Jump to content

Alternate Long-Term END rules


whitekeys

Recommended Posts

I have been brainstorming some alternate rules for my (Superheroic) Pokemon campaign. One thing I have been grappling with is the restriction Pokemon have in terms of using their powers too much. In the video games, this was referred to as Power Points (PP) and was strictly numerical (Hydropump . . . 5 PP: you can use this attack 5 times before needing to replenish at the PokeCenter or by some other means). It's not as clear cut in the anime, however. 

 

Obvious possibilities for reflecting this are Charges and the regular LTE rules, and possibly some other Limitations on powers or pokemon END. Since the campaign is Episodic, they get to "start from scratch" at the beginning of every episode, so the LTE rules, for situations where Pokemon can't get to a PokeCenter, don't seem to apply, and the limitation value on Charges doesn't seem worth it. Charges seems too numerical and too much like the video game for my tastes, anyway.

 

So I came up with this for tracking "LTE" during battle.

 

First, regular END rules apply as normal, but Post-Segment 12 Recoveries are banked. For example, if you have 100 END, 10 REC and SPD 2, and you spend 5 END each Phase, you will go through 10 Turns to put you at 0 END, and then your 10 banked Post-Segment 12 recoveries kick in to bring you back to 100. You can only cash in your banked REC when at or approaching 0 END. This would constitute one "END cycle". Second, each time you go through one cycle, you subtract your REC score from your total END, meaning that one of your banked recoveries never applies and never will apply (until long term rest is sought). Continue until exhausted.

 

It seems to favour lower REC scores, but since regular END rules apply as normal, a REC score that's too low will exhaust you in the short term before you're ever exhausted in the long term. I don't see it as unbalancing in that regard. Furthermore, I purposely left out the standard LTE calculation of the 50% REC threshold for per-Turn END usage because I wanted it to be more of an issue for each battle.

 

Any other bugs with this? Questions, comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will highly favor 0 END and Reduced END abilities, I assume you have accounted for that?

 

I'm actually not sure what you mean. In the long term, if a power has been purchased with Reduced END, it shouldn't have much of an effect in either system. No? What problem do you see coming up? Do you mean that they will be more powerful in this setup? Because I figure they're highly favoured in any system that tracks END of any kind, if you can afford the Advantage.

 

 

Also, very high END will be more desirable than high REC.

 

This is true. But again, in my own comparison of the regular rules and the new system I'm suggesting, I'm not seeing how it's much different or unbalanced. An example might help me.

 

Lastly, END reserves will be popular if allowed.

 

Probably not. Allowed, that is ;)

 

Thanks for the feedback!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand on the second point above, it was more truer that first thought.

 

After re-reading the rules, it seems the standard LTE rules favour a high REC, because if the amount of END spent in a turn is calculated to be less than half of a character's REC then no LTE is lost at all. And depending on the result of the aforementioned calculation, more or less LTE is lost each Turn, the higher the REC the less LTE lost.

 

I suppose in my system, since I specifically stated I wasn't comparing to the 50% REC threshold, it would favour high END instead. But I think it's more accurate to say that no benefit is derived from a high REC in long-term scenarios, since a character would benefit equally in each system from a high END. Unless I'm missing something.

 

Thinking about comparing sprinters with long distance runners in terms of END and REC, everything seems to check out. Long distance runners have a high REC, which is why they lose less LTE over long periods. Sprinters probably have a low REC, most of their END they expend all at once, and are probably less capable of doing a number of sprints over a long period of time as a result. I guess I'm thinking of Pokemon more like sprinters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not seeing the impact on gameplay here...

 

In your example the pokemon could fight for 55 rounds before finding itself out of END. That is a LONG time.

 

I am presuming you are double counting END, one for regular use and recovery, one for long term? I can see how running down END with no normal recovery method might hinder.

 

To me, the big question is whether you think this reduction in END will sufficiently hinder the player (no regular access to a recharge point) to be worth a limitation?

 

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting it be a limitation. That is to say, I'm not suggesting it be a way of players to conserve Character Points. It's a faster way of losing LTE, partly because of the mechanics, but partly because these calculations are always in effect, rather than, as per the standard rules, waiting until a specific scene when the GM knows the characters are going to be doing something for an extended period of time. I expect it to at least hinder a Pokemon. In that event, the Trainer would probably just switch to another one. So, hindering, yes, to the pokemon, but not to the character.

