The Adversarial DM
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
re
I tend to agree. The DM actively being able to use action points to harm the PC's is a bad idea. As a DM, I have a hard enough time designing challenging encounters that aren't over or under kill. Adding in an element where I as a DM have to harm a PC using arbitrary action dice on behalf of a villian is asking for trouble. I wouldn't like it myself, and it is definitely a mechanic that I would not employ. Survival points isn't a bad idea for recurring villains (though the DM can handle this arbitrarily), action points for harming PC's is putting the DM in an awkward situation.
I tend to agree. The DM actively being able to use action points to harm the PC's is a bad idea. As a DM, I have a hard enough time designing challenging encounters that aren't over or under kill. Adding in an element where I as a DM have to harm a PC using arbitrary action dice on behalf of a villian is asking for trouble. I wouldn't like it myself, and it is definitely a mechanic that I would not employ. Survival points isn't a bad idea for recurring villains (though the DM can handle this arbitrarily), action points for harming PC's is putting the DM in an awkward situation.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Spycraft has action points for the GM, too, and they also use them to confirm criticals and enforce fumbles against the PCs. I think knowing the timing of when to use them is part of good GMing. I also tend to think that it's more frustrating to negate a really effective hit by the PCs against the bad guy. I know that as a player, the game is more exciting when my PC's life is truly threatened. I'm not sure I'd want to take that factor away.
Last edited:
Painfully
First Post
That's the most long winded explanation for a one line HOUSE RULE I've ever seen!
Every GM brings with them their own style of play. The action dice system as it is explained in the Stargate rulebook has yet to pose any problems IME.
If it ever came down to the use of an action dice to kill a PC, my hope is that a GM would avoid it if there were any chance the party could change the outcome in the next few rounds of combat. Only in that particular case can I see a GM potentially "breaking" the fun of the game for a player. However, if the GM did choose to kill the PC, I would hope that it was for good effect, either for the story, or to increase the tension among the remaining players that they need to act even more urgently than before.
There are such a variety of ways to use action dice, that it doesn't make sense to focus them all on attacking PCs. The number of opportunities for a GM to use action dice as a critical failure for PCs is uncommon, and to make them lethal is even more rare. Regardless of how the GM uses his action dice, you have to remember that these dice are of limited supply during the session, and the opportunity to create critical failures will typically result in a gun jam--harmless, but it buys some time for the bad guys.
For all those uncertain of how to use action dice, I say read the rules yourself, and experiment. It's the same process for any core rule you become uncomfortable with IMO, and this one is no different.
Merric, I can see your point, but IME it isn't a big enough problem to write a house rule. It's no worse than D&D's "save or die" spells. In practice, I have yet to encounter any problems. Unless a GM decides he is, "out to get you," I don't think they could turn their action dice into the big negative you seem to suggest. And, no, I hardly think they would be "pulling punches" if they didn't explode my staff weapon at every opportunity.
Every GM brings with them their own style of play. The action dice system as it is explained in the Stargate rulebook has yet to pose any problems IME.
If it ever came down to the use of an action dice to kill a PC, my hope is that a GM would avoid it if there were any chance the party could change the outcome in the next few rounds of combat. Only in that particular case can I see a GM potentially "breaking" the fun of the game for a player. However, if the GM did choose to kill the PC, I would hope that it was for good effect, either for the story, or to increase the tension among the remaining players that they need to act even more urgently than before.
There are such a variety of ways to use action dice, that it doesn't make sense to focus them all on attacking PCs. The number of opportunities for a GM to use action dice as a critical failure for PCs is uncommon, and to make them lethal is even more rare. Regardless of how the GM uses his action dice, you have to remember that these dice are of limited supply during the session, and the opportunity to create critical failures will typically result in a gun jam--harmless, but it buys some time for the bad guys.
For all those uncertain of how to use action dice, I say read the rules yourself, and experiment. It's the same process for any core rule you become uncomfortable with IMO, and this one is no different.
Merric, I can see your point, but IME it isn't a big enough problem to write a house rule. It's no worse than D&D's "save or die" spells. In practice, I have yet to encounter any problems. Unless a GM decides he is, "out to get you," I don't think they could turn their action dice into the big negative you seem to suggest. And, no, I hardly think they would be "pulling punches" if they didn't explode my staff weapon at every opportunity.
Ozmar
First Post
Another idea:
You could determine pre-designated rules for when and how an NPC will use his action points. Your house rule of "survival points" in effect does this, by saying that NPCs will only use action points defensively. But you could also say that NPCs will use all their action points at every opportunity until they are gone. You could say certain NPCs (aggressive NPCs) will only use them for criticals, some (defensive NPCs) will only use them for defense, and some will only use them for fumbles. Or perhaps all or some will use their action points based on their status: as long as they have more than 50% of their hit points (or VP) they will be agressive and confirm criticals, and once they drop below 50%, they begin to act defensively.
I am thinking that some variation of this idea means that the NPCs act in a formulaic/predictable manner in regards to the use of their action points, and thus it removes the onus of acting arbitrarily from the GM. For example, if NPCs always use their action points as fast as possible, and always in every way possible, then a character who dies by a critical knows that it doesn't mean that the GM decided to kill them - it means that the NPC had action points left.
If you use some predictable mechanic, you might consider letting the players know which character is using which algorithm (full disclosure) and even letting them know how many action points the opponents have remaining (perhaps after 2 rounds of combat, the heroes get a feel for the tactics and strength of the opposition). This would allow the players more control over their own use of action points and consequently the flow of the game. It also provides fair warning so they can assess the risk to their characters.
