Alt: Drama/Hero/Action Points

[SpaceBadger]

These have different names in different game systems: drama points, hero points, action points. They have different effects, but the main concept is that they are points that players can use to improve their chance of success at important points in the story, whether by re-rolling a crucial miss, adding to an important roll, making an enemy fail/miss, etc. The idea is that in a story-oriented game, a well-conceived plan shouldn't fail based on one bad roll, so the players can save up these points and choose to influence what they consider to be the most important rolls at dramatic moments.

We have used these in our Pathfinder game to mixed results. The first rules we came up with made the points too powerful and took the challenge out of important fights. We revised the rule to be less powerful, but haven't played much since then to test it out. We haven't used them in Traveller yet.

Is anybody using some form of these points in Traveller? If so, what do you allow the points to be used for, and how are the points gained/renewed by players?

 

[samuelvss]

NEVER!

That whole concept seems so un-CT for me. Now as a ref, I will sometimes put a finger on the scales, but in a way that the players don't see. (That's why I have a screen.)

In MTU, which I believe is close to the OTU, all is gritty, and "life is cheap and death is free" [apologies to Warren Zevon, RIP]. As soon as the players think there is some heroic magic BS, then the story gets poisoned, IMHO.

 

[CosmicGamer]

as a ref, I will sometimes put a finger on the scales, but in a way that the players don't see.

Here too. Typically this is done with NPCs and not by modifying dice. For example, in combat I could have police show up and the opposition flees and EMTs arrive to save lives.

 

[aramis]

I've learned that, if I'm going to tip the scales, it's FAR better to do it with a drama point mechanic than with hidden "favors" to the players.

 

[HiverLord]

I've never used them in Traveller, though I've considered and rejected it.

However, they also exist in the old spy game "Top Secret" as Luck Points. Similar concept - the player can spend a luck point to save his bacon in a particular circumstance.

(I'm currently playing in a TS game where we are mercs in 2012 Iraq. I've had to burn a few points already, as my character seems to have a BIG FAT TARGET on his chest, as far as the ref's dice are concerned... )

 

[JFGarber]

I am currently using them in a MegaTraveller game that I'm running for my elder daughter, just turned 13. She is, by nature, painfully conservative and risk-averse, and it was the only way I could think of to get her to risk the character even a little bit. She is playing a BUREAUCRAT, for goodness' sake.

 

[Supplement Four]

Depends on the game. In a typical OTU CT game, I'd say "no". If I used CT to create a scifi game in another universe, then, maybe.

For example, I do thing some type of Hero Point in CT would be appropriate for a Flash Gordon game.

I think Hero Points work best when the player doesn't know how many he has. The GM should keep track of them. Ultimately, it should be up to the GM when the Points are used, too--not the player. This isn't how it's usually presented in most games, but I think, with the GM in charge of these points, like the sweet hand of Luck or Fate, the GM can apply them to situations that are dangerous for the Player Character.

A Hero Point, spent by a player, can turn an exciting hairy situation into a dull one real quick as soon as the player realizes that he's got enough Hero Points to keep his character alive, no matter what.

For this reason, I think (not only should the GM be in control of the character's Points, but also...) that Hero Points should not be 100% propositions that will work 100% of the time. And, it is usually appropriate to limit their use.

For example, I think a good use of a Hero Point is to allow the character to re-roll a task. But, that re-roll can only happen once (only one Point can be spent in order to re-roll). Even if the character has 13 Hero Points, he can only use one in any given situation. And, then, when he uses it, odds are shifted in his favor, but the problem is not conquered 100%. The player is given a second chance to save himself (re-rolling a failed DEX check, or make that shot).

I think the GM should not even tell the player when a Hero Point is used. If a player falls off the cat-walk, several decks above the Jump Drive, and will not survive the fall, the GM can then step in, if the character has a Hero Point, and then give the player one last-ditch try to grab the support rung (basically giving the character two tries to save himself--the original DEX check, and now this last ditch effort to grab the rung).

I also think that only PCs, and maybe some very important NPCs, should use them.





A BETTER MECHANIC, I think, is to use a Luck attribute. In CT, I'd do something like this, if I wanted to use Luck. I'd have every player roll 2D, straight, for the character's Luck stat. Then, the GM would record this (not the player). Anytime a situation comes up, the GM rolls either 2D or 3D for the Luck number or less (the GM makes this roll in secret), and if successful, allows the character something special in the game--like the second chance to catch the support rung in the example above.

This way, we're using pure luck (the 2D Luck attribute throw), and the GM need not be burdended with bookkeeping of Hero Points. The GM is in control. He decides when a character deserves a Luck throw. And, the GM can use the Luck attribute for other things in the game--

Player: "With the bad guys shooting at me, I jump behind the bar. Is there a baseball bat or something up here for the bartender to use?"

