In the first of a pair of related designer diaries, I take the opportunity to talk about the cards from a design and development standpoint. Merging cards with the gameplay was one of the hallmark design milestones achieved during the development of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=875

This is some great information, thanks! The card information pdf cleared up a lot about the cards themselves. I think your explanation of positives for card use was well written and understandable. Lastly, kudos to Dan Clark! That "Perform a Stunt" card is indeed an excellent idea IMO!

dvang said:

It is indeed an excellent idea, since it's what we've been doing with great pleasure for years !

As an afterthought, I would have expected more cards to be "basic action cards" available to everyone from the start. In V2, All and out attack and Feint, for example, are available to everyone. Poor fighters usually don't though, because their WS is too low.

I find it niggling that a character can't choose to try to parry, for example, because he doesn't meet the Str requirement of the card. Or that another character can't use the Troll Slayer Cleave because he didn't "learn" the card (he didn't buy it). Shouldn't anybody be allowed to at least try a Troll Slayer Cleave ? Of course, weak and untrained warriors would certainly fail and even worse, expose themselves, but given a lucky brak, they might succeed ?

What I mean is that anyone will instinctively try to avoid or parry a strike coming at them, even people with Str 2. So how do you adjudicate that within the present system ? As GM, you just say: "OK, you weakly try to block the blow with your club but it is easily brushed aside by your opponent." ?

I don't know, having some actions described by the player have absolutely no game effect because the character doesn't have the card feels wierd, (ie. player says: I throw myself at the enemy, swinging my heaviest blow, without any regard for defense ! I trust my armour to protect me !; GM answers, "OK, roll a standard melee attack, since that's the only melee card you have." ...).

I don't know about you, but my players like describing their actions without refering to rules and I interpret them on the spot. My players don't even know the whole list of combat actions of V2 yet, and we've been playing for over 2 years !

So I really don't know how they'll react to cards... We'll see. I'll give V3 a go, but I can foresee that I'll have to inforce a "no gamey spiel allowed" rule or else combats will feel like we're shopping at the rules supermarket. I'd really hate to have players tell aloud: OK, I got one success and two boons, so I succeed and you all get to remove one recharge token from your recharging cards ! That would really bring us in a gameboard atmosphere that has nothing to do with our present gaming style.

My post is a bit of a ramble, but hey, it's saturday morning...

The way I'd like it to go is this way:

• Players have their action cards in hand, they can use them as desired, but are forbidden to tell the action's name aloud. They must describe their action liberally, and then play their card (thus indicating to the GM which rules it translates to, if the GM doesn't agree, a quick discussion resolves the translation).

• The player and GM create the dice pool and then resolve the roll. All effects that can be executed physically by the player are, no gamespeak ! (ie. removing recharge tokens or adding them etc.., the player must describe narratively how his action gives new momentum to his fellows as he is physically removing the tokens from the cards)

• When the GM describes a scene or obstacle, he mentions the details of the difficulties at hand, and physically puts the challenge dice and misfortune dice on the table before the players so they can see immediately what rules impact this description will have. Again, no gamespeak ! Please !

• The general gist of all this is that verbal communication between players and GM should always be narrative and/or in-character. All rules translations would be executed physically, without verbal mention.

If V3 permits this, then it will be good for me and my group. If it forces gamespeak and gamist optimisation of tactics, then it will really turn me off.

• I think I might even give out a bonus Fortune Point to any player who makes a dramatically entertaining and useful use of the Perform Stunt card, just to really get through to the players that they should get creative and use it often !

Jericho said:

While I obviously can't speak for everyone involved in the project, I can tell you that many of the playtests that I ran as the GM and several of them that I participated in as a player used this approach.

One thing I especially enjoy is being able to describe scenes to players, and by ominously pushing a challenge or misfortune die forward as I go into a specific detail, they feel a sense of tension and excitement, knowing the stakes are being raised.

ynnen said:

Yes, our group often does that sort of thing, too. When they describe their actions the players add white dice to the pool as they do so, until I decide they've taken too many liberties.

A similar trick they use is moving the party tension token up as they say something they want the other PCs to take more seriously.

I'm very happy to read this Ynnen.

One other things, how can a social card like Honeyed Words can have a Recharge of 3 ?

First, I don't see how this kind of action can fit in a round by round encounter, also, if you are talking, you say a few words in one round, then wait 3 rounds before becoming Honeyed again ?

I hope future dairies will go into more detail about the different types of action cards and how they are usually employed, with examples.

