Multiple Main Actions

[Amelia Crane]

What about a limitation to multiple actions that they cannot be used with the same skill?  Then you wouldn't get people attacking twice because they can't use the same skill.  And it preserves the utility of spray actions because it allows something that was otherwise disallowed.  It would still allow navel-gazing maneuvers with a couple different skills.  But if you're applying a flat penalty, it won't be too long before they're far enough down their pyramid for the skills to be useless.  Also, it may encourage the sword and gun fighting style.

[Dr.FunLove]

Huh...that is certainly a very intersting approach to a cap! Also, would help pare down possible Maneuver Stacking. That's excellent feedback Amelia!

[InFerrumVeritas]

Any penalty I impose on multiple actions would apply to all actions. Granted if one assumes the highest possible rolls all the time, then yes maneuvers get out of hand. If I get much more heavy handed with the penalty though the likelihood of success is likely to be reduced vastly. I am currently working with a version that applies a -2, -4, -6, etc penalty to ALL actions in an Exchange.

This was one reason I wanted to institute some kind of cap. But then, IDEALLY it should be something that can be left up to GM adjudication. How many attacks can a person reasonably get off in an Exchange that is lasting maybe seconds-minutes with just two hands? How many other actions, like a block or a maneuver?

There's a logic implicit to allowing MMA but mechanics shouldn't just rely on such logic - there will always be someone to poke a hole in it in-game.

Does it matter?  Eventually, you just fail at all of them. 

I would HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend using a system where the player only rolls once though.  Rolling 3-4 times a turn significantly lengthens combat.

[Dr.FunLove]

@InFerrumVeritas
That depends on the numbers eh?

#Rolling
If they're rolling on like actions, that might make sense yes. I use a similar system when running large crowds of mooks in my game. Great tip!

[Sanctaphrax]

Then you wouldn't get people attacking twice because they can't use the same skill.

Don't we want people attacking twice?

[InFerrumVeritas]

I would think so.  Attacking twice isn't a problem if you don't attack at full strength.

[Balor for Breakfast]

I'm very new to the game, but one way I've handled this in old DND is by using speed factors for actions, then splitting the actions based on initiative. 

This is much easier explained with an example.

Example Character 1:  Effective Alertness 9 and a stunt that allows for 2 actions/exchange.  He's using a pistol to attack, so we'll call that speed factor 3 (totally arbitrary at this point)

Example Character 2:  Effective Alertness 7 with no stunt for extra actions.  Using his fists to attack, so no speed factor at all.

The turn would play out like this...

Initiative 9:  Character 1 takes an action with his pistol.
Initiative 7:  Character 2 takes an action with his fists
Initiative 6:  Character 1 takes his second action with his pistol.

Here, this resets the turn.  We always had the slowest character (ie:  lowest initiative) be the benchmark for that.

This always did a couple of things for us.  First, it spreads the love around in combat.  If my character is built for speed and MMA, I don't get 5 actions all by my lonesome.  Other stuff happens in between, so it keeps people a bit more engaged.  Second, it removes some of the primacy that multiple actions enjoys by allowing them to be interrupted.  Have a guy with a sword cutting you to ribbons?  Take it off him in the middle of his turn.  Second, it maintains the benefit of a high initiative, so multiple things must be balanced to make a really effective multi-attacker.

For DFRPG, a stunt for each type of action that the player wants to be able to take (attack, maneuver, block) would be one way to run it and taking some flat penalty to all actions for the turn (-1 is probably alright).  Taking MMA also means you must decide to take a supplemental action first, and penalize all of your subsequent actions accordingly. 

You could get more elaborate with the tracking (bring athletics into it, maybe?), but this basic idea has served me pretty well before.  It removes what was, for me, always the worst part of having and playing with heavy multi-attackers:  long single-player turns that result in boredom at the table for everyone else.

[Sanctaphrax]

I like the idea of splitting multiple actions into multiple initiative counts.

I don't think it would do much to address the basic challenges of making multiple actions work, but it still seems like a good idea.

[Balor for Breakfast]

It doesn't, strictly speaking, address any mechanical issue that comes up.  It removes the issue that shows up at the table, namely one person having too long in the spotlight, and it ameliorates the issue of straight nuking someone with no recourse on their part.

Those are the problems that really stress my games because they make it really un-fun.

I'll ramble a bit here on mechanics.  It helps me think.  From a mechanical perspective, the problem I see is action supremacy.  It should be possible to build characters of all stripes that are on a relatively even power curve.  I like stacking penalties for this (ie -1 per action).  If you apply that -1/extra action to all rolls (including defense), it gets some more teeth.  Maneuvers complicate things a bit.  Maybe the penalty starts at -2, and increases by -1 per extra action beyond that (-0 for 1 action, -2 for 2 actions, -3 for three actions).  With a stacking penalty, I'm not overly worried about much beyond the low-end of this scale.  Larger penalties to every roll make it very unappealing to go higher.  So, take a -2 penalty to get 2 aspects on a scene.  If your character tags those, then they only net +2, same as with a single action.  So it's mostly useful for support play, which is cool on my watch.

So, a system I would like to playtest is this...

A stunt for each additional action of a given type.  Want to attack 3 times a round?  Requires 2 stunts.  Want the option make either 2 attacks or 2 maneuvers?  Requires 2 stunts. 

First additional action in a round garners a -2 penalty to all of your rolls (actions, skills, defense, etc) until your turn in the next exchange.  The penalty increases in severity by 1 for every additional action you take.  I would be willing to consider stunts to reduce the penalty for certain, non-action, rolls such as defense.  You also have to declare any supplemental action at the start and that -1 will affect all actions on your turn as well.

So, with this system, you can build a flurry type character who focuses on being very active on his turn at the expense of efficacy outside it, or you can build a more deliberate character who instead focuses on a single, high-potential action.  I feel like this would be pretty evenly balanced, certainly more balanced than claws + breath weapon vs evocation.  But I could be totally off my rocker and this is worthless.  Like I said, new to the game.

Thoughts?  Questions?  Rotten produce to throw?