 

And your calculation of 55 rounds is probably not wrong, but the numbers I suggested were way beyond the power level of the pokemon we're typically dealing with. You know, they've got somewhere around 20-30, REC 5 or 6, but still possibly using 10 END over the course of a Turn. On the other hand, if they came across a rather powerful Legendary Pokemon, 55 rounds seems reasonable in the campaign setting I've established. 

 

Maybe I can come up with some more realistic numbers to give a sense of how it will play out in fake-reality, I mean.. the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand what you're aiming for here. Let's take your example of END 30, REC 5, SPD 2, spending 10 END/Turn.

 

Normal method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 25

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 20

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 10

Turn 5: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

New method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 20 (5 REC banked)

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 10 (10 REC banked)

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  0 (15 REC banked)

Banked Recoveries kick in; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  5 (5 REC banked)

Turn 5 gets complicated, but if I understand correctly it looks something like:

  • Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0,
  • Banked REC kicks in to bring you back up to 5 END
  • Burn 5 END in Phase 12 => END 0
  • End of Phase 12 REC now kicks in, bringing you back to END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

So I really don’t see how this impacts gameplay other than now I have to keep track of how many Recoveries I've banked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obvious possibilities for reflecting this are Charges and the regular LTE rules, and possibly some other Limitations on powers or pokemon END. Since the campaign is Episodic, they get to "start from scratch" at the beginning of every episode, so the LTE rules, for situations where Pokemon can't get to a PokeCenter, don't seem to apply, and the limitation value on Charges doesn't seem worth it. Charges seems too numerical and too much like the video game for my tastes, anyway.

I would go w/ Charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand what you're aiming for here. Let's take your example of END 30, REC 5, SPD 2, spending 10 END/Turn.

 

Normal method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 25

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 20

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 10

Turn 5: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

New method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 20 (5 REC banked)

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 10 (10 REC banked)

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  0 (15 REC banked)

Banked Recoveries kick in; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  5 (5 REC banked)

Turn 5 gets complicated, but if I understand correctly it looks something like:

  • Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0,
  • Banked REC kicks in to bring you back up to 5 END
  • Burn 5 END in Phase 12 => END 0
  • End of Phase 12 REC now kicks in, bringing you back to END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

So I really don’t see how this impacts gameplay other than now I have to keep track of how many Recoveries I've banked?

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're aiming for here. Let's take your example of END 30, REC 5, SPD 2, spending 10 END/Turn.

 

Normal method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 25

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 20

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 10

Turn 5: Burn 10 END, post-12 Recover 5; net END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

New method:

Turn 1: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 20 (5 REC banked)

Turn 2: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END = 10 (10 REC banked)

Turn 3: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  0 (15 REC banked)

Banked Recoveries kick in; net END = 15

Turn 4: Burn 10 END, no post-12 Recovery; net END =  5 (5 REC banked)

Turn 5 gets complicated, but if I understand correctly it looks something like:

  • Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0,
  • Banked REC kicks in to bring you back up to 5 END
  • Burn 5 END in Phase 12 => END 0
  • End of Phase 12 REC now kicks in, bringing you back to END = 5

Turn 6: Burn 5 END in Phase 6 => END 0

 

So I really don’t see how this impacts gameplay other than now I have to keep track of how many Recoveries I've banked?

Pretty sure you got it right. The only difference here is the Long Term context of END usage. So I think your first example is missing the standard calculation for losing LTE, which means you compared normal endurance usage to my tweaked LTE END usage.

 

The only thing you're missing is the total END available at the end of the second example. IF.. the combatant in the first example were to find repose for a span of 12 seconds, it would get another Post-Segment 12 recovery to bring its END back up to 5 (or more if it had taken actual Recoveries on its Phases [though I haven't exactly thought about how taking Recoveries will affect LTE yet]) because its available END total is still at 30. The combatant in the second example would not benefit from any Recoveries. Since it's gone through 6 END Cycles, and it's REC is 5, it no longer has ANY END. It's totally pooped and must expend STUN to act.

