tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post2944728900994203911..comments2023-10-23T12:04:09.668-07:00Comments on The Chamber of Mazarbul: Dungeons and Dragons: Musings on Icon Rolls - Alternatives and the Default RuleBrian Slabyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05333048710667620592noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5891731747515762073.post-37549455216846587932014-02-10T09:43:06.732-08:002014-02-10T09:43:06.732-08:00Hi Brian,
Great post, it got me thinking. I'v...Hi Brian,<br /><br />Great post, it got me thinking. I've personally felt there is something slightly mechanically off about icon rolls - they are a great idea, but I've always felt there should be a mechanically more satisfying way of implementing them. I'm just not that taken with fishing on the d6, However I haven't found a solution I think is more elegant.<br /><br />I like the theory of the one roll "what icon this week" roll; but still it's not quite there (for the reason you mentioned above). Perhaps using a larger dice (d% even) and weighting it based on icons but include other icons.<br /><br />Still the idea I plan to use is the core rulebook, but with an additional tweak: If you generate no icon results (1 to 4 on all dice) randomly determine an icon you have no relationship with: you count as having scored a "5" on a conflicted relationship with this icon.<br /><br />Obviously this wouldn't draw a character into a story - but it would serv to bring unexpected bumps into a story; the elf-queen's agent staggers round the corner covered in blood and thrusts a package into your hands etc. The effects of it could open up reasons for any new Icon relationships taken at a later point (from feats etc.). What do you think?James Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17641631955886268418noreply@blogger.com