ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Dr.FunLove on June 21, 2013, 09:56:11 PM
-
Quick question for the community - multiple main actions in an Exchange: have you used them/allowed them? How do you adjudicate them? Any references etc are appreciated!
-
Linkity (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25794.msg1506644.html#msg1506644) link (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25794.msg1104372.html#msg1104372) link (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33537.0.html).
I'm using Supernatural Martial Arts, including the Flurry technique, in a game right now. Haven't seen it used much, though, so I can't use my game as proof of its balance.
-
Thank you Sancta!
I took a quick glance at the links (I want to really get into the link to the Testing Multiple Actions when I can). I think it is fair to say that the designers hadn't considered/wanted Multiple Main Actions or else there would have been a bit more on it. I was personally surprised that MMA wasn't tied to, say, Speed Powers (for balance I am sure as it would certainly make Speed favored first).
In my consideration of MMA, I had thought of simply handling the additionals like supplmental's (-1 per additional main action). Has anyone found their to be much resistance to the idea around your tables/in-group? Thoughts, experiences, divine words?
-
Spontaneusly, I would not tie multi-acting to Speed powers, as it would feel uncomfortably close to the oWOD problems with multi-actions. Basically, if you didn't have it and went up against something that did, you were toast. And even worse - combat bogged down even more than usual so it was boring aswell.
I could imagine multi-acting with very heavy limitations, most likely along the line of "perform this same action several times" in some situations, but I'd be very careful...
However, I can guarantee that there are people with a lot more experience, both in general and with FATE in particular, that can give more balanced answers ;)
-
@Cadd
That's a great point about the original Celerity in cWOD. I am sure that's one thing the developers saw, hence why the two concepts (Speed Powers and MMA) are seperate. I think DFRPG has a great mechanism for homebrewing a power that does that however.
Thanks for your thoughts on it!
-
In my consideration of MMA, I had thought of simply handling the additionals like supplmental's (-1 per additional main action).
How would that work exactly?
Are you saying "you can take X actions per turn, each action takes an (X-1) shift penalty"?
Because that sounds a fair bit like what I did with the Flurry technique for Supernatural Martial Arts. Except I made the penalty X shifts, restricted it to attacks, and charged 4 mental stress for the chance to do it once.
Which summarizes my opinion pretty well...I think you're on a good track but a bit too generous.
-
@Sancta
I can agree with the generosity part as shifts are cheap as things progress. So what else do we have. -2 per additional main action? A cap on # of additional actions? A little of both?
-
If you're trying to represent multiple attacks, try using the spray rules. It's what they're there for. Give a bonus if you feel its necessary (and cost-appropriate).
-
I'd rather not just use the spray rules for attacks. They don't scale terribly well.
Splitting one Fair attack into two Average attacks is a good deal. Splitting one Legendary attack into two Great attacks is not so good.
I think they'd work pretty well for maneuvers, though. FunLove's idea could get brutal with those...with a default difficulty of Good to create a taggable Aspect, someone with a Superb skill could create 3 tags/round with +0 rolls.
My best shot at multiple actions is the Flurry Technique.
Maybe a -2 power that lets you attack and block as though using Flurry constantly while letting you perform maneuvers and movement rolls using the spray rules could work.
-
A (comparatively small or comparatively expensive) bonus on the post-split accuracy goes a long way to alleviating spray attacks' scaling issues.
-
@Sancta
So you prefer a scaling penalty based on the number of actions on all the actions?
I believe it should, but I assume you would both agree that MMA should be the realm of Stunts/Powers yes? Similar sorts of adjustments are already in the RAW are reperesented as Stunts such as Off-Hand Weapon Training and Wall of Death. Spray attacks seems to be worth -1 Refresh, but I'd imagine MMA would be worth a bit more. Are we looking at a -2 or -3 Refresh Stunt/Power?
-
Most definitely yes. Even as a stunt I'd keep it heavily restricted, like allowing a single additional attack or maneuver, toward the same target, at a penalty, and only with a specific weapon or something like that.
Anything less restricted would be powers, and probably restricted in other ways. There is definitely a case to be made for some kind of multiple spellcastings for someone ridiculously powerful (see Ivy at the Shedd in SmF), so I could imagine something allowing mental multitasking as one power, and physical as another.
