One of the things that always seems like a good idea in principle but is usually a terrible idea in practice, is Action Points. These are rather than each character having X movement and Y attacks, they just have Z Action Points, and moving a step is 1 AP, drawing a weapon is 2AP, climbing a ladder is 1AP per rung, and so on.

In general it works well in computer games because they can handle all the book-keeping, and computers don't complain if the player sits there indecisively for half an hour while figuring out what to do; gamers are a bit different. So it's difficult to make it work well in a game session.

Liking a challenge, and further along the road of giving players choices, I thought I'd try to make it work. Here's a sketch,

Action Point Split
Each combatant has in each turn Action Points equal to their Attribute + Skill + Speed [same range as in the last post, Attributes 2-12, Skills 0-12, Speed is the average of three Attributes and thus also 2-12, giving an AP total of 4-36, average for decent combatants about 20]. They divide these as they wish between,

• Initiative – whoever has the highest Initiative goes first. A character may wait out their Initiative and act later if they choose.
• Movement – AP set aside for movement may be used at any time during the turn, or reserved for other times.
• 1 AP to draw a one-handed weapon, 2AP to draw a two-handed weapon.
• 1 AP gives 1 step forward
• 2 AP gives 1 step back, which also gives +1 to Defence.
• 1 AP gives 1 change of facing along the six-sided hex.
• 1 AP gives a change of posture, from standing to crouching/kneeling, from crouching/kneeling to prone, or vice versa.
• Attack – whatever AP set aside for this, that's your Attack skill in that round. This may be divided into multiple attacks.
• Defence – whatever AP set aside for this, that's your Defence skill in that round. This may be divided into multiple defences.
• AP unspent at the end of the turn are lost.

Thoughts? Too complicated, or what?

Kyle - I break my vow of silence for this topic. Kudos.

Two things to look at:

First, the Marvel Universe RPG. The Energy Pool in that game is similar to your AP idea.

Here is an example of play I cooked up for that game.  

You have a pool of points, they go into Actions, actions resolve, the pool regenerates.  Various modifiers give you free points, more or less regeneration, increases or decreases the cost of various actions, and so on.

Second, what I draw from this when I'm playing, say, Fallout, is that there should be some visual representation of what is happening.

Say every player has on the table in front of them an "action counter" strip of paper like the one used for initiative in Feng Shui, it goes from 1-10.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

My character has 7 AP per round, so I tear or cut off the end of the strip of paper and now it looks like:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Say firing a pistol takes 4 AP. What I have is a strip of paper that says "Fire Pistol" and maybe has my pistol stats and skill on it and such. I lay it down on the counter like so:

( FIRE ) 5 6 7

Then I have a "Move" action strip of paper that costs 2 AP and maybe tells me the rules for moving and such.

( FIRE ) ( MOVE) 7

Or if I wanted to move late, for whatever reason (Billy Bob won't have the door open until then or whatnot), I could push either or both further around.

( FIRE ) 5 ( MOVE)

Everyone lays down their strips before a round begins, you just adjudicate around the table in some order and there you go.

The physical nature of this is important because it does a ton of the work that you correctly state is done by computers in a lot of AP systems.

I didn't know anyone here had a vow of silence, seems sort-of against the whole point of a discussion board In any case, I'm glad you're talking now!

I like your examples. My idea was perhaps to have poker chips or similar. I thought that it might make it feel too "gamey", though. My idea was to put into numbers what players already often describe and imagine in combats, that they have a character who holds back or charges in, who attacks all-out and or defends all-out or whatever.

I'm also coming from GURPS, where there aren't action points, but there are certain actions you can take, and some allow others in combination and some don't. They even have a pdf of "combat cards" which you can print out and use. In play, I've found that while this makes all the combat options clearer for those who don't read or can't remember all the rules, it also makes it feel a bit like a session of some CCG. "I play my Move and Attack", etc.

