Action Points and T5

[Supplement Four]

If the "about one minute" length of combat round is to be kept for T5, I was thinking that, for a Ref who wanted to a more tactical game, Action Points would be the answer.

Maybe T4's At Close Quarters is the answer, given that the T5 task system is just a tweaked version of that used in T4.

Or, maybe the Action Point systems used in CT's Snapshot or Azhanti High Lightning could be modified to be used with T5.

With an Action Point system, a character can do whatever he wants during his turn as long as he has the action points to do everything that he attempts. An Action Point system is a combat time management system. If the character fires three times at one target, then swings his weapon around, firing again at a second target, this leaves less time to do other things. Every action has a number of point associated with it. Performing the action means spending the points.

A character can do a lot of things in one minute. A good Action Point system may help make the combat rounds both more fair (as each character is allotted a certain amount of Action Points each round) and more realistic (as T5 now how a character making a single attack once per minute).




I think it is Snapshot that bases Action Points on the character's stats so that some characters have more Action Points than others.

AHL, on the other hand, allows all characters from a specific race (humans, for example) to have the same allotment of Action Points, no matter their individual capability.



And, there was a neat aspect to the SPECIAL system (which is a role playing system designed first for the Fallout computer game) where a character can blow all of his Action Points on his turn, or he can save some points to use if he needs to react to enemy actions later in the combat round. For example, a character may want to leap out of the way of a thrown grenade. A character can't do that unless he's saved some Action Points from his turn. And, the distance that the character can move to get away from that grenade depends on how many Action Points were saved for reactions like this.

 

[Ulsyus]

Yup, p4 of Snaphot has it:

ACTION POINTS
Action points allow a character to perform actions during the turn. Each character
receives an allocation of action points equal to the sum of his endurance and
dexterity characteristics (exception: if this sum is less than six, the character
receives an allocation of six action points).
Actions points are not transferable between characters, and they may not be
accumulated from turn to turn if unused. The allotment is based on the calculation
performed at the beginning of the game, and is not influenced by later reductions in
characteristics based on wounding.
Action points are used to perform actions, which may be either movements or
attacks. Several of each may be performed by a player in any order desired, subject
only to the number of action points available to the character. For example, given
sufficent APs, a character could move, attack twice, and move again in a single turn.

Not accumulating APs from turn to turn means no book keeping, handy if all you want to have to do with a game is move counters and focus on tactics without any book keeping. That'd also keep the tempo higher than if people are tracking saved AP from turn to turn, whether they'd gone over limits for saving, etc.

An option might be to give NPCs an extra couple of APs but not accumulate them, while the PCs could save some (a % - up to 30? 50?) from turn to turn.

A minute sounds like a long time when on a two-way shooting range, but in reality time just pours away between one's metaphorical fingers and it's easy to finish an encounter/incident and be quite surprised at how long it's taken.

 

[Hemdian]

If the "about one minute" length of combat round is to be kept for T5, I was thinking that, for a Ref who wanted to a more tactical game, Action Points would be the answer.

Action Points are a way to determine what actions a character can take during an interval of time. But rounds in T5 are not units of time, they are units of action. The "number of minutes equals the number of combat rounds" calculation is something that can only be done after combat. Individual rounds can vary greatly in length.

For example if you have enough APs to fire once in a minute then maybe that is a one minute round. But if you have enough APs to fire three times in a minute then that would be three rounds averaging 20 seconds each.

So APs in T5 would be saying how many actions can a character take per action ... which is nonsencical.

I admit the system assumes different characters would have similar APs (if there were APs) and a long action might take multiple rounds.

 

[robject]

Well put Peter.

However, perhaps there's something (aside from the back-end time estimate) about the implications of the combat system itself that made Ken think about action points? In other words, what's the root of your thinking?

 

[Ulsyus]

There's a miniatures wargame called Crossfire, where there are no turns as such, and limits to activities are based on what a player can achieve before enemy interference or own ineffectiveness bogs down his actions. Actions include moving, firing, and rallying stands (a stand represents a section of 8-12 tps or a commander or FO or single gun or vehicle). So you change direction & move a certain distance, and if your movement is stopped part way along by enemy reaction fire your impulse has ended and the initiative passes to your opponent. This tends to lead to long impulses with many actions early on in the game as both sides manoeuvre closer together. The number of actions each side can achieve generally reduces as you become decisively engaged, leading to a cracking tempo towards the end until the turn limit is reached or the action culminates with one side having to withdraw.

So this got me thinking, specifically this time about boarding actions (I'd gone back to reread Snapshot again). If individuals were grouped into teams that they fought in, then a similar process to Snapshot could be used. A team moves and fights as one, attempting a certain amount of either simultaneous or sequenced actions (two troops from a fire team moving while the other two put down supporting/surpressing fire). The team keeps taking actions until they're stopped moving by enemy (they're forced to take cover or they take casualties that kills their group momentum) or they put fire onto their opponents and it has no effect. At that time the other side gets to have their actions.