That would be great.

Sorry about my english, it's my second language and not always up to par with my french...

I find it niggling that a character can't choose to try to parry, for example, because he doesn't meet the Str requirement of the card. Or that another character can't use the Troll Slayer Cleave because he didn't "learn" the card (he didn't buy it). Shouldn't anybody be allowed to at least try a Troll Slayer Cleave ? Of course, weak and untrained warriors would certainly fail and even worse, expose themselves, but given a lucky brak, they might succeed ?

This is the case with most games, cards or not. The characters are limited to actions they have acquired, other than basic. The Troll Slayer Cleave is an advanced attack, so not everyone should be able to perform it. That's like saying everyone should be able to cast spells, or be able to use two-weapon wield without penalty, despite not having those talents/abilities, etc.

What I mean is that anyone will instinctively try to avoid or parry a strike coming at them, even people with Str 2. So how do you adjudicate that within the present system ? As GM, you just say: "OK, you weakly try to block the blow with your club but it is easily brushed aside by your opponent." ?

Yes, it does seem like the basic actions might be fewer overall than in v2, but the majority of those were rarely (if ever) used anyway. You could easily house rule to allow anyone to parry, but give extra misfortune dice to those without the appropriate Strength (I'd recommend 2), or extra challenge dice. I'm not sure what rationale they used to put requirements on the basic defensive actions, but they're easy enough to change if you end up not liking them. Then again, combat should be dangerous, so perhaps it is just considered, with a stat too low, to be an ineffectual defense.

I don't know, having some actions described by the player have absolutely no game effect because the character doesn't have the card feels wierd, (ie. player says: I throw myself at the enemy, swinging my heaviest blow, without any regard for defense ! I trust my armour to protect me !; GM answers, "OK, roll a standard melee attack, since that's the only melee card you have." ...).

Well, that's roleplaying. In v2 the exact same situation happens. You can say that same quote, yet all you can do is a Standard Attack unless you have a talent that gives you a "heaviest blow" to use, or somesuch. In fact, in v2 the only real difference between different PC's attacks was their equipment. A standard atatck/swift attack/etc was still the action being used. With 3e, past those first basic actions, PCs will likely each have different combat actions that they can take. The Trollslayer has his mighty cleave, the rogue has backstab, the mercenary might have a stun, etc.

Jericho said:

Wouldn't this be achieved (quite niftily) by having a reckless stance? We know that the basic action results don't change based on stance, but the actual red stance dice themselves will have an outcome on the result by increasing chance of success but possibly causing fatigue..

easily allowing your (GM) response to be something along the lines of "the enemy is taken aback by the fury of your attack, allowing you to deal blow after blow onto the creature, you feel your energy sap away with each strike though and hope beyond hope you can kill it before the strength finally leaves your muscles, leaving you open to counter attack"

In regards to the card 'recharge':

Honeyed Words is a great example that may make it easier to explain other cards. If you are trying to sway someone to your point of view by sweet talking them, it is a very delicate process. It takes time and finesse. It's not a skill you can 'spam' over and over, it's a process that has to be carefully advanced. Think of the recharge as the time it takes to perform the skill. Now, you may also try to double-talk that person, or deceive them in some way (assuming those sort of skill cards exist). Using other skills of a similar type on subsequent turns may represent a shift in tactics as you continue to try and nudge the mark over to your way of thinking.

In regards to basic actions:

I have the same issue with my game group. They don't take full advantage of the range of actions they have available to them. There are a few reasons. The main reason is that the list isn't right in front of them. I've even photo-copied the page for them, yet I never see it. But, it's mostly because a few of the actions are more efficient than others. Standard and All-Out attacks are nearly always used. Occassionally (as the situation allows) I'll see a charge or a maneuver. With the cards, they will be right in front of them at all times and they must physically access them. In addition, with recharges there will be more variety in attack actions. So, though there may be fewer basic actions available, I think there will be a much greater variety in actions performed.

Edit: I've also seen action results that allow the GM to place recharge tokens on player cards. This allows the GM to counter or stymie players that become too predictable. If a player is using the same action over and over an opponent would adapt to that, so adding recharge counters to that card would represent the creature countering that attack and forcing the player to change tactics. Pretty smooth system if you ask me...

