''or why you can't use it against another target.''

Actualy I failed to notice that your comments do in fact explain that.

Aldred Fellblade said:

Aldred Fellblade said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean then? I understood your post to be about how actions and recharge are too mechanic and non-sensical, which is taking a GNS approach to the problem. Maybe that's a faulty interpretation but I would say that "too mechanic" means that you think that the mechanic is bad for roleplaying and story-telling (i.e. the N), while the "non-sensical" means that you think it's just not realistic (the S). Please correct me if I misunderstood your position. Or are you just saying that you don't like my use of the GNS framework? In any case, I'm not sure I see your point.

What I'm saying is that I disagree passionately on the "too mechanic", while I find the "non-sensical" quite uninteresting. It's just hopeless to discuss realism issues in any roleplaying system, since it just results in people finding more and more examples supporting their case. Since you started by saying that you're one of the wfrp grognards, I'd just like to ask if you think 1/2e were better at simulating reality (or less non-sensical using your words) than 3e?

Aldred,

There is some interesting points here, but you have dismissed some of the core ones. Before I spend any time trying to re-phrase some of the replies you've allready been given, can I just confirm if you are actually interested in playing this game or not? I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain something to someone who won't understand, as opposed to doesn't.

gruntl said:

It's not about GNS, it's not even about realism; it's about immersion. Personally I find GNS's distinctions to be ludicrous and misleading (but let's not get into that). By being non-sensical immersion is being broken, players are likely to complain that there are things they can't do that they ought to be able to, arguments are likely to develop etc. In this context the 'N' and the 'S' are the same thing. The failure to mimic reality makes it harder for the player to actually play their role as the unnatural 'physics' of their environment are constantly being exposed, and they have to think about their actions in mechanical terms rather than in 'real' ones.

It becomes incumbent on the GM to make up reasons in various situations why an ability can't be used when the character wants to rather than when the mechanics determine. Sometimes the GM may do this successfully but if the examples given in this thread so far are any indication then they are going to fail quite often.

I'm not sure that whether or not v.1 or v.2 were better at this is relevant, but FWIW I'd say that in this particular respect their comparitive vagueness is an advantage as it's not going to force you into implausible situations. As I mentioned earlier, it appears to be something of a trade off with the action cards. That's not to say that earlier editions don't have quirks of their own.

Fabs wrote:

There is some interesting points here, but you have dismissed some of the core ones. Before I spend any time trying to re-phrase some of the replies you've allready been given, can I just confirm if you are actually interested in playing this game or not? I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain something to someone who won't understand, as opposed to doesn't

No, I'm not interested in playing this game, and probably never will be. I don't really see why that's relevant to my observations though. Having 20+ years background with the previous editions I would readily accept that I am biased, but i don't think that necessarily means that I 'won't' rather than 'don't' understand.

Aldred, have you played or do you own the game?

Aldred Fellblade said:

Thanks for clarifying. I see your points now, but so far we have not had any issues of this kind. I agree that GNS is certainly not the whole truth, but I think it can sometimes help to have some common terms to use while discussing.

In any given game systems (except maybe true free form roleplaying) there will always be mechanical restrictions on what you can do or not in a given situation. This was true for v1 (I haven't played v2, but I assume they are quite similar in this respect). The way I see things, one has to take the mechanics as a given framework and then play within that framework. That means that you would accept the recharge mechanic as it is, and then roleplay the actions you make according to this (so it's not the GM explaining why you cannot perform the Trollfeller strike round after round, but rather the player that has to roleplay it). So I guess it comes down to how restricting the game mechanics is for your roleplaying. I have played roleplaying games for close to 20 years now (many many different systems) and I honestly don't think the 3e system is much worse than other systems are when it comes to this. It's certainly worse than many, but it's also a lot better than most. But sure, this is only my experience.

