Is Icons considered a FATE game and if not why not? Does it fall under the FATE licensing purview?
Quote from: Biscuitician;989242Is Icons considered a FATE game and if not why not? Does it fall under the FATE licensing purview?
This is their section 15
QuoteOpen Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Fudge System Reference Document Copyright 2005, Grey Ghost Press, Inc.; Authors Steffan O'Sullivan and Ann Dupuis, with additional material by Peter Bonney, Deird'Re Brooks, Reimer Behrends, Shawn Garbett, Steven Hammond, Ed Heil, Barnard Hsiung, Sedge Lewis, Gordon McCormick, Kent Matthewson, Peter Mikelsons, Anthony Roberson, Andy Skinner, Stephan Szabo, John Ughrin, Dmitri Zagiduin.
FATE (Fantastic Adventures in Tabletop Entertainment), Copyright 2003 by Evil Hat Productions, LCC; Authors Robert Donoghue and Fred Hicks.
Spirit of the Century, Copyright 2006, Evil Hat Productions, LLC. Authors Robert Donoghue, Fred Hicks, and Leonard Balsera.
Icons, Copyright 2010, Steve Kenson, published by Adamant Entertainment in partnership with Cubicle Seven Entertainment, Ltd.
Icons Team-Up, Copyright 2013, Adamant Entertainment, Authors Steve Kenson, G.M. Skarka, and Morgan Davie.
Icons: The Assembled Edition, Copyright 2014, Ad Infinitum Adventures; Author: Steve Kenson.
Looks like it based on the 2003 version of Fate, the 2005 version of Fudge, and the 2006 version of Spirit of the Century as far as use of Open Content.
As for being considered a Fate Game unless they opt to use the compatibility license it not a consideration for them.
Company that release open content have two components, one is the system reference document of open content you can use. The other is a separate trademark license with its own conditions. The use of the SRD is not dependent on use of the Trademark. However by using the OGL you agree not claim compatibility with any trademarks for your products. I don't see any mention of Fate in Icons marketing so they are good on that.
The author only ever describes ICONS as "Fate inspired" and the books does not refer to itself as a version of Fate. So technically I guess the answer is no.
Then again who really cares about "technically"?
What is perhaps more significant is the consolidation in the Fate-sphere. If you go back 6-7 years or so there was a virtual explosion of Fate variants mostly by third parties many of which push the system in very different directions, Strands of Fate being probably one of the most radically different Fate variants. In that sort of environment ICONS could have justifiably been thought of a another Fate variant.
Since then Evil Hat have manged to get regain control of the brand so to speak, and when talking about Fate it generally assumed it is either Core or Accelerated.
The main area where ICONS draws inspiration from Fate is in how it treats Qualities/Determination Points (its version of Aspects/Fate Points). It varies from vanilla Fate in a variety of ways: the stats and specialties used are quite different from Fate's skills, there is an HP-like system rather than stress and Aspects, and the 2d6 resolution mechanic is a bit different from that used with Fudge dice.
So, Fate certainly provided ideas for ICONS but it was only one source. There's just as much or even more FASERIP in there than Fate, for example.
It's not just a FATE game, it's the best FATE game.
One of the only modern Superhero games that I actually like...
The Assembled edition isn't very FATE like.
It's not Fate at all really - fixed attributes, random generators etc - but Fate may still have been an influence in parts.
It's a shame about the art direction though.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;989922It's not Fate at all really - fixed attributes, random generators etc - but Fate may still have been an influence in parts.
I'll believe influence.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;989922It's a shame about the art direction though.
Honestly, I've seen worse. It's consistent at least, which is more than I can say for some other games.
Admittedly, the art direction (if it can be even called that) in Champions Complete is awful. They did at least have a good layout in 6th edition though.
The thing is that the supers genre is so obviously tied to the comic industry that the visual representation of the game is really important to get right I think.
The art could be worse. It could be the art from Blood of Heroes.
I don't really mind the art. It's consistent, and it's perfectly fine for something like The Tick. If you want to do something darker or more mature, then there's plenty of other sources of inspiration out there.
