TV action violence, how powerful is it?

[cupbearer]

Hey,

In a new campaign im running - I want to include TV Action Violence rule but with the option presented in Impulse buys to charge 1 point per use.

I also want to limit the uses per battle (thinking 3 times but maybe that is too much, hence the post) and also allow characters to go into debt to buy uses. This means regardless of points on hand you can use the ability every battle a certain number of times at the cost of character growth.

My question: How powerful is this thing? How much of a difference is losing your next turn? and if i limit it per battle how many times would you allow it to be used?

FYI were playing with wild card points, partial injuries (martial arts), bleeding, hit locations(tracking damage per location) and no luck or any other cinematic options.

THanks.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Personally, I wouldn't bother limiting the number of times per combat someone can use it. In my experience, players are already very leery of spending permanent resources like character points on temporary stuff like this. The recommended number of points per session to be awarded is something like 2 or 3, so doing this even once cuts significantly into your point gain for the session.

Besides that, the inherent drawbacks of using the rule (1 FP and lose your next turn) are already quite significant. Spending 1 FP means that's one FP you can't spend on Extra Effort for things like Feverish Defense (which could make TV Action Violence unnecessary by succeeding on the defense in the first place), or Mighty Blows. And losing your next action risks creating a "death spiral" effect, where the enemy gets a chance to set up another dangerous attack uninterrupted while the character can't even move to a more tactically advantageous position.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by cupbearer

In a new campaign I'm running, I want to include the TV Action Violence rule but with the option presented in Impulse Buys to charge 1 point per use.

I also want to limit the uses per battle (thinking 3 times but maybe that is too much, hence the post) and also allow characters to go into debt to buy uses. This means regardless of points on hand you can use the ability every battle a certain number of times at the cost of character growth.

My question: How powerful is this thing? How much of a difference is losing your next turn? And if I limit it per battle how many times would you allow it to be used?

Having played an Action campaign that used it with no character point cost, and no limit on the number of uses, it isn't that powerful. The combat was almost all with guns (plus grenade launchers, occasional infantry missiles, and the like) and we used it to avoid getting hit, which would likely involve being killed.

Losing your next action is quite serious, since the enemy can act with no risk of being attacked by you, and unless the party outnumber the enemy, you're at risk of being surrounded, having no cover and getting comprehensively defeated.

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Having played an Action campaign that used it with no character point cost, and no limit on the number of uses, it isn't that powerful. The combat was almost all with guns (plus grenade launchers, occasional infantry missiles, and the like) and we used it to avoid getting hit, which would likely involve being killed.

Losing your next action is quite serious, since the enemy can act with no risk of being attacked by you, and unless the party outnumber the enemy, you're at risk of being surrounded, having no cover and getting comprehensively defeated.

Was the game significantly slowed down by it though? or does losing the turn compensate for being able to be survive more attacks?

Oliver.

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

Personally, I wouldn't bother limiting the number of times per combat someone can use it. In my experience, players are already very leery of spending permanent resources like character points on temporary stuff like this. The recommended number of points per session to be awarded is something like 2 or 3, so doing this even once cuts significantly into your point gain for the session.

Besides that, the inherent drawbacks of using the rule (1 FP and lose your next turn) are already quite significant. Spending 1 FP means that's one FP you can't spend on Extra Effort for things like Feverish Defense (which could make TV Action Violence unnecessary by succeeding on the defense in the first place), or Mighty Blows. And losing your next action risks creating a "death spiral" effect, where the enemy gets a chance to set up another dangerous attack uninterrupted while the character can't even move to a more tactically advantageous position.

Do you think unlimited use would prolong fights? or is the lost action a break even kind of factor ( you can survive longer but don't get more turns)?

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by cupbearer

Was the game significantly slowed down by it though? Or does losing the turn compensate for being able to be survive more attacks?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. It was a combat option that you used when necessary to survive: getting hit at all would usually have meant getting killed. It isn't especially time-consuming in itself, and it meant characters get to make more attacks overall, on account of not being dead. Given the firepower levels being used, it was rare for a fight to last more than about 5 turns.

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking. It was a combat option that you used when necessary to survive: getting hit at all would usually have meant getting killed. It isn't especially time-consuming in itself, and it meant characters get to make more attacks overall, on account of not being dead. Given the firepower levels being used, it was rare for a fight to last more than about 5 turns.

Hi

Yes basically I was asking if the combat in real time would be longer, because as you've said the attacks were lethal, so therefore , survival means there are more turns in combat since you are not dead, which would obviously prolong the battle, but then again on the other hand since you are losing turns, you have nothing to do (don't take time deciding what manuever you are taking, or calculating modifiers, or rolling, book keeping etc) because you must do nothing, which would make combat go faster since you would only be rolling defense on your do nothing turns.

So in other words you live longer but less of your turns in the battle actually have you doing something, so would the real time of the fight (in real world minutes at the table) be longer, shorter or about the same?

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by cupbearer

So in other words you live longer but less of your turns in the battle actually have you doing something, so would the real time of the fight (in real world minutes at the table) be longer, shorter or about the same?

Well, longer in real-world time, but the players have more interesting stuff to do, on account of their characters not being dead.

[cupbearer]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Well, longer in real-world time, but the players have more interesting stuff to do, on account of their characters not being dead.

Ah..... the old playing longer because you're not dead trick, I like it!