Another idea I just thought of: You might re-introduce dice to the mechanic, by adding die rolls to whichever algorithm you design. For example, maybe all NPCs use their action points at every defensive opportunity, but only on a roll of 1-2 (on a d6) do they use them for fumbles, and only on a 1 do they use them for crits?
Ozmar the Action-Oriented DM
You could determine pre-designated rules for when and how an NPC will use his action points. Your house rule of "survival points" in effect does this, by saying that NPCs will only use action points defensively. But you could also say that NPCs will use all their action points at every opportunity until they are gone. You could say certain NPCs (aggressive NPCs) will only use them for criticals, some (defensive NPCs) will only use them for defense, and some will only use them for fumbles. Or perhaps all or some will use their action points based on their status: as long as they have more than 50% of their hit points (or VP) they will be agressive and confirm criticals, and once they drop below 50%, they begin to act defensively.
I am thinking that some variation of this idea means that the NPCs act in a formulaic/predictable manner in regards to the use of their action points, and thus it removes the onus of acting arbitrarily from the GM. For example, if NPCs always use their action points as fast as possible, and always in every way possible, then a character who dies by a critical knows that it doesn't mean that the GM decided to kill them - it means that the NPC had action points left.
If you use some predictable mechanic, you might consider letting the players know which character is using which algorithm (full disclosure) and even letting them know how many action points the opponents have remaining (perhaps after 2 rounds of combat, the heroes get a feel for the tactics and strength of the opposition). This would allow the players more control over their own use of action points and consequently the flow of the game. It also provides fair warning so they can assess the risk to their characters.
Another idea I just thought of: You might re-introduce dice to the mechanic, by adding die rolls to whichever algorithm you design. For example, maybe all NPCs use their action points at every defensive opportunity, but only on a roll of 1-2 (on a d6) do they use them for fumbles, and only on a 1 do they use them for crits?
Ozmar the Action-Oriented DM
diaglo
Adventurer
MerricB said:
don't forget the Conan Modules...CB1 and CB2 .. they used Luck Points
or the Dragonlance series... uhm.. storytelling/ railroading.. to keep main NPCs alive.
or the Battlesystem and War Machine days. when in mass combat the "losing" PC was found after the battle beat up, but still alive
or Ravenloft..
hints of this remain in D&D.
Rodrigo Istalindir
Explorer
I'm pretty careful about using action points to inflict crits on PCs. I'll usually do the math in my head and only do it if it has a very low chance of killing them outright. For example, if a crit would inflict 3d6 and 15 or higher would kill or incapacitate them, I'd probably do it.
It's fun, because my players can do the math, too.
The little tingle of fear keeps 'em honest and interested. I'm not sure I'd want to run or play in a game where the possibility of getting unexpectedly whacked didn't exist.
It's fun, because my players can do the math, too.
The little tingle of fear keeps 'em honest and interested. I'm not sure I'd want to run or play in a game where the possibility of getting unexpectedly whacked didn't exist.
Piratecat said:
I would agree - but it's important to understand the context of the mechanics.
In the James Bond 007 RPG, you used a % system for determining strikes. (It was a really good system, too).
Say you had a 50% chance of success:
01-05: Quality 1 Success
06-10: Quality 2 Success
11-25: Quality 3 Success
26-50: Quality 4 Success
51-00: Failure.
(That's from memory - I'd have to double check, but it was something like that). Quality 1 Successes were basically criticals.
A Hero Point used by the PC could increase the success by one rank. (From Fail to Q4, from Q4 to Q3, etc.) They could spend multiple points.
A Survival Point used by the NPC could decrease the success by one rank. (From Q1 to Q2, etc.) Again, multiple points could be spent.
Thus, on a Q1 success, the NPC would have to spend four Survival points to negate it utterly. Within the context of the game, it worked brilliantly. Most NPCs had no Survival points - only the main henchman and villain, and even then they didn't have that many. (Jaws has 10, and he was the best. Think about the ridiculous escapes he had...)
In Spycraft/Stargate, an Action Point used by the villain cannot tone down a critical hit, but it can cause an attack to miss altogether (by the modification of the Defense score).
However, the same applies to PCs: a critical hit in Stargate cannot be avoided, and if the GM chooses, the PC is toast.
In D&D, if you permit an Action Point to boost the AC, you can reduce the effectiveness of a Critical Hit, by making it less likely to occur.
Cheers!
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
I think that as a GM I would just use them whenever the opportunity came up to use them until they were used up. The NPC doesn't have a concept of hit points, except maybe to know they might be kinda tough, or not. They also must have an idea that it is always better not to get hit than to get hit, since it is possible that a hit can kill you (in many situations).
This lends itself to the notion that an NPC will do what it can, offensively or defensively or in other situations, to survive without the NPC always crunching numbers that it shouldn't have (at least not to the degree of the GM)...it's much more instinctive in this way, IMO.
Furthermore, using them up does help represent the weakening of an NPC as they are expending their resource of talents. Why not use them when they matter, as soon as they matter?
That's my take on it and it, also, helps to remove the feeling of an adversarial relationship between the GM and the other players.
This lends itself to the notion that an NPC will do what it can, offensively or defensively or in other situations, to survive without the NPC always crunching numbers that it shouldn't have (at least not to the degree of the GM)...it's much more instinctive in this way, IMO.
Furthermore, using them up does help represent the weakening of an NPC as they are expending their resource of talents. Why not use them when they matter, as soon as they matter?
That's my take on it and it, also, helps to remove the feeling of an adversarial relationship between the GM and the other players.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
