Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ibbins 02-09-05, 06:09 PM	I really like action points. I think they're really cool. My only problem with them is the rule that lets you spend an action point after rolling the d20. It seems to counteract roleplaying, and almost encourage metagaming. For example, a PC attacks an enemy with a single "I swing at the orc," but then action points it, and is forced to replay that action with some more interesting description. It's clunky and frustrating. My suggestion is to not allow that. Instead, players could only spend an action point before they roll, announcing that they're performing a heroic action. This of course rather reduces the power of action points, so, to make up for it, the d20 roll combined with the action point roll would then be considered the natural roll, for purposes of critical successes(for skills) and critical threats(for attacks), but not for automatic hits. Feedback?
Streamweaver 02-09-05, 06:31 PM	I really like action points. I think they're really cool. My only problem with them is the rule that lets you spend an action point after rolling the d20. It seems to counteract roleplaying, and almost encourage metagaming. For example, a PC attacks an enemy with a single "I swing at the orc," but then action points it, and is forced to replay that action with some more interesting description. It's clunky and frustrating. My suggestion is to not allow that. Instead, players could only spend an action point before they roll, announcing that they're performing a heroic action. This of course rather reduces the power of action points, so, to make up for it, the d20 roll combined with the action point roll would then be considered the natural roll, for purposes of critical successes(for skills) and critical threats(for attacks), but not for automatic hits. Feedback? There are all kinds of varients of the action point system in D20. Some use Hero Points from Arcana Unearthed, Force points from Star Wars, or any number of other methods so there that can all be valid. I think your take on action points may be incorrect then. Action points can only be used after they roll, but before they know the outcome so there is no replay of action as you say here. The basic theory behind action points and all their incarnations is the variation on a single D20 roll is incredibly high. This actually works against the action in a game sometime because you want tense moments where you need to make a single roll to get through. However when that roll can be a 1 as easily as a 10 or 20, it kind of makes for anti-climactic gaming. Some variations of the action point rule just give you a big success when you want it most (like force points), but action points as used in Eberron try to take a middle road. With APs tries to cut down on the completely arbitrary nature of D20s (or at least the range of varience) and gives a bit of hope back to the players. At the same time it tries to keep some tension in the game because they can still fail. Weather APs give you the kind of gaming experience you want or not only you can say, but that is some of the reasoning behind them.
Bangell 02-09-05, 08:12 PM	I really like action points. I think they're really cool. My only problem with them is the rule that lets you spend an action point after rolling the d20. It seems to counteract roleplaying, and almost encourage metagaming. For example, a PC attacks an enemy with a single "I swing at the orc," but then action points it, and is forced to replay that action with some more interesting description. It's clunky and frustrating. I like them the way they are because they reflect that certain extra bit of luck that can change a situation completely. The point is kind've that the PC would have failed, but by spending a precious AP, they might be able to change that outcome. As for describing things, I can see that would be frustrating! My suggestion is not to think of it as "replaying" an action, but instead, to add onto it. For example: PC: "I swing at the orc..." DM: "You lunge forward, stabbing at the orc, but he quickly brings his sword up and parries your attack." *The PC uses an action point, and makes the miss into a hit.* DM: "You struggle together for a moment, eyes locked over your crossed blades, and then, with a flick of your wrist, your sword twists and buries itself in the orc's belly."
Gurv 02-09-05, 08:29 PM	Its funny, but my copy of the ECS says that you have to declare that you are using an action point before you know the result of the d20 roll. So there would be no revising the description... 1) You roll a d20 and add your modifiers. 2) You decide whether to spend an action point, based on your guess about the result and how important success is. 2a) If you use an AP, you add the d6 roll to the check, and tell the DM your total. 2b If you do not use an AP, you tell the DM your total. 3) The DM tells you whether your action succeeds, with an appropriate description. So you decide whether you add an Action Point after you roll the d20, but before you know whether it resulted in success. That solves the problem of describing something twice.
Ibbins 02-09-05, 08:58 PM	3) The DM tells you whether your action succeeds, with an appropriate description. I always thought it was up to the player to describe the heroic action, but making it the DM's job rather clears up matters quite nicely(But that ticks me off that players never need to do anything...). I still like the idea of making the d20+AP roll into the effective natural roll. Maybe that could be a feat.
Hakan 02-09-05, 09:20 PM	:confused:
Hakan 02-09-05, 09:22 PM	"I always thought it was up to the player to describe the heroic action, but making it the DM's job rather clears up matters quite nicely(But that ticks me off that players never need to do anything...)." I've always role played with a combination of DM and player description. The player describes his intented action, roles and the DM describes what happens (incorporating the role as flavorful failure or success of the player's intended reaction). Bit, I see RPing as "collective storytelling".
Hakan 02-09-05, 09:23 PM	;)
Ibbins 02-09-05, 09:39 PM	My group, in a word, sucks. But, hey, I'm workin at it, and eventually I'll kick out my brother(he's the main problem) if necessary. But basically, it's pretty much up to me to do the descriptions and stuff.
