical products first started dealing with the folks at Last Unicorn Games. If you look at the old "replacing the Icon Core Mechanic" and "House Rules" threads you will find a lot of people who disliked the task resolution method in ICON, and how people used to talk about it. DOn Mappin used to be one of the biggest critics of ICONs Drama Die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

Erik,

I agree with you that a lot of this can break down to style of gaming. As a GM I also try to emphasis the story elements, but tened to work more thing "under the hood". Most of the GM's I've gamed with who have been of the story first school were very poor GMs who "story driven plots" were little more than a short story where the PCs were constantly being dragged around by thier nose. .

---

Nah, that does not work, so much is clear. When I said story-driven I definitely did not mean I tell what happens, I just meant I don't let the dice do the telling ;)
For example the characters try to sneak into the evil-overlord's lair and per rules are killed by an ordinary guard - not in my game ;) Since I already prepared a dramatic end-sequence where the characters maybe have to face a moral dilemma to overcome the head of the operation, I won't spoil the story by the characters being killed long before they ever face that dilemma just because the had a bad roll.
On the other hand if they make an obvious wrong decision, like one character charging a platoon of Romulan Planetary Command soldiers, I won't be that merciful, because that would make the story ridicolous. But usually I want my stories remembered and don't want to hear the players talk like: "Remember when I rolle only 1s when we were approaching that ship?" ;)
So I guess one should find a good middle to entertain and challenge the players all at once. If that is accomplished I think rule-holes, which I have encountered in any system, become less important.

Quote:

---

The main advantage with ICON is that it is easy to learn, fast and the same mechanics work for any task. In such a game however realism will always be lacking.

---

Exactly what I am trying to say.

And a story-plot Style does not necessarily mean GM's plot.

Just because some GM's call their "linear plot" a scenario, doesn't make it true that it actually is one.

Just because some GMs like to run it that way doesn't mean that all GMs that use a "Plot" are showboating, narcissistic control freaks.

I just don't use the dice to determine choices, I use the player's choices, as Captain, and crew. Whatever they choose, and the results of those choices become the history of the campaign (Whether it is LUG Trek, or 3rd Ed D&D, or Top Secret, or Cyberpunk.) I like to present themes, as laid out in more screenwriting books than I can conveniently name here.

Themes such as "Family vs. Duty", "Trust vs. Paranoia", "Expediency vs. Thoroughness", "Suspicion vs. Evidence", "Intuition vs. Logic".

I have a rough sketch of what I'd like to see happen, of course, based on the theme of the overall plot.

Act 1 - The ship is on patrol. Perhaps some snappy dialogue between rival PCs, and introduction of subplot B, the ship is already en route to deliver an NPC plague specialist to cure half a million people of a plague at Colony [Pick a name], in 2 days, with 1 day left to travel, yet. Science officers and medical crew can get all kinds of data on the situation, and advise the command crew of the seriousness of the situation.

Choices given to the crew at this point are:

Which route to take around a blocking nebula, or perhaps drive through it, saving time (with the associated danger from overheating the hull, or collision with an object while unshielded, at moderately high speed.) Engineers can choose to increase speed, shielding, or hull reinforcement.

Choices by the medical crew as to a plan of action upon arrival, interacting with the plague specialist doctor, who might be totally competent, allowing the crew to learn from him/her by example, or who might be only moderately competent, having experience with other types of plague, but not this one, with the crew advising him/her, as they work together, based on data transmitted by the colony, or a closely similar plague strain that has struck other nearby planets.


Act 2 - A distress call is received from a passenger liner carrying 1000 people. Their drives have failed and they will plunge into a star in less than 12 hours, but this emergency is in the opposite direction. Engineering crew can give an estimate of the reapir time, along with Sciences calculating how long it will take to travel, at waht speeds, based on these delays, while medical people urge either course.

(at this point, the captain PC, advised by the crew, decides what to do.)

