Core materials: Action Points and Insider

[Belen]

I am not sure I like the implication that action points are core. I do not like action points. I do not find them useful for the game. I have used them in other system and found they just added mechanical mess with no real, positive effect on the game other than to shield players from bad choices or bad rolls. I hope that it will be eaiser to excise them from the game.

I also do not like the implication that D&D Insider is core. There is a reason that some DMs prefer to limit the amount of material in their game. I do not consider this a DM-friendly move. I can already hear players demanding items in their game because "Wizards" says that it is core. I find this highly annoying. DMs run the games that sell products. Why make our lives more difficult?

 

[WayneLigon]

...no real, positive effect on the game other than to shield players from bad choices or bad rolls.

Those being the real, positive effects. I've been running Eberron for about six months now and previously played in a 3.5 game that used one of the action point variants from UA. It's been great, and I'm glad this is part of the core rules now. In fact, after playing with them for so long in D&D, Mutants and Masterminds, and Savage Worlds, I've found that I really love them. It makes people more likely to try crazy (read: heroic) stuff if they know they have a little cushion for it in case the roll is really bad.

 

[HellHound]

no real, positive effect on the game other than to shield players from bad choices or bad rolls.

So there should be no shield whatsoever from a bad roll killing off a character?
Or there is no benefit to giving characters a resource that can be used to prevent character death caused by a fluke bad roll?

I can already hear players demanding items in their game because "Wizards" says that it is core.

Rule 0.

Anyways, before you game, you should sit down with the players first and decide /together/ what the game will be like, what rules are being used and so on. IMO, anything else is bad DMing.

 

[Belen]

Those being the real, positive effects. I've been running Eberron for about six months now and previously played in a 3.5 game that used one of the action point variants from UA. It's been great, and I'm glad this is part of the core rules now. In fact, after playing with them for so long in D&D, Mutants and Masterminds, and Savage Worlds, I've found that I really love them. It makes people more likely to try crazy (read: heroic) stuff if they know they have a little cushion for it in case the roll is really bad.

Yes. Because no one can be heroic without action points.

I do not mind action points being a variant rule in order to allow people who enjoy that style of gaming to be happy. I do not like that it is being forced on everyone and further pushing one, particular style of gaming. I am sure that special abilties etc will all be powered by action points, which will mean that a DM will once again have another resource to worry about giving to the players.

I find AP to be even worse in games such as M&M where a player feels compelled to perform for the DM in order to be able to play your character.

Some of the stuff in 4e seems to be great, but this is a huge negative for me. Action point mechanics are one of the items that will make or break a game for me.

 

[Hussar]

The primary reason for having Action points in 3e is due to the fact that a given monster of an equivalent CR can kill pretty much any PC in a single round. Not with critical hits, just by rolling well. At the end of the day, that means a lot of dead PC's. I see people talking about how they haven't killed a PC in years and I really wonder how.

AP's are a very good buffer mechanic to balance this out. It gives the PC's the chance to keep playing even when the dice decide that they are dead. Great.

Having averaged a PC death every three sessions for two years in the World's Largest Dungeon, I was pretty happy to see something come out that would shield PC's a bit.

 

[Deimodius]

I am letting my players use APs as per Unearthed Arcana in our Age of Worms campaign, and they have made the game more enjoyable for everyone. It does mean that there is less chance of a TPK in a very difficult campaign, and as has already been mentioned, allows for some heroic actions (like we've had in our campaign).

Since they are not unlimited, it does not become overwhelming or unbalanced. Players have to be judicious in their use of APs, once they are gone, they're gone.

Also, if you are concerned about "adding mechanical mess" (not sure I understand how) just limit their use to _only_ being used to add to a d20 roll for combat or skill checks. Simple.

Of course as I'm sure we've all heard over and over, if you don't like them, just don't use them!

Just because something is declared "core" by WotC doesn't mean your players can demand them. tell them "this is the game we are playing". If they don't like it, they won't play. Of course you may not have any players to DM for then, so compromise might be a better option. ;-)

 

[Imaro]

I am not sure I like the implication that action points are core. I do not like action points. I do not find them useful for the game. I have used them in other system and found they just added mechanical mess with no real, positive effect on the game other than to shield players from bad choices or bad rolls. I hope that it will be eaiser to excise them from the game.

I also do not like the implication that D&D Insider is core. There is a reason that some DMs prefer to limit the amount of material in their game. I do not consider this a DM-friendly move. I can already hear players demanding items in their game because "Wizards" says that it is core. I find this highly annoying. DMs run the games that sell products. Why make our lives more difficult?

I've got no real problem with action points, though in a wider perspective I am seriously beginning to wonder at the power levels of adventurer's at low level. I mean with per-encounter/at-will/per-day abilities and action points they do seem powerful, but I'll wait and see how it all comes together.

The implications that the Insider will be core worries me much more. I would much rather it be optional but official material and feel this can only serve to divide the player base into those who play purely by the books and those who play w/books+insider. Another question this brings up is what supercedes wnat? I mean if a new rule is introduced on DI does it trump my PHB rule/spell/feat whatever. Home play won't really matter, unless you form a group that is split as far as access to DI, but what about online play and convention play? Eh, I become more and more leery of how "necessary" the DI will be.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yes. Because no one can be heroic without action points.

It certainly makes it a great deal easier. People are more willing to do more when there is a small safety net.

which will mean that a DM will once again have another resource to worry about giving to the players.

Good. They need resources to affect the game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I also do not like the implication that D&D Insider is core. There is a reason that some DMs prefer to limit the amount of material in their game. I do not consider this a DM-friendly move. I can already hear players demanding items in their game because "Wizards" says that it is core. I find this highly annoying. DMs run the games that sell products. Why make our lives more difficult?

I think in 4e Core = non-setting specific

 

[charlesatan]

I am not sure I like the implication that action points are core. I do not like action points. I do not find them useful for the game. I have used them in other system and found they just added mechanical mess with no real, positive effect on the game other than to shield players from bad choices or bad rolls. I hope that it will be eaiser to excise them from the game.

They also said that the action points we know now is different from the action points that's going to be in 4E. For that reason alone I'm reserving judgment. Because as it is, action points can mean anything. In d20 games like True20, it's present and it works. In non-d20 AEG games like 7th Sea, it's also present and works differently more than just "boosting" your roll. So honestly it's a wait-and-see how integrated it will be.

I also do not like the implication that D&D Insider is core. There is a reason that some DMs prefer to limit the amount of material in their game. I do not consider this a DM-friendly move. I can already hear players demanding items in their game because "Wizards" says that it is core. I find this highly annoying. DMs run the games that sell products. Why make our lives more difficult?

You should listen to the podcast. I saw the original message of the poster and I could see how "D&D Insider is core" can be misconstrued.

First off, the question was whether Class XX or Race XX would be in the core books. They answered that there are two ways of defining what core is. The first way is the 3 initial books (PHB, DMG, MM). The second context is how some people use it, which is not-setting specific. (In 3.0/3.5, this would make a book like Complete Warrior "core" but Magic of Faerun not core.) If your definition of core is the latter, then there's a good chance that Class XX or Race XX will be in it. (And while not everyone uses the latter definition, some do. In the same way that some people add in the Expanded Psionics Handbook when they mention "core". Or a general "anything in the SRD" which includes material from the Epic Level Handbook, Manual of the Planes, and Deities and Demigods--books that aren't the big three but aren't setting specific.)

So no, D&D Insider and all future supplements aren't core if you as a GM don't want them to be.