Alternate Die Resolution

[Silverback]

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.

[tonyg]

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.

[Silverback]

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!

[LUGTrekGM]

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".

[tonyg]

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.

[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.

[tonyg]

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.

[Silverback]

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.

[LUGTrekGM]

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.

[LUGTrekGM]

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.

[Evan van Eyk]

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.

[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. 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.

[tonyg]

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.

[Evan van Eyk]

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.

[LUGTrekGM]

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.