Act 3 - If the ship diverts to the liner, a few hours pass, and the colony administrator asks when they might arrive with the plague specialist, telling the crew via subspace radio that the extent of the plague is worse than before thought, perhaps a new mutated strain, that attacks via airborne vector. Sciences and medical people can work with the new data provided, and work on synthesizing a cure. Meanwhile, Engineering staff is trying to keep the engines from breaking down, due to the need for increased speed.

If the ship continues on to the colony, the liner crew radios that their engineering chief has tried to fix the drives, a mishap has ocurred, and he's been badly burned, in an accident. They have put out the resulting fire, but life support is failing. Engineering crew might try talking them through the problem, or on captain's order, divert to the liner, odering the Engineer aboard the ship to "Fly her apart" if necessary.

Act 4 - Entirely determined by whatever the crew has decided, with either increased time pressure, or running out of options, for good or ill.


Another thing I like to do, I got from Challenge Magazine, as part of an article on Twilight:2000 vehicle hits. The rules for vehicles damage in 1st ed twilight are very complicated. The article suggests pre-determining what happens when an anti-tank RPG rocket hits, for example a Bradley APC.

If you sit there rolling dice as you go, it takes a long time, as the GM rolls for the hit, did it hit the tracks, dit it hit the engine, damage to the engine, did it hit the ammo, did any crew get wounded etc.

The article goes on to suggest that the Twilight:2000 GM should roll these out ahead of time, with a large list of results for certain kinds of weapons hitting different vehicle angles, before the scenario, so that you have a relatively standard model for damage, leveraging time spent pre-scenario for fast action once it is running.

Or, I like to decide as GM what happens based on the needs of the story... The engine is knocked out, along with the radio, and two crew are badly hurt, but the ammo doesn't cook off. Local partisans can use some of that ammo, and will aid the PCs with the help of a local surgeon, who now runs a regional clinic out of the ruins of what used to be a local polish equivalent of a high school.

Thus, with pre-rolled or pre-determined results, the action is fast and furious as the PCs (if they engage this enemy squad) are hit by an RPG and X, Y, and Z happens, not a lot of rolling of dice, thus delaying the scenario, AND with the large possibility that a direct hit by an RPG will kill everyone with the "impartiality of the dice."

If a player character is going to die, 9 times out of ten it is because that player is moving away to another coast and not coming back, or the PC leaps on a grenade, or Holds the line while the rest escape, or does something like charge across an open beach with 2 heavy machine guns covering the sand (in which case if they use the resources they have at hand, like smoke, offshore naval gunfire, covering fire, their own grenades or a flamethrower team or ..whatever...they might make it, with the resulting medals for valor, etc.)

That style applies to all of my games, especially Star Trek.

Tough dramatic life and death choices, in the hands of the players, not the Dice in their Hand.

Evan,

Ah, you exapmle definately helped to illustrate the differences in own gaming styles. IF I were running your adventure I'd have no compunctions about players being killed by ordinary guards. While that result does it does have a negative impact on the game (killing off PCs usually does), so does the other method. I find the sense of danger and risk neceassary to keep the game interesting drops off if the GM is fudging things. Or, to be more precise, if the GM is known to be fudging things. That's what I was referring to by working "under the hood". I'd probably set the situation up to make the guard killing the PCs very unlikely, and trust to the PCs (and thier courage points) for the proper outcome. Likewise, I'd run things about the same as you if the group decides to do something suicidal.

What I wouldn't do is force them towards a specfic resolsutuon becuase of the story. For instance, if the players came up with another way to solve the adventure, I'd allow it as long as it would work and be approriate (i.e. not violate the Prime Directive or some such).

BTW, I agree with you that if you hit a good middleground rule loopholes become less important. In fact, if a game is running well, the rules become transparant and completely unimportant. I've run and played a few advenutres where the group enjoyed a great adventure in a system that was pretty much junk.

