I'm kind of interested to find out what exactly most of you would change about Icon to make it more streamlined/usable for any genre if you were putting together the Icon Generic System Manual Version 2.0. Please include a way to fix any problems brought up. Mechanics aren't necessary but if we can debate mechanics without getting into heated debate I'm all for that too.
Personally, the only big problem I saw when I read the rules was that characters surpassed their specialties during chargen when they created their characters with templates.
I thought that players could have a choice, prioritize those specialities for increasing with experience or give them up. If they gave them up, they could buy them as brand new specialties if they wanted them later (much cheaper). To make this somewhat fair, I increased the costs for buying attributes up slightly and said that some tasks could only be completed by someone with an appropriate specialty.
So even if they have Space Sciences (Cosmic Strings) 2(2), they are still the star of any episode that has a cosmic string in it, because the Engineer who has Space Sciences (Subspace Theory) 3(4) can't really attempt the roll. Or maybe he can, but the guy with the specialty gets a nice bonus and the engineer doesn't.
I might take a crack at smoothing out the combat system a bit. I find the damage system a bit quirky. The healing rules need to be a bit better defined.
I must say I quite agree ... with all three posts actually, but specifically with the part on specialization. As a matter of fact, I was a bit surprised to find out that creating starfleet characters ended up creating characters with very similar capacities. I must say I was used to the diversity of WEG Star Wars, where pilots were really good at piloting, but much worse at repairing their ships (where the engineer would come in) or shooting a blaster ... and where newly generated smuggler were not much good at anything because there was just too many things they needed to be able to do .
In my game of star trek, except for extremely specialised tasks (like deciphering a Cardassian code), characters have all a very similar chance to succeed (xcept the Bajoran Vedek who has some not-so-common skills). While I'd agree that in the shows, most main characters are able to do the job the script assigns them to (baring a few exceptions where they admitt not being able to complete the task at hand because they are no engineer/spy/doctor), I also think that specialisations should grant a better bonus than it does in ICON.
One idea I found rather good was FASA's Shadowrun's skills and specilizations inheritance chart. Basically, if a character did not have the required specialization/skill, it showed the nearest related skills/spe, with an accompanying increase of the difficulty (between +1 (very closely related) and +5 (remotely related) for instance). If the character still had nothing directly related, he could try to find a skill/spe retlated to a related skill/spe, and so on, but the difficulties piled up pretty fast so going past the 2nd degree was almost bound to fail.
The problem would be of course to be able to come up with such a chart, which is no simple task, to be sure.
This degree od cross-over between roles is exactly WHY I like ICON, I have always been a strong proponant of Starfleet cross-pollenisation of skill base to enable its officer to handle multiple situations easily.
And the current system helps promote 'out of the box' playing, as the various 'roles' can fill in elsewhere if they are not needed immediatly...
Weeeeeeel ... yes and no. It is indeed usefull for the GM, because it needs less planning of "who can do what so who must be where at what time?" when devising an adventure. For the players too, because they have more chances to be able to do whatever has to be done where they happen to be.
However, there is a certain lack of flavour to this (IMHO of course) ... For the players, for one thing, because since I do not encourage much "backstabbing" (even if not literally) and "passing notes to the GM", my players like to compete a bit by being the one able to "save the day" at one point or the other. The pilot (oops, helmsman) who can make everyone escape the threat, the science officer or the engineer who can disable the bomb in time, and so on. It's only natural, they want to be the focus of attention from time to time.
Funnily enough, it ended up with the Vedek taking the lead in front of (usually) more glamorous character types like the helmsman or tactical officer and such, because she is the only one able to sneak (thanks to the Bajoran resistance training), hide a bit, and most importantly notice small things like the bartender not telling the whole truth, the ambassador looking a bit distracted, and so on, which make her vitally important in many encounters with neutral or antagonistic NPCs.
So ... charcaters being able to do many things is a good thing, sure enough. However, characters that have a more disctinct feel and touch compared to each other would be great too (as far as I (and my players) am concerned). I'll have a try, next game, and lower the difficulty by a small amount if the players attempt the test with the right specialization. Say ... -2 for a start (is that too much? not enough? ideas?). Maybe I'll even have a go at a skill inheritance chart if I feel motivated enough . We'll see how it ends up .
Kinda reminds me... in my DS9 campaing, everybody rushed to pick the yummiest roles: CO, XO, Tactical, and so on. NOBODY picked science. So, as Evil Gamemaster In The Block, I filled the plot with sci-fi puzzles, some of them very hard. Then, I watched them freak out, as their station is very short on science resources.
But let's return to the topic on hand... there's very little, I think, that needs clarification or enhancement in the rules. TNG core book was a little confuse, but DS9 cleared the woods. Perhaps Senior Officer creation could be better; we always end up with captains in the 50-60 years of age range.
------------------
No matter where you go, there you are.
