HQ using an action point system?

[lorddax]

I'd make embarassing stories of why stuff happened. Like "You lost all you armor after sleepwalking into a goblin strip poker game. Since they were all hammered on plundered dwarf beer, they just thought you were Whitey the albino orc. You strangely find pictures of what appears to be you and a fimir in your underwear doing...oh......lets just continue....."

[Daedalus]

@lorddax-
I heard the Emperor fired some Heroes because of pictures like those tagged in Loretome.

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but it touches on classification of actions. It's from the Modular System for House Rules thread:

torilen-

Upon consideration, I agree with you about an Action section. Extraordinary Situations could be better represented with the original 6 actions. One approach could be to list them individually as actions, following the Instruction Booklet organization: Push/Pull an Object, Lift an Object, Carry an Object, Hide, Listen, and possibly Move Quietly.

Another way could be to add them in under more general catagories: a 7th action called called Move Object (pushing, pulling, lifting, and carrying) and an 8th action called Use Ability (moving quietly, hiding, listening = stealth?). The rules for roleplaying abilities could then be referenced from the Ablilities Lore. I think this general catagory approach should fit in more naturally with our current organization.

I'd put climbing, falling, swimming, move quietly, jumping, and running/double moving in the Movement Lore, but prohibit their use in combination with other actions.

As an aside, would it be better to subsume the Traps/Secret Door Search, Treasure Search and the Searching into a Search Lore rather than list them seperately?

This also defines actions a bit:

I think weapons should be treated differently, as equipping a weapon from a scabbard or the like is basically picking a thing up. If a weapon was already equipped, it would require a free hand to hold or must be dropped. Later, when no monsters were visible, a dropped weapon could be picked up and retained just as treasure or artifacts are. As a practical limit to counter cheeze, only one weapon (or a shield) can be picked up/equipped or put away in a turn while taking one of the 6 Actions (attacking, for example). A weapon or shield may be put away and a new weapon or shield may be equipped in the same turn if no Action is taken. -edit

Sorry, they're not playtested.

el_flesh and Ken did a good job of hijacking one of my threads before. It has an explanation of his action point system you're asking about. It starts the 4th post down.

[lorddax]

So if I understand it you have X AP which you can assign to different actions to gain X dice?

Hero has 12AP. Choose to use 3AP to attack an orc, and 3AP to attack a second target, leaving 6AP for defense?

[torilen]

lorddax - love the embarassing story idea....although, I wonder about the "pictures" involved.
Especially like the idea of sleepwalking into a goblin strip poker game. funny stuff.

[el_flesh]

Hey that wasn't a hijack! You asked about removing dice and giving a static number! Did you try it out?
With what values/mechanix?

[cynthialee]

Everyone always getting the exact same amount of action points takes away some of the chance.

So I propose:
Each hero gets a set amount of action points plus 1 D 6. (Say 8 or 10+1D6)
Puts a little random luck into the equation.

[el_flesh]

We found that each hero does rather different things, especially once they start finding/trading different artifact level gear. But then, Beernut's system isn't really HQ much anymore...

Also, I'm kind of unimpressed how one hero can potentially roll 12 and another can get 2. A bit of a pain in the ass if your Swift Breaking Winds spell winds up giving you 4.

[lorddax]

Well going by the rules each character has X action points. But moving takes X/2 AP and attacking takes X/2 AP, with all other actions being free actions.

Moving - X/2 AP - Roll 2d6. Move up to that number of spaces.
Attack - X/2 AP - Roll combat dice.

So perhaps is one wanted to introduce a system that allows deeper secondary actions perhaps:
Moving - X/3 AP - Movement rules
Attack - X/3 AP - Combat Rules
Secondary AP Pool - X/3 AP - Spend on other actions or enhance other actions?

Possible enhancements could be:
Spending some AP to prepare to defend to gain a extra die or a reroll
Careful search with XAP to negate first bad search/trap or roll better dice for trap
Careful disarm spending XAP to reroll a bad result
Spend secondary AP to move faster/farther (would always allow default move of X/3)

In the simplest form each character starts with an AP of 3 and every action costs 1AP. Characters could gain extra AP from special objects or advancing allowing more actions per turn, with advanced skills and spells requiring more than 1AP.

[Daedalus]

@el_flesh-
Just ribbin' ya, mate. It seemed like a setup by Ken at the time to promote Beernut's rules (thus the reference), but perhaps he honestly wasn't familiar with them and was curious. Apologies if that's the case. I'm just jealous.

I'm not sure if you meant lorddax or me, but I never actually tried out Beernut's system. Mostly I'm just an armchair evil wizard, vicariously enjoying the game through the boards. I remember Beernut's system pushing the envelope in ways lorddax was talking about, so I felt your posted explanation deserved necro treatment. That's the real reason I brought it up--because it was a valid part of the thread that meritted inclusion here. By the way, any word from Ken, lately? I haven't noticed any postings from him for a while.

[Daedalus]

@lorddax-
I've got mixed feelings about action points. On the one hand, it doesn't automatically mix with the established, move-and-take-an-action HQ model. On the other hand, it is a clearly defined way to expand beyond HQ's confining limitations. The trick is to keep the HQ flavor intact within the expanded rule so as to interest the by-and-large old school, simple-is-better fan base.

Could the goals of the rule be satisfied without action points, I wonder? I don't know if it's best or possible, rather it's a consideration to be pondered. For instance, if some sort of level-based benefit is gained, it could be described as a newly-available action that may be taken in addition to or replacing another action. However, I think the move-and-take-only-one-action limitation would at least have to be rewritten to accomodate some of your ideas, action points or no.

Perhaps you have previously decided against this approach? After all, there have been some interesting changes in boardgames since 1990. Going with that tack, I think the action point system sounds a bit like Super Dungeon Explore. Have you seen those rules yet? The rules are freely available on the Soda Pop Miniatures website. In some ways they are better than HQ as they allow for more flexibility and ability in the tactical field. I'd like to see that game done with an HQ, dungeon-crawl mode, rather than its relentless, Guantlet video-game mode. If you manage this with action points, I'd certainly be interested. You'd be pitching to a smaller audience, but that too could be worthwhile if it grows the game.