dvang said:

dvang said:

Actually I disagree with this assessment. It won't make the players think more tactically. All it does is change single spam to spam order. Anyone who has played games with recharge (MMO) I'm sure can attest that how these things go is like this, I have three actions per se, super smash, moderate smash, and light smash, then basic attack. Super smash takes the longest to recharge (lets say 4 turns). Moderate smash takes lets say (3 turns), and light smash takes 2 turns then basic attacks take no time at all.

So, most of the time it will go down like this based on their recharge rate. Super Smash the first turn. Now that will take four turns to recharge. While it recharges I will then moderately smash which takes three turns to recharge, then light smash which will take 2 turns, then I'll hit with a basic attack for one turn. Four turns have now passed so I go back to super smash. Clean, rinse, and repeat - Spam Order.

What in essence this system does is recreate, in its own special way, the feel of DnD 2nd edition which was a fighter got to attack twice one phase and once the second phase. Well, on phase 1 he did a hell of a lot of good, then the second, he wasn't, so he waited for his two attacks to recharge before attacking again. This went on and on and on and if you noticed, Roleplaying in the 90's did everything it could to get away from this feel because it's awkward, weird, counter-intuitive, and is in ways, a simple mechanism that only serves to slow things down.

At the same time, it prolongs the encounter by characters waiting for super-smash to recharge since they need it to deal any real damage to the Blood-Tthirster. This will be especially true at higher levels where we'll still be waiting for super smash to recharge since most things will have huge soaks and huge armor rating. This point is especially true since damage in this system is fixed, So how it will end up will be all the other turns are one to two point damage fillers until Super Smash recharges. Oh you died while waiting for your recharge? Sorry. It's the reason why Anixia (sp?) in WOW was so hard to kill because people simply couldn't super smash, super smash, super smash and died while waiting for their powers to recharge, hence why kiting is a tried and true practice of the MMO.

Furthermore, a system of recharge does not make the combat more tactical. Instead the actual combat tactics are simply being replaced by tactical token management. Especially since we'll have cards that lower the cost to manage the tokens. Obviously, the first one I can lower will always be super smash because it does the most damage. Why? Because I get to super smash one turn earlier than if I put it on moderate or light. Only if I had any to spare would I even consider lowering moderate smash because it's just not as good as being able to super smash sooner. So with these lower recharge rate cards you'll end up with - Super Smash, Moderate Smash, Super Smash, light Smash, Super Smash, moderate smash, Super smash, light smash. Is that more tactical? Is that really different than super smash per turn? No, it's a spam order that just delivers a lower net damage, but in effect, plays out the same.

The thing about the new system that does make combat more tactical than any other roleplaying game is the new initiative system. This gives a boat-load of options and choices the players have to decide how best to deal with their enemies, but I'll get back to topic now.

Next, you can say this system gives more options. But with every system, certain options will always be chosen first. The criteria will surround how good an action is versus its strange recharge rate and the required conditions. Weaker or strange effects that require more conditions to be met won't be chosen as frequently as the big ones. For instance backstab. It's not a bad description, but is only really good when you have teammates around you and if your enemy is in armor. It is not that much better than a basic attack and I have to wait four turns for a recharge when the other four turn, recharge card has a better damage ratio and less dependency on my opponent being in armor and my buddies around me. Besides, higher damage is pretty effective against armor and doesn't require two boons to pull it off, so I'll just go with that card over Backstab.

Also, so what if someone super-smashes all the time? Now I have to put this on levels to make it clear. But a guy who is level 20 has, by then, figured out how to super-smash continually. Every hit is like being bludgeoned with a school bus. While a level one just isn't that skilled. So what's so bad about the level 20 guy doing super smashy? The good thing about DND Feats is once you had them, you could always use them. The downside was, the trees were so hard to get through, you really never got to see the high end without having to dedicate a lot to playtime. That's why I'd favor some mechanic that is more like feats with some form of penalty applied to great actions, until a certain "level" of skill in it is acquired and the penalty gets less.

