What´s your opinion on Azhanti high Lightning / X-Com style action point based combat models?

bean counting vs abstraction

Where´s the sweet spot for you?

I prefer the other way round, short rounds and actions that take multiple rounds. The usual combat round should center around the most common denominator, i.e. a simple attack. Anything else should be an extension of that.

But sometimes action point based rounds would actually be the simplest solution, as compared to weapon speeds, strike ranks, initiative penalties due to movement etc.

That said, I'm content with the normal systems like WFRP or Spycraft (D&D to a lesser degree). Action points wouldn't really get you much. I don't really care whether one automatic weapon is a tad bit faster to reload than another one. Or that stabbing is faster than striking.

Depends on how simulationist mood I am in. In my younger years, I was all over action point-style mechanics. As I grew older, I find that bean counting action points every round is not necessarily something I want, and am finding I prefer coarser variants.

If you think about it, D20 and variants and similar are really sort of a coarse action point mechanic. You get two half or one full action a round. That's almost the same as giving all PCs 5 APs, making standard actions 3 APs and move actions 2 APs. Though what is missing here is that they don't regulate when you act, just how much you can do.

Spycraft 2.0 takes a half step towards APs with it's fluid initiative rules... different actions can change your initiative count and you can suffer "initiative damage". Nice in theory, but I'm not using it in my home game right now as I think it could slow things down. I may try adding it in later when the players understand the system better.

I had an old homebrew which was sim-heavy. I sort of patterned the way it worked around Villains & Vigilantes. I didn't really have different AP costs for different actions like Snapshot or FASA Trek did. Rather, you got to "act" one for every 10 full points of initiative you had, on that count. For example, say you rolled a total of 22, you would count down initiative and act on 22 and 12. This would leave you with an initiative count of 2. That 2 wasn't lost, you got to add it to the next round's initiative (which was rolled 1d10 + mods).

QuoteIf you think about it, D20 and variants and similar are really sort of a coarse action point mechanic. You get two half or one full action a round. That's almost the same as giving all PCs 5 APs, making standard actions 3 APs and move actions 2 APs. Though what is missing here is that they don't regulate when you act, just how much you can do.

Yeah, that´s why I think it´s an axis of exchange, as indicated in the OP. YOu home in on the point nicely.

The biggest advantage for AP-Systems is when you are allowed to save APs for reaction actions, suppression fire or some kinds of overwatch. That really gets my juices flowing. It goes along well with pretty deadly systems, as elsewise ther would not be much to do. In D&D OTOH, there´s a lot of other options, so the lumped action types are quite near the sweet spot for that particular game.

I vastly prefer the abstraction of rounds over action points, ticks, or whatever else they're called these days. Whereas the AP approach may be more 'realistic' I find the inevitable slowing down of play too steep a price to pay. I like running big combats, with the pc's and their retainers facing upward of 20 foes, and have yet to see an AP system that allows me to do so without reams of bookeeping or falling back into abstraction (eg. all the mooks take the same action at the same time).

For one-on-one duels and the like I can see it adding another dimension to tactical combat, but the standard group vs. group model of rpg conflict tends to preclude it.

Quote from: DrewFor one-on-one duels and the like I can see it adding another dimension to tactical combat, but the standard group vs. group model of rpg conflict tends to preclude it.

Yeah... the aforementioned homebrew mechanic was conceived with a brawl between cybered-out punks in my mind's eye, where I wanted to model things like wired reflexes, and have every blow be precisely timed. I wasn't thinking of army combat when I wrote it.

Quote from: SettembriniThe biggest advantage for AP-Systems is when you are allowed to save APs for reaction actions, suppression fire or some kinds of overwatch. That really gets my juices flowing. It goes along well with pretty deadly systems, as elsewise ther would not be much to do. I

For 20 years I thought AP combat mechanics were garbage. But in the past few weeks I've come round to really liking them, and precisely for that reason. Though I prefer Snapshot over AHL-- no counter stacking, no breakdown of rounds into movement phase for everyone, then firing phase for everyone, etc. So, my sweet spot is: AP without bookkeeping.

Incidentally, allow to point out that I just won shrinkwrapped copies of Mayday and Snapshot for a grand total of (da-da-dum...) 18 US dollars.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIncidentally, allow to point out that I just won shrinkwrapped copies of Mayday and Snapshot for a grand total of (da-da-dum...) 18 US dollars.

I am seething with jealousy over here.

I think you made some great points.  I like action points but when you start adding to many extra fiddly bits it quickly becomes unmanageable for a large number of combatants.

Also, most AP systems rub me the wrong way for the same reason that fixed movement rates do.  Knowing exactly what your PC can do before the next attack comes in takes a lot of excitement out of an action sequence.  I'd love to see an AP system where your budget of points is a dice range.

Stealing APs is also a nice benefit if you're using a system like this.

I really like the AP system in the Fallout/SPECIAL system.  It's neat.  The combat in that game is far from "realistic", but it's fun.  The APs add a nice tactical depth to deciding what to do in a round.

For those of us bozos who aren't familiar with how Action Points work, could one of you fine individuals give a brief overview? I think I get it, but I was just looking for some clarification to ensure I'm not missing something...

Quote from: James J SkachFor those of us bozos who aren't familiar with how Action Points work, could one of you fine individuals give a brief overview? I think I get it, but I was just looking for some clarification to ensure I'm not missing something...

Your character is assigned a given number of Action Points, usually either a flat number across the board, or based on Agility/Dexterity/etc.

Any given action you can take in a round costs a certain number of these APs, thus defining what you can do in a round and how many times you can do it.

It introduces a much more flexible method of determining what a player can do in a round.

Thanks J.

Does the pool then refresh at teh end of the round? does the round end when everyone has used points up or had the opportunity to spend points and declined?

Quote from: James J SkachThanks J.

Does the pool then refresh at teh end of the round? does the round end when everyone has used points up or had the opportunity to spend points and declined?

One's APs generally refresh on your next turn, which opens a loophole allowed in some systems, allowing you to hold onto APs for use under specific conditions between now and your next turn.  Space Hulk (not an RPG, but a similar system) called this Overwatch, you basically save a number of your APs for use at shooting at anyone who should happen to step into your line of fire during thier turn.  In Fallout, you could spend your extra APs to boost your defense until your next turn.

What a round is varies by system of course.  Space Hulk was more "You go, I go", the Space Marine player used his APs and set any overwatches, then the genestealer player went, and when it came time for the Space Marine to go, their APs treset and any points sppent on overwatch that are unused are lost.

In Fallout on computer, time flowed a bit more fluidly than individual rounds, instead you had a Sequence stat that affected how often your turn came around.  I forget how the system worked exactly, as it's been a tad since I've read the PnP rules, and I think they might've actually been simplified over the system in the CRPGs.  

Really though, it works just as well with any round/turn/initiative mechanic you care to name, it's more about a way of defining what you can do when it is your turn to act, but the consequences of individual implementations of turn order are often considered as important to the tactical considerations, especially if the game allows things like Space hulk's Overwatch.

It's a fun mini game when you want that tactical crunch -- we played a lot of Snapshot in the day.  Thumbs up here.