Action Point Based Tactical Combat in Tabletop RPGs
Yesterday evening I was playing in my regular Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (WFRP) v2 game and we entered an extended battle scene. The GM has been playing around with mashing up the standard WFRP rules with Mordheim rules to make combat faster, but for me it has never quite worked right. Tonight though, the players didn't observe any of that, though were one of three factions in the battle so I suspect the GM may have used Mordheim rules to resolve combats we weren't involved with. Either way, tonight's extended battle was a bit slicker than in previous games as far as I could tell.
Anyway, there was an off-the-cuff comment about action points á la Space Hulk when a player declared they were 'moving backward' for some reason. It was a joke, but it got me thinking about how different games handle combat and whether or not 'action points', like in Space Hulk, would be a good idea or not.
Let's take a look at some existing systems, specifically the ones I am most familiar with and play often.
D&D 4th Edition: You get a standard action, minor action, a move action and a reasonable number of free actions. You can take them in any order, but once you've done that action, you're down. Standard actions can be down-graded to a move or minor action, allowing characters to move double the distance if they need to, or perform extra minor actions. I think D&D 4e combat is generally regarded as slow and clunky, fitting more in to a tactical combat boardgame than an RPG. It's enjoyable, but generally breaks up roleplaying since players switch from RPG mode to tactical combat mode once a combat encounter begins. It doesn't have to do that, it's just what seems to happen. The other thing with 4e is that the level of investment in preperation required for a combat encounter means that an encounter which takes an hour or more to play probably feels OK to the GM. Three encounters in an evening of play certainly seems acceptable. Should combat be such a big part of your story? Well I suppose that's up to the GM. I personally feel it's a bit too much, but as a relatively novice GM it is a fairly good comfort zone. I can prepare an encounter and then just say "go" and all I really have to do is act on behalf of the monsters and adjudicate the rules. Yes, I am pointing my failings as a GM mainly.
D&D 3rd Edition: To be honest, I'm not entirely sure, I usually just tell the GM what I want to do and he says yes, no or gets me to roll some dice. However, I think it's similar to 4e. If you run up to something and hit it, then you can possibly do some quick actions, but otherwise you're done.
WFRP v2: Actions take a portion of the round. For instance, aiming takes half a round, moving takes half a round, reloading takes a variable amount of time depending on your weapon and your ability to use that weapon, and so on.
Savage Worlds: One round is 6 seconds and characters can move their standard movement pace for free and take another action. It isn't clear if you can split the movement down the middle (e.g. move, plant a land mine and move away), but I suspect a reasonable GM with a creative player would probably allow it.
Warrior, Rogue & Mage (WR&M): Probably the most loosely (call it vaguely if you will) defined system of them all. Purely situational and totally at the discretion of the GM. Great for smooth roleplaying, but as a player I would certainly want to dip in to at least some tactical combat from time to time. All the above games expect you to be using battlemaps and miniatures, WR&M does not.
So, with WR&M in mind, it is a blank canvas ready for some strategic combat rules, especially if you want to continue use battlemats and miniatures.
Objectives:
- keep combat slick and quick (my version of fast and furious ;)
- allow clear rules to be defined, but without stifling the creativity of players
- acknowledge that some characters are simply faster than others both in their ability to move across the playing field, but also to perform actions
Basically, I'm going to try and adapt the action point approach used in Space Hulk.
Firstly you need to allocate some Action Points to your players. This could be done as part of the character creation, before a combat starts or each turn. The more often you do it though, the more things will slow down.
In Space Hulk all the marines got a base level of Action Points so we'll do the same, let's start with 4. (If you're thinking about it, I'll come on to Command Points shortly).
A character's ability to perform actions should also be influenced by their build of their character. If this were D&D this might be based on Dexterity, in WFRP and Savage Worlds, Agility. The related attribute in WR&M would be Rogue. We should also consider that characters can increase an attribute when they advance so we don't want to give too much weight to the Rogue attribute. Let's divide it by 2, rounding down.
In the spirit of WR&M let's roll a D6 and add the result. This is the random factor that affects us all and is analogous to the Command Points from Space Hulk.
Next, we need to consider the encumberance of the character. I don't want to get bogged down in maths, so let's say that armour is going to slow a character down. Subtract a point for each level of armor. None = 0, Light = 1, Heavy = 2.
Thus,
Action Points = 4 + (Rogue / 2) + D6 - Armour
Or to make things easier if you want to roll action points each round:
Base Action Points = 4 + (Rogue / 2) - Armour
Action Points = Base Action Points + D6
No starting attribute may be higher than 6 for a brand new character, so for a brand new character wearing no armour the most Action Points they can hope to get is 13 (4 + 3 - 0 + 6). Since you don't have to put any points in to an attribute and considering heavy armour the minimum is 3 (4 + 0 - 2 + 1).