Like I said before, Warhammer has many systems and great ways to impliment what I'm talking about, even better than straight fatigue. Some cards risk fatigue. Others give smaller bonuses but bigger bonuses under certain conditions, others could adjust stance meter. Others could put misfortune dice on the next attack made. They have already cracked the surface with the Bane conditions on the cards. For instance, using Backstab, lets start out under the pretense that card's never recharge. But you keep the fact when you roll two banes, put two recharge tokens on the card. That would be the downside and in that case, recharge would make sense. Sure you may have or may not have succeeded in the backstab, but since you rolled a double bane that guy is aware of you so you can't backstab again for another two turns because, basically, he's watching you. Sure you can say that's why it's recharging over four? Is it really, since every-time you try it it's an opposed agility versus observation?

The innate penalty idea s both more interesting as part of the story and as a system. You see the 3e system has created double penalties to every action card. The first penalty is how often it can be used. The second is the negative side effect the action causes. Therefore, this doubles system complexity and also further limits card choices. Players will pro-rate the cards for the lowest amount of penalty to the highest gain. It happens in every game that uses the same system. You talk to WOW players, certain abilities are just junk and not worth your time, the same will happen in Warhammer, thus creating not only a spam order, but a more limited spam order based on the cards functionality that your group of players will as a whole always take.

Of course, in every system with recharge, someone will figure out that light smash with a lower recharge rate is overall better at all times than super smash. Why? Because if I reduce it down to zero, then I can light smash, light smash, light smash away. This allows me to more DPT (Damage per turn) then a simple super-smash power. Is that really more combat tactical? No it's simple math and a tactic not based on the combat itself, but solely on the resource management.

Now, I will give you that streamlining a system to a single line is a great way to go. However, streamlining just for the sake of streamlining is not always good if it interferes with overall mechanics (recharge is a sub-system) or disrupts the narrative flow (the combat is less about the narrative aspect of fighting and more about resource management) or exists and ends up double penalizing players (which recharge lends itself toward - the act of recharging itself is a penalty.)

To extrapolate on why it is a sub-system, you have to look at the fact that not every action is based on recharge in this game. Climbing is an action. It may not have a fancy climb card to go with it, but in all language of role-play climb is akin to swinging a sword. So, under this system, you can climb forever without having to wait for climb to recharge. That's mechanic one. Mechanic two is, these actions recharge. I heavily doubt there will be a single social action that recharges (unless of course it's some combat maneuver like taunt). So basically, the recharge mechanic more than likely will be relegated to the sub-system of combat and parts of the magic system. You could as easily argue that combat actions work like climb checks is streamlining the system because to climb is the same as swinging a sword. In general, it is safer to say the system would be more streamline if specialized action cards operated with some pre-described penalty then to not only make them operate that way (as all actions do in the game) then impose an artificial penalty called a recharge rate as well. You see if you roll double banes on a climb, you receive a penalty (twisted ankle, delayed in time, whatever). If you roll double banes on a swing, you get a penalty. However, on top of that penalty, you now can't use that for four turns. It takes a whole second sentence to explain it, a sub-system.

Magic itself is already a subset...and by the "summoning of favor" is obviously a different sub-set of rules to the base rules of the game and even combat. Sure the recharge function operates the same, but the manner in which it is initiated is completely different. This means that combat, magic, and basic actions (like climbing) all operate under their own system. This means it's harder to learn the system as a whole because you have to deal with three, distinct system mechanics. Sure they use parts of each other, but they are far from streamlined.

So when streamlining, like should go with like. Since combat is no different than normal actions, then it should be resolved like normal actions and function exactly like actions. (After all, basic attack has no recharge rate. It is a basic action, so all these fancy actions are just fancier versions of basic actions, but should operate as basic actions or any other actions in the game). The Penalties or drawbacks to actions is already built in with the dice and should also be the only penalties they ever get, instead of the double penalty of the roll result and the recharge rate. Penalties, downsides, and card specialization is all there ever needed to be to get people to flex on their action cards, that and strong enough differences between them to make them all viable options to use, based on circumstance and combat situations, so the player can achieve their goals. After all, reacting to situation and circumstances is what tactics is all about, not recharge rates. Again, recharge rates are not about combat tactics at all, they are about recharge tactics, plain and simple.

Sure, I'm sure players will save their super smashy for the Orc Boss rather than his henchmen they can slaughter with moderate smashes, but is that really more tactical in terms of combat? Not really, it's just about recharge management. Now, if your moderate attack allowed you to hit more than one target, but Super-Smashy only hits one, but really kills it you have two options: I can hit multiple targets at lower damage or just smash one to death. Tactics. After all, once they start the fight with big boss orc, sure, they won't spam super-smash, but they will spam the order I outlined above.