The problem with saying that I should be able to play my role without considering the game mechanics and only think on the "real" reasons is that the real reasons might not be very realistic at all. Most of us wouldn't know how to hit a dead cow with a sword, but we would supposedly be experts on how to roleplay a high elf swordmaster killing a troll. This is where I think you have to trust the game designers to provide mechanics that guide your roleplaying. And the action card/recharge mechanism does this in a way that I find very good and supportive of the roleplaying (having to keep track of the actual fiddly bits is a bit annoying though).

As to comparing with v1/v2, it's not relevant really, I just wondered whether you thought the problem was unique to 3e. Do you have any example of a system that you think does this in a very good way (asking out of interest)?

Aldred,

Honestly, and i say this having gone through all your posts here, you have struck me as someone who has decided they do not like this new version, and now try to find justifications for this choice. I really don't mean to be rude, just sometimes it helps when other people point things out to us. If you have already decided you have no interest in playing this game, and never will have, then you are not in a frame of mind to listen to people state how pleased they are to play it.

Where you do excel, and have put some good posts on these boards, is on the subject of the background material. You obviously have a great interest in the background and workings of the Warhammer world and are happy to share and develop this knowledge. Obviously, the background to the world is completely seperate to any game system used to play in it, and I'm sure you use a game system that you and the other players in your group are most comfortable. And whichever system you used would not diminish in any way the value of your posts regarding the background material

I'm not going to post much about the action cards here, as it's all been said for you to read if you were interested, but I will just add a very simple point. Like all game systems, the whole mechanical system exists to help drive the game and story along .. the grease the wheels of the fun wagon. The action cards exist to support players actions, not define them. Your same arguement could be made that the list of legal combat actions in any other roleplaying game restricts the players, instead of supporting them, with better resounance. This new version in WHFRP has an excellent set of tools to support good roleplaying, and that is the very facet of it that has interested this old, cynical role-player (and I'll admit I was concerned about the action cards as well, before I gave them a trial).

EDIT: Written before previous post was posted - sorry for repetition in sentiment of final paragraph

dvang said:

Sounds like you want longer recharge times or some extra cost to powerful attacks. I mean, if you've got a powerful attack that might take out your opponent a bit quicker, and you don't expect you'll need this attack against another opponent any time soon, and it doesn't cost you anything to use this attack, then why hold back?

Note that Trollfeller Strike is a bad example for this. An Orc can never use it against an Elf, or an Ironbreaker, for that matter, because you can only use it against a larger opponent. An Orc will be able to use Trollfeller Strike against a Treeman or an Ogre.

But let's say you've got Double Strike. Why would you ever use a regular Melee Strike instead?

gruntl said:

Of course all systems have their strengths and weaknesses. These action cards do strike me as problematic. Although they do give you a broader range of options they strike me as creating issues with immersion and paradoxically discouraging actions that aren't on the cards so that you might feel that in certain circumstances your reasonable choice of actions has actually been reduced. I don't really see why someone who dislikes these aspects should just 'accept' them and deal.

Obviously most systems don't have these issues (at least in this particular way) because they don't try to give you a wider range of specific options. Amongst things that do, although I haven't played it, The Riddle of Steel strikes me as doing this particular thing very well in it's combat system. Being able to call your shots specifically and for it to make a genuine difference is significant. That's not to say that it doesn't have its flaws, but it does include some ingenious aspects to its combat system.

Hopeless: No I do not own the game. My views are predicated on my knowledge of it from the previews and from reading others' experiences -which is what my initial comments here were a direct response to.

Fabs wrote:

Honestly, and i say this having gone through all your posts here, you have struck me as someone who has decided they do not like this new version, and now try to find justifications for this choice.

