|
Post by GhostKnight on Feb 26, 2009 10:52:53 GMT -5
I agree with you Wildknight, the limit must be set. If you have unlimited actions per panel the player is pushed to have more energy because they want to do a lot of actions like 'others' the push them to have intelligence based energy (a level like Reed Richards) or high durability and healing factor like Hulk or use the inner reserves modifier to obscene levels. Kinda remembers me a friend whose characters always had Durability 6 or higher
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 26, 2009 10:54:50 GMT -5
Well... Not everyone has tried this like you did... and Honestly, as much as I respect your opinion, sometimes proof is needed. If what you're talking about is the actual way of it, then it should only take one battle to prove it. Either way, you're invited
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 11:00:44 GMT -5
No, and you see, thats the problem.
One battle doesn't prove anything. Thats why (good) RPGs spend a year or more in playtesting before they're released, and even then, bad ideas slip through the cracks.
I honestly don't understand why its hard to grasp;
No action limit favors characters with a high energy pool and a number of "attack" type actions.
As much as I hate to use him as an example, Captain America is what I would call a "moderate threat" in this arena, because sans the Action Limit, all he has to do is make A Ranged Attack at full stones A Close Attack at full stones Leadership at full stones + Acrobatics at full stones (to move as far away from any nasty brawlers as possible)
Then in panel 2, he huddles up behind his shield and waits for his energy to regenerate.
It gets MUCH worse once players catch on (it took mine two sessions) and start custom building characters to abuse the system, and you end up with a guy who Flies, has both Ranged Combat and a Force Blast, and Close Combat, and a support action.
So you go ahead and "test" it. I'll pass.
If by some God-forsaken route people actually decide to forego the Action Limit for 2.0, I can promise you I'll never run 2.0 *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 26, 2009 11:03:29 GMT -5
LOL! Now you sound like me during the Inventing thread. But, unlike your reaction where you berated my opinion, I'll respect yours. You wouldn't be so against it if it wasn't a true problem. I might try allowing some sort of action increase, maybe a modifier or something, but I personally won't be allowing unlimited actions per panel.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 11:10:49 GMT -5
I have a very specific reason for my statement; Ive been there, done that.
I won't waste my time playing 3rd Edition D&D or watching Matrix: Revolutions again either. Why? Because all of those things were more frustrating than fun.
I'm not threatening to leave the boards or even to stop offering my thoughts on 2.0. I'm simply saying; based on experiences I've already had, if there is no Action Limit, I don't ever see myself bothering with playing 2.0
Theres just nothing fun or heroic about blowing all your energy in one panel and then huddling up and hoping you regenerate fast enough to act before your enemy finishes you. Not for me, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Brainstem on Feb 26, 2009 12:33:03 GMT -5
I'm with WK on this one, sad to say (not really).
If you really need to have increased Action limit, make it a Modifier. That kind of power is pretty intense, so I would say something around 20w for each extra Action.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 26, 2009 12:38:01 GMT -5
Gee... thanks...
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 27, 2009 1:02:44 GMT -5
lol WK, That's what I said in the Inventing thread....
But onto countering your points... You can blow your wad with 2 actions just as easily as you can with 7 or 8.... In fact... you've accused most people of doing that now lol. I've seen threads where you have said stuff like that (I can't quote, but I'm sure you were the one talking)
I mean... Seriously.. How many players have you seen that go
PANEL 1
Action 1: 12 stones here Action 2: 6 stones here
H: 6/6 E: 0/18
PANEL 2
Action: Rebreather!
I've seen alot of that....It annoys me half to death, but your point flutters away when you realize it is happening now, without raised action limits. AND In the one game where EVERYONE has the potential for more than 2 actions... I'M the only one that's used them, and that was to prove a point.
I'm no longer advocating for more than 2 actions a turn... No one is going to let that happen... I'm just saying that it wouldn't change a majority of player's play style... They already blow their wads in the first turn, and play catchup later.
|
|
|
Post by Kaimontfendo on Feb 27, 2009 4:36:27 GMT -5
The problems with the two action per panel limit are painfully obvious. But since everyone around here won't listen to me anyway, (or at least, they haven't yet) I'll just continue to ignore it in any games I GM. I figure since it hasn't caused any problems yet, it won't cause any problems unless something about 2.0 mucks it up.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 27, 2009 7:01:04 GMT -5
Actually, Dionon... I almost never see that now.
Nice try though.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 27, 2009 8:33:15 GMT -5
Was worth a shot....
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 27, 2009 8:39:12 GMT -5
I saw that a lot when I first started running the game table top, but once people realized that they weren't going to defeat their opponents in one panel by throwing all their stones in, it stopped.
The risk with the "no action limit" is that people WILL kill (or at least very severely maim) most of their opponents in the first panel, if they're willing to throw all their energy in.
I did say, though, that I think a fair compromise is to allow a third action for purposes of movement actions. I think that it allows for a slightly more dynamic combat while still keeping things relatively sane.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 27, 2009 9:06:43 GMT -5
Hmmm... I did like Movement as a "Third Action" It mimics a mechanic I actually LIKE from DnD and is easily incorporated into a game. Though it does leave a little open for abuse... Especially by speedsters, or those of the highly acrobatic nature. BUT We have to pay the small prices to get the big changes.
|
|
|
Post by malice on Mar 6, 2009 12:03:52 GMT -5
We decided that you get your movement action for free.
Could we tweak that so that you can take a movement action in addition to your two actions for free OR use Social Skills or some other kind of "free" action?
So Movement actions would be defined as movement actions and you could always take one in a panel in addition to two other actions
And very simple actions and/or plot-concerned actions and/or actions that you've taken the "free action" advantage on would be defined as Free actions so you could take them in a panel instead of your movement action (Or in addition to it in the case of the Free Action advantage).
So...
Darth Vader can allocate stone to Social Skills [free] to try and persuade Luke to come to the Dark Side WHILE also fighting Luke with a Lightsaber [1] AND using the Force [2] to hit Luke with something heavy because it's funny
OR
Doc Samson could use Psychiatry [free] to try and calm Hulk down while he defends himself and some bystanders [1] by allocating to close combat and keeps a bus from falling over with his Strength [2].
It's mostly flavor and a lot of GMs allow this based on the merit of the player's dialogue without making them allocate to something, but I've actually been in a game or two where the allocating to Social Skills would've helped but was a waste of an action.
I hope I've been clear. Let me know what you guys think. This idea comes even more in handy when you start riding horses or operating vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Mar 6, 2009 20:45:34 GMT -5
I disagree with that notion, but it may be specifically because I ALWAYS treat Social Skills (Psychiatry, what have you) as an "attack" anyway when used in combat, weakening the resolve of opponents and so on.
I strenuously dislike the idea that you can make a persuasive argument WHILE attempting to pummel your opponent into submission. I know its a common trope in comics and film, but its fairly absurd (and I've never actually seen it WORK in comics anyway)
|
|