Either way, they would all have pretty high narrative requirements - why the heck can your character do this? (As with Ivy above - She's the frikkin Archive, that's why ;) )
[Again, I'm new to FATE, I'm going by what seems like sense for me, aswell as what I feel have a basis in the fiction. Actual balance-related stuff is a lot more shaky]
-
I would probably count multiple actions for one individual as being roughly equal with multiple characters acting in concert. So instead of 2 normally fast opponents, you get one opponent so fast, that he can act twice. It's sort of an application of the fractal, each of his arms is his own character, sort of.
For a player, I would not allow it as a blanket power, unless every player can have 2 characters/actions. If you give everyone 2 actions, that wouldn't be that much different from how it is done now.
I could, however, see a stunt where the character would be allowed, once per scene, to take his next exchange action right now, so he can act twice in one exchange, but not at all in the next. Great for finishing blows, but not too overpowered.
-
Most definitely yes. Even as a stunt I'd keep it heavily restricted, like allowing a single additional attack or maneuver, toward the same target, at a penalty, and only with a specific weapon or something like that.
Off-hand weapon training is meant PRECISELY to represent multiple attacks against a single target. Compare its effects for something close to reasonable balance (it's a finicky stunt that could use some tweaking to solidify its position, but it's more readily balanced than multiple actions).
Either way, they would all have pretty high narrative requirements - why the heck can your character do this? (As with Ivy above - She's the frikkin Archive, that's why ;) )
Narrative restrictions are no substitute for mechanical balance. CALLING a character powerful should not be sufficient to make them so. They should have sufficient mechanical currency to back up that claim, and, if they do not, then they should not be able to act as though it were true (except in the sense of a bluff).
-
@Sancta
So you prefer a scaling penalty based on the number of actions on all the actions?
I believe it should, but I assume you would both agree that MMA should be the realm of Stunts/Powers yes? Similar sorts of adjustments are already in the RAW are reperesented as Stunts such as Off-Hand Weapon Training and Wall of Death. Spray attacks seems to be worth -1 Refresh, but I'd imagine MMA would be worth a bit more. Are we looking at a -2 or -3 Refresh Stunt/Power?
With the rule system as it is now, multiple actions would have to be a Stunt or Power. I think a houserule that makes spray actions/multiple actions freely available to everyone has potential as an idea, though.
The cost would depend on how the Power actually works. Flurry costs like 1/3 of a Refresh point, but it's really limited.
And yes, I think a scaling penalty is a good idea.
A (comparatively small or comparatively expensive) bonus on the post-split accuracy goes a long way to alleviating spray attacks' scaling issues.
True enough. It's not a perfect solution though.
-
True enough. It's not a perfect solution though.
I suspect that it is a solution more readily balance-able than other common attempts to represent multiple actions, however imperfect it may be, itself.
-
@Sancta
How would you see multiple main actions working as a rule versus a Power?
@All
Regarding a Power or set of powers governing multiple main actions: model it as a singular power(s) or as a set of powers similar to the other Physical Powers?
-
@Sancta
How would you see multiple main actions working as a rule versus a Power?
The easy way is to just let everyone use spray attack rules for all actions.
That would be pretty lame for attacks and blocks once people are rolling above 4ish, though, so maybe you could use the "penalty to all actions equal to number of actions" rule for attacks and blocks.
-
I know Fate largely moves away from penalties, but a -2 penalty/additional action on EVERY action taken would probably be balanced (and prevent the "I make a maneuver, and another maneuver, and now I get +4 to my attack).
-
I had a thought about a potential system that would allow multiple actions. Basically, instead of allowing a certain number of actions, allow a certain skill level of actions. So a Chest-Deep campaign might have a skill limit of 5. You could either use one of the skills you have at 5, or you could use a skill at 4 and another one at 1 or a skill at 3 and another at 2, or I suppose five different skills at 1 (although I'm not sure what you could accomplish with that). The idea was to encourage the use of lower skills, not just your few high skills. The problem is there needs to be some sort of guideline as to how many skill levels of actions you can take, and I never could quite figure how to calculate that to my own satisfaction.
-
I had a thought about a potential system that would allow multiple actions. Basically, instead of allowing a certain number of actions, allow a certain skill level of actions. So a Chest-Deep campaign might have a skill limit of 5. You could either use one of the skills you have at 5, or you could use a skill at 4 and another one at 1 or a skill at 3 and another at 2, or I suppose five different skills at 1 (although I'm not sure what you could accomplish with that). The idea was to encourage the use of lower skills, not just your few high skills. The problem is there needs to be some sort of guideline as to how many skill levels of actions you can take, and I never could quite figure how to calculate that to my own satisfaction.
That's actually a really interesting idea. I'm playing a superhero campaign right now using Fate Core that I might try this in for a superspeed character.
