Do you like games that have action points for characters, and list how many AP it takes to commit various acts? I think they're fundamentally a good idea, as it's more realistic to say that people who are very fast (Have lots of AP) can commit actions faster than normal people.

SO instead of saying that everyone gets one attack per turn, say, you say that various attaks cost various AP and let people choose what attacks to make. A roundhouse kick may do a lot of damage, but what if you can throw 3 punches for the same time and effort, for example? Using APs makes the players think more tactically than systems that more or less say "one attack per turn".

I like action points personally, even if some minmaxers will torture the rules to get an extra one. Not a lot of games use them, nonetheless I think they're a good idea.

Do you play any games that use them and if so how do you like them?

I like systems where the abstraction of the game's handling of combat is stressed.  You make one dice roll per round, but it represents multiple attacks, parrying, dodging, maneuvering, etc.  I also like "hit points" used in the same abstract way -- rather than imagining each lost hp as "damage".  A Fighter with 60 hp who loses 3 hp to an arrow attack -- he doesn't have an arrow sticking out of him!  He dived aside at the last moment and the arrow missed him (or whatever).

Some (all?) version of D&D were intended to be played like this, but things like multiple attacks per round, combat feats, etc. encourage players to think of each d20 roll as a "swing".  Weapon "damage" is also unfortunately named.

For my in-development game, I'm using the abstract system for combat / hp.  The one area I'm not 100% sure about is archery.  That's someplace in games where 1 dice roll DOES mean a single attack.  So what do I do with characters shooting multiple arrows?  Multiple d20s, modifier to their standard attack roll, increased "damage" dice for hp loss?

QuoteDo you play any games that use them and if so how do you like them?

A lot of games let you choose to take a full-round attack of some kind (d20 and Palladium spring to mind).  That sounds like a simplified version of what you're describing.  There's a "Swashbuckling" game that might be more along the lines your describing, with multiple combat moves.

D20's half-round/full-round action seem to be a nice abstraction, especially if you get rid of the iterative attacks. Spycraft 2.0 uses this concept and makes it work. I never had success with a finer-grained mechanic, especially if those action points are connected to the initiative system...

You don't have to be a power gamer to think too deeply about systems like this. Most of the times the game designers didn't work it out, so your average damage with lots of jabs is better than the 3 AP Chuck Norris roundhouse kick. Tech geeks just can't help it

2e Exalted works like this, and I really like it.  If you set up with a battle clock, it runs so smoothly you almost don't mind counting successes.  

In my personal opinion? Unless handled carefully, a system like that might come perilously close to the sort of "bean counting" for which the Pundit mistakenly disparages Nobilis. It's a little too "wargamey" for my taste. "Crunchy."

(Rapidly spending the daily quota of quotation marks here...)

I seem to be in GrimGent's camp. I really like it for video games, but in many cases AP systems on the table start to feel too much like spreadsheet accounting than action-packed combat.

Iron Heroes pool mechanism can be regarded as action points. You basically sacrifice normal actions and gain tangible points (poker chips etc.) for it, which you can expend to get some special result. An archer aims for a while to get a devastating attack.

It only comes into the game when the player wants it, so for those who don't want to get bogged down with it, there's no detrimental effect. This could've been done with a action point/tick system, but with a token pool it doesn't seem as cumbersome.

I've only come across Action Points in board games like Space Hulk and computer games, like Fallout, UFO.

edit: Duh stupid me.

Feng Shui uses them, I've liked them in that except we had a problem when the shooty gun got enough Both Guns Blazing to reduce a snap shot to one shot (1 AP) and so would act effectively three times as often than anyone else, add to the fact he had the best initiative (total AP's) he sometimes acted six or more times before anyone else even got to go. He could often take out his mooks and everyone elses before the slowest guy got his first action.

He didn't start of that bad but by the end of the first adventure we pretty much thought the system was broken.

I'm not a big fan of this sort of abstraction. That's usually the first thing in a combat system that I chuck out the door when I run a new game.

I like the idea, but I agree with the assessment that they tend to create some pretty bizarre situations.  If the turn-taking is all completely sequential, it can get kind of clunky.  I suppose the action rounds could be trimmed way down, but that has its own problems.

I had an action point mechanic that was pretty slick for producing realistic, chaotic combats. Every round, you had a basic action point allotment that you gained from your stats and skills, and remainders carried over to the next round, giving faster characters a gradual, but not overpowering, advantage.

But in the end, I decided it was one of those details that wasn't worth the effort.

In my experience, any time there are people at the table who get more actions than other people at the table, you immediately set up a "game table class" system.

"Higher class" people get to be the heros.

"Lower class" people get to do the grunt work.

It may seem more realistic to allow some people to take extra actions because they're "faster," but it tends to inequalize the limelight at the table.  I prefer a situation where every player has an equal opportunity to shine rather than carte-blanche giving one or two players the lion's share of the limelight just because they knew how to manipulate the mechanic to grant them more actions.

I've played a few games where you had either action points or 'lots of actions' for a few players (Shadowrun was very hit or miss in this regards depending upon the edition)... and it does create a huge issue in combat.  Typically numbers of attacks or action points becomes the only 'stat' worth checking in determining how good you are in a fight, which doesn't mesh well.

Fallout, for all I love it (mmm... tactics....mmmm), while certainly less broken than some systems, tended to favor high AP characters as well, though as a computer game this was less vital.

I rather like the Secrets of Zir'an take on this however.  If you built solely for 'actions' you wound up with a fragile and weak combatant, if you built tough, you'd be slow and ponderous, but nearly unstoppable.  Further, as I recall, your 'actions' changed your place in the initiative order... something that many AP systems fail to account for.  Yes, I can spend AP of doom to unleash a horrible firestorm of Chuck Norris Dim Mak on your punk ass, certainly. But why should I be able to do it all at once?  It both defies versimilitude (in that iterative attacks should be interuptable, both logically and in accordance with pop fiction sources) and 'balance', as the higher AP becomes more powerful than necessary.

Well Feng Shui's action point type system isn't like Fallout's in that you get to spend all your action points on your turn then the next person spends theirs etc. But say you roll your initiative at 12, on shot 12 you get to act, most attack actions cost 3 shots so you then get to act on turn 9, then 6 and so on. If you dodge then that cost you a shot, so you act later.

The problem hit with the gun-bunny character who bought levels of a feat that allowed the shot cost of shooting be reduced, until he could fire for one shot.

So while a martial artist would at on 12, 9, 6, 3, etc. Our gun-bunny would act on 12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1. Add to the fact his initiative was generally better than the rest of the group he became a one man army.

QuoteShadowrun was very hit or miss in this regards depending upon the edition

Wired !@#%! reflexes.  God dammit.  We had a guy in our 1st ed. game with maxed out Wired Reflexes (3?) and a monofilament whip.  We'd all sit around while he rolled dice (so many freakin dice!) and by the time the non-wired folk got a chance to take their turn the fight was all but over.