I'm having a bit of a muse about how to apply the Tactics skill, how morale or fanaticism would impact, and how PCs working as individuals rather than a fire team could act with simultaneity...

 

[Epee]

I'm having a bit of a muse about how to apply the Tactics skill, how morale or fanaticism would impact, and how PCs working as individuals rather than a fire team could act with simultaneity...

Perhaps this could be where skills such as Tactics and/or Leader come in; characters in communication with someone with Leader skill get both the benefit of the Leader's Tactics skill and initiative. "Jac, lay down fire! Jorge, flank to our left!"

 

[Ulsyus]

Perhaps this could be where skills such as Tactics and/or Leader come in; characters in communication with someone with Leader skill get both the benefit of the Leader's Tactics skill and initiative. "Jac, lay down fire! Jorge, flank to our left!"

Yeah, I thought along those lines, but what about cascading tactics coverage/tests? What I mean is, just talking today's terms, in a fire team one bloke will run the four guys and manage their actions. They're drilled to work together. The section leader (local term, it'll change outside a Commonwealth system) just runs the two fire teams, and shouldn't have to deal with the minutia within them (though he can and at critical times would). The platoon commander gives orders to the sections, sometimes breaking a fire team away for a specific purpose, but otherwise only wheels and deals with a few manoeuvre elements. The company commander only does this with the platoon commanders and whatever attachments he has (if any).

So someone runs the PCs as a team. They use their tactics skill to get the team to do things as a single organism rather than as a bunch of crazies with ACRs and lasers and gauss whatsimajigs. If the PCs drilled together at some point, or had military experience so they were all talking the same language, the difficulty level goes down. If The PCs were part of a series of groups, whether they could get bonuses would depend on the high authority's tactics rolls, as well as the tactics roll of the group leader.

 

[Epee]

Certainly the use of Tactics and Leader would/could cascade and branch down. Overall leader commands sub-leaders with the potential to command anyone of less skill/rank. The level of Leader skill should probably determine the number of other characters, or size of the formations, that can be commanded. I think I would only allow Tactics skill to be applied to characters under immediate control; if the company commander thought the 1st platoon's weapons team needed his Tactics skill aid he should assume direct command of it.

Indeed, PC's careers and team training should somehow factor in though just "how" evades me at the moment.


In most of the RPGs I've played in there are two types of combat; the quick and dirty spontanious combat involving just two or three armed characters that erupts unexpectedly during the course of play and then there is the GM or PC planned combat that is an intergral part of the adventure storyline and involves the entire party. Speaking for myself I would prefer the T5 method for the spontainious fights and something akin to Snapshot for the planned combats.

 

[Ulsyus]

If the "about one minute" length of combat round is to be kept for T5, I was thinking that, for a Ref who wanted to a more tactical game, Action Points would be the answer.

That the nub of this thread I think. Has anyone else here played Space Hulk? The use of blips to represent the nasty aliens is great. Same sort of feeling we had when playing Star Cruiser - those blips on the map could've been anything. I know one guy who launched as many drones and missiles as possible in order to generate uncertainty.

Oh, let's not forget the in-house Assault from the 80'! That was a great game, especially the way each side had a different number of dummy markers to add uncertainty until spotting slowly eliminated the false returns.

I talked with this to one of our players and we agreed that if defending their own ship, then until their custom security system had been physically disabled or hacked/crashed, they could be the ones with blips and reduce those that the attackers were able to use. What do you think?

 

[Hemdian]

(Sigh! Another heavy week. I thought I was done with those.)

Well put Peter.

However, perhaps there's something (aside from the back-end time estimate) about the implications of the combat system itself that made Ken think about action points? In other words, what's the root of your thinking?

I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth. I don’t know what specifically made Ken, or anyone else, think action points. I do know that T5’s action-based rather than time-based round, while not unique, is atypical and I think that gives some people difficulty. When someone says that in T5 a character can only make one attack per minute I think that's a big indicator that they're viewing it with a traditional mindset. Perhaps the rules don’t convey the distinction between action-based and time-based rounds clearly enough?



For myself I’m tired of RPG sessions being little more than tactical exercises, an endless series of combats where you’re reduced to just pushing a mini or token around a board. For many of those I currently play with that’s all RPGs are.

And that’s what I like about T5: it’s inherent non-tacticalness. You can resolve combat without even using a map, just using verbal descriptions and what’s in people’s heads. Role play rather than roll play. Bliss! But I wonder, if you approach T5 like many other RPGs then maybe you might mistakenly perceive this as something lacking, something that could be ‘fixed’ by introducing action points and other paraphernalia?