I think that's a bit presumptuous. Whilst I'd agree that were you trying to convince me to play or love WFRP3 you'd almost certainly be onto a loser, I don't think that I am unreasonable when it comes to individual mechanics, and there are plenty in v.3 that I do like and others (like this one) that I have mixed feelings about, and others that I hate. I made a simple observation and I don't think it's been satisfactorily answered. This discussion's only happening because people feel the need to debate it. If you don't want to that's entirely your choice and perfectly reasonable, but why make a point of announcing that you're not going to join in the discussion? The presumption is that anything I say is invalid and entirely based on prejudice. If I wasn't raising a genuine question I don't think people would feel the need to debate it. The responses I've had have been mixed from reasoned argument, to dismissing me as a 'Simulationist', to wildly abusive (one guy thought it a good idea to suggest that he'd had carnal knowledge of my mother, which I'd thought was just an ill-judged joke but considering the tone of his subsequent remarks I'm not so sure; the mods apparently felt they should remove that post). I don't think I've been rude to anyone in this discussion, and for the most part it's been in good spirit. Suggesting insincerity on my part doesn't seem very constructive. Our argments should speak for themselves.

With melee attacks I think dvang made a good case for positional delays relying on combos etc. (although it does appear to clash with the comments about NPC's and monsters he made that I originally picked up on). The problem with that is when you have recharge delays that mean you can't use that action for more than one round, which I believe several of them demand. Now, I can understand that with something like 'Backstab' (although I consider that to be an abomination for other reasons), but in most cases it won't wash. The missile weapon explanations have all failed to cut any ice with me.

If people say they don't care, and that they just like that kind of game then that's fine, why shouldn't they? The fact that it doesn't matter to some people doesn't change the fact that this mechanic does raise a question about immersion.

Aldred Fellblade said:

"My views are predicated...blahblablah." if you posted this stream of horseshit on a forum that wasn't so nice you would get mocked and tossed. a lot of people started to read this thread because it had (Playtest) in the header and now we have to read posts from you which have nothing to do with playtesting until we can get back on topic. i wish a moderator would toss you for threadcrapping, but apparently posts only get pulled for directly insulting each other. you really should have just started your own thread and put (warhammer 3rd-) in the header and then everyone who is actually interested could find it and you could all just have your bitching-fest together. meanwhile, the rest of us who are playing the game can keep talking about our playtest experiences which you clearly HAVE NO MEANINGFUL WAY TO CONTRIBUTE TO. oh, and how do you multi-quote again?

Aldred Fellblade said:

What exactly is your issue with something being "mechanistic"? Do you know of any RPG that's not mechanistic? You could play systemless of course, but most people like to have a system that gives them some handholds, while at the same time not being so excessively detailed that it includes a complete physics simulation.

Aldred Fellblade said:

More attack options, a better ability to tailor your attack to a specific situation, that sort of thing.

You seem to think that attack cards are super powerful, but most aren't. Some do extra damage (but often at a cost, and not all that much more damage either), others do less damage, but give you a useful tactical side effect. You seem to be thinking about D&D4, where once a day you can suddenly do 3 times as much damage as usual. WFRP3 is nothing like that.

Aldred Fellblade said:

It means more flexibility mostly. If there's an arms race, it's in having higher Strength, Toughness, Weapon Skill, a better weapon or heavier armour. I admit there's an arms race there, but that's not any different than in practically every other RPG. (I'm sure there are RPGs out there that don't have an arms race, though.)

Aldred Fellblade said:

That depends entirely on how many points you invest in actions. Some characters will have a ton of options in certain situations, others will have an advantage in different situations.

Aldred Fellblade said:

If you have a very one-sided character, then yes, you're going to be somewhat predictable. That has nothing to do with actions, however. It's true in any system. And actions are in no way super powers. Well, the magic spells are, but that's why they're magic, after all. It's possible that some actions are a bit more powerful than they should have been (some have even received erratas to remedy that), but mostly they represent a specific way of fighting or special maneuvers that you've mastered (as opposed to trying them for the first time, for which you can always use "Perform A Stunt"), that your average Joe wouldn't have any experience with.

I'm sure that in the end actions have indeed be designed to appeal to the crowd that loves crunchy bits, like spells, D&D4's special abilities, etc. But it does so in a very reasonable and plausible manner without turning the whole thing into a travesty like D&D did (my apologies if you happen to like D&D).

