As the thread say's.  

There is currently a more polite thread along these lines on the big purple cock that is RPG.Net but as I wouldn't post there if you paid me, I thought I'd gauge the opinion here.

I'll get the ball rolling.  I bought my copy 2nd hand a few weeks ago and I got it for a steal.  I already have BASH UE and Marvel SAGA which are both pure awesome but I was seduced by the moronic hype on the big purple and I wanted a quick playing superhero game with random chargen and some FATE rules.  Hey (I thought) that sounds perfect for me.

Now we can't judge a game on the hype.  I mean the hype was ridiculous but that was down to the over excited idiots at RPG.Net circle jerking themselves into a frenzy, in large part before the game was even fucking out! :rolleyes:

So the game must be judged on it's own merits.  This isn't a review, as to be honest I really can't decide whether I like it or not and I'm interested to hear what other gamers on here think about it.

Here's a brief list of what I don't like.
1. A Drive and Pilot Skill and no vehicles in the book!
2. The Artwork (subjective, I know).
3. The Players roll everything.  Why exactly?
4. No Index.  Pet hate.
5. Under utilisation of FATE.  There don't appear to be many FATE rules in it!
6. Omission of useful examples.  No weapon values, no vehicle stats.  Basic stuff for a game like this surely.  Strangely I can fight a T Rex "out of the box" but I've no idea what the stats for a getaway car are!!!
7. Poorly organised.  Lot's of page flipping.  Excusable if you have a good index...

Here's a list of what I do like.
1. Random Chargen.  Quick, fast and lot's of fun!
2. Random Adventure Creator.  Nifty.
3. Determination and Challenges.  FATE Aspects done right.
4. The Team Creation rules.  
5. I like the way gadgets and magic are handled on p40.
6. "The Octofather" great idea for a villain.

So in summary ICONS to me feels like an incomplete game.  A diamond in the very rough.  Rushed in places, with some good stuff here and there.  I really want to like it but it annoys the hell out of me.

Am I being fair?

They probably plan to publish a splat with vehicles and such next year, of course with cubcle 7 publishing it for them it may end up slipping into 2012

It's FATE, need you ask anything else?  

I haven't played it yet, and with RPGs the proof is usually in the playing. I can see "splats" being published for this stuff, potentially (there are a number on Drive-thru RPG already)...but really, why? My impression of ICONS is that it is very much a framework around which you build your game, making up the details as you go. The task resolution is so generic that I just can't see needing detailed rules for most things like vehicles or weapons. If you want detail and crunch, I definitely think this game isn't for you.

What sort of information would you want on a vehicle, for example?

As far as only players rolling, well, why not?

I don't know about the hype, I don't get out much. What I do know is that ICONS hits sweet spot for me. It's basically taken TSR's Marvel Super Heroes and cleaned it up nicely, making a sort of a hybrid of old school and modern game design which kind of mirrors my style of play. On one hand it throws balance right out of the window but at the same time, with the Aspects it puts a character personality and motivations into focus, not just their powers.

Much of ICONS appeal to me is the presentation. It's just such a phenomenally cute and easy to read booklet. It's just likeable. Yes, I really am that shallow. But I think from a practical perspective the art work and very broad strokes rules help communicate to the players the general style  of game I am after.

Of course ICONS has got its flaws, plenty of them. It's not always clear how certain powers are meant to work especially for NPCs and it really could have used some examples.

So while I'm prepared to accept there are technically better games out there, this one suits me.  And so far, in actual play, it's worked out very well, which is what counts.

Quote from: CRKrueger;417672It's FATE, need you ask anything else?  

It really isn't Fate.

I think it's a pretty cool game. It's suffers from being the first edition of a Steve Kenson game. In another year or two, if it gets a second edition, I bet all kinds of things get cleaned up.

Sure, it's good, but so many better supes games came out at the same time.  BASH UE, Supers!, etc.  And for someone wanting an MSH 'near' clone G-Core is much closer.

Its coming up on my review list, so you'll be getting a full review from me eventually.
However, I'll say right now that I definitely DON'T think its crap.  In fact, I think its probably one of the best Supers RPGs I've ever read.

As for FATE, its actually really brilliant in that it applies the "Fudge" concept of personalization in a way that few other "FATE" games have; it strips out anything that wouldn't have to do with the Supers genre, and adds in a bunch of structure that makes the game extremely playable as a specifically "supers" game.  If it had just been "FATE Supers" it would have sucked, but that's very definitely NOT what it is.

RPGPundit

I like it. It's got a few warts, and the art isn't the best, but the mechanics are slick and fast. My play group's taken a shine to it and don't have a problem with always rolling the dice -- I like that because it completely removes the temptation to fudge.

It could use some editing, like maybe not burying the point-buy chargen option at the end of the entire chapter, for Christ's sake.

