i think the recharge will bring the players into a new tactic......remember how inititive is work? if they get to pick where they are....this makes thing very very different....if my power is gana come back into play then i should go first......see that? its a new twist..." hey guys i can hit hard!! let me go!!"

When you unify every system in an RPG, then you need to compromise and you end up giving Magic the same feeling as normal combat manoeuvres which, in my opinion, destroys a bit the suspension of disbelief, as Magic starts being "just another option" instead of something much more risky than normal combat but at the same much more powerful.

A possibility, sure. We don't know enough about the magic system (arcane) to know how that works. However, if you read the Divine spellcasting diary, that does not make it sound the same as combat maneuvers to me. They both have recharge on their actions/spells, and both roll dice to see the effects. The gaining/spending of favor, though makes it quite different (IMO) from combat maneuvers.

Example: a basketball match... Slam dunking a ball is highly precise and players that can jump high enough will always try it if they can, so why don't we see players continuously trying to slam dunk the ball?... not because there's some kind of hidden recharge counter that forbids them from trying again, but because the risks of their action is higher than just making a normal throw;

Yes and no. Most, if not all, basketball players cannot slam dunk the ball every 4-6 seconds repeatedly. Not due to fatigue, but the fact that it physically takes time to set up the run/angle and themselves to actually perform the maneuver. There *is* a kind of recharge taking place preventing them from trying again immediately. Remember that 4 rounds is only 16-24 seconds. I think it's quite reasonable that a backstab is only possible once every 16-24 seconds, unless your opponent is immobile and presenting his back to you. It isn't a matter of fatigue, it's a matter of setting up properly for the attack and getting the opening to do so. Meanwhile, combatants are not static, they are moving and dodging and swinging, so those factors come into play too. Take the basketball slam dunk example. Have the hoop move, then try to have that basketball player try to slam dunk every 4-6 seconds, thats a closer approximation of what is happening (even closer would be for the hoop to shoot golf balls at him every couple seconds, representing 'attacks' back). It is nigh impossible to slam dunk in such a situation every 4-6 seconds, between positioning, adjusting for the hoop location, avoiding the golf balls, etc. So, I do think that there are inherent 'realistic' recharge timers on actions, over and above the impracticality of using the exact same action over and over in a dangerous combat situation.

Now, I won't know if I like the recharge or not, but it doesn't seem bad to me.  I also like the fatigue suggestion, and think that could be a good house rule for those that don't like the recharge system.  I'm not going to discount the recharge system, though, until I've tried it out.

dvang said:

True, but that recharge time is approximately the same for the dunk than for a normal throw... that was the point I was making: that giving combat actions different recharge times is artificial and feels "gamey" to me, and that actions in real life are not mainly balanced by "recharge" times, but by the different risks they pose.

See, I don't believe that a dunk takes the same time as a normal throw. It seems pretty clear to me that it's a lot faster to throw a basketball at the hoop, even should the hoop move, than to run up and dunk. It takes less time to set up and less time to execute.

If you've got a rack of basketballs beside you, what is faster? grab and throw each ball from the rack at the hoop, or grab and run and dunk it then run back and grab the next one and dunk it (and so on)?  I've seen basketball shootouts where a player has 2-3 balls in the air at the same time (they can throw them so fast) ... but they certainly can't be dunking 2-3 times at the same time (excepting the possibility of a ball in each hand, which isn't a repeat of the same action)  The dunk has more control and precision for going in the hoop, but takes longer to perform. It has a longer 'recharge' or space of time before it can be executed again.

(Also note, the recharge in WFRP3e probably also represents a portion of action execution time, as well as the delay between completion and next initiation)

I do see your points, and it is true a lot of 'real' actions also have different risks as well as 'fatigue'.  However, I don't see the recharge timers as 'gamey' and 'unrealistic' as you do.  Of course, I might feel otherwise after trying them, but for now they sound like a reasonable method for varying actions in combat and providing some welcome tactical decision-making for players.

cogollo said:

I'd imagine the longest recharge times are attached to actions that require the most physical exertion, and would, it would stand to reason, do the most damage, so it would make sense that it would take longer to recover from them as this is the case in most physical activities. In weightlifting the two basic kinds of routines are "a lot of reps with low weight with little rest in between" and "fewer reps with high weight and longer rest in between". If you're going for high amounts of weight, you need quite a bit longer to recover in between sets to ensure you don't injure yourself. If I remember correctly, I recall hearing that using a technique before you've removed it's charge counters causes you to receive stress. This has a good enough correlation with most athletic abilities for me. Granted, not every technique is going to just be damage dealing with propotional charge times, but I don't think it's nearly as removed from reality as you'd think.