Aldred,

But your whole arguement now (because it wasn't clear until this morning) is "Are the action cards detrimental to immersion?".And many people have posted to say "No". Now, if you look in the House Rules section, there is one GM who is finding the answer to that question as "Yes", and that is with inexperienced players. It may be helpful to you to join that discussion, as he is finding this issue that you are concerned about. But if you are never going to try it, why is it a concern for you? There comes a point when no matter how much analysis you put into something, you need to go in and get your hands dirty to actually try it and see what happens.

Funnily enough, this was my biggest concern as well when I first saw this game, as i thought my players would sit there and look at thier cards expecting inspiration as what to do next, but that is only the same as players who will sit and scan thier character sheet expecting inspiration there. When we actually played, we found the cards very much took a back seat, just to be referenced for actions we wished to resolve. It's just the basic rules for making an attack, dodging, fighting defensiely, general maneuvers, and maybe one or two tricks your character has picked up.

Aldred Fellblade said:

Well, "Perform a stunt" is the card you want to take a look at then (it's a basic action that everyone gets at character creation). There is absolutely nothing that stops you from coming up with extremely crazy ideas on what you want to do, and then say that you try to do it. It's then up to the GM to set the difficulty. If I remember correctly that particular card does not have a recharge.

It's a matter of perception of course, but I would probably say that most systems (at least the traditional ones) do have issues with mechanics restricting gameplay. But maybe not in the same way, in most it's more that the general mechanics makes it hard to do any kind of free form stuff, while in 3e it's more that a lot of options are given which in principle could make the players focus too much on the cards and fail to use their creativity. But the option is always there to do the stunt thing. In more story focused games (indie games) there is perhaps less problems with it, but that comes at the price of abstraction.

Thanks for the advice on Riddle of Steel, I've been meaning to check that out for some time, I've heard good things about it.

mcv said:

If actions do come with a cost or a drawback then I agree that if designed well then that should prevent an 'arms race' and also it should stop the range of choices being too seriously affected.

There are still gaping holes in the plausibility of actions created by the recharge mechanism that one would imagine must be pretty damaging to immersion (which is what I meant by 'mechanistic').

gruntl: Yeah, I know about the Perform a Stunt card, it was mentioned in the previews. It shows that the designers were aware of this issue. I think that if mcv is accurately describing the nature of actions as having drawbacks as well as benefits then that should be a more effective countermeasure. The Perform a Stunt card should still have some effect in counteracting the tendency of having a tangible object in front of you to influence your choices.

Anyway, apparently quite a few people feel that I should't speak about this here. I'm only too wiling to oblige them.

As for the comedian (you know who you are), don't give up your day job.

Actaully Aldred, you seem to have been a lot more open today (in both the nature of your questions and the answers you've been given) which has seen this thread become a lot more interesting ... but it probably does belong in the Rules section. Raise the recharge question in there - I think we've reached some closure on the concept of action cards.

In any good fantasy story or movie, when in a fight scene the hero doesn't do a spectacular special move every time they attack. You get those "wow" moments because they aren't doing them constantly. That's all recharge is mechanically trying to do. In The Lord of the Rings movie, Legolas doesn't fire multiple arrows with every shot and in WFRP a character can't Rapid Fire every round. When someone executes a cool move in a movie, do you ask, "why didn't he just do that in the first place?" or "why doesn't he do that more often?" No, that's just the way the narrative flows.

As others have said, there is no "best" action. Some actions have a better chance of doing damage. Others a better chance of causing a critical or inducing some other condition. Some use another skill rather than WS or BS, which is based on a characteristic other than Strength or Agility and might be higher than those stats for that particular character. Some involve opposed tests rather than targeting defense. Some don't do damage at all, they just provide benefits that may help you succeed in subsequent rounds. They are all just options and when combined with the multiple axis dice, make the narrative more interesting than just hit or miss, damage reduction until 0, because they help create more interesting pictures in your mind

Also, as someone has already pointed out, Actions are just one of the things you can spend XP on. One player may flit from career to career just taking the available Action card advances, while another might be perfectly fine with using basic attacks only and instead focus on raising characteristics, taking fortune dice on Strength/Agility, WS/BS training, and specializations with his chosen weapon(s) so that his basic attacks hit more reliably and he's more likely to cause extra damage and/or criticals. This character will look more like a character in another system in that they don't have a lot of flashy moves, they just keep improving their odds to hit and deal damage. This is an equally valid character development route and refutes the action card arms race supposition.

