I have to say that I like the general concepts of the Icon system but disagree a bit on some of the mechanics. I think that the
idea of having skills as modifiers to TNs instead of roll against them directly is a wonderful idea and makes alot more sense to
me. The problem I have is with the Skill/Specialization system, and alot of fixes that I have seen on this discussion board, is that
it seems that your going in the opposite direction of making the specializations useful.
According to what I've been able to figure out about the system, a skill covers broad areas of information and a specialization
covers a more narrow area of expertise. If it isn't that then it isn't a specialization. If you learn more about the general skill then
the specializations improve as you understand more about the specialization as well. If you can't see the other specializations
improving then you might need to remove that specialization from that skill in your game.
The problems that I see relate to the use of the skills. A general skill use is the same as a specialization. The improvement of a
skill with a specialization should not be more expensive then a skill without any. It seems that the idea of adding specializations
to the rating to require improve just bogs down the character sheet. Your fixing the wagon when the horse is broken.
I'm an old Shadowrun Gamemaster so my thinking of specializations comes from that. First off specializations improve at the
same rate as skills. If it is 2 above the skill at one point then it will stay at 2 above until you pay more for the specialization to
improve. This idea of the skill catching up with the specialization doesn't make any sense to me.
Second and most important is that the Gamemaster set the skill to be rolled against more firmly. If you default then you not only
have less modifier but you also take an increase to the difficuly. For example, a TN 6 vs a Shipboard Systems ( Tactical) 2(3)
would be farily easy. If you don't have the Tactical specialization then you have to default to your Shipboard Systems at an
increased TN (maybe 8 or so). I even set my skill rolls vs rather obscure specializations and let them default.
I also have an increasing scale for my skill and specializations cost based on the Shadowrun system. Basically the cost is a
multiple of the skill level you want to increase it to instead of a flat rate. It also makes it more expensive to buys skills over the
attribute that it is based on. This slows things down and shows that people have natural ranges for certain skills. An alternative
would be to limit the skill level to the linked attribute and only allow the specializations to raise above that level.
What do you guys think?
Garrowolf
garrowolf@hotmail.com
You should really read the posts under the topic heading of ICON V 2.0. There has been a lot of discussion about the ICON systems and how people have adapted to them.
I disagree with your thinking about skills trying to catch up with specializations. For example, Tom Paris is an excellent pilot. But, does that necessarily mean he's a good tactical officer or sensor officer? Let's say Tom has a Shipboard System (Conn) skill of 3 (5). This means Tom is an excellent pilot, but he's good if it comes to the other systems onboard Voyager. Tuvok, on the other hand may have a Shipboard Systems (Tactical) skill of 3(5). He's an excellent Tactical officer and good with the other systems. Tuvok could pilot the ship if he needed to, but he's no Tom Paris. Does this make sense?
As for buying specializations over skills, for my games, I have modified the target numbers to a broader range similiar to the West End Game version of Star Wars. The character rolls all their attribute dice + edges and adds all of them together. They then add those to the skill or specialization number. If they are using a specialization, they double the specialization number. This reflects specializations to play a stronger role in the games.
I disagree with your thinking about skills trying to catch up with specializations. For example, Tom Paris is an excellent pilot. But, does that necessarily mean he's a good tactical officer or sensor officer? Let's say Tom has a Shipboard System (Conn) skill of 3 (5). This means Tom is an excellent pilot, but he's good if it comes to the other systems onboard Voyager. Tuvok, on the other hand may have a Shipboard Systems (Tactical) skill of 3(5). He's an excellent Tactical officer and good with the other systems. Tuvok could pilot the ship if he needed to, but he's no Tom Paris. Does this make sense?
This sounds like you are disagreeing with the premise of specializations instead of with anything that I've written. According to the rules a skill of 3 is the same as a skill of 2 and a specialization of 3. They both add 3 to the roll. My version would actually show a difference between Paris and Tuvok but I don't think that the current version does this sufficiently.
Alternate Skill/Specialization System
Reply With Quote