Now we need to decide how to divvy up the things we can spend our action points on. Let's call them 'actions'. ;-) Since our max Action Points is 13 and minimum is 3 the average and median of these two numbers is 8, so let's use that as our basis for a 'normal' round of combat with an average character.
Assuming our battle mat is 1" squares and the minis are 28mm most games usually assume 1 square = 5 foot (2 yards in Savage Worlds, which is 6 foot, so close enough).
A combat round in WR&M is 'a few seconds' which to me is around 3 seconds. Personally, I don't think that gives our characters much time to do anything meaningful, certainly not more than one action, so I'm going to change the length of a round to 5 seconds.
Starting with movement, if a character were to use all their Action Points on movement alone, how far could they travel in 5 seconds? The answer is of course going to depend on how many Action Points they have. A faster character can spend more Action Points and travel further. Using our average 8 Action Points, it seems reasonable to say that a character could probably run 40 feet in 5 seconds (it works out around 5.5 MPH, a slow jog). So great, 1 Action Point allows us our character to move 1 square on the battlemat.
Now we've established how movement works, we can use that as a basis for other actions. Let's take a look at other systems and see how much time is allocated to various actions. WFRP v2 has a great table which I won't reproduce here, but will show the converted Action Point values for demonstrative purposes only:
| Basic Actions | AP Cost | Advanced Actions | AP Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aim | 4 | All Out Attack | 8 |
| Cast | Varies | Defensive Stance | 8 |
| Charge | 8 | Delay | 4 |
| Disengage | 8 | Feint | 4 |
| Move | 1 per square | Guarded Attack | 8 |
| Ready | 4 | Jump / Leap | 8 |
| Reload | Varies | Manoeuvre (aka Shift) | 2 per square |
| Stand / Mount | 4 | Parrying Stance | 4 |
| Standard Attack | 6* | Run | n/a (see Move) |
| Swift Attack | 8 | ||
| Use a Skill | Varies |
*I've increased the cost of a standard attack so that characters don't get two attacks per round out of the gate, unless they are prepared to spend the points on it.
Given this table it becomes immediately apparent that if someone has 'gimped' their character enough, they will not be able to do anything other than move. Suffer the consequences, I hear you yell, but it really isn't fair. So I'm going to make another adjustment to the Base Action Points equation by increasing the basic quotient to 5, making a minimum possible Action Points value of 4. Thus,
Base Action Points = 5 + (Rogue / 2) - armour
This doesn't affect our rough calculations much but it means even the most outrageously min-maxed character still has enough Action Points to perform a basic (standard) attack.
The key to combat with Action Points is to allow the player to choose how they spend them. This allows for maximum flexibility for the player and should make for slick and quick combat.
However, as a GM you may have to intervene - for instance if the player wants to walk up to a monster, stab him and walk away, would the monster realistically allow that? In that scenario you would probably say that the character has engaged in combat. They could spend some Action Points to disengage immediately, but it's unlikely they'll have enough to do that. As seems to be the fundament message in WR&M: common sense is your friend.
As I said above, when a character advances they can choose to increase an attribute. So if the player wants more Action Points, they simply have to increase their Rogue attribute. Since advancements happen fairly often in WR&M then it seems appropriate that 2 advances to Rogue is required to gain an extra Action Point. However, as the character advances more Action Points will open up multiple attacks per round and so on.
With what has been described so far there's at least one disadvantage that I can see. Players are penalised for specialising in a particular attribute that isn't Rogue. This may seem unfair as the seasoned mage should still be able to use more Action Points for casting magic and the experienced warrior would hone her technique such that she can pull multiple blows in a single round. However, I would argue that benefits of additional Action Points for the Rogue are balanced by the superior fire-power and hitting power or the Mage and Warrior respective. An alternative might be to specialise Action Points by attribute type, but this then increases the complexity of a relatively simple system to the point of round-by-round micro-management of points.
One last thing; you may notice I don't mention initiative, that's because WR&M doesn't generally use a roll for initiative. Again, it's based on common sense and I like that. The GM has the final decision when it isn't clear and a dice roll can be used for those really tricky situations. I don't want to change that, so I leave initiative out of this whole set of mechanics.
What's next? Ideally I'd like to play test this and then write it up so that I can distribute it under the same terms as WR&M, i.e. as Creative Commons licensed PDF. In the mean time I'd love to hear your comments and feedback.