Tabletop RPG · since 2024 · #96 most discussed

ICON

Tactical heroic fantasy where characters with distinct combat roles fight in a world recovering from the fall of gods.

Tactical gridFantasytactical gridclassesdowntimeCampaignsNeeds a GM

5.7

Geek rating

From 5 firsthand play reports in 3 r/rpg threads. The threads alone average 6.3.

Player rating— / 10

No visitor ratings yet.

Discussion5.4 / 10

82 r/rpg posts named it, October 2023 to October 2026.

Rules weight

Medium. Hype 6.0 for its age.

Have you played it?

Rate ICON from 1 to 10. One rating per browser and device; you can change it any time.

Didn't work for usOne of our best

What players say

At the table

Firsthand play reports are thin: five across three threads, and few include table detail. What exists covers ICON 1.5 scenarios, a homebrew setting, and the 2.0 playtest, with one solo playtest.

What works

A homebrew-setting GM reported no barriers to running it, since the rules let you flavour abilities as you like. (thread)
One OP enjoyed 1.5, running Deeptower and a custom scenario, enough to want to GM it again. (thread)
A solo playtest of the 2.0 combat found interesting tactical decisions and relatively complex buildcraft, which the latest revision reportedly deepens. (thread)
One 2.0 player called the tactical combat wild and awesome, and said the Forged in the Dark-style narrative side sells the fantasy adventure tone. (thread)

What tables struggle with

GM bookkeeping: characters and enemies carry piles of status effects that apply to creatures and terrain. (thread)
Skipping that tracking loses much of the game's appeal, so the load is hard to trim. (thread)
One group dropped it after a few months, and the game is still in flux with a mid-development reboot and the 2.0 playtest. (thread)
The solo playtester found the tactical vision very specific and didn't fully resonate with it. Non-combat support is untouched in 2.0, so it's unclear how it plays outside combat. (thread)

Who it suits

Groups that want grid-based tactical combat with deep buildcraft.
GMs willing to track many status effects, or who have a player to share the bookkeeping.

In players' words

"it definitely worked well in terms of creating interesting tactical decisions and allowing for relatively complex buildcraft" (thread)
"As the GM it felt like I was buried beneath this paperwork, but if I skipped it then a lot of the juice would be lost." (thread)

The threads behind it

Each thread is rated for the play it describes, from the firsthand reports in it. Load one here or read it on Reddit.

7.0

Tom Abbadon's ICON in other settings?

The thread is mostly speculation about porting ICON 2.0 to Eberron or Arden Eld, and few commenters describe actual play. The two firsthand mentions are the OP, who ran Deeptower and a custom scenario in 1.5 and wants to GM again, and one commenter who ran ICON in a homebrew setting without trouble. Neither gives details of what happened at the table. 2 firsthand · 8 comments

Open on Reddit

5.5

Draw Steel, ICON and Beacon

Only two commenters report actually playing ICON, and the thread is mostly about Draw Steel and Beacon. One enjoyed the tactical combat and Forged in the Dark-style narrative side in the 2.0 playtest; the other's group gave up after a few months because the GM had too much to track. 2 firsthand · 59 comments

Open on Reddit

6.5

Tom Abbadon's ICON 2.0 (grid-based tactical combat, 4e-descended) now has a public playtest for combat

The thread is mostly reading impressions and design debate about the new ICON 2.0 combat playtest. The only firsthand report is one commenter's solo self-playtest of the previous 2.0 playtest, which found good tactical decisions and deep buildcraft but a very specific vision of tactical play that they don't fully resonate with. 1 firsthand · 93 comments

Open on Reddit