-
This is the form the multiple main action rule I want to toy with is taking so far:
Multiple Main Actions:
More than one main action (any action requiring a dice roll) may be taken per Exchange starting at a -2 penalty on each action. For each additional action, another -1 penalty is added. Example: two actions in an Exchange are at -2, three actions at -3, four actions at -4 etc.
Stunts and Powers, of course, can be created to alter how this ruling effects a character etc. Thoughts?
-
I might say that you need specific stunts to get more attacks.
2 attacks requires stunt "X"
3-4 attacks requires stunt "X + Y"
All at the penalties you suggest. Doing 2 attacks at -2 each is more powerful, I feel, than doing 2 attacks using the spray attack rules - especially at higher skill levels.
-
I suspect that those rules would be problematic for maneuvers. Generally speaking, a Good roll is enough to create a scene Aspect. A guy with a Superb skill and a stunt giving +2 could take 3 actions, and create 2 or 3 Aspects per turn.
-
@Taran
Using just one attack with a two target-spray and two attacks, and assuming equal rolls then you're correct. My thought on that would be since there is a roll already in place for multiple attacks (the spray rules) to disallow attacks from multiple main actions. That would leave attacks (and their rules, Stunts, and Powers) out of it.
@Sancta
Earlier, you had suggested applying spray like rules to this rule. How do you conceptualize that?
#Action Cap
Another way of ensuring this wouldn't get out of hand would be a cap on the actions of some kind. Ultimately, in narrative turns, there is only so much one person could do (naturally) in a single turn. I'd rather not give a hard number and instead leave it up to GM ruling, but what do you all think?
-
Not sure exactly what you're asking.
-
How would you apply spray rules to multiple main actions? If one was to do it that way, how do you concieve that workign?
-
#Action Cap
Another way of ensuring this wouldn't get out of hand would be a cap on the actions of some kind. Ultimately, in narrative turns, there is only so much one person could do (naturally) in a single turn. I'd rather not give a hard number and instead leave it up to GM ruling, but what do you all think?
This is specifically why I suggested stunts. They are capped by the type of stunt they own.
-
@Taran
Understood. Here I am modelling it as a rule not a Stunt though. However, based on both your's and Santa's feedback I have made these changes:
Multiple Main Actions
More than one main action (any action requiring a dice roll) may be taken per Exchange. No more than ONE of each type of action (attack, block, maneuver etc.) may be taken in a single Exchange. When adding an additional action, apply a -2 penalty to each action and then another -1 penalty for each subsequent action. Example: two actions at -2 each, three actions at -3 each, four actions at -4 each.
Beyond that, I am also considering raising the penalty...but that can be adjusted once this is a bit more firm.
-
I would rather allow multiple attacks per round, personally.
Anyway, applying spray rules to maneuvers is easy. You roll once and divide your shifts between the maneuvers you want to perform.
-
@Sancta
Interesting. ONLY additional attacks or simply remove the cap I've proposed? If I remove the cap as proposed, would I instead add a spray rule in its place on each category of action (spray attacks, spray blocks, spray maneuvers, etc)?
-
Random idea I just had which may or may not be balanced at all--treat them like spray attacks, roll once, and divy up the result of the roll, added to the skills.
So say you want to attack with Fists (Superb), and at the same time maneuver with Might (Good). You roll the dice once, and come out with a +2, so then you have to decide which skill gets what, whether that be a +1 to each, or just lumping the +2 with one of them.
-
@Mr.Death
Interesting. My concern is making the rule clean is possible without infringing on other parts of the system (like Attacks -> spray attacks). Though of course, it is always a choice to have multiple actions so in a way that isn't as much of a problem.
-
Random idea I just had which may or may not be balanced at all--treat them like spray attacks, roll once, and divy up the result of the roll, added to the skills.
So say you want to attack with Fists (Superb), and at the same time maneuver with Might (Good). You roll the dice once, and come out with a +2, so then you have to decide which skill gets what, whether that be a +1 to each, or just lumping the +2 with one of them.
Isn't that strictly better than just taking one action?
Like, in your example I could have an Epic Fists attack mixed with a Good Might maneuver. If I had taken one action, I would just get an Epic attack.
And if I roll badly, I can focus the roll on one action so that the rest are fully effective.
@Sancta
Interesting. ONLY additional attacks or simply remove the cap I've proposed? If I remove the cap as proposed, would I instead add a spray rule in its place on each category of action (spray attacks, spray blocks, spray maneuvers, etc)?
