Changing the System: Action Points

[Mr. Gridlock]

I hate the END system in Champions. I find it tedious and pointless.

 

I remember an incomplete system I stumbled across on the web back in the mid 90s based on Champions (I can't recall the name) that had one feature that I really liked: Action Points, a combination of STUN and END.

 

Later, I found the same kind of concept in the Marvel Superhero RPG (SAGA). Where if you exerted your powers (played more cards) you had less cards to lay down when you took damage,.

 

Action Points were a figured characteristic, replacing both END and STUN and I don't recall the calculation. It should probably be based on the same characteristics as STUN (STR, CON, BODY), but also be high enough to compensate for the loss due to exertion (END).

 

This would also do away with the need for the Reduced END Advantage. The Limitation Costs END could still work.

 

I wonder if A) anyone remembers this incomplete game, and what people think of this change? I really like it. The more damage you take, the less likely you'll be able to exert yourself all out since you have less Action Points. And vice versa: the more you exert yourself, the less damage you'll be able to take. I really dig that.

 

Thoughts?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

I don't like it at all. Stamina and tolerance for non-lethal damage are two completely different things IMO, and combining them would make about as much sense to me as "Hit Points" or "Armor Class."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Later, I found the same kind of concept in the Marvel Superhero RPG (SAGA). Where if you exerted your powers (played more cards) you had less cards to lay down when you took damage,.

 

Action Points were a figured characteristic, replacing both END and STUN and I don't recall the calculation. It should probably be based on the same characteristics as STUN (STR, CON, BODY), but also be high enough to compensate for the loss due to exertion (END).

 

This would also do away with the need for the Reduced END Advantage. The Limitation Costs END could still work.

 

I wonder if A) anyone remembers this incomplete game, and what people think of this change? I really like it. The more damage you take, the less likely you'll be able to exert yourself all out since you have less Action Points. And vice versa: the more you exert yourself, the less damage you'll be able to take. I really dig that.

 

I don't like it at all. Stamina and tolerance for non-lethal damage are two completely different things IMO' date=' and combining them would make about as much sense to me as "Hit Points" or "Armor Class."[/quote']

 

I agree with Derek. The structure proposed sounds more like a meta concept to me. "You can either resist damage or inflict it". What if I want to push my Force Field so I'm more resistant to damage?

 

It also creates a death spiral effect. A first strike is hugely effective, since it not only damages the target, but also reduces his ability to fight back. This changes the entire tone of the combat system.

[Mr. Gridlock]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Those are fine points, as I don't like Hit Points or Armor Class.

 

However, I hate END. It's pointless bookkeeping, and if you're using AC caps, then Reduced END not only is necessary (because who can pay 6-8 END every phase and last for more than a Turn or two?) but it also chops off the top end of the cap as you always have to pay to reduce the END.

 

And simply doing away with END altogether is not very satisfying.

 

So instead of just shooting the idea down, anyone care to offer any suggestions that are actually helpful?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Those are fine points, as I don't like Hit Points or Armor Class.

 

However, I hate END. It's pointless bookkeeping, and if you're using AC caps, then Reduced END not only is necessary (because who can pay 6-8 END every phase and last for more than a Turn or two?) but it also chops off the top end of the cap as you always have to pay to reduce the END.

 

And simply doing away with END altogether is not very satisfying.

 

So instead of just shooting the idea down, anyone care to offer any suggestions that are actually helpful?

 

That sounds more like an issue with caps than anything else.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Sounds like you'd need to be spending points to do things anyway. So if you really want End and Stun to be the same, just replace them both with one Characteristic (call it Stun; I don't see much point to changing the name). End and Stun have about the same starting values, so just use Stun at the normal rate you'd use End, and start it at the combined value (2*Con+Str/2+Con/2+Body).

 

Of course, any way you do this is going to make characters who don't have to spend a lot of End (Charges, Reduced End Cost, etc.) awfully tough. Heh.

[Vondy]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Those are fine points, as I don't like Hit Points or Armor Class.

 

However, I hate END. It's pointless bookkeeping, and if you're using AC caps, then Reduced END not only is necessary (because who can pay 6-8 END every phase and last for more than a Turn or two?) but it also chops off the top end of the cap as you always have to pay to reduce the END.

 

And simply doing away with END altogether is not very satisfying.

 

So instead of just shooting the idea down, anyone care to offer any suggestions that are actually helpful?

 

1) don't count reduced endurance when considering AP limits. I don't.

 

2) there is a functional proposal for action points in the 6th edition forums.

 

3) I find running without END quite satisfying.

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

I’m not a fan of END either but the system you outlined would be impractical to implement in HERO. My suggestion would be to simply house rule that powers don’t normally use END. Make sure you also make clear to your players that they can then not buy down their starting END to gain back points and that the limitations for increased END are worth half of the normal limitation (this reflects the fact that they generally have more END to spend because most powers don’t require it). For pushing powers have them spend STUN rather than END to do it. And there you go HERO without END. It’s worked for me for years so you might want to give it a try.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

I'm no expert at SAGA, but IIRC, when you play cards to do things, you get them back almost immediately.

[Vondy]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Oddball Notion:

 

All powers are assumed to have 8 recoverable charges. They are recovered by having a phase you don't burn a charge on. Each "recovery phase" you take brings you back up 1 level on the charges chart. You can also purchase additional charges. The idea probably has problems, but its just a brainstorm.