Again, as I stated in my earlier post, this is why I favor the downside mechanics over the recharge and downside or even the bulk fatigue pool mechanic.

As a final thought, I'm not against action cards. I'm actually pro action card, but action card with recharges I am not (obviously). On this point, we can dress up the pig however we want and say its more tactical or whatever justification, but honestly, from where I'm sitting and based on what I've said above, their decision had nothing really to do with tactics or narrative choices, it is MMO emulation, clean and simple. You see, the pig is still just a pig.

And again, let me state the obvious: Role-playing can never compete with MMO'S. It will lose. So why offer someone a lame MMO when they could just be playing their favorite MMO. That's like trying to convince someone who drives a Jaguar to trade cars with someone who owns a Dodge Neon. Roleplaying (like a Neon) has its strengths and Roleplaying should play toward them instead of emulating something that is simply better at what it does than anything else. One aspect of roleplaying that beats MMO'S and always will is player's freedom and player choice.

Recharge rates strike at the core of both of those, you are restricting the player's freedom by recharge rate, thereby restricting their choices from turn to turn.

The designers wanted to add special abilities that could not be used every round. Why have a basic attack capability at all if a more powerful attack option is available without restriction? This then drives the need for handling frequency of use. D&D4e went a more simplistic route by offering certain abilities that could be used once per encounter and others that could be used once per day. WFRP will offer something more granular with the recharges while at the same time being more varied since different abilities can have different recharge lengths and other actions can alter the number of recharge tokens on an ability by adding or removing them.

I don't have a problem with the mechanics of removing one from each of your abilities at the end of your turn. I think this will become second nature quickly enough and not take that much time since I don't expect players to have dozens of abilities each. Dice rolls can be confined to a dice tray or box to keep wayward dice from moving tokens (and since it appears we'll be sharing dice, will be needed to pass them around anyway). I expect that the counters will be heavy enough to not fall victim to breezes or even a good sneeze since I've never had this problem with any other FFG game. A casual bump of the table isn't going to make them travel too far either (unless you've got a very flimsy table). While it's possible that someone could make a sweeping gesture and wipe a bunch of cards clear, I don't see that happening too often. I've never had a problem with losing cards or tokens from any of my board games, so I don't see that being a real issue either.

My biggest concern is that we'll actually have enough components to go around between all the players and NPCs that need them. While I assume that the basic action cards appear in quantity, adding players means reducing the action cards available to the GM to use for NPCs. While the Adventurer's Toolkit adds more, I'm anxious to see how many of the 154 action cards included in the Core are unique (that are available to players since I assume many of them will be special abilities only available to NPCs/monsters). As some of these represent spells and blessings, will having two wizards or two priests in the party cause card shortage? Granted, this probably isn't an issue very often with 3 players (which the core box is designed to support), but it does make playing with larger groups more challenging than we've previously thought. Two players can share a career card if they happen to have the same carreer because it is for reference only. But with the action cards being two sided, which side being up determined by stance, and then the recharge counters placed on them, it makes sharing action cards pretty much impossible, meaning that you'll need additional copies. If you run out of recharge tokens and have to substitute glass beads, poker chips, or something else, it just begs the question as to why we couldn't use these items in the first place and not need all the counters included with the game. Of course I've pre-ordered both the Core and the Adventurer's Toolkit and my group will likely be only 4 players, so it's less concerning for me than it might be for others with larger groups. Buying multiple Adventurer's Toolkits could frustrate people when they have to pay for duplicates of the 10 new careers, 4 new party sheets, etc. when they only need more action cards and tokens. Just as with the dice packs, these items should have been made available separately or else the Adventurer's Toolkit should have been dice, action cards, and tokens needed to add another player with a separate GM's Toolkit containing the additional careers, party sheets, and standups.

mac40k said:

Simple, have the penalty make it a risky option. What if power attack had a chance to break your weapon? To cause fatigue? To do massive damage this round, but dull the blade? There are dozens of other alternatives than prohibiting the use of powers, it just takes more imagination. Warhammer already has that set up to go (in the easiest mechanic to judge those penalties in history). Instead, they went MMO.