It's tough to claim that this is less immersive than some other game's mechanics if you haven't tried it because your opinion is not fully informed. All you can do is say, "no one has convinced me to change my opinion." You lack credibility however if your opinion is solely based on the previews and opinions of others that you have read. It's not surprising that others aren't willing to continue the "discussion". You may as well be arguing that you believe the sky is green.

Aldred Fellblade said:

You don't have to accept them. You wouldn't be the first person to play WFRP3 without action cards. It can be done, and I'm sure it'll be perfectly playable (though you might have to figure out another way to represent delay results from the conservative stance). You would miss out on some of the stuff that action cards allow you to simulate, however: different fighting styles. Very few RPGs even attempt to simulate that, and those that do, rarely do it very well. GURPS's martial arts styles, for example, while being extremely detailed and giving you a million options each with their own no doubt extremely realistic modifiers, but it doesn't have a very tangible effect on the flow of in-game combat. WFRP3's actions do. That's got to count for something, at least.

Aldred Fellblade said:

True. Most systems have a very boring I-hit-you, you-hit-me combat system. Neither realistic nor exciting. Others (GURPS, for example) give you so many options that nobody will know all of them. Or even some of them. And in the end, people just use what's in front of them on their character sheet. Action cards definitely add something in this respect.

Aldred Fellblade said:

The Riddle Of Steel is definitely unique in its combat system. Some call it the most realistic combat system out there. I haven't tried it yet, so I can't say. However, is any system that falls short of that automatically not good enough?

Do you have experience with GURPS? Your insistence of extreme realism built into the rules, there being a plausible rule for everything you can and can't do, makes me think GURPS is about the only system I'm familiar with that might meet your demands.

Aldred Fellblade said:

So if you're not even familiar with the rules yet, why are you attacking the system on details that you don't fully understand yet? Did you know, for example, that you can always make an action card recharge faster than usual if you really want to use it again? It costs fortune (another mechanism that doesn't have a good detailed real-world justification behind it, but it works well).

Aldred Fellblade said:

I think it has. But much of this discussion reminds me of an old argument about the difference between Squad Leader and Tobruk. Two old, complex wargames that came out long ago. The maker of Tobruk criticised Squad Leader for being unrealistic. You see, Tobruk had a lot of extremely detailed simulation about how much damage each possible attack would do, what kind of shell would penetrate what amount of armour, etc. Squad Leader, instead, simulated the flow of combat. It made rough, vague simulations of how often people would run for cover, return to action, how tough various tanks were, etc. Squad Leader took a (relatively) holistic approach, whereas Tobruk was extremely reductionist.

Similarly, WFRP tries to simulate the flow of combat, with its ebb and flow, different engagements, how different attack combinations follow up on each other, etc. You're like the Tobruk guy who picks on one particular attack option and wants to know why he can't just spam that attack option all the time. The answer is: because nobody would actually do that. You don't always have the opportunity to make that kind of attack. WFRP doesn't fully simulate that because you always have the option to use any attack that you haven't used for X turns, but the end result is a combat where everybody makes a different kind of attack every turn, and that result feels very realistic.

If you want a more reductionist approach to combat, and you don't mind the added accounting, I can recommend GURPS. I've discovered it's not my kind of system after all, but it might be yours.

Aldred Fellblade said:

How is that dismissive? From your comments, you clearly are a simulationist. So am I, but apparently I'm a different kind of simulationist. I like the big picture, you like the detail. I personally think simulationists are smart, sane people, but like with all -isms, some moderation won't hurt.

Aldred Fellblade said:

Interestingly, surprise attacks like Surprise Strike and Sudden Dagger have a recharge of 0, and instead have the requirement that your target must not suspect an attack, and it won't work on anyone who's seen you use this card. It's a strange break from the recharge mechanism, but it would probably be more to your liking.