Honestly, my biggest problem with ICONS is that there's no printer-friendly version. But Skarka's pretty much told people who want that to go fuck themselves, so I guess I'm stuck there.

I have been searching for a supers game that appealed to me for a long, long time and Icons pretty much hit just the right balance for me.

What I want is way more marvel FASERIP than Hero, btw.

I haven't read it but I've played it.
It was a lot of fun but I can't say how much of that had to do with the rules... the rules certainly didn't seem to get in the way, except for my trying to wrap my head around 'aspects' which I don't think I care for all that much (I haven't played much Fate of any sort previous to this).
 
The BEST part was the random character generation... getting a bunch of stats/powers that you then had to attach a persona/identity to. I loved that bit. We all ended up with some fairly wacky characters (I ran with the bisexual ninja stripper who fights naked (kinda)).
I'm not a superhero fan, haven't read many comics or seen the movies... so I can't speak to how it handles the tropes.
Something about it screams 'filler' to me... I can't really see an extended campaign of it... it seems light and 'funny'. That opinion might be influenced by my general lack of investment in the genre, but I don't think playing something heavier like Champions would have me taking it any more seriously.
I guess I'm saying it seemed about right for my own level of interest in superheros.

Quote from: Simlasa;417796I haven't read it but I've played it.
It was a lot of fun but I can't say how much of that had to do with the rules... the rules certainly didn't seem to get in the way, except for my trying to wrap my head around 'aspects' which I don't think I care for all that much (I haven't played much Fate of any sort previous to this).
 

Aspects are a bit of a schizophrenic mechanic. On one hand they are freeform descriptors of the character, sort of like the character portrait you might draw on the character sheet; a way to record that fact that a character is more than just a bag of skills and abilities. And in this role they help the GM understand the sort of things the character is interested in.

On the other hand Aspects are, mechanically, what you use to channel your Fate Points. So if you want to spend a Fate Point (or Determination Point in ICONS speak) you have to justify it via the Aspect.  

The tricky bit is this. If the GM is strict about how the player uses his Aspects (ensuring that there is a plausible link between the Aspect and the action the player wishes to spend a Fate point on) this encourages players to choose Aspects tactically at character creation. Players focus on useful, versatile Aspects and much of the "freeform, character descriptor" element of Aspects is lost. If however the GM is loose with Aspects then it make Aspects mechanically kind of pointless - all that matters is whether the player has Fate points left to spend.

I tend to run Aspect in a very loose way myself. I feel the character element of Aspects is much more important than tactical one. And if you followed the evolution of the game from FUDGE through Fate 2.0 and to Fate 3.0 what is clear is that notion of Aspects as descriptors (as a means to replace the awkward FUDGE attributes) came first and the current mechanical use of Aspects is something that came later.  

In a full Fate game Aspects have further uses, mostly as a formal method model situational bonuses but ICONS doesn't go there.

No. I don't think it is, it suffers from a few of the things you mentioned, but that doesn't make it shit.

1) It isn't Fate, it is inspired by Fate, much in the same way M&M or True20 is inspired by D20 but isn't really actually D20--similar ancestors very different descendants.

2) I think the lack of vehicles is intentional, since many supers don't have them (At least Modern heroes). Usually big teams do, but that falls under team gear. (And it is easy enough and elegant to treat a vehicle as character with the physical characteristics (unless it has an AI..)

3) The mechanics that allow players to roll are awesome. I much prefer success and failure in the hands of players in part--since many players feel they control it that way. (It isn't necessary logical, but they feel less disappointed when they fail and they rolled the dice, than when the GM does so.) Mechanically you could roll 1 dice for villains and they for heroes and it come out the same.


4) Artwork. It isn't my favorite. It really is simple and un-detailed. I think it is meant to evoke the Bruce Timm style cartoons--it is more simplistic than they are, so it suffers. It isn't terrible or anything, it just is a taste issue. I'd have preferred a somewhat closer to Timm style artwork myself. Or modern comic books--but those artists tend to be unreasonably expensive for small projects. (It's not M&M and DCA with lots of money behind it.)


5) I've run the game for my nephew and niece. It was fun and simple, but I switched to H&S after a while. Nothing wrong with Icon's, but I'm trying to get some early 2E playtesting done.


6) I don't think PC's are given enough determination (or some villains.)

I agree about Determination and I make it worse because I am not big on Compels. My solution is to let DPs fresh each "game day" rather than each session.  This works also as a pacing device as I have often found in city based games that players seem to want to cram too much into a single day.

I understand what people are saying about the art. Personally I love it. It's not necessarily that great technically but it's fun and it's got character. I find sort of complements the style of the rules. Hyper-realistic art would look strange in ICONS as much as ICONS style illustrations would be out of place in Champions.

That said the artwork has improved I feel in the published scenarios Adamant has since released.