Also, how well the rules work depend somewhat on what you are tying to do with them. All RPGs are designed for certain things, and tend to "break down" as you move out of the focus for which it was designed. For example, ICON combat rules don't work well for running an african safari (the elephants are bullet proof). Not a problem since most Trek advenutres don't invlove big game hunting. But, if a GM has an adventure where the PCs do get into such a situation, it helps to be aware of things so he won't be suprised.

If I look for imperfections in any rules system, I can easily find many.

Lots in specific systems.

The biggest flaws I've seen with ICON so far were in the proofreading and final edit of the Next Gen (Black) Rules book. I had to rewrite a lot of it, to be clear, fill in skills descriptions, fix charts and tables. In fact, I didn't like ICON FOR THAT REASON (i.e. Sloppy) until the TOS (White) book came out. To me that book was near perfect, except for the Ranger class pic.

That being said, I'd MUCH rather spend my time running my games, doing maps, and crew pictures, along with writing plots, as at least one player in the LUGTrek game I launched Thu night can most certainly attest to, RATHER than picking apart the rules for a game, looking for flaws. If it's so flawed that I have to do major work on it, I won't bother playing it.

Expanding skills choices for subskills, or specializations is one thing. And if there are ship construction rules, I'll work on designs, or planetary systems, I'll take time to design those.

Rewriting core game procedures... not worth my time.

If it's that broken, I'll sell it off on eBay for a few bucks, to whoever wants it.

ICON is not broken. It has flaws, for those seeking them. The same is true of any game system, depending on how critical the observer wishes to be, judged by their own scale of "Game Perfection."

I see it as a losing battle, and a total waste of time, but of course, there are whole Forums full of "Traveller" players who like to bitch and moan left and right about how Traveller 4, or Classic Traveller or 2300 AD is so utterly, totally flawed, despite the fact that many tens of thousands of others have enjoyed those games.

Most of the people hating those rules, or any rules set are analytical engineering types, who run a game as a set of rules mechanics, in the same way that they work on thier rockets, cars, or aircraft. That's not wrong, it's just not my preference.

I left the Traveller Forums community some months ago, when I came here, to try to find story-minded players and GMs.

I love LUG as a setting, and I really loved what the CODA Narrator's guide had to say about writing scenarios for games. Far and away the best book in the gaming industry for dramatic structure, based on a screenwriting format.

Anything can be as flawed as a specific observer decides it is. I am a fan of the big picture (pun intended).

Welcome to the community, from one of it's newer members.

LUGTrekGM,

We have a very different outlook on gaming. If you don't conisder game mechanics to be that important, why are you posting in a forum that is about the system and mechanics? That is what this forum is supposed to be about. There are areas to discuss story and setting. This forum is supposedly the one where peole can discuss the ICON RP, System & Mechanics. At least it used to be.

I for one, don't consider Silverback's thought of changing the core die rolling mechanic in the game to be major work. Certainly not nearly as much work as the stuff you have done with the charts and tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonyg

Evan,

Ah, you exapmle definately helped to illustrate the differences in own gaming styles. IF I were running your adventure I'd have no compunctions about players being killed by ordinary guards. While that result does it does have a negative impact on the game (killing off PCs usually does), so does the other method.

---

Not if done right ;) Usually my players can't tell when I intervene or not. In such a case intervention could possibly be a more lenient approach on difficulties for healing, etc.

Quote:

---

I find the sense of danger and risk neceassary to keep the game interesting drops off if the GM is fudging things.

---

True, however you can destroy a character and by that a campaign if heroes who mabe spoiled a Romulan invasion, kicked Borg back, where they came from, etc. if they are killed by a drunk Ferengi ;) Of course this can be real, but still it can destroy the picture the players have of their characters and the story.

Quote:

---

Or, to be more precise, if the GM is known to be fudging things. That's what I was referring to by working "under the hood". I'd probably set the situation up to make the guard killing the PCs very unlikely, and trust to the PCs (and thier courage points) for the proper outcome.