Aldred Fellblade said:

Any mechanic raises questions about immersion. This one just raises slightly different ones, but I've never seen an RPG system that doesn't have any mechanisms that collide with immersion.

Aldred Fellblade said:

At the very least, every action comes with the cost of 1 XP to buy it. They're not free, just like increased Strength or WS aren't free. Better weapons and armour cost money. There's plenty of limitations to stop an arms race. And if you want an arms race, actions aren't always the best place to spend your XP. In fact, I'm pretty sure that training WS is almost always a more effective way to boost your combat effectiveness.

Aldred Fellblade said:

What would you prefer? That each combat round is practically the same because everybody is always doing the same thing? Or do you want a system to keep track of the myriad of ever changing modifiers depending who stands where and what action did he just do and in what position is my sword at the moment? The latter could be extremely realistic, but would also be an incredible amount of accounting. Recharging actions is an acceptable shortcut to me. It's definitely a shortcut, but it's acceptable, because it's fast and makes combat a bit more dynamic than in your average RPG.

No doubt there are better solutions imaginable than this, but this one isn't bad at all, once you give it a chance.

Bindlespin said:

Manually, very very carefully, and praying to Sigmar that this broken piece of forum software won't turn it into an unfixable mess. Because once it's broken, there's no possible way to fix your post on this system.

mcv said:

I don't consider myself to be into 'extreme realism', the observaion I've made about the recharge mechanism is that in at least some instances it's clearly going to be counter-intuitive. It's forcing the GM to try and rationalize it to the players (or the players to just try and ignore it apparently) and from the sounds of things he's going to have a tough time doing that a lot of the time. You don't need to be very demanding to see that.

Fabs and mac40K: You seem to be under some misapprehension. I am not asking whether it is people's opinion that the game as a whole is not immersive, I am pointing out that a particular feature is bound to hinder immersion (that's really not debateable if I am right about it) and attempts to show that to be untrue have so far been unconvincing.

Aldred Fellblade said:

It's not tough to rationalize at all. "You're not in the right position to do that right now." If you want to do it anyway, spend some fortune to recharge the action faster. Personally, I'd probably also allow a player to add a number of misfortune dice equal to the number of recharge tokens, representing the increased difficulty in performing that action under sub-optimal conditions.

Aldred Fellblade said:

We could debate what you mean by immersion. Real combat doesn't mean you can do anything you like under all circumstances. Quite often you seem to have only one or two options, and no time to think. Action cards give you more combat options, but they can also be temporarily taken away. That can be a lot more immersive than having all your options open and time to think.

I'm not saying WFRP has the best approach to doing it, but it's an interesting and innovative approach, and I can definitely see the value in it. Also from an immersive standpoint. It's only the traditional "I can do anything!" nerd-view of combat that's hurt.

Aldred Fellblade said:

While you say this hinders immersion, many of us have been playing the Rules As Written and feeling very immersed. That is not debateable either. Nor is it easily quantified.

Perhaps without these recharge rules our immersion would be to some extent deeper, but the existing level of immersion is quite good, and certainly no worse than what's to be found when playing the majority of crunchy to semi-crunchy RPGs. If you can suspend your disbelief for hit points, or attacks of opportunity, or quantifiable attribute ratings, or a particular type of sword being "obviously better" than a different style of blade, you can probably must similar suspension for recharge. So while "on paper" the recharge rates look a little weird, in practice and in play they really aren't very distracting once you've got the hang them (and that only takes about a fight and a half to accomplish). The recharge mechanic meets our expectations, and doesn't particularly hinder anything in the process.

More importantly, the combination of recharging actions, boons/banes, and abstract movement creates fight scenes that are varied and memorable, instead of the static slug-fests that are the default in many other systems. The whole is more than the sum of it's parts.