Simply remove the cap on attacks.
I think it's sensible to include some kind of limit on maneuvers, though.
Blocks I don't care much about one way or the other.
-
Isn't that strictly better than just taking one action?
Like, in your example I could have an Epic Fists attack mixed with a Good Might maneuver. If I had taken one action, I would just get an Epic attack.
And if I roll badly, I can focus the roll on one action so that the rest are fully effective.
Well, I did say it was random, off the top of my head, and I hadn't put any thought into balancing it. After thinking about it, yeah. There'd need to be some kind of penalty to the second action, at the least.
-
After a little playtesting:
When performing multiple actions, the total bonus from skills on all actions taken in the round must be at least one step lower than your highest skill.
You may voluntarily reduce a skill in order to use it (so if you have Great Lore, you may choose to instead roll it at Good).
You may only apply a bonus from a stunt or power (including Focus Items, Weapon Ratings, and other similar effects) to a single action. Fate points or aspects invoked to improve a result only apply to one action each (so you can boost two actions, but that requires that you spend two FP).
So if your skill cap is Superb, you may roll:
One Superb
or
One Great
or
One Good and One Average
or
Two Fair
or
One Fair and Two Average
or
Four Average
Roll once, adding the bonus or penalty from the dice to all actions taken. You may re-roll by spending only a single Fate Point.
Notes:
-Limiting it by only by Skill Cap meant that if you wanted to use any skill lower than your top tier or "peak skill", you'd always opt to also take a second action since there was no penalty for doing so. This was also strictly better than taking a supplemental action in every way.
-This encourages the use of skills below your top two tiers. It's my experience that most players don't look below these in a conflict. This has the effect of rewarding the use of these by in essence granting an extra action.
-This essentially imposes a -2 penalty on the main action if you wish to use an extra action. Since most "supplemental actions" are 0-1 shift effects, the greater penalty allows for potentially better results than just taking a supplemental action. Other penalties are built in as well (in that there's functionally no difference between rolling a Fair skill at -1 and rolling an Average skill).
-Limiting bonuses from anything other than skills was necessary to prevent abuse. Same with FP, obviously.
-I found that using a FP to re-roll the dice, however, is not significantly better this way due to the probability differences.
-Having a single roll speeds up gameplay considerably, but doesn't generally change the effectiveness of this option.
-As much as I really, really want to, having stunts affect the cap on this is a very bad idea. It's basically giving free actions and leads to a dramatic increase in power that is also difficult to measure due to its versatility.
-Taking only one Superb action is generally better than taking two actions (one at Good, one at Average). Taking a Superb and a supplemental is about the same as taking one at Good, one at Average (or two at Fair). Taking one skill at Great is slightly suboptimal in this scenario (but not significantly so). Taking lots of Average actions is generally suboptimal.
-This can complicate and lengthen conflicts considerably. Be warned.
-I did limited testing with a cap of Great and Good. I did no testing with a skill cap higher than superb.
-Testing was done both with the DFRPG assumption that 3 shifts is enough for a successful, unopposed maneuver and the Fate Core assumption of 2 shifts. This is obviously better (read: more advantageous to the player) with the latter.
-If using Fate core style results (boosts and succeed with style), rolling one Superb skill (unopposed, difficulty Fair) will most often result in one Aspect and one Boost. Two Fair skills will only result in two Boosts.
-If using DFRPG "sticky" aspects (with Good difficulty), there is rarely an advantage to taking multiple actions which aren't movement related.
Take these as you will.
-
When performing multiple actions, the total bonus from skills on all actions taken in the round must be at least one step lower than your highest skill.
It's an interesting solution to limiting the power of multiple actions. However it looks like it penalizes generalists over those who specialize in a few skills. Do you have any generalist PCs in the group? If so, how often are they able to take advantage of multiple actions compared to their specialist cohorts? Finally, have you considered basing your total bonus on the current max skill level instead of on the characters' max skill?
-
It's an interesting solution to limiting the power of multiple actions. However it looks like it penalizes generalists over those who specialize in a few skills. Do you have any generalist PCs in the group? If so, how often are they able to take advantage of multiple actions compared to their specialist cohorts? Finally, have you considered basing your total bonus on the current max skill level instead of on the characters' max skill?
I don't have any generalists. I hadn't thought of that. I think limiting it by skill cap-1 instead is a good idea (I think that's what you mean by "current max skill level").
