TheRPGSite

Does anyone else like action points in their RPG systems?

I actually do. I think they're not to unrealistic and are in some ways more realistic than some systems where every character takes the same amount of time to do the same actions.

In some games you must take one turn to aim to get the aiming bonus, and everyone aiming takes the same amount of time (A turn) to aim.

That's baloney as a lot of people can aim and fire accurately whilst normal people are still sighting down the barrel.

I kind of like systems where you have action points, and actions are listed in their AP cost, so someone who has a good number of AP in gun use could draw, aim and fire accurately maybe all in a second, while other people might need several seconds.

Before anyone calls that bullshit, there are professional gunmen who have been times and videotaped drawing, firing all 6 shots from a revolver and hitting targets accurately in less than 1 second. These are obviously dedicated fanatics who spend their lives practicing with guns, but it proves that things like that are possible for a real human being to do.

Most systems don't use APs anymore, sadly, and none of the ones I do use them. I'd like to see some systems that use them. Do you like action points and if so does your favorite rules system use them?

I like them when the game is built for them. 4E (our current game of choice) has them, and the system takes them into account. They're a great boost every so often without being overpowered.

Our last game of choice (Scion) doesn't have them, and I wouldn't want it to. Giving the child of a god a free action would be incredibly powerful, destroy the tenuous balance of the initiative system, and require reworking of how action speeds and defense refreshes work. It'd be way more work than the minor benefit it gives.

I like the IDEA of action points.  I don't really like them in practice.

I've occasionally toyed with a little system where a person receives a number of action points each round equal to a base number depending on their skills and attributes.  They add their initiative roll and then play proceeds with the highest action point total.

They choose their action, deduct the cost of the action from their total, and everyone compares action points again.  The highest goes next, and so on.

I was considering this as an alternative to the Palladium system Attacks Per Round many years ago.  The problem is that it seems a bit more cumbersome than it's worth.

Tough call.  I agree that the system has to take them into account, and games that tend to the super powered end seem to handle them pretty well.  Especially if they are used for a 'do-over'.  

I know Tim's Hearts and Souls did it a bit differently, using Stress instead of an action point type resource.  So there are different ways of pulling that off.  I rather liked the Karma system in the FASERIP Marvel Superheroes, in that it allowed you to decide before hand if you wanted an action to definitely succeed, rather than just get another chance at it.  If you are on a bad string of rolls, getting a second, third or fourth chance doesn't always cut it.

I like them quite a bit, actually. They are especially useful in single player games where getting a mulligan on a unlucky roll can mark the difference between ending the campaign and not ending the campaign.

Quote from: Gabriel2;245255I've occasionally toyed with a little system where a person receives a number of action points each round equal to a base number depending on their skills and attributes.  They add their initiative roll and then play proceeds with the highest action point total.

They choose their action, deduct the cost of the action from their total, and everyone compares action points again.  The highest goes next, and so on.

I was considering this as an alternative to the Palladium system Attacks Per Round many years ago.  The problem is that it seems a bit more cumbersome than it's worth.

You might like the Exalted / Scion initiative system. It's not quite like that, but it's based on action speeds. Basically, everyone rolls to find out who goes first. The person (or people) on the first initiative count take their actions, then get pushed forward a number of "ticks" equal to the action's speed. The next person goes and gets pushed up, etc. If you're taking fast actions (like shooting a semi-automatic) and they're taking slow actions (like coordinating multiple allies into a combined attack) it's possible you could act more than once before they get to go again.

It feels odd at first, especially when you use the combat wheel to track it. But once you get used to it, it flows rather well. I think it's a little hindered by only having actions with speeds 1 - 6. With a wider range you could make the differences between similar actions even more meaningful. On the other hand, when most actions are speeds 4 - 6 it makes it a lot easier to remember them.

Well, in some games they just say that this action takes X number of (Turns, seconds, whatever) to complete, which I think just doesn't really reflect the fact a skilled person can usually do things faster than an unskilled one.

Also, why should it take speedy gonzalos the same time to complete a task as it does his cousin, slowpoke pedro?

I like the idea of action points, perhaps being calculated based on the total of attribute plus skill for a given task. Maybe we could also have mental action points and physical action points to give more character diversity.

The hidden neat thing here is that as your skill in something increases, not only do your chances of succeeding at it go up, but you get faster at doing it too!

Quote from: Aos;245263I like them quite a bit, actually. They are especially useful in single player games where getting a mulligan on a unlucky roll can mark the difference between ending the campaign and not ending the campaign.

Agreed. We integrated them into our D&D 3.5e game with little difficulty, and liked them.

Quote from: James McMurray;245254I like them when the game is built for them. 4E (our current game of choice) has them, and the system takes them into account. They're a great boost every so often without being overpowered.

I don't think you and Demonoid are talking about the same thing. Same for Aos and Serious Paul.

Quote from: 1of3;245433I don't think you and Demonoid are talking about the same thing. Same for Aos and Serious Paul.

For the record, then, I'm speaking of a RPG mechanic where characters have, based on their attributes and possibly skills, a number of points they can spend to commit actions per turn, and instead of saying "Every characters gets 1 action per turn" characters can commit actions per turn up to their action point limit, with different actions costing different amounts of action points.

Again, in a system like this, if skill adds to AP for the action is controls, you not only have a higher chance of success at an action as you become more skilled at it, but you get faster at it as well.

I ask you, my fellow gamers, is this not a valid and realistic mechanic for RPGs?

Quote from: Demonoid;245619I ask you, my fellow gamers, is this not a valid and realistic mechanic for RPGs?

Well, yes, but on the other hand allocating your quota of points for every turn might also require somewhat more book-keeping than I'm personally comfortable with, depending on just how finicky the system is about the available options.

Quote from: Demonoid;245619For the record, then, I'm speaking of a RPG mechanic where characters have, based on their attributes and possibly skills, a number of points they can spend to commit actions per turn, and instead of saying "Every characters gets 1 action per turn" characters can commit actions per turn up to their action point limit, with different actions costing different amounts of action points.

Again, in a system like this, if skill adds to AP for the action is controls, you not only have a higher chance of success at an action as you become more skilled at it, but you get faster at it as well.

I ask you, my fellow gamers, is this not a valid and realistic mechanic for RPGs?

I'm devising a system that does this. The game has Attributes, one of which is called Weapon Speed (WS). The average Weapon Speed (WS) for a human is 10. Actions have a Speed Factor (SF), that varies, depending upon what type of action you perform, or what type of weapon you use.

Delay......................Speed Factor

Very Quick............................4
Quick....................................6
Standard..............................8
Slow....................................10
Very Slow............................12

A dagger might have a SF of 6, a longsword would have a SF of 8, and a gigantic maul could have a SF of 10. A warrior type with a Weapon Speed (WS) of 18 would have 3 attacks with the dagger, 2 with the sword, and 1 with the maul.

Take note that I might change this in order to simplify things even more, but this system works well enough....