In regards to skills with pre-reqs:

Sure, anyone could try parry, but it takes strength (or finesse). A clumsy or weak person (i.e. someone who doesn't qualify to use the card) just wouldn't be able to pull it off. No matter how hard they try, they are not going to stop that incoming heavy mace swing from a chaos knight when all they have is a 3" bicep and a dagger. Questions like this come up in every game system. Why can't I do this? -or- Why is this like that? As GMs, it's our job to interpret things so as not to ruin the game immersion. Rules like this were put there for a reason. In this case, it just doesn't seem realistic that a weak person could turn away a strong blow. The trick is to figure out 'why' this rule was included. In most cases it should be explained in the rules. If not, a little imagination goes a long way

I love the idea of sliding modifier dice out as you paint the scene. Though it hadn't occured to me to do that, it probably would have when I play. I will encourage my players to do that as well. This will add a narative story element to the building of dice pools for rolls. I'm all about 'ratcheting up' tension as I build scenes and this, combined with the party tension meter, is a great tool for that! I'm really good at getting my players worked up over scenes and this will make my job easier and my efforts more effective

NezziR said:

Interesting response.

The "why" is indeed what makes or breaks a system, because when players ask "why can't I do this over and over again ?" the GM must find a convincing answer to defend the games design. For example, "Because Dwarfs are less affected by the laws of gravity" would be a bad answer that would ruin the "realistic" feel of the game.

Up to now, most diaries have been explaining the mechanics, but they haven't given us all the "whys" that are hiding behind these mechanics. Sure, we have designers intentions and such, but no "in-game" explanation for specific mechanics.

How do we rationalise Recharge tokens for our players ? How does you justify the existence of this mechanic in-game ? Many posters have suggested interesting ideas, and yes, imagination can go a long way, but I would really like to hear the designers point of view on this, and do the actual rulebooks answer this need ? GMs really need to understand the underlying logic of mechanics to be able to fairly adjuticate any situation and answer any rules questions the players come up with. So it is important to know. (And I prefer the designer's view concerning mechanics.)

About Honeyed Words, you say that the Recharge is the time it takes to do the action, but that is your interpretation. If you take into account that recharge comes in effect only if the action succeeds, how do you explain that after successfully convincing someone with a quick line (one round's worth of talking, that's not much), you need to wait 2 or 3 rounds before continuing your act on the man's best buddy, for example ? A round based recharge mechanic for social actions feels a bit strange, don't you think ? Most social actions will be played out in Story mode anyways. So where does the card come in then ?

Jericho said:

awesome! im def gana use some of that

Dwarves aren't less affected by the laws of gravity?

Jericho said:

IMO it's less about the amount of time it takes to perform an action than a matter of opportunity. In the case of Honeyed Words, lieing too much to the target is pushing your luck. Sure, you could try to use Honeyed Words too rounds in a row - but the difficulty would be so high as to essentially be an auto-fail. You've got to time your social manipulations carefully.

macd21 said:

How do you rationalise the fact that you can repeatedly try and fail Honeyed Words attempts, and only when at last you succeed, you need to wait before doing it again ?

Jericho said:

It's not hard. If you fail it means that you haven't convinced the target yet. Once you succeed, you have - but having done so you need to wait a while before trying to sell him another porky. In the meantime you can still use other guile cards.

The cards are abstract - very abstract. They intentionally use vague descriptions so that they can be used in a wide variety of situations and so that they can easily be rationalised.

Do you think these social actions can be used in story mode ? And if so, will the recharge be based on something else than rounds ?

Lastly, what will happen if a character with the Guile skill wants to lie to someone to bluff him, but does not have the Honeyed Words action card ?

Can he do it anyways ? If so, why buy the Honeyed Words action card at all ? If not, how do you rationalise that ?

I think action cards can easily be introduced for physical actions in combat scenes, since everything becomes much more detailed in these scenes. But even though your rationalisations for the recharge mechanic are clever and to the point and can help maintain a sense of reality, I really cringe at these social actions that seem to cheapen the social skills and that feel awkward in round based action scenes.

What it comes down to is: if the WS skill gives automatic use of the Standard attack action, and that you can buy better and more specialised attacks afterwards, that feels logical.

But is the design the same with social skills ? Does the Guile skill give access to a basic "bluff" action ? Thus Honeyed Words would be an enhancement of the Guile skill just as Troll Slayer Cleave is for WS ?

I can't wait to see a complete list of action cards...