Sure, it will take time to learn and won't take that much time , but why is it necessary when there are faster, better alternatives out there than spam-order-powers. It also does eliminate basic attack once powers are high enough and enough actions are available to spam action cards in a recharge rate pattern without ever having to use basic attack again.

wow.......this thread has turned into a novel......goodness i just cant sit down and read that book lol

commoner:

I'll agree that spam order could happen. I think that's still better than single-action spam. However, it also seems just as likely to have players think tactically. For example:
Dwarf Trollslayer has Supersmash, Trip, and Armor-pierce actions. Supersmash has a long recharge, but does a lot of damage. Trip will knock his opponent prone, making the next attack land easier, and has a modertate recharge. Armor-pierce reduces the opponent's soak value, does only a little damage, but has a fast recharge. Rather than being able to spam supersmash every round, Trollslayer has to decide when to use it. Should he Trip his enemy, making it more likely that his supersmash will land? Should he armor-pierce a round or two first, causing his Supersmash to do more damage? Should he Trip, then armor-pierce, then supersmash? And so on.

Another example is the Backstab action. Should the PC activate his backstab action when he is the only one engaged with the enemy (because it is his highest-damage/longest recharge action), or should he use a different action until the next round when more of his allies join him and it has a better chance of landing? If he could spam backstab, it wouldn't matter and he could just use it every round. With recharge, he has to decide if it is worth the penalties for using it early or not.

Also, not every action is about dealing the most damage. Some have effects that give bonuses or penalites, and these can make other actions better (or hinder your opponent's actions). So, while "waiting for supersmash recharge" you can try to trip the bloodthrister, or reduce his armor, or guard an ally, or any number of useful actions (depending on what you've selected). Also note, that players will need to keep the recharge in mind when spending XP on buying actions. They will want to spread actions out, rather than purchasing a single "badass damage" action, so that in combat they will have a variety of actions to use while actions are recharging.

So, yes, IMO recharge does make combat tactical. Players need to think about which action they are going to use when, especially for actions with longer recharges. It is possible that some actions might only be able to be used once or twice in a combat, so *when* to use them becomes important.

Also keep in mind that some actions might not be affected by talent/skill reductions, or talent/skill recharge reductions have specific actions they reduce. Even if you could reduce supersmash ... it might be better for the group to reduce Trip instead, so you can use it every other round, instead of supersmash every 3 rounds (or armor-pierce so you can use it every round, etc). So I disagree that with your statement that "obviously I will reduce supersmash".

We've already explained why allowing super-smashing all the time isn't a good thing (to us). It's "unrealistic", and it's boring. At least, even with a spam order (should it happen), actions are broken up a little. And, as I said, tactical decisions need to be made for which action to use. Even if they 'spam order', they need to think about the order they want to spam.

You seem to be focused purely on damage, and min-maxing dps with your arguments. Some people might do that, sure. I believe, however, that many actions will be more important for the effects they give (Trip, Stun, soak reduction, etc) more than the damage they do. Also, how do you rate criticals. An action that gives a good chance for a critical but a low damage might be very useful in certain instances. And so on...

I agree that the recharge system (in fact, most if not all the action cards too) are related to combat in some form or another. Once you get into combat, you are essentially out of the "narrative flow" (just like in most games, like v2). You've got round by round actions being performed, rather than a loose story with occasional skill checks to advance the story. Almost every RPG, even those that favor story-telling have gone this route. So, I don't see the reason you even brought that point up.

The point of "streamlining" is that they have commonalities, yet are different from each other. Magic is not the same as melee, so it should not work *exactly* the same. However, given a few common elements (such as recharge) and it makes it a lot easier to understand how the magic(or melee) rules work if you know one or the other. If they made them the same, that would be a bit boring and you'd have a host of people complaining that they are the same when they shouldn't be. So, they have some similar mechanics for familiarity, yet each has its own uniqueness that sets it apart from the others. Best of both worlds.

commoner said:

great post, commoner... and exactly what was in my mind when I wrote a post in the "Influence of MMOs in RPGs" thread and why I don't like MMOs influencing RPGs in general... and, by the way, anyone that has played D&D4 should be able to identify the problems to which commoner is pointing in his post.

