Action Point Allowance

Steve, thanks for getting the ball rolling with a great starting essay!

What you describe as "everything costs 1 but the number you have each turn can change" has been done in the game Hansa, by Michael Schacht. In that game, various actions are allowed and each costs one Taler, but you won't always have the same number of Talers each turn. I like this kind of a system because I think it makes each turn feel like you're being presented with a different set of options (in addition to the changing game state, of course).

The biggest potential problem with Action Point systems, I am pretty sure, is that of "analysis paralysis" -- that there are so many different options that confront a player that he could get bogged down considering all the permutations. I think there are several ways of getting around this:

-- Restrict the number of actions the player can take. This can be especially nice because it can force the player to "want to do more than he can", which Action Point systems naturally lend themselves to anyway. In fact, I feel that you want to give the players as few actions as possible while still allowing them to accomplish something substantive on their turns.

-- Restrict the number of a certain type of action. If a player has 10 points to spend, but can only take each type of action once, that restricts the number of choices he has. Maybe a player can only take one action per province (Hansa), alternatively.

-- Make action selection simultaneous This doesn't remove Analysis Paralysis, but it does prevent it from becoming serial.

Other solutions are certainly possible. The other problem that one could face is making sure that all of the allowable actions are meaningful and interesting. And of course, the actions should be balanced in cost. Action Point systems like that of Tikal, as you mentioned, are great because they give you some flexibility as a designer to balance things with having to rely on the "crutch" of Auctions.

However, I feel that Action Point systems may be a sort of "crutch" unto themselves, in the sense that they're very easy to use, relatively easy to balance, AND give players a variety of kinds of actions to take, which can be great in developing thematic flavor. My fear is that they may be "too" easy to use, and designers may rely on an Action Point system when something more interesting and original could be developed. I also feel that they lack the elegance of a "restricted" system like that of, say, Carcassonne -- draw and place a tile, place a guy. Beautiful!

That's not to say they don't have their place; one of my games (Disciples) has something that would probably be categorized as an Action point system, and others have various actions available. But what I strive for is to shake up the choices that players have each turn, so that the decisions don't become stale, or a "best choice" emerge.

Just some impressions from my somewhat limited exposure to these kinds of systems. Looking forward to further discussion on the subject!

-Jeff

This is a very timely discussion for me, since I've recently been developing a couple of ideas that utilize action points.

One of my ideas in brief...

Food = Action Points

Food (or Action Points) is a resource that must be produced.

Food is spent like action points, with most actions only costing 1 point and a few of them costing 2 points or more. Thus, the more Food you produce, the more you can do, with a limit of spending 3 or 4 per turn.

Other than Hansa (listed above), is anyone familiar with any other games that make use of a Developed Resource = Action Points mechanic?

Sorry to be a bit "heavy-handed" here, but since this is our first session, I'm going to "overmoderate" a bit, and I'll back off in the future.

I just want to point out that the "Topics in Game Design" forum, in which this thread resides, is NOT the place for discussing game creation or for asking help with mechanics.

Now, I think your post is actually ok because it closes with a request for information -- "does a system like this exist elsewhere?" That's fine. However, what I don't want to see happening is when we discuss a mechanic, someone who is working on a mechanic in that genre chimes in and asks for help in implementing it. These discussions are meant to understand the mechanic itself -- how does it work, what is it useful for, what problems is it prone to? You can use your games as references (although using published or GDW games would be better), but springboarding into asking for help is not really the intent of the forum; linking to a different thread might be ok, though.

Not picking on your personally, just using this as an opportunity to reiterate the policies of the forum. Again, I think your post was fine; I just don't want people to go one step further, and say "Hey, I'm working on an Actoin Point System, and it's not working; can you guys help me out?"

Thanks,
Jeff

Some things to ponder...

Many traditional boardgames allow a player to do one thing per turn. Is this an "action point system" with 1 action point?

How are action points different from simply having a few turns in a row?

One of the problems mentioned with AP is Analysis Paralysis. Does it really take a person longer to play one turn with 3 action points than it would for the same person to play 3 seperate turns with one action each turn?