 

Savvy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah right, the LTE part of the alternate LTE discussion. I should probably include that, huh? :)

 

OK, so Normal Method: you lose 1 LTE/Turn (END expended/REC = 2). Which means by the end of Turn 5 you're down to an effective max END of 25. So no matter how many normal Recoveries you take you can't get above 25 END until you rest (recover 1 LTE per 1 hour rest).

 

The combatant in the second example would not benefit from any Recoveries. Since it's gone through 6 END Cycles, and it's REC is 5, it no longer has ANY END. It's totally pooped and must expend STUN to act.

I thought your first post defined one END Cycle as ending when your banked Recoveries kick in? Which in this example would be at the end of Phase 3 and the middle of Phase 5. So by the end of Phase 5, you've only gone through 2 Cycles and lost 10 LTE (instead of 5 under the normal method) and are down to an effective max END to 20 (instead of 25 under the normal method). Unless I'm misunderstanding something of course.

 

I dunno, seems like a lot of buck for not much bang. Wouldn't it be easier to just increase the regular LTE rate and achieve the same result?

 

Edit: OK, one difference is the rate of accruing LTE over long combats increases exponentially, rather than linearly like the normal method. Per RAW, you could keep going for around 10 Turns before you start not having enough END to fuel a whole Turn. Under your method, you would run dry around Turn 8? So yeah, if you expect to have a lot of combats that run that long, then it could make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought your first post defined one END Cycle as ending when your banked Recoveries kick in? Which in this example would be at the end of Phase 3 and the middle of Phase 5. So by the end of Phase 5, you've only gone through 2 Cycles and lost 10 LTE (instead of 5 under the normal method) and are down to an effective max END to 20 (instead of 25 under the normal method). Unless I'm misunderstanding something of course.

No, you're correct. I miscounted the Cycles. But the gist is the same: you're running out of LTE faster. Also, sorry for the double quote: the mouse I was using was messed.

 

Edit: OK, one difference is the rate of accruing LTE over long combats increases exponentially, rather than linearly like the normal method. Per RAW, you could keep going for around 10 Turns before you start not having enough END to fuel a whole Turn. Under your method, you would run dry around Turn 8? So yeah, if you expect to have a lot of combats that run that long, then it could make a difference.

Yes, exactly. That's what I'm going for. I could reduce the cost of END or REC, but I don't think I will. It's simply part of the campaign setting. It's actually more like a Complication, because I'm not using the same rules for humans, only Pokemon battles, but then it loses it's value if every single Pokemon has the same Limitation. 

 

Thinking out loud: I'm going to let Recoveries work as normal. Which means, if you take Recoveries before you reach 0 END, then your banked Post-Segment 12 Recoveries never kick in and you stay in the same END Cycle, LTE is never reduced. So the tweaked LTE END rules only penalize expenditures of END that are too close together. If you break, the LTE reduction is delayed. But this is, of course, all tempered by the specific numbers. I can see how this could be abused, if you mathed it out to take Recoveries at the exact right moment in order to never lose any LTE, effectively going on forever and ever, but the rules are only supposed to apply over a shorter period of time (one pokemon battle). Mostly the reason why I wanted faster LTE loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually use LTE in my Heroic games. Thus far the battles have not been long enough for it to make a huge difference, but they just finished a medium length one and will not get rest before the finale, so it will probably impact this combat more.

 

I think you could achieve the same effect by just having each Poke power cost N LTE. Maybe their basic attack is 1 LTE per and their special is 5 LTE per or varies on AP or the like. Seems like the tracking would be easier to me. But otherwise I see nothing mathematically or thematically with what you are proposing.

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to achieve what?

 

It seemed that the OP was about trying to limit the number of times an attack could be used by using the LTE rules. Maybe I misinterpreted. I started to say that I couldn't see much use in the whole idea, but it would make sense for an attack or other power that tires the character out for longer than just taking a recovery. They can use this (these) power(s) as much as they want, but they'll reach a point where they're just tired and have to rest for quite awhile instead of just a few seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seemed that the OP was about trying to limit the number of times an attack could be used by using the LTE rules. Maybe I misinterpreted. I started to say that I couldn't see much use in the whole idea, but it would make sense for an attack or other power that tires the character out for longer than just taking a recovery. They can use this (these) power(s) as much as they want, but they'll reach a point where they're just tired and have to rest for quite awhile instead of just a few seconds.