The GM secretly rolls the character's luck, and succeeds.

GM: "Yes! Right in front of you, there's a shotgun, clipped right under the bar."



I like how, not really knowing their Luck attribute, players will get a feel for how Lucky their characters are as situations play out (and those with low Luck scores don't succeed as often as those with high Luck scores).

 

[aramis]

I've found the exact opposite about player knowledge... the ability to earn them by playing disads and knowing how many they have is the very best way to get disads into play, and to evoke a Flash-esque "Most of these fights are casual, but every so often..." mentality.

But that also presumes players willing to write and use disads of some kind, or defined psychology of some kind.

Perhaps it's just too much Burning Wheel.

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

it comes back around...

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=22331

This is a link to a discussion that occurred earlier. It may answer some questions posed in the OP.

 

[Shonner]

I remove any that were added. In Azhanti High Lightning, I remove the action points.

 

[Supplement Four]

I remove any that were added. In Azhanti High Lightning, I remove the action points.

...But, Action Points aren't Hero/Fate/Luck points...

 

[Shonner]

...But, Action Points aren't Hero/Fate/Luck points...

Professional role-players don't need any of those points. They are not trying to win the game.

 

[rancke]

Professional role-players don't need any of those points. They are not trying to win the game.

Professional roleplayers? People who live by roleplaying? Tell me more. One of my players once told me that if he ever won big in the lottery, he'd hire me full time to run games for him, but I can't quite see how you could make a living as a player.

All kidding aside, roleplaying games involve two things: roleplaying and gaming. If it was only roleplaying, the players could just roleplay being heroes that take desperate risks and prevail against all odds[*]. If it was just gaming, you could play to maximize your chances of surviving bad odds and roll up a new game piece when your character died. But if you're doing a mix of both, you're either going to roleplay a character who cautiously avoid any risk he can possibly avoid and never stick his neck out for any reason or lose your character over and over as he attempt the same risks that heroes of both fiction and real life run and survive, albeit for different reasons[**].

[*] I once tried a diceless game at a convention. It was a pulp adventure set deep in the Amazon Jungle, and the mechanics (which we players didn't know) was that every other time we tried something, we'd fail and get into some perilous situation, and every other time we'd succeed and get out of the mess we were in. It was actually a very fun game, but I suspect it would have palled once we'd figured out the mechanics.

[**] Fictional heroes have the authors on their side (authors don't roll dice to see if their heroes survive the 90% risks of failure they repeatedly face) and real life heroes are subject to massive selection bias; you seldom hear about the would-be heroes that tried the same things and lost.​

So if you're happy to play non-heroic protagonists or roll up new characters regularily, you can do without fate points. But if you want to emulate action/adventure fiction or real life hero biographies, you need some way to twist the odds so that the player can role-play taking much bigger risks than they actually do. You need some amount of risk to make it a game, but you need the risk to be tolerable to make it resemble tales of heroics and derring-do. In fact, if you're trying to have your ordinary heroes survive extraordinary events, using realistic odds leads to unrealistic results and entirely too many visits to the graveyard/character creation process.

I invest far too much imagination in my characters to lose one because he sticks his neck out and gets hit by the statistically expected number of bullets. On the other hand, I enjoy roleplaying characters who are willing to stick their necks out in a good cause and not always keeping their heads down. Only way to do that is to have some way to ensure that he does not get hit by the statistically expected number of bullets when he sticks his neck out. Just like every other fictional and real life hero you've ever read about, except for the ones you read about posthumously.


Hans

 

[Shonner]

I invest far too much imagination in my characters to lose one because he sticks his neck out and gets hit by the statistically expected number of bullets.

Referees making player characters run out in front of firing squads. And players expecting their characters to live while doing so. Not my kind of gaming.

 

[rancke]

Referees making player characters run out in front of firing squads. And players expecting their characters to live while doing so. Not my kind of gaming.

It's not my kind of gaming either (My kind of combat gaming is moving pieces and rolling dice and putting the pieces back in the box afterwards). But it can be my kind of roleplaying. I really prefer non-combat roleplaying, but if I do have to roleplay combat, I want to do spectacular deeds of derring-do, not hunker down behind cover and lob grenades or call in an 'eye of the storm' airstrike.

(Oh, and good referees don't make characters run out in front of firing squads. They just let the characters fail to achieve their objective unless they do. )

Hans

 

[DaveChase]

I like Action Points in a small miniature battle game of squad size or so, but not in a RPG

I like the Fate Points from WarHammer RPG (kind of a luck that each point allows you reroll once, and the point is gone, very difficult to gain them back.)

Dave Chase

 

[Supplement Four]

Professional role-players don't need any of those points. They are not trying to win the game.

I'm not sure that you understand that Action Points, as the ones in Snapshot or Azhanti High Lightning, are just a method for regulating how many actions a character can take each round.

