How do you like your action points?

[FalcWP]

I picked 4E, but it was really only the closest to what I'd like, and I think the "achievement" or whatever it s they call it when you fight two battles in a row is an incredibly stupid and arbitrary concept.

To me, an action point is a metagame concept, so why not just say "one per session" or somesuch?

Personally, I think 'One per session' would be far more 'stupid and arbitrary'. What if your session is an 8 or 12 hour, once a month marathon, and my group plays 3 hour games once a week? What if we both played sessions of equal length, but my group took more breaks, did more non-encounter RPing, etc, while yours favored a pure dungeon crawl with lots and lots of action?

A session is much more open than an encounter. I can see playing with the frequency of encounters per action point, or going to a per-session basis for an individual group, but having a rule based on X Resources/Session would have been pretty bad. As a general rule to include in a core rulebook, I much prefer what they've got than a session-based system.

 

[Greg K]

I don't like 4e action points. I prefer Hero Points from Mutants and Masterminds, True20 Conviction, and then Unearthed Arcana Action Points.

 

[radferth]

I like points that give you a reroll or something, not ones that become a part of your tactical options.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't mind the way WHFRP uses fate points. If you die, you burn a fate point to be left for dead.

 

[diaglo]

Action points blow. I let the dice fall where they may.

quoted for my answer too

 

[The Little Raven]

I like points that give you a reroll or something, not ones that become a part of your tactical options.

Spending one on a reroll would be a tactical option.

 

[Krensky]

Spycraft 2.0 Action Dice, followed by Paranoia Pervasity.