I think I'm a little unclear about 'action points' vs 'fixed number of actions'.

I agree that Tikal clearly uses action points. I've only played it once but it seemed to work fairly well. It is nice having multiple action points for different actions ...

I think a key point is to make it easy to keep track of how many action points you have used. For example, having a low number of points does this, or actions (such as moving) which can consume a reasonable number of points while moving and are relatively easy to keep track of verbally (e.g. okay thats 2 ponts for that ... then I move this ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... etc.). If it gets more complicated than that, you need a track to keep track of points and you need to assess whether it would be better having fewer points and more turns (as suggested above).

Magic Realm had something that might be classified as action points ... it was something like (if my memory serves me correctly) 4 actions per day normally, but 2 actions in caves or mountains ... certain items or certain characters having bonus actions, sometimes of only a certain type (like elf and the elven cloak granting an extra hide phase). This was handled with all players writing their days actions ahead of time and then revealing (hnoting that some actions may become irrelevant).

I like the idea of 'bonus actions' for certain things (e.g. characters, items, buildings), particularly when a player must make a decision on whether its worth investing in the extra (specialised) actions. It adds to the 'tough choices' ... just as long as there aren't too many choices and the accompanying analysis paralysis sets in ...

... that's enough for now ...

I think that what this shows is simply that the "rich get richer" problem is a common problem not unique to action point systems. Settlers most definitely couldn't be called an "Action Point Allowance" game.

To take that further,

I think this is an excellent point, and maybe we should back up and clarify our definitions. I think there's definitely a distinction between the "Tikal" sense of Action Points, where you really do have a variety of actions of varying Action Point costs, and a game like Tigris&Euphrates, say, where you have several options available to you each turn, and you must choose a set number of these actions per turn.

I think it's very common to conflate the two, but you must admit, the difference is rather subtle. To me, whether you consider them to be the same or different depends on your point of emphasis. If you see the important quality as "permitting a variety of kinds of actions", then they're functionally the same. If, on the other hand, you're viewing the important quality as "balancing different kinds of actions", then only Action Point systems in the "Tikal" sense would really qualify, because in all other games, the actions all have the same cost; the designer has balanced the actions themselves, whereas in Tikal the designer has balanced their cost.

I welcome further insight or clarification on the issue; is there a distinction, and if so, is it meaningful?

-Jeff

I agree. I think unbalanced actions that are balanced by their cost is an important part of AP systems.

When you have equally balanced actions, for example:

1) in an I-move-you-move system, you try to guess what your opponents next move is

2) in a 3 Action Point system, you try to guess what your opponents next 3 moves will be

Thus, IMHO, selecting a few equally balanced actions is not that different from simply having to predict more of your opponents future actions.

I don't see how a "balanced" AP system isn't AP and an "unbalanced" AP system is. They're just different flavors of the same thing. I don't think either is a subset of the other, either.

The basis of AP in my book is "choose x actions from among y," where x and y are both greater than 1 and both are specifically numbered. If that's what you've got, then you've got Action Points in my book.

I would argue that if x is completely variable from turn to turn then it may well not be an AP system, however. If it is then nearly every standard wargame would qualify as an AP system, for example, since you can do certain things (move, attack, etc.) and there's a limit based on the number of units, etc. Sure, it's "x of y," but it's not AP because x isn't meaningfully limited or static. Yet games where you can save x from one turn to the next still qualify.

Maybe the key is that x must be "neutral," not standing for any particular thing other than the number of action points you can spend (or actions you can take). That certainly separates it from standard wargames.

-- Matthew

You mean like in Scott Starky's "Sticky Gulch"? Or the increasing cost of things in "Amun-Re"?

Of course, everyone will design games in a different way, but I like to start with mechanics that are easy to explain, make for a cohesive, balanced game and that I think will provide interesting decisions. Then I think about what theme could be applied to the game so that the mechanics make sense. I find that this way it is easier to create more compact and cleaner designs than the other way around.

- René Wiersma