To sum up, I would also prefer to have actions that have inherent penalties on them. Then combat would become a decision about whether the risk I'm taking compensates the possible advantages if I pass the test: that's tactics... Knowing beforehand the penalty I have for the action (i.e., the recharging time) means you no longer have tactics but resource management as in an MMO.

WFRP3 has a lot of cool mechanics to apply unknown risks to an action (taking fatigue, taking stress, taking wounds, suffering free attack from enemy, Tzeentch's Cuser,...) so it should be a piece of cake to adapt it to a style where tactics and not resource management are the important things in combat: I'll let my players use the same actions repeatedly if they want, but adding Misfortune dice for each recharge counter on the card; I'll also change the Bane result section of each action so that the risks become higher for actions that can give more successes.

dvang said:

You are right here, but in WFRP2 the Magic and normal Combat systems were clearly different systems, yet somehow they were very easy to understand and you could have each system give a different flavour.

When you unify every system in an RPG, then you need to compromise and you end up giving Magic the same feeling as normal combat manoeuvres which, in my opinion, destroys a bit the suspension of disbelief, as Magic starts being "just another option" instead of something much more risky than normal combat but at the same much more powerful.

And with that I'm back again to the reason I like inherent unknown risks in the actions...

Let's say we rank actions according to their power, from 1 to 10... Then, if action A has a power rank of 4 and action B has a power rank of 2, you can design the game so that you can use action A only half as many times as action B (that's the recharge mechanics)... yes, you have balanced the action power but now you don't have any tactical decision to do anymore, just resource management, as any that has played MMOs knows, i.e., before the battle takes place, you already know the optimum order in which you should use your actions... maybe the battle circumstances will force you to change that order a bit: you want to use your action A on the toughest opponents before using it on the henchmen, but that's an obvious decision, so still not much tactics in it.

Now, instead of giving actions a known disadvantage to balance them, you could give them higher risks. Action A should have more inherent risks than action B... Then your decisions become really tactical. At any point in the game you have to take a decision without knowing what the cost will be, which means you'll have to carefully weigh whether the result of your action justifies the risk: that's called tactics (and, btw, risk management by insurance companies).

Risk management, that's how tactics really work in real life... Example: a basketball match... Slam dunking a ball is highly precise and players that can jump high enough will always try it if they can, so why don't we see players continuously trying to slam dunk the ball?... not because there's some kind of hidden recharge counter that forbids them from trying again, but because the risks of their action is higher than just making a normal throw; with a slam dunk you "spend more fatigue" and you have more chances o getting injured than with a normal shot, but you don't know how much energy you'll need or whether you will suffer an injury before taking the action... that's it, people, in real life you have actions that have more chances of success than others ("slam dunk" over "simple throw") but then their inherent risks are also higher... WFRP3 has very nice elements (counters, dice pool, cards,...) to create this and I feel it a pity that they decided to go the MMO way instead of fully unleashing the potential of the system (maybe FFG was a bit conservative here or thinking on the MMO crowds?).

I think that a more blended solution could be implemented, instead of this recharge.

Fatigue token could be used, for example. Every action will accrue fatigue (even spells ...) and every fatigue will reduce stats or could add a "fatigue" die.
Every action of rest will recover an amount of fatigue, based on soma stats (training...).
Unified, logical, practical and the players have the choice if risking fatiguing too much or not.

This way you will not broke the suspension of disbilief and mantain a certain bond with reali

Sorry, it seems that someone already proposed fatigue, I've not read that post.

People concerned about spam order are assuming that eventually PCs will accumulate multiple special actions. I'm not convinced that is the case. I think it is more likely that you will have your basic attack(s) and one or two special moves granted by career or training. The decision then becomes when to use the ability, not the spam order.

commoner said:

Wow. That was an excellent post. Well done. Lots to think about.

For the record, I like this new system, but you've given me a good many things to ponder and consider.

Thank you!

i think the recharge will bring the players into a new tactic......remember how inititive is work? if they get to pick where they are....this makes thing very very different....if my power is gana come back into play then i should go first......see that? its a new twist..." hey guys i can hit hard!! let me go!!"

When you unify every system in an RPG, then you need to compromise and you end up giving Magic the same feeling as normal combat manoeuvres which, in my opinion, destroys a bit the suspension of disbelief, as Magic starts being "just another option" instead of something much more risky than normal combat but at the same much more powerful.

