I’ve been trying hard to piece together the system behind Challenges  (as in the negative Aspects) in Icons and I’ve come to the conclusion there isn’t one. What it boils down to is GM fiat tarted up.
 
The GM is advised to give out Determination Points when he feels like it. If he can dress it up as one of the player’s Challenges cool, if not he can just invent a new “temporary” Challenge on the spot or just give the stupid Determination Point for free because he is the GM after all, damn it!

That is not necessarily a bad thing. I think the idea of Icons is for it to be played fast a loose GM fiat glossing over the cracks. But I find the way it’s presented is a bit untidy and perhaps dishonest, as if it’s trying to make you thing the system is deeper and more rigorous than it actually is.

Of course I find that applies to Fate Aspects in general. In practice what matters mechanically in Fate are the Fate points. The Aspects that channel them are just window dressing.

If you think about it the Aspects themselves are as important as the character portrait on the character sheet (which if you believe what Jonathan Tweet  wrote in “Over The Edge” is actually very important indeed, but different reasons).

Too harsh?

Quote from: Soylent Green;396824Too harsh?

I wouldn't say so. Since you can make them up at will, actually having them doesn't matter much.

Nah.  I like ICONS and all.  Enough to devote a whole entry of my blog to it every Thursday, but it's pretty fluffy and not the most impressive supers RPG released the last few years...it just got a TON of hype because of "FATE-Like Aspects" and "Steve Kenson".

Quote from: Soylent Green;396824Too harsh?

Not really, the challenges are somewhat sliding, and unlike some games aspects slide a lot in a superhero world. They have a lot smaller, dramatic, chapters than other fiction game covers in some ways. Thus the flow is usually a bit looser in order to allow both micro (single issue) dramatic elements, and macro (arc or yearly) dramatic moments. If that makes any sense.

Just to be clear I really do like the game. It's just the right level of complexity and, at first glance, I was very impressed how the superpowers were implemented, with nice touches like the bonus powers.  Hopefully I will get to take it out for a spin on Tuesday.

As written, though, the rules for Challenges I think are too woolly for my group. One could theoretically eliminate Challenges (by the book players don't actually need to pick any) but I fear that will simply leave the players starved of Determination Points. But I have a cunning plan.

I'll leave the triggering of Challenges to the player themselves; they will basically have to compel their own challenges if they want to get the Determination Points (DPs). However instead of the GM directly giving DPs to players what we will have is a Challenge Pool which I envisage physically as a little bowl with poker chips that will sit between the GM and the players..

At the start of the session the GM puts 1 DP poker chip into the Challenge Pool per player. At any point of the game, entirely at his own discretion, the GM may add DPs to the Challenge Pool, or not.

Players can invoke their own Challenges (self-compel) any time they see fit. They have to explain what the Challenge is and how it's affecting them, but they don't need to seek GM's approval to do so, they just need to reach out and take a DP from the Challenge Pool, assuming there are any left.

The bottom line I think for our group it is more constructive to leave the players manage their own Challenges, but by having a Challenge Pool the GM still can indirectly control the pacing of the game. It's basically a very British way of doing things as it avoids confrontation :-)