Well, as far as it goes, ICON is a very cinematic game which simulates cinema very well. I'd be just as tempted to run super-heroes or pulp adventures with ICON as I would be to run Star Wars or Star Trek. It's a little bit swashbuckler (or Hong Kong Action Theatre if you prefer) and a little bit mainstream adventure.
I can deal with that pilot being able to do something else really well, because while Han Solo isn't a great engineer, nobody could keep the Falcon running as well as he does since it's modified so much.
Also, about combat: Are you thinking it's too slow or too deadly or what? I'm talking generic feel here. If we forget that phasers exist, what should a bow & arrow do to that enemy over there? I like the relatively low detail involved, but I do wish there were perhaps some ranged weapon martial maneuvers. They couldn't be martial arts, but you don't get to be a bowman like Robin Hood by simply having a high skill.
I did some changes to the ICON rules for our DS9 game. I use the rules and target numbers similar to the Star Wars 1st Edition rules where you would add up all of the dice rolled (including a drama die to re-roll 6s or to indicate 1s for dramatic failure). The skill numbers are added to the dice roll as normal, but specialization skill numbers are doubled in rolls. For example:
A character has Espionage (Observation) at 2(3). They have an Intellect of 3 and Perception Edge of +1. When walking the station, the character makes a roll to see if they notice a pickpocket. The pickpocket is good and they need a 25 to notice him. The character rolls 4 dice (Intellect + Perception) and comes up with a 4, 5, 3, and 6 on the drama die. They re-roll the 6 and end up with a 3. So far, the total is a 21. The character has the Observation specialization, so they add double the amount, (3 X 2 = 6) and end up with 27. They notice the pickpocket performing illegal activity.
In cases where there is a skill with no specialization (such as Dodge), just double the skill value when adding it to the roll.
Our combat system is a little odd, but I'd be more than happy to share it if anyone is curious on how it works.
Lockhart: I wouldn't call Han Solo a newly generated character. Quite the contrary actually. In fact, I have nothing against (very) experienced players being able to do a lot of tasks pretty well. Some players chose to specialize in some specific skills (who said blaster?), some others to be able to perform more tasks correctly. But in the end, they are experienced characters. My problem is more with non-experienced characters all being able to do approximately the same things.
A bit OT too, I'm not sure Han Solo would be able to do as well with the Millenium Falcon if it wasn't for Chewbacca and his mechanical skills .
Talon: Don't you end up with attributes being far more important than skills with your method? On the other hand, I'd agree that this encourages specializations.
Calcoran: Yes, the one drawback is that attributes become a major focus for characters. Then again, the attributes are the focus anyway since that determines the number of dice you rolls. But, instead of taking the highest dices per the ICON rules, every die counts to your roll. This make edges very important as well.
I decided on this change only because I noticed with the ICON rules, once characters reach a certain number of dice in their attributes, they seem to succeed in everything, which made gameplay boring. But, with the rules I currently use, nothing is certain, which I (and my group) like better. To my group, failure is a part of roleplaying and they roll with the punches.
Another thing I noticed with ICON that if a character has a skill or specialization of 5, even a target number of 9 and 10 is hard to hit. With the system I use, I think characters have a better chance to hit the higher difficulties (a 30 or higher is a very difficult target number).
Anyone ever try to statistically calculate the percentages of success with # of dice vs. target numbers with the ICON system (we did this with the White Wolf system once and learned the more dice you have to roll, the better chance of failure you have due to their rules system)?
For statistics and probabilities, let me refer you to a topic discussed not so long ago ... there are actually quite a few excel sheets out there, one of them being actually on the boards somewhere. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/For...ML/000788.html
You'll notice that I too have troubles with the probabilities of the icon system and would gladly find something that smoothens a bit the probability curve ... however IMO attributes should be equally important as skills and specialization ... haven't found anything I really liked till now.
As a gamemaster, my main problem with Icon is that it's too easy to increase skill levels.
In my opinion, it should become increasingly more difficult to advance in skill.
As things are now, going from skill level 3 to skill level 4 only costs five points, and increasing it to skill level 5 only costs 6 more points.
To compensate for the extensive amount of work and time it would take to become a real expert at something, I recommend a steeper progression cost -- possibly by just adding the current level to the new level.
Skill Cost to advance
level to next level
0 1
1 3
2 5
3 7
4 9
5 11
.... and so on.
That would put things in perspective, and would keep player characters fresh out of the Academy from becoming better surgeons that Bashir after only a few gaming sessions.
Icon v2.0: What would you change?
Reply With Quote
.
who has some not-so-common skills). While I'd agree that in the shows, most main characters are able to do the job the script assigns them to (baring a few exceptions where they admitt not being able to complete the task at hand because they are no engineer/spy/doctor), I also think that specialisations should grant a better bonus than it does in ICON.