A possibility, sure. We don't know enough about the magic system (arcane) to know how that works. However, if you read the Divine spellcasting diary, that does not make it sound the same as combat maneuvers to me. They both have recharge on their actions/spells, and both roll dice to see the effects. The gaining/spending of favor, though makes it quite different (IMO) from combat maneuvers.

Example: a basketball match... Slam dunking a ball is highly precise and players that can jump high enough will always try it if they can, so why don't we see players continuously trying to slam dunk the ball?... not because there's some kind of hidden recharge counter that forbids them from trying again, but because the risks of their action is higher than just making a normal throw;

Yes and no. Most, if not all, basketball players cannot slam dunk the ball every 4-6 seconds repeatedly. Not due to fatigue, but the fact that it physically takes time to set up the run/angle and themselves to actually perform the maneuver. There *is* a kind of recharge taking place preventing them from trying again immediately. Remember that 4 rounds is only 16-24 seconds. I think it's quite reasonable that a backstab is only possible once every 16-24 seconds, unless your opponent is immobile and presenting his back to you. It isn't a matter of fatigue, it's a matter of setting up properly for the attack and getting the opening to do so. Meanwhile, combatants are not static, they are moving and dodging and swinging, so those factors come into play too. Take the basketball slam dunk example. Have the hoop move, then try to have that basketball player try to slam dunk every 4-6 seconds, thats a closer approximation of what is happening (even closer would be for the hoop to shoot golf balls at him every couple seconds, representing 'attacks' back). It is nigh impossible to slam dunk in such a situation every 4-6 seconds, between positioning, adjusting for the hoop location, avoiding the golf balls, etc. So, I do think that there are inherent 'realistic' recharge timers on actions, over and above the impracticality of using the exact same action over and over in a dangerous combat situation.

Now, I won't know if I like the recharge or not, but it doesn't seem bad to me. I also like the fatigue suggestion, and think that could be a good house rule for those that don't like the recharge system. I'm not going to discount the recharge system, though, until I've tried it out.

dvang said:

True, but that recharge time is approximately the same for the dunk than for a normal throw... that was the point I was making: that giving combat actions different recharge times is artificial and feels "gamey" to me, and that actions in real life are not mainly balanced by "recharge" times, but by the different risks they pose.

See, I don't believe that a dunk takes the same time as a normal throw. It seems pretty clear to me that it's a lot faster to throw a basketball at the hoop, even should the hoop move, than to run up and dunk. It takes less time to set up and less time to execute.

If you've got a rack of basketballs beside you, what is faster? grab and throw each ball from the rack at the hoop, or grab and run and dunk it then run back and grab the next one and dunk it (and so on)? I've seen basketball shootouts where a player has 2-3 balls in the air at the same time (they can throw them so fast) ... but they certainly can't be dunking 2-3 times at the same time (excepting the possibility of a ball in each hand, which isn't a repeat of the same action) The dunk has more control and precision for going in the hoop, but takes longer to perform. It has a longer 'recharge' or space of time before it can be executed again.

(Also note, the recharge in WFRP3e probably also represents a portion of action execution time, as well as the delay between completion and next initiation)

I do see your points, and it is true a lot of 'real' actions also have different risks as well as 'fatigue'. However, I don't see the recharge timers as 'gamey' and 'unrealistic' as you do. Of course, I might feel otherwise after trying them, but for now they sound like a reasonable method for varying actions in combat and providing some welcome tactical decision-making for players.

cogollo said:

I'd imagine the longest recharge times are attached to actions that require the most physical exertion, and would, it would stand to reason, do the most damage, so it would make sense that it would take longer to recover from them as this is the case in most physical activities. In weightlifting the two basic kinds of routines are "a lot of reps with low weight with little rest in between" and "fewer reps with high weight and longer rest in between". If you're going for high amounts of weight, you need quite a bit longer to recover in between sets to ensure you don't injure yourself. If I remember correctly, I recall hearing that using a technique before you've removed it's charge counters causes you to receive stress. This has a good enough correlation with most athletic abilities for me. Granted, not every technique is going to just be damage dealing with propotional charge times, but I don't think it's nearly as removed from reality as you'd think.

@dvang and @killridemedley

I was not saying that all actions take the same time; what I've been saying is that the main difference for deciding whether you are doing an action is not only the time it takes, but mainly the risk, and that a "recharge time" has nothing to do with it.