@dvang and @killridemedley

I was not saying that all actions take the same time; what I've been saying is that the main difference for deciding whether you are doing an action is not only the time it takes, but mainly the risk, and that a "recharge time" has nothing to do with it.

Clearly, there are actions that take more time than others but... if an action takes you more time than another to carry out, then the solution is not to say that it has a higher recharge time, but that it costs you a higher number of "rounds" to perform it... Going to the basketball example. Let's assume the dunk takes three times as much time to carry out than a normal throw, but then after you carry out the dunk, you should be able to start dunking again; a rule that prevents you from starting the dunk again feels unrealistic and artificial. Maybe while you dunked the other player has thrown 3 shots, but then the way to represent this is to say that dunking takes you three "rounds" to perform while shooting takes you one "round".

So, my question is, why after performing a dunk should the player be unable to perform another one almost immediately? Yes, it will take him some rounds to do it, but why should he wait for X extra seconds to start performing it again? What's the physics behind it?

Now, I like the recharge system for Magic, as it feels you could explain it by saying the caster needs time to collect again some power from the Winds of Magic to be able to cast the spell, but that's also the point I was making when saying that unifying systems are not necessarily good... OK, they have unified the system, but then they have applied something to the combat that, in my opinion, feels artificial... plus, I do think that RPG gamers, in general, are relatively smart people and they should be able to cope with 2-3 mechanics for 2-3 different aspects of the game.

cogollo said:

The problem is that you are viewing the game as a physics simulator - it isn't (nor should it be). The game takes an abstract aproach to combat. The recharge system covers a wide range of combat factors in one simple mechanic, but the jist of it is this: You can't spam your best manouvres. The in-game reasons for this are numerous - it's physically taxing, dependant on opportunity, takes time to set up etc.

Taking the basketball example - you can't dunk every round. Once you've dunked the opportunity to do so again won't come up for a while - you'll have to retrieve the ball (min 1 round), wait until the opposing team leave you with an opening (2 rounds), make your move (roll your 'attack').

Of course another system could have been used - the one mentioned in this thread, for example, which allows the player to try to spam attacks but increases the difficulty drastically. So why didn't FFG go with something like that? Answer: it isn't worth it. When you get down to it that system is more complex and requires more book-keeping and for what? The option to use an ability that the player won't use anyway.

Odds are FFG playtested such a system and got negative feedback from the players. It sounds better, but it actual play it's just annoying.

EDIT: Basically FFG chose the option that was more enjoyable, not necessarily the most realistic.

macd21 said:

1. I don't view the game as a physics simulator... what I won't use in my games are mechanics that are clearly artificial. My players will not like it if I tell them: sorry you cannot whack again this round because the rules say so... there has to be some sort of real explanation for a mechanics rule, otherwise I won't use it.

2. Basketball example. The same you are saying about the dunk can be applied to the normal shot, so still I don't see why dunking would require 3 recharge counters and shooting only 1 (extrapolate it to any other action of the game).

3. I am going to use the system proposed where you increase the difficulty if you repeatedly try the same action... I doubt FFG playtested this one... I don't see why a player would feel more frustrated if you tell him "OK, try again but with X difficulty dice extra because the opponent already knows your trick"... Are you really defending that the same player would feel less frustrated if you tell him "Sorry, you cannot use that action again until some time has passed"?.... really strange argumentation on your part here.

4. Again, the problem is trying to apply the same mechanics in all circumstances... What works well as a Magic mechanic does not necessarily have to work well for physical attacks... This is what happened in D&D4: now all players have "powers" as if they were "spells"... Then the problem is that, firstly, Magic becomes less an exception and more another way of doing cool things... secondly, players' minds will be focused only on the action cards and the mechanics to solve them, thus combats will lose a lot of roleplay... I agree combats will be more tactical, but I don't want too much tactics in RPG combat... if I want to play a good tactical game, then I go and play one: Descent, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore (just from FFG) but there are many other games much more interesting at tactics than what an RPG can provide... RPGs should focus on the role aspects, that's why they are called RPGs.

OK, I'm leaving today for Essen Games Fair, so I won't be able to answer any more posts until next week. I clearly understand your point, but I still feel the "recharge mechanics" feels artificial the way it has been proposed and I think I've given enough arguments to explain my stance. I don't want to convince anyone here. I'm just making my point... I'm buying the game (I already preordered it) but I doubt I will use the "recharge mechanics" as proposed in the developer's diary even one single session... I think here FFG went too much the MMO way (again, I have nothing against MMOs, as I have played WoW and LOTRO but they make for dangerous inspiration to RPG mechanics).