Jericho said:

I would say that yes, he can do it anyways. You buy the Honeyed Words card because it gives him a bonus to guile rolls (the effect is better than you would get with a normal Guile roll). Rationalisation: The player is a practiced manipulator. He knows when to lay it on thick (use Honeyed Words) and when to back off a little (use standard Guile). Yes, Honeyed Words would be an enhancement of Guile just as Cleave is for WS. Of course I could be wrong, but that's the impression I've received so far.

dvang said:

Alright, part 1, about systems having requirements. I see what you're saying Dvang with specialized actions, but at the same time, the requirement issue you basically defeat with your second argument about how house rules giving additional penalties for those who want to use it always. You see, requirements bar player choice and player option, where as a system that promotes penalty without the necessary action promotes player choice and player option. To say you can't use this power without x requirement is just as easy as saying you can use this power with x penalty unless you have met x requirement. It's a matter of taste, agreed, but I always favor players trying outlandish things and giving them penalties over it. So when a player says I throw myself at the enemy, swinging my heaviest blow, without any regard for defense! They can do it, rather than saying, oh, since you don't have the card, it's only a basic attack. Why did the player bother describing his attack if all he gets out of it is a standard attack? Eventually, all he will ever do is basic attacks going back to the dialogue (I swing, I hit, I do x damage). So a system that requires x amount of strength to parry, when a player shouts out I attack with my two handed sword wildly in the only arm I have left, then, the system promotes the GM saying sorry, you can't because you don't meet x requirements (I brought this up because dnd created a very specific feat for using a two-handed weapon one handed and it was called Monkey Grop). Why would the evil GM do that to a player and simply not let him do it in a system where Monkey Grip existed? Well, what tailors the GM in these very gamist mechanics is game-fairness. Simply put he can't let someone monkey grip because another player has the option to buy monkey grip and lets say someone did. Well you get a feat every three levels. If the GM allows everyone to monkey grip why did that one guy spend a feat? What would have made a better feat was Monkey Gripping is normally done at x penalty, if you have the feat, you no longer have x penalty. You may say that's bulky, but this same mechanic is put in place in almost every game system for fighting with an off-handed weapon. You can do it at x penalty. You take a special ability and x penalty is gone. This could of course be standardized to the ill-prepared or poorly skilled rule, which gives the same range of penalty for all actions where characters don't have the necessary training to do it.

You see, and I know you from previous posts you're not a big fan when I bring up that nagging, real world, but I can go outside right now, and try to take apart my car engine. Sure I might not do it well, but I can at least attempt it. I don't do it because I know the penalty to my check is way too high to try it, but at the same time I could if I wanted to. I'm not limited because I don't meet the "stat requirements." I know this is a game, but at the same time, it is a game where our only universal frame of reference is what I can do as a person. I can try anything, be it as difficulty as it may, at whatever it is I want to do, there is no stat-requirement to anything. Games could easily reflect this with the above stated rules option, and again, I point to the rules that focus on difficulty, period. Tasks which are harder yield more penalty. Making a super attack is more difficult than making a normal attack, period, so isn't it easier to just levy a penalty against them rather than create a stat requirement?

Well, that's roleplaying. In v2 the exact same situation happens. You can say that same quote, yet all you can do is a Standard Attack unless you have a talent that gives you a "heaviest blow" to use, or somesuch. In fact, in v2 the only real difference between different PC's attacks was their equipment. A standard atatck/swift attack/etc was still the action being used. With 3e, past those first basic actions, PCs will likely each have different combat actions that they can take. The Trollslayer has his mighty cleave, the rogue has backstab, the mercenary might have a stun, etc.

This is only true if your players act in a manner where they feel limited by the system itself and a GM doesn't offer rewards for pushing their descriptions and actions. No where in the rules of 2e does it state you can parry attacks directed at other player characters, but in my game, a player asked if he could block an attack for his friend, and the situation was so desperate for them that I allowed it. It was fantastic and became a staple in our combats from that point forward. You don't need action cards if you're players get into it. Also, your reply looks at these different actions as some massive, altering effect to combat. But really, no matter how fancy the cards or actions get it comes down to the same trough: A to hit roll determines damage which determines wounds which determines fatality. No matter how that system gets "dressed" in the morning, that's all there is to combat. The dressing of any combat is controlled by the players and the gm. The system only supports their decisions, descriptions, etc. If the players are lazy or unimaginative (don't mean that as an insult, instead a sweeping generalization toward an approach) they will only use I hit, whatever. Action cards will help facilitate a more descriptive (be it not at all really more dynamic because, again, it goes through that trough of combat mechanics) combat, but for those who operate without the need of something to "dress up" the combat, then it actually hampers them in because they won't have the right cards to put in place to achieve x result and the GM has issues facilitating the mechanics because of fairness to those who spent hard-earned points on the proper mechanics to achieve x result. Honey words is a great example, because, if a player lies and doesn't have a card, what happens then? How can he seduce someone with his words without it? It's an effect, that I feel would have better served as a talent (which would give bonus dice when being used) rather than as its own independent action. That way a character without honey words attempting to "honey" someone would get one white die, where as the person who excels at it would get two white (one for the talent and one for the white die). Of course, using the Talent itself would risk banes just as it does on the card, and it could be steeper or less based on the Talent effect.