Clearly, there are actions that take more time than others but... if an action takes you more time than another to carry out, then the solution is not to say that it has a higher recharge time, but that it costs you a higher number of "rounds" to perform it... Going to the basketball example. Let's assume the dunk takes three times as much time to carry out than a normal throw, but then after you carry out the dunk, you should be able to start dunking again; a rule that prevents you from starting the dunk again feels unrealistic and artificial. Maybe while you dunked the other player has thrown 3 shots, but then the way to represent this is to say that dunking takes you three "rounds" to perform while shooting takes you one "round".

So, my question is, why after performing a dunk should the player be unable to perform another one almost immediately? Yes, it will take him some rounds to do it, but why should he wait for X extra seconds to start performing it again? What's the physics behind it?

Now, I like the recharge system for Magic, as it feels you could explain it by saying the caster needs time to collect again some power from the Winds of Magic to be able to cast the spell, but that's also the point I was making when saying that unifying systems are not necessarily good... OK, they have unified the system, but then they have applied something to the combat that, in my opinion, feels artificial... plus, I do think that RPG gamers, in general, are relatively smart people and they should be able to cope with 2-3 mechanics for 2-3 different aspects of the game.

cogollo said:

The problem is that you are viewing the game as a physics simulator - it isn't (nor should it be). The game takes an abstract aproach to combat. The recharge system covers a wide range of combat factors in one simple mechanic, but the jist of it is this: You can't spam your best manouvres. The in-game reasons for this are numerous - it's physically taxing, dependant on opportunity, takes time to set up etc.

Taking the basketball example - you can't dunk every round. Once you've dunked the opportunity to do so again won't come up for a while - you'll have to retrieve the ball (min 1 round), wait until the opposing team leave you with an opening (2 rounds), make your move (roll your 'attack').

Of course another system could have been used - the one mentioned in this thread, for example, which allows the player to try to spam attacks but increases the difficulty drastically. So why didn't FFG go with something like that? Answer: it isn't worth it. When you get down to it that system is more complex and requires more book-keeping and for what? The option to use an ability that the player won't use anyway.

Odds are FFG playtested such a system and got negative feedback from the players. It sounds better, but it actual play it's just annoying.

EDIT: Basically FFG chose the option that was more enjoyable, not necessarily the most realistic.

macd21 said:

1. I don't view the game as a physics simulator... what I won't use in my games are mechanics that are clearly artificial. My players will not like it if I tell them: sorry you cannot whack again this round because the rules say so... there has to be some sort of real explanation for a mechanics rule, otherwise I won't use it.

2. Basketball example. The same you are saying about the dunk can be applied to the normal shot, so still I don't see why dunking would require 3 recharge counters and shooting only 1 (extrapolate it to any other action of the game).

3. I am going to use the system proposed where you increase the difficulty if you repeatedly try the same action... I doubt FFG playtested this one... I don't see why a player would feel more frustrated if you tell him "OK, try again but with X difficulty dice extra because the opponent already knows your trick"... Are you really defending that the same player would feel less frustrated if you tell him "Sorry, you cannot use that action again until some time has passed"?.... really strange argumentation on your part here.

4. Again, the problem is trying to apply the same mechanics in all circumstances... What works well as a Magic mechanic does not necessarily have to work well for physical attacks... This is what happened in D&D4: now all players have "powers" as if they were "spells"... Then the problem is that, firstly, Magic becomes less an exception and more another way of doing cool things... secondly, players' minds will be focused only on the action cards and the mechanics to solve them, thus combats will lose a lot of roleplay... I agree combats will be more tactical, but I don't want too much tactics in RPG combat... if I want to play a good tactical game, then I go and play one: Descent, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore (just from FFG) but there are many other games much more interesting at tactics than what an RPG can provide... RPGs should focus on the role aspects, that's why they are called RPGs.

OK, I'm leaving today for Essen Games Fair, so I won't be able to answer any more posts until next week. I clearly understand your point, but I still feel the "recharge mechanics" feels artificial the way it has been proposed and I think I've given enough arguments to explain my stance. I don't want to convince anyone here. I'm just making my point... I'm buying the game (I already preordered it) but I doubt I will use the "recharge mechanics" as proposed in the developer's diary even one single session... I think here FFG went too much the MMO way (again, I have nothing against MMOs, as I have played WoW and LOTRO but they make for dangerous inspiration to RPG mechanics).

