WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[smathis]

You could do what HeroQuest does with followers. And that is, give the PC a +2 to attack if his follower is helping out -- the equivalent of the follower always being an "Aid Another".

Having the follower do anything on his own, would require the PC to spend an action.

Moreover, you could use followers to "replace" the magic items. Such that followers give you advancing bonuses as you increase in level.

The trade-off would be that a follower is a minion and could be killed -- much like a magic sword could be lost or stolen.

I'm sure that the minion rules for monsters will give us more ideas on this too. At worst, the DM could just control the follower and require a PC to spend an action to "force" the follower to do something that the PC wanted him to do (especially if that action put the follower in harm's way).

EDIT: Continuing the HeroQuest train of thought... When you take a follower, you could define three things that the follower "does" like "Helps with Rituals", "Reads Obscure Languages", "Keen Insight" and then assign 5 points among them with none of them being lower than one. (i.e. "Helps with Rituals +3", "Reads Obscure Languages +1", "Keen Insight +1"

These points would represent the bonus (like a miscellaneous magic item) the PC would receive whenever the follower's ability comes into play. The same concept could be used to represent groups of followers, a familiar or a single follower.

 

[Lackhand]

I think this is a case where common sense should trump game balance.

By that I mean that if the PCs have a lot of summoning spells and/or followers, throw more or slightly tougher bad guys at them.

One cannot model a world completely where it feels comfortable to everyone, but if spell casters have to burn actions to control their summoned creatures or undead, then why would they bother to even have them?

And, it makes even less sense to have game mechanics to do this for followers or familiars/companions.


The other aspect of this with respect to followers and companions is that they are more fragile then PCs. The DM needs to threaten them every once in a while so that a player does not over use them. By that, I mean that followers and companions should not be in the middle of the fight too often and if they are, the chances of them dying are significantly greater (by definition).

I understand from a game mechanics POV that number of actions per round per side influences balance. But, there are other game mechanics (such as weaker allies) which can be used to counter balance and it does not mean that for a game to be balanced, both sides need to have a similar number of actions per round. Other factors can be used and it does not need to be a game mechanic which controls this. The DM can control it.

It's unclear to me whether you read the article. Your disagreement seems to center more on how to fix the power imbalance in game, meaning how to prevent the side with more dudes on it from winning.
The article, however, presents two problems with extra actions: One is that it makes the possessor of the action more potent, and the other is that they make players with fewer actions sit on their thumbs.

Do you have any reaction to the second part of this? Because it seems like your advice to the first part makes the problem of the second part even worse.

I need to stop reading contracts.

 

[Wormwood]

I think it's easier to balance when it is a core class feature - like the Ranger's animal companion in 3e - than when it is something like the Summon Monster line of spells. That said, I never really felt like the animal companions in 3e were particularly balanced.

As long as I never have to deal with a druid taking three (or more) *complete* turns for every one of mine, I'll be happy.

 

[heirodule]

Why couldn't they do it where

You get increasing actions as you level to particular places.

Or, when you get there, you can decide to spend the free "extra action feat" on leadership and take a follower.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's unclear to me whether you read the article. Your disagreement seems to center more on how to fix the power imbalance in game, meaning how to prevent the side with more dudes on it from winning.
The article, however, presents two problems with extra actions: One is that it makes the possessor of the action more potent, and the other is that they make players with fewer actions sit on their thumbs.

Do you have any reaction to the second part of this? Because it seems like your advice to the first part makes the problem of the second part even worse.

From a player's perspective, the extra actions can be more problematic for other players if the player controls the NPC follower. If the DM controls the NPC followers, then each player gets the same number of actions and their shouldn't be an issue.

However, some players enjoy controlling their PC's NPC followers when appropriate. So, either the other players should not have an issue with it, or the other players too should try to acquire followers, or if a player really has a problem "sitting on his hands" while another player runs his PC's NPC follower, the DM should control the NPC followers.

But, the recommendation of the author to have each player have a set number of actions to be used by both the PC and the PC's followers is totally artificial. I think most people would have a problem doing that in game, just to resolve the two potential issues you mentioned (the first of which is real with regard to balance and the second of which is totally perception based). In our 3E games, we have had a lot of different cohorts, companions, familiars, etc. and not once has a single player mentioned not liking to wait for another player to play his PC's NPC. So, I suspect that this problem is not really an issue for most players, just a comment to support the author's contentions.


The author also makes the assumption that there will be X NPC enemies for X PC allies and hence, his solution of y actions per round per player (regardless of number of NPC allies) would work. This assumption is also totally artificial in an FRPG.

The author's solutions make the problems worse instead of better. That's bad game design IMO. Fine for a board game, totally awful for an FRPG.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't like the idea that a follower just provides a bonus. It just feels too...mechanical...to me. "Oop, drat! Jess was just killed by an arrow to the brain. There goes my +2 follower bonus."

Giving up actions for followers makes a little more sense. It could be justified as the PC keeping an eye on the followers and directing their actions.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I always felt that if a PC had many followers, than the followers actions should be divided between all the players to make gameplay go faster.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Why couldn't they do it where

You get increasing actions as you level to particular places.

Or, when you get there, you can decide to spend the free "extra action feat" on leadership and take a follower.

This isn't a bad idea except for the DM who would have to deal with the PCs taking more actions per turn. Opponents at higher level would have to be beefed up to compensate, especially solo monsters who might get pounded by a ridiculous number of actions before they ever get to take one. The other option would be to reduce the power of higher level PC actions. They get more lower power actions rather than a single higher power action.

The other problem again becomes sitting around waiting for the other four players and the DM to complete all their actions.

I don't think there is any way to handle followers, companions and summoned creeatures without causing some kind of problem, either in balance, flow or just believability of the narrative.

 

[Wormwood]

I always felt that if a PC had many followers, than the followers actions should be divided between all the players to make gameplay go faster.

Yes, but what if I don't want to play a stupid summoned badger? I should just sit patiently while everyone else has twice the game that I do?

And as for the DM running the druid's menagerie, why would I want to watch the DM play both sides of a combat by himself? And as a DM myself, I have no desire to take *even more* time away from the players so I can resolve one PC's Pokédeck.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

Yes, but what if I don't want to play a stupid summoned badger? I should just sit patiently while everyone else has twice the game that I do?

And as for the DM running the druid's menagerie, I think I'll pass. Why would I want to watch the DM play both sides of a combat by himself? As a DM myself, I have no desire to take *even more* time away from the players so I can resolve one PC's Pokédeck.

Exactly.

The problem is not a "realism" issue, it is a fun issue. If one of my players is taking 75% of hte actions is a given round and making everyone else wait and deprive them of their fun, I am more than willing to ignore any "realism" issues that arise when the problem is fixed.

As a player, I have more fun playing *my character*, not watching the druid perform an intricate interpretive dance with her summons and companions and cohorts. As a GM, I can watch people losing interest as the time between their actions grows longer.

Taking away options is not a good solution in my mind, so summons and animal companions have a place in the game. However, making sure that the player has to decide on their character's "action budget" keeps the game moving for everyone... a good solution for me.