Aldred Fellblade said:

No, as I said, if your mind is made up, there's certainly nothing we can do to convince you otherwise. However, I will state that this particular feature not only does not hinder immersion, it actually aids and enhances it based on my experience during actual play and that's not really debatable either. Let's put the shoe on the other foot shall we? Can you prove me wrong or convince me that the recharge mechanic does, in fact hinder immersion despite my own experience? No you cannot. Furthermore, since you admit you have no actual experience with the game any arguments you might put forth to support your supposition carry less weight than those of someone else who at least has tried it. If someone came on here and said, "after playing the game, the recharge mechanic hinders my immersion and here's why." that would be one thing. Instead, you've based your opinion on other stuff you've read that apparently supports your position and deem all other evidence presented as unconvincing. In short, this so-called debate is pointless and I'm done now.

@Aldred:

dvang, I'm sorry that you feel the need to take your ball home with you and sulk. I actually quoted the post of yours(reply #30) in which you went on about the Trollfeller Strike's recharge being due to it being tiring (at least it appears so, it's had to imagine what else you might be suggesting in the context). Apparently it's only tiring for NPC opponents to use though?

That's just offensive and rude. There is no call for a personal attack. I wasn't "sulking", I was agreeing with you regarding trying to minimize the derailment discussion, so I refrained (for the most part) about responding with a long post refuting each of your points.

Regarding my post #30. Did you read it at all? I said absolutely nothing about it being tiring, or fatiguing/exhausting the user, or anything similar anywhere in the post. You really should reread it. I merely said that the NPC would refrain from using the TFS against lesser armored foes, so that he could have it available to use against heavily armored foes. The NPC is keeping it in available in reserve, "just in case". There is a recharge on actions, and NPCs are just as aware of that as PCs are. Nothing anywhere in my post mentioned the NPC not using it because it is tiring.

Of course all systems have their strengths and weaknesses. These action cards do strike me as problematic. Although they do give you a broader range of options they strike me as creating issues with immersion and paradoxically discouraging actions that aren't on the cards so that you might feel that in certain circumstances your reasonable choice of actions has actually been reduced. I don't really see why someone who dislikes these aspects should just 'accept' them and deal.

I think a lot of us, or at least I am, trying to show you that the action cards are *not* any more problematic than any other artificial game mechanics. For example, in 2e/DH/RT you got a basic attack, swift attack, and lightning attack progression. Once you get swift attack, you'll rarely use the basic attack (only if you need to do another action, like moving, but a lot of times you can charge in that case ...), and once you've got lightning attack you'll NEVER use swift attack, and the basic only rarely (the same reasons as for swift attack). 3e, instead of swift attack, gives players dozens of optional attacks to choose from. There is not a "Lightning attack" type card, as far as I recall, that obviates these other cards (beyond the not needing to use the basic one). So, more options means players will be executing a wider variety of attacks. The thief might use Nimble Strike, while the Trollslayer uses Double Strike, while the Mercenary uses Shield Bash, in a particular round of combat. Then, the next round, each chooses a completely different attack action from the one they just used ... and also different from the attack actions that the other players are using ... whereas in previous versions you'd have: Thief -> Basic, Slayer -> Swift, Mercenary -> Swift in every single round of combat, over and over. This is partially why the action cards are superior.

As far as the recharge mechanic, I think others have already answered well that I don't need to repeat (again).

Honestly, before you can give informed opinions on gameplay, you really need to try the game a few times and see how the action cards play. They are far from 'super powers' as you suggest, nor, as mac40k has said, does it seem to break/hinder the immersion of players in my experience.

dvang said:

On re-readng it in that light I can agree that I inferred the tiring element into it (based on your repeated references to saving 'powerful' attacks and its supposed realism). Can you then explain what is ''perfectly reasonable and realistic'' when ''That action is designed to give/use a lot of power in the blow. Why waste it against someone in cloth, when there is a foe in heavy armor that it is needed against?'' and ''The Orc might not use his Trollfeller strike against the elf, because he knows he'll need to use the powerful blow against the ironbreaker (should the IB join the engagement).'' ? Apparently I gave you too much credit. Why exactly would they realistically 'save' such an attack?

As for my supposed 'rudeness', I don't think that was too strong after your little tantrum about my 'nonsensical' views. Something about pots, kettles and blackness.