Quote from: Celestial;989949The art could be worse. It could be the art from Blood of Heroes.
Or the setting itself...yeah, that was like they deliberately attempted to outdo everything bad about 1990s super hero comics and then dialed it up to 11... :p
Quote from: TrippyHippy;989922It's not Fate at all really - fixed attributes, random generators etc - but Fate may still have been an influence in parts.
It's a shame about the art direction though.
The mechanics are directly the basic FATE mechanic. There's even a Fate Point mechanic. What it does is add more structure and form to the otherwise flimsy FATE rules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;990776The mechanics are directly the basic FATE mechanic. There's even a Fate Point mechanic. What it does is add more structure and form to the otherwise flimsy FATE rules.
Now, I'm not denying you're right, I'm saying that I don't see it in the new version. It's too structured for FATE. And a lot of games have Plot Points now.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;990791Now, I'm not denying you're right, I'm saying that I don't see it in the new version. It's too structured for FATE. And a lot of games have Plot Points now.
Well, I haven't looked at the second edition of ICONS; it could be that they radically altered the rules so the core of it is no longer FATE...
Quote from: Christopher Brady;990791Now, I'm not denying you're right, I'm saying that I don't see it in the new version. It's too structured for FATE. And a lot of games have Plot Points now.
They also cite Fudge, my impression from reading both editions is it the author's original RPG using some of the mechanics and options from Fudge and Fate. Since both are toolkit RPGs, it make sense that Icons come across as own thing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;991414Well, I haven't looked at the second edition of ICONS; it could be that they radically altered the rules so the core of it is no longer FATE...
The core of Icons hasn't really changed from the 1st edition.
There differences between editions are hardly noticeable. And do not really significantly alter the play experience.
If so, then Brady is wrong.
I may be, and in my defense, I am not making an objective statement. I'm saying that I don't see the comparison. If I remember correctly, the Assembled core book mentions FATE as an influence, but again I simply don't see it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;992243I may be, and in my defense, I am not making an objective statement. I'm saying that I don't see the comparison. If I remember correctly, the Assembled core book mentions FATE as an influence, but again I simply don't see it.
Where it mostly comes in is with the Determination Point/Quality system. That's heavily influenced by Fate Points and Aspects from Fate.
The rest? Stats, damage/health system, dice mechanic, powers... practically everything else is either non-Fate in its source or only vaguely Fate-like at all. For example, you can substitute Fate dice in but it skews the probabilities a bit. It doesn't work nearly as well as several other options, and I don't even think it's listed in the AE book.
There is a section in Great Power about using the powers system with Fate Core.
So no. Icons doesn't shy away from its Fate roots one bit.
I have Icons Assembled, Icons Great Power, Icons A to Z, and Icons Adversaries. To give me the full utility and options of the system.
Quote from: Brand55;992277Where it mostly comes in is with the Determination Point/Quality system. That's heavily influenced by Fate Points and Aspects from Fate.
I suppose. The plot points are very much like the Hero Points from Mutants and Masterminds, and Bennies from Savage Worlds. The Qualities on the other hand, I'll grant that. I can see a little influence, just not enough FOR ME to call it FATE like.
Quote from: Brand55;992277The rest? Stats, damage/health system, dice mechanic, powers... practically everything else is either non-Fate in its source or only vaguely Fate-like at all. For example, you can substitute Fate dice in but it skews the probabilities a bit. It doesn't work nearly as well as several other options, and I don't even think it's listed in the AE book.
No, it's not listed in the Assembled Edition. I've got it open in front of me.
But again, I'm not saying anything objective here.
Also, I LIKE this game. It's quick and dirty for a supers game. If I want to run something in-depth I'll go to M&M, but something quick ICONS is my game of choice.
So, in any case, I've decided to overcome my aversion to the art used in the game (after the reasonable point made that the art in other supers games sucks too), and order a copy of Icons Assembled. I already have the PDF, but looking through it I can make use of the game - largely because of the random generation tables and the system is simple enough.
