The Terminal Phase, A 5 Phase Round

I simply propose there be 5 phases in a round instead of 4.

Do you like this idea? What are it's likely consequences on game play and its likely impact on character creation/development?

In my experience I've found that players really enjoy how the action check results can change the flow of the battle drastically from round to round. However they *hate* giving up actions because of a marginal check result (which a fairly common outcome even with a high AC score of ~14).

In the 5 Phase Round, the marginal phase is followed by the "terminal" phase - which is no different than any other phase. Characters who roll a critical failure on their action check are relegated to acting in the terminal phase.

So a character with a max of two actions per round is only in danger of losing the use of an action on a critically bad action check (the marginal phase is no longer the last phase, so characters with a marginal action check can still take two actions - one in the marginal and one in the terminal)

Each phase now lasts two seconds and a full round is 10 seconds. (Cinematically I would prefer a 5 second round, but movement speeds and various durations are all calibrated for a 12 second round...)

I find that Alternity game play flows better when the GM moves each round along as quickly as possible. I think the proposal would reward a Marginal action check by giving the player another action after seeing the results of everyone else's choices, and keep a player with an Amazing check waiting longer than at present. Finally, I agree with you that a 10 or 12 second round harms realism and am not sure I would want to emphasise it further by specific timing. For these reasons, I think you're solving one genuine problem (frustrating Marginal action checks) by introducing some new ones.

I have a counter-proposal: treat a Marginal action check as Marginal Success, allowing the combatant to act in the Ordinary phase. Only a Critical Failure would hold back a combatant to the Marginal phase or result in a lost action for most characters.

I'm a bit worried, though, that the same players who whined about Marginal action checks would start building characters with 3 actions and poor AC scores, then complain about losing an action they were "entitled" to on a Marginal (your proposal) or Ordinary (my proposal or RAW) action check. This has been raised on the forum before. At some point a rule has to allow players to fail, otherwise the game doesn't contain any meaningful choices. At least they're getting some actions and have a chance to do better in the next round.

This post has been edited by uncle_jimbo on Jul 26 2008, 08:13

my players hate action checks to begin with. We use a fixed score that determines the order people go in every round.

You loose the changeling flow that action checks provide, but it is much faster.

-halo

To address Uncle_Jimbo's counter-proposal, I would like to point out that your mechanic rewards a poor AC more than mine does.

Under my mechanic there is still an advantage to having an ordinary AC over a marginal - you get to deal damage a phase earlier and the effects of that damage will be felt in the terminal phase. So if you have an ordinary AC and your opponent acts in the marginal, you still hold an advantage, albeit not as overwhelming advantage as it is under standard AC rules.

Under your mechanic there is *no* time difference between rolling a marginal and an ordinary success. Furthermore, in real time, a character who had an amazing AC will have to wait for the same number of actions to be resolved under both our mechanics before he can go again. This is true because we are both allowing a character with marginal AC to act twice.

In terms of game time, a character w/ 2 actions and an amazing AC will have to wait 6 seconds for his next AC - which is exactly how long he have to wait under standard rules.

As for players that hate the idea of an action check every round, i find that in my experience the **only** reason they hate rolling AC's every round is because they "lose" an action on a marginal AC - which is a fairly common occurrence even for a character built with combat in mind.

Also, I am resistant to the idea that AC's really slow down combat that much or that adding one more phase would make much difference here. You don't even have to record, or even mathematically order the initiative roll results like you would in D&D or nWOD, or Shadowrun. You just call out the name of the phase and have people go when their phase is called.

I agree that this proposal, like any change to game mechanics, will impact the way characters are built. Under my mechanic, it is still important, but no longer absolutely vital, to have a good AC. By extension, this mechanic does advantage a high strength character more than a high dex character. But dexterity is not exactly a weak stat to begin with. It also diminishes the importance of intelligence a little, but I've never seen anyone use int as a "dump stat" who didn't greatly regret it.

Tell them that if they have a reaction rank benefit (like reaction dodge at Acrobatics -dodge rank 7, or reaction parry Melee Weapons -any rank 4), they can still use that 'lost' action or action. Just remember the reaction skills, and they shouldn't complain too much.

I tell my players that the achievement section has 4 rewards that cover action check.
1) increase dexterity (only two in the book, currently working on a mechanic to allow more at higher levels)
2) increase intelligence (same as above)
3) increase action check (can buy 3 times)
4) action check bonus (can buy 1 time)

I insist that achievement benefits add a certain level of depth to a character, because they are striving to become better. My players still don't listen to me, they usually just buy more skills, but they accept the marginal success (especially since most are smart enough to get reaction rank benefits).

But as Jimbo pointed out, you have to let the characters fail, because if there is no failure, there is a lot less tension.

Of course, another way to combat the AC problem is to cut down on the amount of combat (a real time saver, IMHO).

Hmmm..I've been thinkering with this lately and as far as terminal phase goes I'd allow it but anyone acting in terminal phase would perform his actions at +2 step penalty and his movement rate would be cut in half.

I don't think this is as much of a failure of the rules as it is a character design issue. In my opinion catering to players who are annoyed at this aspect of their characters' performance is the wrong move. If your players hate giving up actions due to poor action checks they have it under their control to fix that.

It's of course impossible to never roll a poor action check score. But it IS completely within the players' ability to give their character a darn good chance of not going in the marginal phase, initially during character creation as well as when advancing in levels. Players can choose stats that are conducive to a high action check score or pick up action check increases or bonuses that will help as well. If you're playing a high-PL game they can also get cyberware or drugs that will help too.

If they haven't taken those steps then the issue is one of character design, not a failure of the rules. If the character has extra actions but a poor action check score, or vice versa, those are other examples of poor design in my opinion. Plus, ultimately unless you go with a fixed initiative system the die can always screw you - that's the nature of the game.

One other solution by the way, is tactical - if they want a good chance to go first in a combat they should set up an ambush.

By the way, my group uses (what I think, at least) a fantastic house rule that a character can never go in the marginal phase two rounds in a row (with the exception of a natural 20 action check). This ensures that a player won't be repeatedly screwed by poor action check rolling but still requires a good roll to get multiple actions.

This post has been edited by JdeFalconr on Mar 10 2010, 22:02

I like that approach. The terminal phase should feel rushed and unprepared.

I agree with Jimbo. The game works well when rounds move along quickly. A fifth phase will just slow it down. As JdeFalconr said, my house rule has worked quite well in practice: barring a Critical Failure, you simply can't get a Marginal AC twice in a row.

Personally, I see no reason to alter reality to cushion someone's ego. Let the dice fall where they may.

Over a decade of play, I only had one complaint. And when you give your character a score of 8/4/2 with a +d4, you have no one to blame but yourself.