---

Which would be the same way I'd try to arrange it. Usually experienced characters are good enough anyway to overcome such obstacles.
Another option could be to create a story/ episode where it is revealed that a presumed dead character is not dead, etc.

Of course that depends on the players as well, as I said before it is a question of personal taste.


However to come back to the actual question, I am not sure if this rule change would work - I think it does not as it is. First of all the large impact attributes than have complete turns over the system. ICON is not so much of an "overkill"-system, meaning even experienced characters with good attributes are not superman. Granted in case of Data this may be not suitable, but in most others it is. Even somebody extremely strong can fail to break open a door and sometimes even somebody weak hits just the right spot to knock somebody out.
One essential element of ICON is that even "weak" character have a - if small though - chance to achieve a goal and no matter how good you are it is possible to fail in a task as well. Taking the drama die would be taking away this major element, so I would say that the drama die has to remain.
Additionally if you consider to add attributes instead of rolling dice, I would suggest you significantly raise the costs to increase attributes. Maybe double or tripple them, because an attribute of 5 now means you always get a +4 Bonus on your rolls on all skills. That is a tremendous advantage - granted an Attribute of is an exception anyway. In the ordinary way this would only mean you get to roll more dice, but in your way the dice roll would be added additionally.
I also think you would have to change the difficulty ratings. In the original version, the die result usually adds far more than the skill. Skills can have a maximum rating of 6, an averagy-experienced character would probably get only a 4 for a specialization. But you can roll a 6 on a die as well. So in average ( average on a d6 being a result of 3-4 ) you would add the same value as your skill value to the test-result. Having a result of the above 8, would be a moderate difficulty.
In your case the die-roll becomes far less prominent, adding only around one third of the complete test.
Say you ad an average of +2 for the attribute and the +4 like above for the specialization, you still roll only a 3-4 on the die. Adding the result would be a challenging difficulty. But since this would be an average value, it cannot be challenging, but moderate.
So you might actually consider changing the die from d6 to d10 - which would of course turnover the whole difficulty levels, even more, but get more influence on the die again. So you would roll a 5-6, adding another 6 would give you 12 for an average result - so you could choose 12 as your new "moderate"-difficulty level, adjusting the others as well.

However with so many changes, you might also consider changing the system to CODA, since it has a d10 system and attributes give a bonus and not extra dice - eradicating your problem alltogether.

Hope I made things not too difficult :)

Evan,

I suspect we have a lot more similarities in how we end up running despite different philosophies and styles on running. I've had this crop up with a couple other people around here where we ended up taking almost diametrically opposed postions at the beginning bound wound up agreeing on what our final goals were. For instance, while you are more willing to overrule the dice than I am, we both seem to agree that it is important for the players not to know that the GM is overuling the dice. I've seen few thing mess up a game a badly as when players start to feel that their characters are indestructable. They usually make it a quest to prove themselves wrong.

On a similar note, I try to avoid setting up situations where the player characters can get killed through no fault of their own. It's one of the reasons why I don't run ambushes that often. Generally when a PC died in one of my campaigns it is usually due to stupidity. Normally their own, sometimes one of the other players. Occasionally they die through bad luck (like when a player just can't roll decent all night long. Once had our "master swordsman" fumble every attack roll all night long-not much anyone could do about it. In very rare circumstances a character dies through a heroic act of self sacrifice.

It's funny. I have the reputation as being the toughest GM in my area, but I've actually killed off about a tenth of the characters that most the other GMs have. I just shown the players than they can't game on "cruise control".


RE: Back to the Topic. Yeah, I don't think that Silverback's option of changing the attribute part of the dice mechanic is better. In fact, my first post about it pointed that out and reccommended a different idea-the resolution system from Silloutte. In that system you take the highest result, but bump it up one for each die that ties the highest result. For example, rolling 3 sixes gives an 8. All in all a decent way to do things, although it would require some slight ajustment to the ICON difficulty scale to reflect the different probability curve.