I don't think it's a Fate game for two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't market or describe itself as a Fate game. Secondly, while the rules have common roots with Fate, the differences do mark itself out as being different - fixed attributes + specialities (skills) are markedly different to Fate (even the accelerated version of the rules), the dice are D6-D6 rather than Fate dice (much more utilitarian), and the random generation is more akin to systems like FACERIP where a few rolls of the dice can generate interesting characters rather than trying to do a group chargen session as in Fate proper. If I look at Icons compared to Venture City (for Fate), I see quite different games.
In all, I prefer the approach of Icons, I think. But the art still sucks.
The dice mechanic in ICONS originated in other FATE games. Starblazer Adventures for example. The core mechanic is directly the FATE system.
Quote from: RPGPundit;993372The dice mechanic in ICONS originated in other FATE games. Starblazer Adventures for example. The core mechanic is directly the FATE system.
Well D6-D6 is also used in Feng Shui and Nexus: The Infinite City from the 90s. Fudge dice also emerged about the same time. Fate came some time later.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;993378Well D6-D6 is also used in Feng Shui and Nexus: The Infinite City from the 90s. Fudge dice also emerged about the same time. Fate came some time later.
Sure. But ICONS came out in the middle of the FATE boom when other FATE games also used the d6-d6 mechanic.
FFS, Icons has the same core mechanic as fate, it has Fate points, it has a number of other mechanical elements that are also found in FATE games. It's a fucking FATE game, people. I get that some people hate it because it did a better job of being a FATE game than the pretentious games beloved by the Swine. But trying to cover your ears and say it's just not true, that's bullshit.
Quote from: RPGPundit;994192Sure. But ICONS came out in the middle of the FATE boom when other FATE games also used the d6-d6 mechanic.
FFS, Icons has the same core mechanic as fate, it has Fate points, it has a number of other mechanical elements that are also found in FATE games. It's a fucking FATE game, people. I get that some people hate it because it did a better job of being a FATE game than the pretentious games beloved by the Swine. But trying to cover your ears and say it's just not true, that's bullshit.
Revolving argument, this. Sure, it's got Fate bits in it. It's also got other bits in it and it lacks any self-identification, in terms of marketing, towards the Fate brand.
And I didn't even need to say fuck.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;994205Revolving argument, this. Sure, it's got Fate bits in it. It's also got other bits in it and it lacks any self-identification, in terms of marketing, towards the Fate brand.
And I didn't even need to say fuck.
Man, is it painful to agree with Pundit, but I think he's basically right. ICONS may not be 100% FATE, but it's certainly in the family. It felt that way to me, at least.
It's funny how all the people that desperately argue it's not FATE are fans of the most pretentious FATE games. All the shitty ones.
Quote from: RPGPundit;994814It's funny how all the people that desperately argue it's not FATE are fans of the most pretentious FATE games. All the shitty ones.
Well, I'm not, so I've no idea where you are coming from on that one.
Quote from: RPGPundit;994192Sure. But ICONS came out in the middle of the FATE boom when other FATE games also used the d6-d6 mechanic.
FFS, Icons has the same core mechanic as fate, it has Fate points, it has a number of other mechanical elements that are also found in FATE games. It's a fucking FATE game, people. I get that some people hate it because it did a better job of being a FATE game than the pretentious games beloved by the Swine. But trying to cover your ears and say it's just not true, that's bullshit.
That's funny. My first impression was that "It's a fucking Marvel FASERIP game, people" with the serial numbers filed off and Fate mechanics.
According to the creator, Steve Kenson, Icons is basically a combination of ideas from 'old school' games (like FACERIP) and Fate. It still remains it's own system, and doesn't self-identify as being a Fate game. You couldn't take the ICONS rulebook and use it to run a Fate supplement, for example. It's not a Fate game, as such.
Quote from: RPGPundit;994814It's funny how all the people that desperately argue it's not FATE are fans of the most pretentious FATE games. All the shitty ones.
What are you going on about? I hate the FATE system.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;995007According to the creator, Steve Kenson, Icons is basically a combination of ideas from 'old school' games (like FACERIP) and Fate. It still remains it's own system, and doesn't self-identify as being a Fate game. You couldn't take the ICONS rulebook and use it to run a Fate supplement, for example. It's not a Fate game, as such.