So I'm thinking that though poker chips or whatever will make things nice and clear for players, they might make it a bit too abstract, too. I want to have options which bring combat alive for players, make them feel like they're there, like their choices matter - rather than options which distance them from things by making it really abstract.

It's just that I was watching King Arthur last night, and thought, "wow, rpg combat is almost never that exciting." And I was thinking that when it'd gone on for ten minutes or so and I was a bit bored with it!

Whoa, I've never had the CCG feeling with the GURPS combat cards. That's like some crazy weird feeling to run away from in designing a system.

Feeling like it was a CCG would only happen if there were two hundred glossy cards to choose from, which I only got a small sampling of during any session, and if I had never made it with a woman.

Well, I'm speaking relatively. It felt relatively more like a CCG than it did without the combat cards. It made things more abstract, we had less player and GM description and imagination going on.

Ohh, I get it.

Maybe in the instructions for the action printed on the strip, it tells you when to describe the action?

It's actually not too different from the air combat in Aces In Spades. The big difference is ther's another pool of points you can access coming from your height. Diving adds points from this altitude pool to your main pool, maneuvers bleed off points from the main pool, and climbing adds points from your main pool to your altitude pool and ends your turn, which otherwise ends when you run out of points.

-clash

Quote from: Kyle AaronLiking a challenge, and further along the road of giving players choices, I thought I'd try to make it work. Here's a sketch,

Action Point Split
Each combatant has in each turn Action Points equal to their Attribute + Skill + Speed [same range as in the last post, Attributes 2-12, Skills 0-12, Speed is the average of three Attributes and thus also 2-12, giving an AP total of 4-36, average for decent combatants about 20]. They divide these as they wish between,

• Initiative – whoever has the highest Initiative goes first. A character may wait out their Initiative and act later if they choose.
• Movement – AP set aside for movement may be used at any time during the turn, or reserved for other times.
• 1 AP to draw a one-handed weapon, 2AP to draw a two-handed weapon.
• 1 AP gives 1 step forward
• 2 AP gives 1 step back, which also gives +1 to Defence.
• 1 AP gives 1 change of facing along the six-sided hex.
• 1 AP gives a change of posture, from standing to crouching/kneeling, from crouching/kneeling to prone, or vice versa.
• Attack – whatever AP set aside for this, that's your Attack skill in that round. This may be divided into multiple attacks.
• Defence – whatever AP set aside for this, that's your Defence skill in that round. This may be divided into multiple defences.
• AP unspent at the end of the turn are lost.

Thoughts? Too complicated, or what?

In theory, I like it, but my take on initiative/action systems is that they are rarely worth the time and effort put into creating/adjudicating them. Still, AP systems are fun to consider. Let's look at some of the issues first.

In this case, it would seem that the system is predicated on having every combatant set aside action points for the various categories (init, move, attack, defense) at the beginning of the combat turn (since init is included in the AP split). This is almost always a problem in that it adds some serious bookkeeping overhead to the GM. A three on three fight wouldn't be an issue, but just this week, I ran 13 on 7. I could not imagine working 13 piles of APs/chips in an efficient fashion.

Of course, a GM could easily give all of his NPCs the same split, which limits the hassle, but also takes away a little of the coolness in the system and leads to a little bit of strangeness like, "Wow! All of the goblins are easy to hit this round!"

Another possible issue is that a system like this is that because movement, attack and defense skill are coupled, the system promotes standing still and hacking away when you can. This exists to some degree in many systems (HERO gives a -1 to hit when you move, D&D takes away the full attack option) and might be desireable, but it promotes a more static, stand and swing style combat.

Along similar lines, because skill/speed are coupled, your fastest runners will always be your best combatants and vice versa. You could avoid this with some limit to each pool based on other stats/skill scores.

Another possible problem is the fact that a character might find himself bereft of move points when he needs them. For instance, I am engaged with an enemy and put all my points into attack/defense, and then get attacked first and knocked down. This could either be a bug or feature depending on your point of view.

