Hero Points / Action Points - Yay or Nay?

[Crazy Jerome]

Now that I think about it some more, I'd actually prefer three or four different versions, with different names, geared for different areas of play:

• Action Points - geared for gamist manipulation and/or tactical play, affecting the action economy and/or odds.
• Fate Points - a more narrative focus, used as a currency for the player to shift the results in a more open ended way.
• Hero Points - rare and restrained, but capable of pulling off major deeds.
• And so forth.

Otherwise, we'll get a mishmash of functions in one type of "points"--watering down how it works, and confusing us when we try to talk about alternatives.

 

[77IM]

It's 2012. I have trouble even grasping the idea of an RPG without some sort of reroll points or FYIA points or whatever.

-- 77IM, what do you mean I can't reroll that?

 

[BobTheNob]

It's 2012. I have trouble even grasping the idea of an RPG without some sort of reroll points or FYIA points or whatever.

-- 77IM, what do you mean I can't reroll that?

Dont get me wrong, I actually like the idea in my own way and voted yes as a module.

Many evolutions have spawned out of RPG's in the past 30 years, some good, some bad. By saying "come on, its 2012!" sort of implies that the "action point" idea is an evolution that is a fore-gone conclusion as being required for RPG design, and Im not sure thats the case.

I think they are a good idea (nay, great idea), but a mandatory part of RPG design? No, IMO thats not the case at all.

 

[CleverNickName]

Nope, I never cared for them at all.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Action Points are a band-aid on bad game-design. It's but a patch to cover up the fact that the game is actually not fun to play. (Clearly redundant in D&D).

 

[Lanefan]

My vote is no, I see the idea becoming too much a get-out-of-a-bad-situation-free card; thus greatly cheapening the experience of getting out of a bad situation.

Lanefan

 

[Ranganathan]

Yes, absolutely. the d20 is so stupidly swingy that players need some kind of meta-currency to avoid whiffing constantly, especially with the new and improved (re: old and still dull) maths. Sorry, I just think that the characters should be more important than the randomizer, 5e seems to e going for the opposite of that.

 

[BobTheNob]

Action Points are a band-aid on bad game-design. It's but a patch to cover up the fact that the game is actually not fun to play. (Clearly redundant in D&D).

Before drawing that conclussion, go and read some of the FATE variants out there. They actually place fate points as central to the entire design, and its a rather brilliant idea. The FATE system is really cool.

I wont say action points are required all the time, but saying they indicate a poorly designed game is just specious.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

[NOOOOOOOO!]

Nope, I never cared for them at all.

My vote is no, I see the idea becoming too much a get-out-of-a-bad-situation-free card; thus greatly cheapening the experience of getting out of a bad situation.

Lanefan

Color me shocked.

 

[Doug McCrae]

• Action Points - geared for gamist manipulation and/or tactical play, affecting the action economy and/or odds.
• Fate Points - a more narrative focus, used as a currency for the player to shift the results in a more open ended way.

Hasn't D&D always had its own versions of both of these?

Spells, dailies, and limited use magic items such as scrolls, potions and wands do the same job as action points - a limited resource that supports gamist play. Like action points they are held in reserve and spent when the situation is dire.

It has been argued that hit points in D&D do almost the same job as fate points in Warhammer. Neither has any real game-world analogue. Both are points that, when spent, prevent the PC from dying.

So it could be said that D&D doesn't need either of these types of points, they're superfluous.