I picked up a single FATE book, Atomic Robo because I like the setting, couldn't care less about using the system. Same thing with a couple of the PDF's, like the settings not the system. So that qualifier out of the way, I can guarantee this. ICONS is definitely different than Atomic Robo, no interchangeable in the least, unlike say Master of Umdaar, Venture City or Atomic Robo, which I could probably mix and match them.
Quote from: Gunslinger;995003That's funny. My first impression was that "It's a fucking Marvel FASERIP game, people" with the serial numbers filed off and Fate mechanics.
They are nothing alike!
Quote from: Biscuitician;995406They are nothing alike!
I disagree!
(And I'm actually serious, I can see the influence more than FATE. :D )
Other than that they're both about superheroes, it's patently absurd or a moronic denial of reality to suggest that ICONS is closer to marvel than to FATE.
Do you accept it isn't a Fate game, then?
Quote from: RPGPundit;995892Other than that they're both about superheroes, it's patently absurd or a moronic denial of reality to suggest that ICONS is closer to marvel than to FATE.
So what you're saying is that Steve Kenson is a moron and denying reality? Because it uses adjectives like Good, Great, just Marvel FASERIP's Feeble, Poor, Typical, Good, Excellent to mark it's stats and powers. Yes, FATE/FUDGE uses it too, but FASERIP did it first. In fact, ICONS is closer to FASERIP because it adds NUMBERS to the adjectives. FATE doesn't do this.
Sorry, mate, you're blinded by your own bias here. I've got both items in front of me, and FASERIP is more accurate than FATE. At least in the Assembled Edition.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;995905So what you're saying is that Steve Kenson is a moron and denying reality? Because it uses adjectives like Good, Great, just Marvel FASERIP's Feeble, Poor, Typical, Good, Excellent to mark it's stats and powers. Yes, FATE/FUDGE uses it too, but FASERIP did it first. In fact, ICONS is closer to FASERIP because it adds NUMBERS to the adjectives. FATE doesn't do this.
Sorry, mate, you're blinded by your own bias here. I've got both items in front of me, and FASERIP is more accurate than FATE. At least in the Assembled Edition.
Could the adjectives used in ICONS be considered an homage to FASERIP, rather than a port of the same mechanics?
The descriptors used in ICONS come from both FASERIP and Fate, as far as I know. Fate does use numbers, by the way. I know there are some people who prefer playing Fudge/Fate with descriptors only, but every published Fate game I have uses both numbers and adjectives for its skills or attributes.
Apart from the fact that ICONS is a game all about super powers, which developed from MSH, Steve Kenson also swiped the attributes from that game and folded Endurance into Strength to form ICONS' abilities:
Fighting = Prowess
Agility = Coordination
Strength & Endurance = Strength
Reason = Intellect
Intuition = Awareness
Psyche = Willpower
A lot of stuff went into the melting pot to make ICONS, but FASERIP and Fate were probably the two biggest influences. And in case anyone still doubts that MSH wasn't a huge influence, take it from the man who made the game:
https://stevekenson.com/2011/01/09/icons-marvelous-numbers/ (https://stevekenson.com/2011/01/09/icons-marvelous-numbers/)
https://stevekenson.com/2005/07/01/superlative-system/ (https://stevekenson.com/2005/07/01/superlative-system/)
Quote from: cranebump;995928Could the adjectives used in ICONS be considered an homage to FASERIP, rather than a port of the same mechanics?
Homage? Yes, but they do line up pretty well if you want to take the extra step. It's clearly more inspired by FASERIP in that regard. Again, I want to stress I'm talking about the Assembled Edition, I have no knowledge of the previous one.
To be fair, I'm intimately more familiar with Marvel FASERIP than Fate. I've perused Fate. The FASERIP influences are readily apparent minus the table and Karma.
Quote from: Brand55;995983The descriptors used in ICONS come from both FASERIP and Fate, as far as I know. Fate does use numbers, by the way. I know there are some people who prefer playing Fudge/Fate with descriptors only, but every published Fate game I have uses both numbers and adjectives for its skills or attributes.