Streamweaver 02-09-05, 10:02 PM	My group, in a word, sucks. But, hey, I'm workin at it, and eventually I'll kick out my brother(he's the main problem) if necessary. But basically, it's pretty much up to me to do the descriptions and stuff. Well then changing the action points wont help you. Deal with the other issues and APs should work out fine.
Gurv 02-09-05, 10:19 PM	I always thought it was up to the player to describe the heroic action, but making it the DM's job rather clears up matters quite nicely(But that ticks me off that players never need to do anything...). I still like the idea of making the d20+AP roll into the effective natural roll. Maybe that could be a feat. Well, ok. Whoever describes the action in your game still describes the action. You just do it after you've made the roll and added in the AP. It can be the player or the DM. You don't add in other modifiers after you describe things, do you? Player 1 (rolls a d20, gets a 4): "Theron slashes at the gnoll, swinging too high and missing completely!" DM (Seeing gnoll has 1 hp): "Ok then. The gnoll flees..." Player 1 (adds in his modifiers, a total of +12): "Wait! Theron corrects his swing at the last moment, bringing his blade down upon the doomed gnoll!" DM (Seeing gnoll has 1 hp): "The gnoll dies..." Add the d6 from the Action Point with the rest of the modifiers and describe it as normal. Make it a colorful description, since an AP was spent.
Ibbins 02-10-05, 07:53 AM	Well then changing the action points wont help you. Deal with the other issues and APs should work out fine. Yes, I realized that. Thus the "clears up matters quite nicely" statement. Well, ok. Whoever describes the action in your game still describes the action. You just do it after you've made the roll and added in the AP. It can be the player or the DM. You don't add in other modifiers after you describe things, do you? Player 1 (rolls a d20, gets a 4): "Theron slashes at the gnoll, swinging too high and missing completely!" DM (Seeing gnoll has 1 hp): "Ok then. The gnoll flees..." Player 1 (adds in his modifiers, a total of +12): "Wait! Theron corrects his swing at the last moment, bringing his blade down upon the doomed gnoll!" DM (Seeing gnoll has 1 hp): "The gnoll dies..." What the hell are you talking about? Im' talking about APs, not the other modifiers. What usually happens is they roll, get a 4, add AP, and I prompt them to describe something cool. They tend to flounder about and slow everything down for a minute. That's what I'm talking about being clunky and frustrating.
Gurv 02-10-05, 09:18 AM	What the hell are you talking about? Im' talking about APs, not the other modifiers. I know. I was jokingly trying to make my point about there being no difference when adding the Action Point. Its a modifier just like everything else. Your example of "a PC attacks an enemy with a single "I swing at the orc," but then action points it, and is forced to replay that action with some more interesting description. It's clunky and frustrating." was what I am getting at. Your players may have a hard time describing things, but the AP shouldn't be the issue. They shouldn't be allowed to use an AP after describing the action once already, by then it is too late. You're only allowed to use an AP before you know the result of your action. Your new comment of "What usually happens is they roll, get a 4, add AP, and I prompt them to describe something cool. They tend to flounder about and slow everything down for a minute. That's what I'm talking about being clunky and frustrating" is different, and exactly they way it should be. Except for the floundering, clunky and frustrating part. But that seems completely unrelated to the Action Points to me, so I'm still not seeing a reason to change the system to spending the AP before the d20 roll. As far as advising on the actual problem, it can be rather difficult if the people you play with have a hard to describing things. I often try to get the players into the mood by describing the actions of the NPCs as cinematically as possible, and then neglecting to do so for the PCs. Its a classic guilt trip, combined with showing them up. Another tactic is to give XP or other rewards for good roleplaying.
Bubba333 02-10-05, 09:29 AM	The one thing I might take from the Star Wars RPG is adding the Action Point results together at higher levels, but I'm not sure. As far as the "problem" that you're having goes it isn't all that bad. It seems that your biggest issue (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the players aren't as descriptive (and therefore the game more interesting) as you'd like. If that's the case then the best thing to do as the DM is be the example. Be descriptive yourself and have some NPCs with the "Heroic Spirit" feat show up. Use them to showcase what you'd like to see in the players and thier PCs. Of course you may have to adjust things to suit the comfort level of certain players. On another tangent, am I the only one who uses the variant rule "1=-10 and 20=+30"? I've always found the "5% chance" variable of the current rules a tad vexing.
Gurv 02-10-05, 09:50 AM	On another tangent, am I the only one who uses the variant rule "1=-10 and 20=+30"? I've always found the "5% chance" variable of the current rules a tad vexing. My group uses it. In general, the result is the same at low levels. But at higher levels, it starts to make more sense. Pre-Eberron, we played a game into the epic levels and decided it made more sense this way. But even long before epic levels, this is the best critical success/failure rule I've seen.
Ibbins 02-10-05, 05:51 PM	You guys are right, I saw a problem and falsely identified the source. It just comes up most during AP use, so you can see where I'm coming from.