The latter is correct. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latter is correct. :)

 

Then I'll still have to wonder if ascribing an extra END for only counting against LTE Limitation might not be the way to go. They're burning normal END to use the power, but it's counting as 2-, 3-, 4-X or more toward that LTE calculation. I'd want to play it out though. It might instead be another case of they're fine, and then just suddenly crash like a pallet of bricks from a 3-story crane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was going to re-do LTE, and I'm not, you understand, I'd have a new characteristic called FATIGUE.  It would be to END as Body is to Stun, sort of.

 

You would get FAT if you exercised too much in one go.  It would be worth it for that alone.

 

I don't like the LTE rules as writ because: 

i) They require a value judgement as to when they are used, that might have to be applied retrospectively.

ii) They require a lot of tracking in terms of working out how much END per turn you are using.

iii) They use REC as a marker.  I'm in two minds about this, but it seems like it is doubling up a bit here as you also use REC for recovering LTE.  Plus a higher REC means you GAIN less LTE, which feels wrong.  Plus it works on multiples, which, you know, make the whole thing that bit more mathsy.  On the other hand, it does not feel entirely wrong.  Hmm.

iv) they seem to be (mainly) for out-of combat situations, and would be more complex to apply in combat situations.

 

So, jokes and critique aside, mechanics; untested, untried, barely thought through mechanics...

 

1. Every 5 points of END you use in one phase, you gain 1 FAT.  This would be for a superheroic game; for a heroic game, you might make it 2 or 3 points of END = 1 FAT.  This is the instant effort thing: break a sweat and you are into anaerobic respiration.

2. Every time you take a REC and are still down some END, you gain 1 FAT.  This is the long term effort thing: you can run for a long while at a certain pace, but push it and you quickly tire.

3. Every time you burn STUN for END, you gain an equal amount of FAT.  This one should be obvious.

 

Now you have to make a decision how much of an effect you want FAT to have, because it can do one of two things, or both:

 

1. If your current END is equal to or less than your FAT, you are treated as if you have no END to use.

 

OR

 

2. When you take a recovery, reduce your REC by your FAT.  This is a bit more drastic, obviously.

 

Recovering from FAT

If your FAT is equal to or more than your REC, you reduce your FAT by 1 point for each 5 minutes of sitting round doing nothing more strenuous than eating and drinking.

If your FAT is less than your REC, that drops to every minute.

 

Adjustment Powers

You can use adjustment powers against FAT.  FAT is considered a Defensive Power, and has a notional cost of 2 points (so you need 4 points of adjustment to affect 1 point of FAT change).

 

Bear in mind that (and this is the one place the joke does not really work), more FAT is worse for you, so a 'FAT drain' would increase FAT and a 'FAT heal' would reduce it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually quite inspired Sean.  I like it simply because it uses a mechanic already there in the game - the distinction between STUN and BODY and applying it to fatigue.

 

I am wondering if you do this that you simply remove the burning STUN.  If you run out of END then you simply gain FAT and when your FAT exceeds your current STUN then you are unconscious and unable to do anything due to fatigue - not because you have been knocked out.  It comes to the same thing, you heroically knock yourself out.  I think I would prefer one action not requiring two adjustments - thereby doubling the bureaucracy...

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually quite inspired Sean.  I like it simply because it uses a mechanic already there in the game - the distinction between STUN and BODY and applying it to fatigue.

 

I am wondering if you do this that you simply remove the burning STUN.  If you run out of END then you simply gain FAT and when your FAT exceeds your current STUN then you are unconscious and unable to do anything due to fatigue - not because you have been knocked out.  It comes to the same thing, you heroically knock yourself out.  I think I would prefer one action not requiring two adjustments - thereby doubling the bureaucracy...

 

Doc

 

Thank you :)

 

That sounds good to me!  No point in adding it twice, and it would take longer to recover from knocking yourself out from exhaustion than knocking yourself out from slightly exceeding your STUN total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...