Apart from the fact that ICONS is a game all about super powers, which developed from MSH, Steve Kenson also swiped the attributes from that game and folded Endurance into Strength to form ICONS' abilities:
Fighting = Prowess
Agility = Coordination
Strength & Endurance = Strength
Reason = Intellect
Intuition = Awareness
Psyche = Willpower
A lot of stuff went into the melting pot to make ICONS, but FASERIP and Fate were probably the two biggest influences. And in case anyone still doubts that MSH wasn't a huge influence, take it from the man who made the game:
https://stevekenson.com/2011/01/09/icons-marvelous-numbers/ (https://stevekenson.com/2011/01/09/icons-marvelous-numbers/)
https://stevekenson.com/2005/07/01/superlative-system/ (https://stevekenson.com/2005/07/01/superlative-system/)
Convinces me.:-)
Quote from: cranebump;995928Could the adjectives used in ICONS be considered an homage to FASERIP, rather than a port of the same mechanics?
Yes, exactly.
The fundamental mechanical system for task resolution is FATE. It bears no resemblance at all to Marvel Supers.
Quote from: RPGPundit;997261Yes, exactly. The fundamental mechanical system for task resolution is FATE. It bears no resemblance at all to Marvel Supers.
None? The fundamental mechanical system for task resolution is Fate, no disagreement there. The random character generation and the type of characters it creates is basically FASERIP.
1. Attribute similarity. FASERIP to Icons PCSIAW or FASRIP.
2. Power categories and talents very similar to FASERIP.
3. Icons and FASERIP both use the same 10 rank scale or Feeble through Unearthly.
4. Random character generation maxes character at the Amazing rank or 8. (Monstrous levels were able to be accomplished in the Advanced set and by increasing Abilities at the end of character generation in the Basic sets of FASERIP.)
Icons was instantly identifiable for these reasons. You literally can compare characters side by side from Icons and FASERIP or model them the exact same way. Icons replaced the Universal Table and percentile dice with a universal system and D6. I'm as perplexed to your stance as you are to mine.
Another point. If I ran Icons I would instantly fall back to Marvel FASERIP to determine intensity levels for Abilities and powers. For example let's examine Strength.
Icons Marvel
Level 1/ FB: A Heavy Sack 50 pounds
Level 2/ PR: A Child 100 pounds
Level 3/ TY: A Couple Heavy Sacks 200 pounds
Level 4/ GD: An Adult Man 400 pounds
Level 5/ EX: A Motorcycle 800 pounds
Level 6/ RM: A Car 1 ton
Level 7/ IN: A Tank 10 tons
Level 8/ AM: A Jet or Train 50 tons
Level 9/ MN: A Building 75 tons
Level 10/ UN: A Mountain 100 tons
I've played Marvel Superheroes enough that those intensities and levels are memorized. I would probably use page 8 from the Advanced Set Judges book to gauge intensities.
Quote from: Gunslinger;997302None? The fundamental mechanical system for task resolution is Fate, no disagreement there. The random character generation and the type of characters it creates is basically FASERIP.
1. Attribute similarity. FASERIP to Icons PCSIAW or FASRIP.
2. Power categories and talents very similar to FASERIP.
3. Icons and FASERIP both use the same 10 rank scale or Feeble through Unearthly.
4. Random character generation maxes character at the Amazing rank or 8. (Monstrous levels were able to be accomplished in the Advanced set and by increasing Abilities at the end of character generation in the Basic sets of FASERIP.)
Icons was instantly identifiable for these reasons. You literally can compare characters side by side from Icons and FASERIP or model them the exact same way. Icons replaced the Universal Table and percentile dice with a universal system and D6. I'm as perplexed to your stance as you are to mine.
But that is a huge difference. Any similarities in Icons to Marvel Supers is superficial. If I made a game system that used the Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha stats, but then the mechanics were based on D6 dice pools that bore no resemblance to D&D, you wouldn't say "the system is D&D". You'd say, at best, that there was an easter-egg-like shoutout to D&D, and at worst, that there was some kind of cheap marketing ploy to deceptively tug at heartstrings.