1. I don't view the game as a physics simulator... what I won't use in my games are mechanics that are clearly artificial. My players will not like it if I tell them: sorry you cannot whack again this round because the rules say so... there has to be some sort of real explanation for a mechanics rule, otherwise I won't use it.

 Explanations are easy - just use some of the examples I gave above.

2. Basketball example. The same you are saying about the dunk can be applied to the normal shot, so still I don't see why dunking would require 3 recharge counters and shooting only 1 (extrapolate it to any other action of the game).

 In which case dunking should possibly take 3 recharge counters. Basic actions (probably the equivalent of 'bounce the ball') aren't complex enough to require a timer.

3. I am going to use the system proposed where you increase the difficulty if you repeatedly try the same action... I doubt FFG playtested this one... I don't see why a player would feel more frustrated if you tell him "OK, try again but with X difficulty dice extra because the opponent already knows your trick"... Are you really defending that the same player would feel less frustrated if you tell him "Sorry, you cannot use that action again until some time has passed"?.... really strange argumentation on your part here.

There are a number of problems with the difficulty system that reduce enjoyment. First of all there is adjudicating the difficulty - simply adding more misfortune dice = to the number of recharge counters is arbitrary and creates other issues. Some actions will be spammed (others will be too difficult). There will be the unrealistic increasing difficulty problem - if you keep on spamming until the difficulty gets so high you can't succeed, how long does it take to reset to 0? Tracking the difficulty may get annoying (as you spam you add more and more misfortune dice). And finally it may simply be an option that the players don't use much - generally if the action is more difficult than normal, they'll be better off choosing another action instead.

So ultimately you add an option to the game that won't be used much, can come across as unrealistic and requires more bookkeeping than the current one. Your group might prefer it - I couldn't be bothered. Just be aware of the potential problems and when playing ask yourself (and your players) "does this add anything to the game?"

4. Again, the problem is trying to apply the same mechanics in all circumstances... What works well as a Magic mechanic does not necessarily have to work well for physical attacks... This is what happened in D&D4: now all players have "powers" as if they were "spells"... Then the problem is that, firstly, Magic becomes less an exception and more another way of doing cool things... secondly, players' minds will be focused only on the action cards and the mechanics to solve them, thus combats will lose a lot of roleplay... I agree combats will be more tactical, but I don't want too much tactics in RPG combat... if I want to play a good tactical game, then I go and play one: Descent, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore (just from FFG) but there are many other games much more interesting at tactics than what an RPG can provide... RPGs should focus on the role aspects, that's why they are called RPGs.

 We don't really know what magic will be like yet (though we do know a bit about divine magic), but having a unified mechanic doesn't mean that they will have the same 'feel' as melee combat. Have to wait and see.

In combat complex manouvres aren't more slow than simple one.

They are simply more complex (higher reflexes and timing sense in necessary). You have an higher rate of failing, leaving your guard open.

Many times you can deliver a much devastating blow (in boxe for example), simply by using good footing.
This isn't slow, but quickness if essential.

I'll like to add that, if you enter with a good blow, in boxe like in swordsmanship, often you have the opportunity of fast follow up that can be very effective.
Recharge time are very difficulty to explain if you have a little of combat knowlegde.
Then, if you need to explain again and again and again, sooner or later, you will coming short of options.

DeathFromAbove said:

It isn't about the speed of the action, it's about how often you get to perform it. A backstab doesn't take 5 rounds to perform. it takes the same amount of time as a normal attack, but the opportunity to backstab someone will only come up every 5 rounds or so.

macd21 said:

MMMmmm, sorry, but this is a random number. Why not 8, or 10 or 15 rounds?

I've got to say, I've really been enjoying the spirited discussions on this particular article. It is interesting to see that of everything presented in the article, that the recharge mechanic is a hot topic for many forumites. We designed and tested a wide variety of different ways to have powers interact, scale, or trigger. We also spent a lot of time evaluating playability, accessibility, gameplay balance, variety, and efficiency.

I'll see if I can add a bit more information about the recharge mechanic in a future diary, to shed some more light on its role and function in the game.

I say just give us the rules already ! That would answer every question and stop the endless speculation & debate!

Thanks ynnen,

I'll read it with interest.
Meanwhile, this sunday, I'll donn my real armor and go postal on some unlucky guy (equally armored)

But...