-
Yep, that's what I meant. Sounds like it hasn't affected your group at all. If you don't mind my asking, how often do players take multiple actions? Has high or low weapon value affected the decision at all?
-
Yep, that's what I meant. Sounds like it hasn't affected your group at all. If you don't mind my asking, how often do players take multiple actions? Has high or low weapon value affected the decision at all?
It depends on the player. One of my players likes to make an attack at Good and maneuver with a stunt (at Average, but effectively Good). I've found that most players don't use it to attack, but support players really like to use it to provide aspects for the other players to use. One of the spellcasters really likes to try and cast multiple spells, using focus items on the lowest skill (which tends to make it the highest).
-
So I have been playing around with the numbers more and I am coming to the point that, for balance purposes, Multiple Main Actions may need a cap on # of actions per exchange or (as was suggested earlier by Taran) be the realm of stunts and powers. In keeping with the flavor and mechanics of the RAW I am leaning towards the former. Actually having worked on it more, the power of the mecanic has become apparent.
My next step will be to work on some sample stunts/powers that might make use of this mechanic to look at it from that angle.
EDIT: Another way of approaching multiple main actions is by not allowing them to benefit from their Skill bonuses. Thoughts?
-
Not allowing skill bonuses?
You mean all multiple actions would be at Mediocre?
Sounds like a bad idea to me. Acting twice at Mediocre is vastly worse than acting once at Superb, but it's better than acting once at Mediocre. So that wouldn't scale well.
And it seems wrong for a master swordsman and a random joe to be equally good at attacking twice with a sword.
-
@Sancta
Good points. Especially that last one. Instituting a mechanic that defies possible narrative sense isn't the best solution.
EDIT: A current issue that I am seeing is that taking two or more attacks in an Exchange supplants Spray-attacks. Without a cap or some mitigating circumstance (I wouldn't want to leave it up entirely to internal logic of the story) multiple attacks are likely to be too powerful especially higher up the power-ladder. Any thoughts?
EDIT II: Another way I had looked at it was making the penalty per extra attack on each extra attack double: 2, 4, 6, 8 etc. Still has the problem of outclassing spray attacks though. This brings me back around to the idea of allowing multiple main actions for actions other than an attack.
-
@Sancta
Good points. Especially that last one. Instituting a mechanic that defies possible narrative sense isn't the best solution.
EDIT: A current issue that I am seeing is that taking two or more attacks in an Exchange supplants Spray-attacks. Without a cap or some mitigating circumstance (I wouldn't want to leave it up entirely to internal logic of the story) multiple attacks are likely to be too powerful especially higher up the power-ladder. Any thoughts?
EDIT II: Another way I had looked at it was making the penalty per extra attack on each extra attack double: 2, 4, 6, 8 etc. Still has the problem of outclassing spray attacks though. This brings me back around to the idea of allowing multiple main actions for actions other than an attack.
Honestly, my version is about as powerful as spray attacks.
Superb spray attack at +2. This gives you 5/2, 4/3, 3/2/2.
Multitasking (superb skill cap) attack at +2. This gives you 5/3, 4/4, 4/3/3.
Superb spray attack at 0. This gives you 4/1, 3/2, 3/1/1.
Multitasking attack at 0. This gives you 3/1, 2/2, 2/1/1.
Superb spray attack at -2. This gives you 2/1, 1/1/1.
Multitasking attack at -2. This gives you 1/-1, 0/0, 0/-1/-1.
So for attacks, my version of MMA is better if you get a positive roll but worse if you get even or less. Statistically, the latter is more likely. If you're using stunts or powers, spray attacks get even better (as my MMA only allows a bonus from a stunt or power to be applied to one action, although the trick my players use is to use their stunt or power on the 2nd or 3rd action rather than the first). It doesn't supplant spray attacks at all.
The thing to worry about is maneuvers. Seriously. Increasing the number of +2 bonuses your players can stack on a single attack is far more dangerous than letting them attack a lot at what is essentially a penalty. A Average navel gazing maneuver is very easy to pull off this way (which is why my version basically has a -2 penalty built in). If you can pull off 2-3, that's still a +4 bonus on the main attack. That's why the static difficulty I tend to use is Fair to Good. It makes it rely on the dice a bit more.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Huh...that is certainly a very intersting approach to a cap! Also, would help pare down possible Maneuver Stacking. That's excellent feedback Amelia!
-
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.
-
@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!
-
Then you wouldn't get people attacking twice because they can't use the same skill.
Don't we want people attacking twice?
-
I would think so. Attacking twice isn't a problem if you don't attack at full strength.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?