I just was surprised by how others attacked Silverback for bringing this up. I figure we all have the right to question game mechanics and propose alternatives. I mean I don't think he considered am arm wrestling match between Troi and Data to be a important part of his game or anything-he was just pointing out a spot that the ICON rules don't cover too well. If you want to see where things get messed up consdier that a human with Ftiness 2 and Strength+2, does more damage in hand to hand combat than Data. Also, consider the Captain Kirk vs. the Gorn situation from the TOS episode "Arena". By the ICON rules, Kirk should have been able to hold his own against the Gorn.


As for CODA-No CODA doesn't use a D10. It uses 2d6. Skill values and a modifer for attribute score is applied. In some cases characters get to roll 3 dice and keep the best 2. Yeah CODA does avoid the problems of the ICON die mechanic as well as the ICON specialty problem and Strength vs. Fitness issue (i.e. a character with a 5 Fitness is considered stronger than a character with 2 Fitsness Strength +1, even though the latter does more damage in hand to hand combat). That's no suprise. The folks who wrote CODA deliberately made changes to adress these problems. At least one of the designers for CODA is noted for hating the way attributes worked in ICON.

In the party I'm playing we played the first half of the campaign with the standard rules... Then we decided that having a single die decide the result of the roll (you know... you have a 1 in 6 of doing great and 5 in 6 of doing normal) we changed... No "destiny" die. You take the highest roll. If you score multiple 6 each 6 after the first gives a +2 (so one 6 = 6, two 6 = 8, three 6 = 10 etc). This makes high attributes useful (if you have 5 in an attribute you have good chances of rolling two 6). We are pretty happy (ok... it has the problem that now, having high attributes, we roll between 5 and 8 costantly... but it's ok)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evan van Eyk

So in average ( average on a d6 being a result of 3-4 )

---

I don't think that's really how probability with d6s work...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C. Huth

I don't think that's really how probability with d6s work...

---

Care to explain? I am pretty sure it is and asked my brother who studies mathematics and computer sciences and he agreed, so any insight you have might help. Of course you should not trust too much to statistics, but to calculate probabilities to set difficulty levels I think you should use that one.

I'll chime in here too.

The 3-4 average only applies if you are rolling mutiple dice and adding them in the tradtioanl manner (a bell curve). If you are rolling 1 die, any number (from 1-6) is equally likely to show up. But ICON uses a roll and drop method, that will shift the curve.


As far a LUG/ICON's system of rolling several dice and taking the highest, the probablilty curve increases the chances of getting higher results (like a 6) , and reduces the chances of getting low results (like a 1) as the number of dice increase.

Dice % of a Six/%5 or 6
1 die = 16.7%/33.3%
2 dice= 30.5%/55.5%
3 dice= 42.1%/70.4%
4 dice= 51.8%/80.2%
5 dice= 59.8%/86.8%
6 dice= 66.5%/91.2%
7 dice= 72.1%/94.1%
8 dice= 76.7%/96.1%


So with a typical Starfleet character rolling 2 dice, they have 30.1% chance of getting a six, and a 55.5% chance of getting better than a 4-a lot different that the 3.5 average we would get if we were rolling 2d6 and adding them together.

THat is without factoring in for the "wild die"-something that would actually make the percentages higher. In fact, the "wild die" is the thing that is most responisble for the "it's broken" complaints. Adding it in gives anyone and everyone a 1-6 chance of getting a result better than what anyone can get without rolling a "6" on the wild die.

Ah, ok, that was the part I did not get when my brother told me ;) Something with "counting" and not "counting", whatever, I guess I had the wrong preconditions. Thanks for the elaboration. However I think my example still stands, as I wanted to point the importance of the die roll relative to the complete result. Since rolling a six is even more probable than I thought the die roll is more important than the skill value. Changing it the way as described here would turn that around.