 

Edit: Another option: the character has a pool of charges for all powers to run off of.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Oddball Notion:

 

All powers are assumed to have 8 recoverable charges. They are recovered by having a phase you don't burn a charge on. Each "recovery phase" you take brings you back up 1 level on the charges chart. You can also purchase additional charges. The idea probably has problems, but its just a brainstorm.

 

Edit: Another option: the character has a pool of charges for all powers to run off of.

Two issues I see right off the bat:

 

1. Not all powers should have charges by concept, so you'd have to either restrict/modify concepts to fit the rules, or have a way to allow powers to not use charges.

 

2. I'm not sure I see why tracking charges would be so much easier than tracking END...

[tesuji]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Add me to the "have ran without end and it worked fine" camp.

 

if you want "pushing" in a zero end world you can add fatigue, every time you push you take -1 due to fatigue until you rest for a turn.

 

hard to use powers could take -1/2 for taking fatigue every time its used if its a combat power. that give you a semblance of "extra end powers".

 

but if i get you right you want to replace stun and end with a single stat that is tracked based on exertion and damage, with a new figured stat? How exactly does this help? Same amount of tracking just people drop sooner?

 

not totally sure what the goal is?

less tracking?

just being different?

[Vulcan]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Those are fine points, as I don't like Hit Points or Armor Class.

 

However, I hate END.

 

Then I would just ignore END entirely in your games. Do away with the Costs END & Increased END Cost limitations, the Reduced END advantages, and do away with pushing entirely (or reduce pushing to a simple EGO roll.

 

It's pointless bookkeeping, and if you're using AC caps,

 

I assume you mean AP caps - active point caps.

 

then Reduced END not only is necessary (because who can pay 6-8 END every phase and last for more than a Turn or two?) but it also chops off the top end of the cap as you always have to pay to reduce the END.

 

I haven't found this to be a severe problem in the games I've played. Either one buys more END, REC, or Reduced/0 END on some of your powers. Or take the risk that you'll run out of END when you really need it, which forces you to burn STUN...

 

And simply doing away with END altogether is not very satisfying.

 

Then you have a problem, because if you don't want to track END, but don't want to simply do away with END, that leaves very little room in the middle to find a way to make you happy.

 

So instead of just shooting the idea down, anyone care to offer any suggestions that are actually helpful?

 

I suppose one could just track pushing END (if pushes are common in your game) and ignore everything else, or say some things still cost END while others don't. If that sounds like a good idea to you, go for it. It's your game after all.

 

The reason you got shot down on the 'combined END & STUN' thing is that it leads to a very different dynamic in the game. The guy who goes first (high DEX) and hits (high OCV) has a HUGE advantage over the others because not only does he do damage, he also (by removing END) make it harder for the target to keep his defenses up, maneuver, and counterattack. So the slower guy now has to balance his END costs against the possibility of knocking himself out by using his own powers!

 

Sure, it happens occasionally in HEROS now (when a character burns STUN for END) but by and large it doesn't occur directly because of enemy action.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Another more subtle effect of removing END from a game is that Elemental Controls become more cost effective.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

Suggestions? I'm full of... well, okay. Let's attack this from another angle:

 

What kind of game do you want to run? FREX, if you're doing a Heroic game, then you're probably tracking weapon load outs, charges for guns, and people have batons, swords and so on. Most of the time, the weapons in HERO are built with Red END: 0 END because the focus does the 'work.' This means that a user only pays for the END in STR, and frankly, unless you're feeling very picky, you can ignore that.

 

If you want to go Super Heroic, that's a separate issue, because most powers (flame powers, etc.) cost END to run, including Force Fields, Walls, Flight, and so on. However, nothing says you must keep track of END, you could reasonably elect to skip it. But it adds stress and flavor to Super Heroic games much more so than, say, Heroic games.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

However' date=' I hate END. It's pointless bookkeeping, and if you're using AC caps, then Reduced END not only is necessary (because who can pay 6-8 END every phase and last for more than a Turn or two?) but it also chops off the top end of the cap as you always have to pay to reduce the END.[/quote']

 

?? If you're going to reduce END costs to the point that you can spend END for an extended period, then eliminating END overall seems like the way to go. Most of my characters are designed to last a couple of turns using full power every phase, after which END use becomes a concern.

 

If characters are going to be designed so END is almost never an issue, it seems easier to toss it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

If characters are going to be designed so END is almost never an issue' date=' it seems easier to toss it.[/quote']

 

There's another similar approach: require that characters be built such that they could do most things indefinitely (or for a certain minimum amount of time). Then don't actually track End at all during the game. Maybe still allow a few big signature powers (maybe one or two per character), calculate how long it would take to recover the End (given an average amount of other expenditure), and only allow the big powers to be used so often with a certain recovery period inbetween (e.g. a character's big force field can be used for up to 5 Phases before it needs to be recharged for at least 3 Turns).

 

IMO this approach helps keep things balanced, and still encourages the players to think about it during creation and advancement, but frees up all the complication during actual game play.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Changing the System: Action Points

 

If characters are going to be designed so END is almost never an issue, it seems easier to toss it.

 

That's generally my groups approach. There are usually some "the gloves are off" powers which cost enough to be a drain but mostly they can keep going just about forever.