I took a bit of time to think over these designer diaries. I do like the notion of not having to rely on the cards, but I'm still not sold that the action card system with refresh won't over-power player choice. I'll break this down, as to spare the boards of one of my epic posts:

The Good: I'm glad to see the action cards were included in every facet of the game. I love how the action cards give easily translatable range in a static damage system. Static damage generally failed in most other systems (without a great deal of complexity to create some form of range), but this really will give a push to it and that, I'm happy to see. I love the descriptions of the card effects and how they'll make players see things from different perspectives and promote them (such as Honeywords) to add flavor to how they roleplay (if they need it). I also like thinking about how the dice interact with the narrative system and these cards give some great guidelines on how to do just that.

My sort of impressions: I'm starting to think that these action cards are a way to simply help facilitate the translation of the dice, nothing more. If that's true, I can see for some as that being necessary. Honestly though, I still feel that most of what the system needs is in the core of the funky dice and the Talents (as long as the talents wouldn't have been like DnD feats, which from the Talents I've seen, doesn't seem to be the case). A lot of these 157 action cards though seem to add a needless amount of complexity to something that is so elegantly simple. Now, I'm sure those 157 cards means their are a set number of each (4 basics, 2-3 advanced, etc), but it seems like a lot of the game and choices may have been translated 100% to the Action Cards.

The Bad: Recharge on Social Actions? Really? How the heck do you determine turns in social situations? Why couldn't it have just been 1 Scene or whatever. I don't get that at all. Then again, I don't get recharge and I probably never will. Spending Fortune points to help them recharge faster is only a way to further the madness of resource management that recharge creates. Now, a steady drip of fortune points will be used only on the most powerful cards. So for those who think this will spare spamming, guess again, it won't. Just recharge super damage at the fastest rate while you have a filler card or two, then bam, it's back to super slam. Double this with the cards that will help recharge happen faster and bam, back to the cycle. No matter what, You'll still be looking at dropping DPT (damage per turn) and figuring out how to maximize power-combo's. Even in social situations, it appears now, you'll have to worry about your SDPT (Social-Damage-Per-Turn). So just plow through for those social cards that the biggest amount of penalties, recharge, recharge, then spam away until you that king to his knees, have him crying for his mommy and ask for whatever you want from him, because you just rocked him with your SDPT. See my point?

This action card system, for those gamers (I know, I have two in my group) who care little about system, these mechanics will stand in their way because they don't want to fiddle with the math. They want a system they can ignore, other than make x check to execute x description. They will also, no matter how hard they roleplay, fall behind those players who obsess and are good at the math who have maximized their DPT and SDPT. Because honestly, for those players, if they have the opportunity to ignore the action cards, they will. Now they generated a Troll Slayer without action cards while the human warrior guy loaded up on them, will the Troll Slayer without cards really be able to compete with the guy with tons of them? I'm not so sure when ignoring armor and bonus damage comes mostly off these cards. And if it doesn't, when can a GM rule in favor of the player and a good description before he starts stepping on "action card" toes. I know perform a stunt exists, but when does that card not simply replace every other action card in the game? And if it is designed to do so, then why have all these cards in the first place with complex recharge rates?

Don't get me wrong, it is a refreshing concept that you don't have to buy actions if you want, but the actions seem so vital to the system, I really don't know if that will be the case. All I have is Jay's word to go on and so I'm believing him as much as I can, but I just don't see how to be honest Maybe he could enlighten me sometime, with like a diary that demonstrates how you do actions without the cards and how you can judge those actions alongside those with action cards and how really, being free of them, you are even close to as good of a character with action cards. Either that, or we'll just have to wait and see.

So when a player says I throw myself at the enemy, swinging my heaviest blow, without any regard for defense! They can do it, rather than saying, oh, since you don't have the card, it's only a basic attack. Why did the player bother describing his attack if all he gets out of it is a standard attack? Eventually, all he will ever do is basic attacks going back to the dialogue (I swing, I hit, I do x damage).