1. I don't view the game as a physics simulator... what I won't use in my games are mechanics that are clearly artificial. My players will not like it if I tell them: sorry you cannot whack again this round because the rules say so... there has to be some sort of real explanation for a mechanics rule, otherwise I won't use it.

Explanations are easy - just use some of the examples I gave above.

2. Basketball example. The same you are saying about the dunk can be applied to the normal shot, so still I don't see why dunking would require 3 recharge counters and shooting only 1 (extrapolate it to any other action of the game).

In which case dunking should possibly take 3 recharge counters. Basic actions (probably the equivalent of 'bounce the ball') aren't complex enough to require a timer.

3. I am going to use the system proposed where you increase the difficulty if you repeatedly try the same action... I doubt FFG playtested this one... I don't see why a player would feel more frustrated if you tell him "OK, try again but with X difficulty dice extra because the opponent already knows your trick"... Are you really defending that the same player would feel less frustrated if you tell him "Sorry, you cannot use that action again until some time has passed"?.... really strange argumentation on your part here.

There are a number of problems with the difficulty system that reduce enjoyment. First of all there is adjudicating the difficulty - simply adding more misfortune dice = to the number of recharge counters is arbitrary and creates other issues. Some actions will be spammed (others will be too difficult). There will be the unrealistic increasing difficulty problem - if you keep on spamming until the difficulty gets so high you can't succeed, how long does it take to reset to 0? Tracking the difficulty may get annoying (as you spam you add more and more misfortune dice). And finally it may simply be an option that the players don't use much - generally if the action is more difficult than normal, they'll be better off choosing another action instead.

So ultimately you add an option to the game that won't be used much, can come across as unrealistic and requires more bookkeeping than the current one. Your group might prefer it - I couldn't be bothered. Just be aware of the potential problems and when playing ask yourself (and your players) "does this add anything to the game?"

4. Again, the problem is trying to apply the same mechanics in all circumstances... What works well as a Magic mechanic does not necessarily have to work well for physical attacks... This is what happened in D&D4: now all players have "powers" as if they were "spells"... Then the problem is that, firstly, Magic becomes less an exception and more another way of doing cool things... secondly, players' minds will be focused only on the action cards and the mechanics to solve them, thus combats will lose a lot of roleplay... I agree combats will be more tactical, but I don't want too much tactics in RPG combat... if I want to play a good tactical game, then I go and play one: Descent, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore (just from FFG) but there are many other games much more interesting at tactics than what an RPG can provide... RPGs should focus on the role aspects, that's why they are called RPGs.

We don't really know what magic will be like yet (though we do know a bit about divine magic), but having a unified mechanic doesn't mean that they will have the same 'feel' as melee combat. Have to wait and see.

In combat complex manouvres aren't more slow than simple one.

They are simply more complex (higher reflexes and timing sense in necessary). You have an higher rate of failing, leaving your guard open.

Many times you can deliver a much devastating blow (in boxe for example), simply by using good footing.
This isn't slow, but quickness if essential.

I'll like to add that, if you enter with a good blow, in boxe like in swordsmanship, often you have the opportunity of fast follow up that can be very effective.
Recharge time are very difficulty to explain if you have a little of combat knowlegde.
Then, if you need to explain again and again and again, sooner or later, you will coming short of options.

DeathFromAbove said:

It isn't about the speed of the action, it's about how often you get to perform it. A backstab doesn't take 5 rounds to perform. it takes the same amount of time as a normal attack, but the opportunity to backstab someone will only come up every 5 rounds or so.

macd21 said:

MMMmmm, sorry, but this is a random number. Why not 8, or 10 or 15 rounds?

I've got to say, I've really been enjoying the spirited discussions on this particular article. It is interesting to see that of everything presented in the article, that the recharge mechanic is a hot topic for many forumites. We designed and tested a wide variety of different ways to have powers interact, scale, or trigger. We also spent a lot of time evaluating playability, accessibility, gameplay balance, variety, and efficiency.

I'll see if I can add a bit more information about the recharge mechanic in a future diary, to shed some more light on its role and function in the game.

I say just give us the rules already ! That would answer every question and stop the endless speculation & debate!