So the “root of my thinking” is that while there are a number of things broken in T5 personal combat (and I eagerly await the fixes from Marc’s chosen team), timing in combat wasn’t one of those. Adding action points to T5 would be like trying to put cattle bars and trailer hitch on an F1 sports car ... it kind of misses the point.

 

[grondak]

How about "supporting" but not "requiring" action points? I suckered I mean helped a few D&D players learn Classic Traveller by working with my brother using CT + Snapshot and low and behold, we could switch from roll-playing to the role-playing pretty easily.

So I'd definitely go for a Snapshot and a role-playing feel for combat, spiced as needed.

 

[Supplement Four]

And that’s what I like about T5: it’s inherent non-tacticalness. You can resolve combat without even using a map, just using verbal descriptions and what’s in people’s heads.

Many RPGs are designed to be used this way. CT, as tactical as it is, is designed to be used without a map. Well, I should say, without a grid. The Ref keeps track of Range Bands. And, the Range Bands are so big that, typically, everybody in the combat is within the same Range Band (thus everybody is at the same range).

CT is a very easy game to just sit around the coffee table, no map, and just have the Ref describe the action.

(AD&D 2E was also designed to be played this way).

 

[Ulsyus]

...the Range Bands are so big that, typically, everybody in the combat is within the same Range Band (thus everybody is at the same range).

CT is a very easy game to just sit around the coffee table, no map, and just have the Ref describe the action.

I know that the initial bands in T5 are different in scale, but the same should be possible to the same extent with that system, shouldn't it? Or have you found serious limitations to that?

 

[Supplement Four]

I know that the initial bands in T5 are different in scale, but the same should be possible to the same extent with that system, shouldn't it? Or have you found serious limitations to that?

Clarification:

Range Bands in CT all equal the same size, though there are some range categories that do not span a range band.

In T5, all of the Range Bands are different lengths. Range Band 2 is longer than Range Band 1. Range Band 3 is longer than Range Band 2. Etc.



To answer the question: I imagine the same type of play should be true with T5--that only one range band will be used for an entire fight (one or a few).

 

[Ulsyus]

To answer the question: I imagine the same type of play should be true with T5--that only one range band will be used for an entire fight (one or a few).

So how much easier will that make it!

I'm still envisaging the next lot of personal combat taking place either on my group's ship or at the starport dock. That'll mean that their ranges will be 1 or 2 (out to 150m). When adding the Auto/Snapfire penalty, that still makes it a fair challenge to hit the target, but also reduces the amount of measuring we have to think of: could you touch them? Range 0
Are they in the same room? Range 1
Could you hit them if you threw a cricket ball (insert baseball if you've never thrown a cricket ball) at them and possibly hit? Range 2.

This may give it a lovely little intuitive feel and make the action flow faster.

 

[Hemdian]

could you touch them? Range 0
Are they in the same room? Range 1
Could you hit them if you threw a cricket ball (insert baseball if you've never thrown a cricket ball) at them and possibly hit? Range 2.

Ooo, nice! I'm definitely saving that. Thank you.

 

[Ulsyus]

Alright, just got a copy of At Close Quarters. I'll go through it over the next couple of days and see how playable it is...

 

[Epee]

Does "At Close Quarters" offer anything other than being a T4 version of "Snapshot"? If it does I'll treat myself to a copy.

 

[Ulsyus]

Does "At Close Quarters" offer anything other than being a T4 version of "Snapshot"? If it does I'll treat myself to a copy.

After the first reading and couple of grazing runs at it, it doesn't seem to be more than that. They've added more detail, and their mechanics make for a fairly good simulation of close quarters battle (CQB) but the system strikes the same problem that all simulations do in this situation. That is, a simulation that is accurate needs to take a lot of factors into account and takes time to work through. This causes the game to take a lot longer than the action it intends to simulate would take, leading to a session (or play within a gaming session) that represents a much much shorter span of time. The game is in effect viewed in slow motion, the pause button used frequently throughout the action, and the sense of pace is replaced with a sense of minutiae.

While Snapshot didn't have the same level of detail, it could played with a fair bit of pace, especially if there weren't too many counters on each side.

I do like their rule though that if a player hasn't decided what their character is going to do within 30 seconds then that character has hesitated and doesn't act.

For the $ that you've got to pay for it, it's worthwhile getting to have a look at it and mine for ideas. For my part, I'm still playing around with the T5 TPCS, and will post up a comparison of the two shortly...

 

[Epee]

Yeah, too much minutiae makes it work rather than play.

If I want detail I'd rather have it settled in stats and characteristics of the characters and their equipment beforehand so the "conflict resolution" flows smoothly.

I love the 30 second rule and have seen it in other such tactical games; it prevents the mathematicians from boring everyone else into submission.