There are a couple nice points to what you have laid out here. One is the fact that as AP systems go, this is pretty streamlined, but complete. I could easily see adding other actions like drinking a potion, or using a scroll, etc. This completely describes what you can do in a single turn with a single mechanic and without the action, partial action, half action, move action... of other games.

I like the fact that you do not try to simulate simultaneous movement by tying the order of events to ticking off APs as characters act. Though a neat goal, it is also a nightmare of record keeping.

I also think that spending APs for your attack and defense skill will keep the number of APs in movement down, and thus keep turns from lasting forever as people count and recount APs.

Anyways, thanks for the post,

Those are some interesting points, cmagoun.

I can certainly understanding the book-keeping issue with multiple combatants. In general that's not something I think of much because from years of GURPS I've learned to avoid having big fights In a game group of 3-4 players as I usually have, usually only 2 of them are dedicated warriors of whatever kind, and in most cases they choose when and where to fight, they don't get ambushed and forced to fight. So that keeps the numbers down. But that's definitely a general issue which would apply to other GMs, so it's very relevant in game design!

That's interesting that you say the system promotes standing still. I'd actually imagined it'd promote stepping in or jumping up, swinging or firing, then stepping away out of reach or ducking down. That's because it's something players I've known have always wanted, saying, "howcome we can move 5 paces and then attack, or attack then move 5 paces, but we can't move 2 paces, attack then move 3 paces back?" They've always wanted to be able to strike then move out of range of being struck back So that's something we'd just have to see how it comes out in playtest. Who knows.

I don't think it's a problem that fastest runners will be the best combatants and vice versa. The first thing is that the Speed stat will be an average of Agility/Fitness/Strength, so it'll tend to the average for all stats - with the random stat rolls I was thinking of being 2d6, that'll give us an average of 7. So Speed 7 + Agility 7 + Sword 7, you see that on average Speed will contribute a third of the total. It'll be difficult to get high Speed since you'll need all three stats high for it, but even if you had Speed 12, Agility 12 (as Agility would have to be) + Sword 7, the "fastest runner" part will still be less than half the total overall.

A highly-skilled or agile (or strong or fit) character will have a lot of Move in combat, or a lot of initiative, it's true. But I don't think that's a problem. In the first place, highly-skilled characters, it's more likely (when combined with the Risk Dice in the other thread) they'll want to set aside a lot for Attack/Defence, so they can score a lot of damage. Secondly, If someone highly-skilled or able wants to use their superior skill to literally run rings around lesser-skilled foes, I don't have a problem with that. One way superior fighting skill is depicted in film and books is that the character gets to act more often than their hapless foes, to jab them from the front, run around to behind and jab them in the back, too.

Oh yes, I didn't want to go for simultaneous turns. No way! You spent the points on Initiative? You go first! You didn't spend them? Then wait!

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's interesting that you say the system promotes standing still. I'd actually imagined it'd promote stepping in or jumping up, swinging or firing, then stepping away out of reach or ducking down. That's because it's something players I've known have always wanted, saying, "howcome we can move 5 paces and then attack, or attack then move 5 paces, but we can't move 2 paces, attack then move 3 paces back?" They've always wanted to be able to strike then move out of range of being struck back So that's something we'd just have to see how it comes out in playtest. Who knows.

Hmm... that is a very good point and something I hadn't thought of. I was stuck in the mindset of "sticky engagements". Being able to step out of combat at will is an interesting proposition that would cut the chance of a static situation developing.

What I do think you end up with is a guessing game of "how many movement points will I need?" If stepping in and out of combat becomes the move of choice (and if for one AP, I can possibly avoid attack entirely, why not), then everyone will have to counter that move. You might end up with opponents chasing each other across the battlefield. Interesting... you will have to playtest it.