This happens in *every* RPG. Despite what the player describes his action being, he is limited to the actions available to them. In D&D a fighter can't describe throwing a fireball and then actually get to do so, because they don't have that ability. They also can't Cleave multiple enemies without the ability, even if they describe it. It's a fact of RPGs, not just WFRP 3e, that players are limited to actions that their characters can perform. If my character doesn't know how to speak Skaven/Orc/Chinese, then I can't attempt to speak Skaven/Orc/Chinese. If the rules say I can't wield a 2-handed weapon in a single hand, then even if I describe wielding a weapon in one hand it's against the rules and I can't. Of course, the above is all with a caveat that the GM doesn't house rule. A GM could let a player attempt to speak Skaven, or wield a weapon in one hand, or let a fighter attempt to cast a fireball. It is all in the GM's control, but none are allowed in the rules of the RPG.

I will also point out the "Perform A Stunt" action card, which the GM can use as a stop gap to affect any actions not covered by another card. Besides using it at face value, the GM can probably just use this as a template and allow different bonuses based on the action (rahter than feeling confined to the results printed on the card).

This is only true if your players act in a manner where they feel limited by the system itself and a GM doesn't offer rewards for pushing their descriptions and actions.

Actually this is true in any RPG. If you want to *house rule* things as a GM and let them attempt to perform actions they don't have skills/talents/action cards for, then go ahead. It is certainly an interesting idea, and does have some merit. However, and I'll point out, the way that WFRP 3e is doing this is the same way every other RPG does it. There are rules for a reason, otherwise it's a free-for-all and whomever yells "I attack and kill you" first wins the battle. Players should feel free, and be encouraged, to describe their actions. However, their descriptions should be within the confines of the setting and the rules. I know how to make bullets and how to make a primitive firearm, for example. If I describe my human grave robber making bullets and making his own primitive firearm (from my meta-game out-of-character knowledge), does that justify him being allowed to do it? No, simply because the *character* does not know how to perform that action. Now, if he had the Engineering(Gunpowder) talent/skill, then my description would make sense and would be welcome.

Recharge on Social Actions? Really? How the heck do you determine turns in social situations?

This is something that hasn't been elaborated on. There was a mention of Social Encounters that use Fel for Initiative rather than Agi. I have a feeling it relates to social situations where time is of the essence. I.e. you need to convince a bomber to tell you where the bomb is before it detonates, or to get a hostage-taker to release a hostage before too many authorities show up and force him to panic. Etc.

Now they generated a Troll Slayer without action cards while the human warrior guy loaded up on them, will the Troll Slayer without cards really be able to compete with the guy with tons of them? I'm not so sure when ignoring armor and bonus damage comes mostly off these cards. And if it doesn't, when can a GM rule in favor of the player and a good description before he starts stepping on "action card" toes. I know perform a stunt exists, but when does that card not simply replace every other action card in the game? And if it is designed to do so, then why have all these cards in the first place with complex recharge rates?

I think you're fueling your own fears. Don't claim gloom and doom until you try it. In Jay's diary it specifically mentions various options that players can choose, besides action cards:

"Another neat part about the action card system is that the level to which a character relies upon action cards is completely in the players’ control. If a player enjoys the action card system, and wants to develop a character who relies on a wide assortment of special tricks and exploits, he has a lot of options. First, he can spend creation points during character creation to have his character begin play with more action cards. Second, over the course of the character’s career, the player can spend advances to acquire more action cards to suit his playing style and interests.

However, there are a lot of other enticing options available to the players. One player may wish to invest in skill training and expertise, while another picks up additional talents to provide more situational bonuses and team-oriented benefits. Another player may want to fully take advantage of the stance system and acquire additional stance pieces as quickly as possible. Or a player may wish to diversify across all the different options to create a more well-rounded and versatile character."

So your Trollslayer friend could get additional expertise and characteristic dice instead of action cards, both of which would make him fairly powerful in combat. As well, investing in skills also allows him to be useful outside of combat. The stance system, as well. The Trollslayer could add several additional Reckless and Conservative pieces, so that his few actions that he has are more powerful because of it. Or the Trollslayer could take Talent cards which give situational and group bonuses. All of these seem reasonable, useful, and fairly equal (at least in concept without actually having played).

I would say, wait and see before you decry that it's broken, leads to spamming, or forces players to do math and not roleplay.