As I said, APs do not serve the same function as Hero/Luck/Fate points.

Referees making player characters run out in front of firing squads. And players expecting their characters to live while doing so. Not my kind of gaming.

Doesn't have to be. Your type of gaming isn't "bad", and others that game differently than you aren't having "bad fun".

And, I haven't really seen anybody here promote the idea of munchkin gaming, although if they did, and they're having fun at it, more power to 'em, I say. It may not be my style of gaming, but who am I to tell them how to have fun?

Myself, I like a good story. Sometimes my games involve action with lots of fistplay and gunplay. Sometimes, the drama is more subtle. Sometimes, it's a mix. As long as it's fun, intriguing, and my players are into it, I consider myself to reach that goal.

 

[CosmicGamer]

There are superheroes, cinematic heroes, and realistic heroism.

It is understandable that some people will want to play different types of heroes and each may have it's own style and game mechanics.

I don't know much about the different Drama/Hero/Luck point systems. Read some, but have not played them much to know how it actually effects play.

Professional role-players don't need any of those points. They are not trying to win the game.

I understand what Shonner is saying. Perhaps use of the word "Professional" here is not the best. I'm not sure what word to use.

In some games, role players playing a heroic or rash character would perhaps have to be a bit heroic or rash themselves and be willing to lose the character if that is what is required to represent the character.

Just my unproven opinion, but knowing that there is some game mechanism that lets a character survive when the odds are against them might lend to players role playing their Traveller characters as careless risk takers more than realistic heroes.

It might take an even better "Good, Experienced, Truest, Professional" (use whatever word you think fits best) role player to play a humble heroic character even when there is a game mechanism that guarantees success. The game mechanic should not be the end all in defining how a character is played.

Different people have different styles of playing. Some people play very similar characters each time they play. Some people like to play different types of characters from a non athletic brainy scientist who studies odd planets to a brash noble who is easily offended and get in lots of duels to a doctor that heals and has never touched a gun to sociopath killer and so on. Some people like to play cinematic, comic book, fictional story type characters.

One character may tend to avoid deadly situations if there is any other way out of it. A character might be rash and careless, heroic, afraid of dying and would abandon companions or do just about anything to avoid dying.

Heck, you might even have a character that is so overcome by a situation that they commit suicide!

So if you're happy to play non-heroic protagonists or roll up new characters regularily, you can do without fate points.

[Joke]Thanks for your permission! [/Joke]

But if you want to emulate action/adventure fiction or real life hero biographies, you need some way to twist the odds

True. Can be done in a variety of ways. I'm not familliar with the hero version of Traveller, but I'd assume it describes mechanisms for this more so than CT or MGT RAW. (the two versions I own)

Problematic is that in many instances of entertainment the hero struggles and even fails. It's part of the longer story. Being captured and left to die is common. With hero points or whatever, it may be possible that a campaign may be over too soon because the players avoid capture, or whatever, and succeed too soon - or use up whatever mechanism there is before the final climax thereby making success less likely.

My point being, I think for the way I play Traveller it is better to leave "fate" in the hands of the GM instead of the dice or some other game mechanism.

so that the player can role-play taking much bigger risks than they actually do.

Not sure what you mean by "taking much bigger risks than they actually do". A player can always role play a characters belief and reactions to a risk as being bigger or smaller than what the player perceives. This does not depend on a game mechanic.

I invest far too much imagination in my characters to lose one because he sticks his neck out and gets hit by the statistically expected number of bullets.

To me, there is a big difference between using points or a GM somehow putting their "thumb on the scale" so that a single lucky or unlucky die role doesn't decide the fate of the character or the adventure vs altering things to a much larger extent such manipulating things so that a pair of player characters really need not reassess fighting twice as many just as well armed and skilled opponents because they know they have fate, luck, or whatever on their side.

Just saying there is a difference. Not saying either or any way a group wants to play is wrong.

 

[rancke]

There are superheroes, cinematic heroes, and realistic heroism.

Yes, and I was talking about realistic heroism. Realistic heroism fails more often that it succeeds. Fictional heroes avoid that problem by not actually running the risks. Real life heroes "avoid" it by being the one out of dozens that bucked the odds and prevailed; in other words, a massive selection bias. Neither method works for gaming resolution. Unless you employ a third mechanism, you're down to the choice of not being heroic or rolling up new characters over and over again.

I'm not saying that that can't work for some. I'm saying it doesn't work if you want to play heroes that tend to survive.


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

Unless you employ a third mechanism, you're down to the choice of not being heroic or rolling up new characters over and over again.

I don't see it being exclusively that way.

As I said before, in many instances of epic heroism the hero struggles and even fails during their story. Why does every failure have to result in a character reroll? Sometimes the hero even gives up or surrenders because the odds are against them. Pushing on despite failures and injury and shame and being captured and ridicule and guilt is part of the heroes story.