One possibility I can see is that in small enough engagements, applying points to attack/defense becomes less useful than applying them to movement/initiative. Let's say I am facing off about 3 paces away from an opponent and we both have 20AP. I could try a standard allocation like 4I, 4M, 6A, 6D. Or, I could go 8I, 8M, 4A, 0D because if I can always guarantee to have a higher initiative and more movement than my opponent, I can never be attacked. Now, I am hosed if another opponent comes and cleans my clock while I am being clever with my 0 defense, but in a small engagement, there is bound to be a place to run in most fights.

Another issue could be the fact that it is too easy to run away in such a system. If I can't pin anyone down, and someone who has a mind to flee can pour all of his AP into movement (and initiative for the first couple fleeing rounds), he likely gets away.

One more thing is that if the concept of attack then move becomes a standard tactic, and people start focusing on minimizing the amount of attacks that come against them, it might lead to longer combats as opponents spend more of their AP on movement and more turns chasing each other across the battlefield.

I am not necessarily saying these are bad points, but I do wonder how it would play out in practice.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron\Each combatant has in each turn Action Points equal to their Attribute + Skill + Speed [same range as in the last post, Attributes 2-12, Skills 0-12, Speed is the average of three Attributes and thus also 2-12, giving an AP total of 4-36, average for decent combatants about 20]. They divide these as they wish between,

• [...]
• Attack – whatever AP set aside for this, that's your Attack skill in that round. This may be divided into multiple attacks.
• Defence – whatever AP set aside for this, that's your Defence skill in that round. This may be divided into multiple defences.
• AP unspent at the end of the turn are lost.

Thoughts? Too complicated, or what?

A few potential problems here.  

First is that if a player has 4-36 action points, that's a huge range of values and someone could probably produce some undesirable effects by dumping, say, all 20 (or even 36) points into their Defense every round so they can't possibly be hit or all 20 (or even 36) points into their Attack with a range weapon so they can't possibly miss.  You'll probably need some sort of limit on those values.  Always consider what would happen to the system of someone put the maximum points into X because, inevitably, some player will.

Second, if players lose unspent AP at the end of the round, that can force them to use them.  That may make sense in this system, since the player can just dump them into Attack or Defense by default (and perhaps you should just make Defense the default, instead of losing them), but you should make sure that your mechanics don't force players to do things or add things just to use up points rather than losing them.

Third, if Action Points are going to be very important in the game, you need to be very careful about making it a derived attribute and giving players different values.  In the Hero System, Dexterity and Speed are very important in combat, but the Hero System weighs the cost of each characteristic based on it's utility.  So Dexterity costs 3 points per point, while some other characteristics are 1:1 and Speed is 10 to 1.  Further, combat in the Hero System can get pretty unfun when the characters have Speed characteristics (which determine how many times they can act during a round) that are more than a couple of points different than each other.  In theory, one character can have a Speed of 1 while another has a Speed of 12, but the character with the 1 is going to find combat very unfun.  Even having a character with a Speed of 3 in a combat with another character with a Speed of 6 can be annoying, because it means going half as often.  So consider how much fun a player with only 4 Action Points is going to have in a combat with a bunch of decent characters with 20 Action Points or even 36 Action Points.  Advice?  Consider a narrower range of values that allow everyone do do something useful in combat.

Fourth, if combat effectiveness is also dependent on Action Points (by putting points into Attack or Defense), is a character with sub-optimal Action Points pretty much going to be screwed all around?  When fighting an opponent with many more Action Points, they might not be able to hit, avoid being hit, or do much moving around because their opponent will just have too much of an advantage.  By making so many things dependent on Action Points, they can dominate the power levels in combat.

The bottom line here is that if Action Points give players more choices and more power, then the players will have to optimize their character designs to maximize the number of Action Points.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's because it's something players I've known have always wanted, saying, "howcome we can move 5 paces and then attack, or attack then move 5 paces, but we can't move 2 paces, attack then move 3 paces back?"

Because you are simulating simultaneous action with non-simultaneous combat rounds.  If you allow a character to move 2 paces, attack, and then move 3 more paces, you'll then raise the question, "Why couldn't I hit him back while he was hitting me?"  Then we wind up going down the road of things like Attacks of Opportunity and Zones of Control.

