GRIM TALES mixed with D&D classes: Action Points?

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Ahhh... Gotcha.

I got a dirty little secret: It's hard to break out of the usual 3.0/3.5 habits. I've run "Grim Tales" games and completely forgotten to use Action Points to confirm criticals.

And the game went right on rolling...

EDIT: Oh! And I am glad you like GT. Don't forget to vote in the ENnies!


Wulf

hahahaha

OK.. one positive vote coming up.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Obviously as long as you are rolling dice there will be luck. But Crits are a whole separate tier.

As far as Action points being built into the system, that seems to be fairly standard. D20 modern uses it. Unearthed Arcana doesn't, but only because it is constrained into being a bolt-on system. Over in Eberron they are kinda inbetween, an add-on to the existing D&D with some mechanics that build it in.

I don't think it is right or wrong, good or bad. I think that I grok the intent of GT fairly well. And I think that using action points as a built in regulator on any and all overachievements is a very good thing for that style. However, I also think that there is a ton of stuff in GT that can be used for a game that isn't truly in tune with the heart of GT heroics.

I'd certainly never dream of requiring an Eberron barbarian to spend an action point in order to rage. But I think requiring GT toughs to do so makes perfect sense. So I can't really have an opinion of which way is better. I can only have an opinion that based on your choice your game is to some degree more like D&D or more like GT. As those are both good options, it seems to be a matter of selecting which of numerous in between "win" scenarios you most desire.

I mostly agree with what your saying, but where we differ is in how we each view how drastic a change my variant is (me: still a Grim Tales-type game, you: more in the realm of D&D). For the record, I prefer a "grim and gritty" game, and wouldn't (purposely, at least) change a rule to make my game less so.

 

[BryonD]

I mostly agree with what your saying, but where we differ is in how we each view how drastic a change my variant is (me: still a Grim Tales-type game, you: more in the realm of D&D). For the record, I prefer a "grim and gritty" game, and wouldn't (purposely, at least) change a rule to make my game less so.

I don't know that I said it was drastic.

I just said "to some degree"
If you allow confirming crits without action points you are unquestionably "to some degree" closer to D&D than letter of the book GT.
There will also almost guaranteed be more crits achieved by the PCs, thus it will "to some degree" be less gritty.
On the less gritty front I would qualify the "some degree" as "very minimally so".
On the "like D&D" front I would qualify it as notable but not very significant.

I see no basis for claiming that using conformation rolls in place of action points is to ANY degree better or worse or more or less fun.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I don't know that I said it was drastic.

I just said "to some degree"
If you allow confirming crits without action points you are unquestionably "to some degree" closer to D&D than letter of the book GT.
There will also almost guaranteed be more crits achieved by the PCs, thus it will "to some degree" be less gritty.
On the less gritty front I would qualify the "some degree" as "very minimally so".
On the "like D&D" front I would qualify it as notable but not very significant.

I see no basis for claiming that using conformation rolls in place of action points is to ANY degree better or worse or more or less fun.

???

I didn't say 'drastic'.. I said 'how drastic', as in your view is relatively more drastic than mine. That doesn't imply that your view is drastic, just that it's more so than mine, however slightly. So I know you know the difference is a small one.

I agree that using standard d20 crits is not more or less fun, but since I like "grim and gritty" and since more crits equals more "grim and gritty" (as in greater risk to the PCs), standard crits it is! (More crits favours the monsters, not the PCs; PCs will face many more crits than their opponents will.)

 

[BryonD]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your meaning.

Anyway, it will work either way.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

(More crits favours the monsters, not the PCs; PCs will face many more crits than their opponents will.)

Monsters will actually critical MORE OFTEN in the action point system, since they don't have to spend an action point and they don't have re-roll to confirm. This factor alone makes the GT system unbelievably grim for the PCs.

Characters will critical LESS OFTEN in the action point system, because, in order to keep apace of the monsters' rate of criticalling, they will have to spend every action point earned right back into confirming their own criticals.

At some point they're going to want to spend APs on feats and talents, critical successes, healing, defense boosts, and regular old d20 boosts, which means that over the course of time the PCs will have to forgo confirming critical threats that the monsters won't.

Truly, if your definition of "gritty" is "Monsters crit more often than players," then the AP system is unquestionably the grittier version-- which is why Grim Tales does it that way.

The GM is in complete control of the grittiness of combat in this system, on a blow by blow basis, as he is under no obligation to confirm every threat. If you're feeling like a rat bastard, award the PC an action point and confirm it. If it would derail your story, don't.

Wulf

 

[JoeGKushner]

The GM is in complete control of the grittiness of combat in this system, on a blow by blow basis, as he is under no obligation to confirm every threat. If you're feeling like a rat bastard, award the PC an action point and confirm it. If it would derail your story, don't.

Wulf

One thing I've been playing with is that if the character has his maximum amount of action points, he cannot be criticalled.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

One thing I've been playing with is that if the character has his maximum amount of action points, he cannot be criticalled.

Clearly your players need to be "persuaded" to spend action points faster. Seriously, quit bein' such a girl's blouse and hurt them.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I am curious how you interpreted the rules to imply that there's a "maximum" number of APs...

Wulf

 

[JoeGKushner]

Clearly your players need to be "persuaded" to spend action points faster. Seriously, quit bein' such a girl's blouse and hurt them.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I am curious how you interpreted the rules to imply that there's a "maximum" number of APs...

Wulf

I'm blending bits of d20 Modern, Monte's AU, and of course, Grim Tales. I'll probablly be using Dork 20 and based on a suggestion of Psions, having characters spend Action Points to Play those Dork cards.

I hate the tyranny of dice but players love to critical things.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Monsters will actually critical MORE OFTEN in the action point system, since they don't have to spend an action point and they don't have re-roll to confirm. This factor alone makes the GT system unbelievably grim for the PCs.

Characters will critical LESS OFTEN in the action point system, because, in order to keep apace of the monsters' rate of criticalling, they will have to spend every action point earned right back into confirming their own criticals.

At some point they're going to want to spend APs on feats and talents, critical successes, healing, defense boosts, and regular old d20 boosts, which means that over the course of time the PCs will have to forgo confirming critical threats that the monsters won't.

Truly, if your definition of "gritty" is "Monsters crit more often than players," then the AP system is unquestionably the grittier version-- which is why Grim Tales does it that way.

The GM is in complete control of the grittiness of combat in this system, on a blow by blow basis, as he is under no obligation to confirm every threat. If you're feeling like a rat bastard, award the PC an action point and confirm it. If it would derail your story, don't.

Wulf

Touche re: the AP system being grittier. I still don't feel comfortable about using APs for crits, feats and talents though. To use APs for these sorts of core mechanics seems so.. arbitrary. (By that I mean: crits and AP-powered feats/talents are more or less powerful depending on how generous the GM is with the Action Points.) Obviously, you've had success with playing this way, so obviously there is merit to this system.

Here're a few questions: how often do you hand out Action Points? At what rate do your players typically consume them? It's hard for me to tell if a talent which requires burning APs is worth taking without a general idea of how many free APs a typical character has with which to play.