Those are interesting points about what'll happen when people dump all the points into one thing.

First up, I think it's unlikely. Suppose you've a total of 36AP. Sure, you can put it all into Attack 36, and then get heaps of damage - but if your foe has even 12AP, they can put all 12 into Defence, roll the 2d6 and parry it.

Defence 36 means they can defend at 12 against 3 attacks, or at 9 against 4. That's pretty good. But their foe can put (say) 12 into Move, run around behind them and stab them in the back - no Defence at all, or defence is much harder.

It's also true they can, if very able overall, just run away. But I don't have a problem with that. And also they'd have to be careful of not suffering a parting shot. The 36 AP guy could put all 36 into Move, but then has nothing for Initiative or Defence, so as he turns to go they act first and stab him, with no defence at all.

Everyone will be bidding blind each turn, so there'll be some back-and-forth and responses to things, I think. If some guy goes Defence 36, then his much weaker Attack 12 foe may just do 6 attacks at 2 - if both are rolling 2d6, then one might get through.

I think most likely is as has been said, fighters chasing each-other around the battlefield. This makes the terrain more important - I think that's a good thing. Quite often it seems to be just two fighters meeting face-to-face on a featureless plain in broad daylight. Using your Move to get behind a pillar or climb up some stairs or duck behind a rock - that could really bring combats t life.

Quote from: Kyle AaronFirst up, I think it's unlikely. Suppose you've a total of 36AP. Sure, you can put it all into Attack 36, and then get heaps of damage - but if your foe has even 12AP, they can put all 12 into Defence, roll the 2d6 and parry it.

Never assume that something will be unlikely or never happen.  When they designed Magic: The Gathering, they couldn't imaging people spending hundreds and thousands of dollars to fill a deck with 60 copies of 1 rare card, yet people did, which is why they instituted the 4 copies of 1 card limit.  Always check the extremes.

Quote from: Kyle AaronEveryone will be bidding blind each turn, so there'll be some back-and-forth and responses to things, I think. If some guy goes Defence 36, then his much weaker Attack 12 foe may just do 6 attacks at 2 - if both are rolling 2d6, then one might get through.

But if the bidding is blind, then it's all a guess and a gamble.  Combat becomes less about reasoned choices and more about luck.  Is that what you really want?

Quote from: Kyle AaronI think most likely is as has been said, fighters chasing each-other around the battlefield. This makes the terrain more important - I think that's a good thing. Quite often it seems to be just two fighters meeting face-to-face on a featureless plain in broad daylight. Using your Move to get behind a pillar or climb up some stairs or duck behind a rock - that could really bring combats t life.

Why should I ever close on another fighter instead of waiting for them to close on me?  That forces them to waste their valuable AP on movement while I save my AP for Attack or Defense.  And to be honest, I'm not sure what you are doing that your combats run like two fighters facing each other on a featureless plain in broad daylight.  The games I play don't run like that.  Not D&D 3.5.  Not Hero System.  Not even Fudge and our homebrews.  If a system allows a half-move before attacking (both Hero and d20, as well as plenty of other systems) and has modifiers for cover and terrain effects, then why wouldn't they also move behind a pillar, climb some stairs, or duck behind a rock?  And if my AP are good for Attack and Defense, why am I wasting them to move around?

If the effect you are looking for is move-attack-move, it's easy enough to do with a conventional full move or half-move and attack system.  Move, attack, then finish moving up to your half-move total (D&D has prestige classes that can do this, for example).  The problem is that move-attack-move sounds like fun until you are on the receiving end.  Then it's, "Hey, why couldn't I hit him while he was standing next to me?"

By the way, I highly recommend reading Brian Gleichman's old Elements of Gaming column on TBP:

http://www.rpg.net/columns/list-column.phtml?colname=elements

In particular, read the the "Elements of Tactics" article and consider some of the mechanics you are considering in light of the section titled "A non-element".