Blog: Reacting to the Reaction

UngeheuerLich said:

I like guidelines rather than hard rules in such cases:

usually you can draw a weapon as part of a move.
usually you can open a door without losing time

the weapon may be on your back, the door might be heavier etc.

Click to expand...

That sounds to me like a rule (with the inevitable exceptions) right there. There will always be exceptions (with good, described reasons for them). That is fine - it's part of the game. But it doesn't mean that having a general rule for "usually" isn't worthwhile.

UngeheuerLich said:

Rather have a list in the DMG telling him how many actions are reasonable.

Click to expand...

I can think of no good reasons to have a "DM's secret number" - only bad ones. I can make up a number and tell my players myself - that's easy - but, if there is a number that turns out to play well in the playtests and works well with the rest of the rules, I would really prefer it if somebody (preferably the rulebook) just cut the crap and told me what it is. And the players should know, since their characters will have grown up in a world that works by that rule.

KidSnide said:

The question isn't whether minor actions add anything. The question is whether they add enough.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was originally making. It's not about a choice of adding or not adding Minor actions. The actions are already there - look at Spiritual Hammer in the playtest rules; it already has a minor action attack. Singing "la, la, la" and hoping it will escape everybody's notice isn't going to work - the king's suit is decidedly see-through.

KidSnide said:

That's because there is a definite cost to having minor actions in the game. Players spend time thinking about them. I've played or DMed many turns where players did something clever with their action economy. But I've played even more turns where the player was done performing useful tasks, but made the game stop for 20-60 seconds to figure out how to make use of his or her minor action.

Click to expand...

If the players are thinking in such a disconnected way, step by step what they are going to do with each action, that's certainly an issue. But hiding rules from them or pretending the rules are something other than they are isn't going to fix that. Showing them the value of looking at the bigger picture - the benefits you can get from teamwork and actual tactics, for example - might help. But if they are focussing too much on what their character has learned instead of what they want to achieve then hiding rules from them isn't going to lead to better play - it typically just leads to incompetent decisions.

Balesir said:

You are missing the point that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was originally making. It's not about a choice of adding or not adding Minor actions. The actions are already there - look at Spiritual Hammer in the playtest rules; it already has a minor action attack. Singing "la, la, la" and hoping it will escape everybody's notice isn't going to work - the king's suit is decidedly see-through.

Click to expand...

But Spiritual Hammer doesn't work like a minor action. There is no limit on how many Spiritual Hammers that a cleric has up at a time. Nor is there any limit on other actions that you can or can't take because you have an active Spiritual Hammer.

The problem with minor actions aren't that you can do more than one thing on your turn. The problem is that they provide a limited resource of minor actions, thereby forcing players to think about which minor action is optimal. As you note up thread, that can create some interesting resource allocation gameplay. IMO, it's not worth the time or headspace.

Instead, the designers have come up with some ways to get the benefit of a minor action without the rules concept. Spells like Healing Word take up your action but let you make an at-will attack. Spells like Spiritual Hammer have no limit other than the character's willingness to use up a daily spell resource.

Lastly, I disagree with the more general theme that broad rules are better than narrow rules.(*) Yes, it's cleaner in a software design sense to have a broad rule like minor action that applies to a number of powers. But this isn't software. There is significant overhead in teaching new players when there are additional concepts and vocabulary that need to be explained before the new player can read his character sheet. Concepts like "minor action" (or "shift", or "immediate reaction", or "dazed") add a level of indirection that make the game easier to debug, but harder to understand.

On top to this different ways of presenting the same rule doesn't necessarily produce the same result. Presenting three different types of actions (standard, move and minor) is more difficult to understand than a single action and a movement allowance. It also, in my experience, provokes a heavier emphasis on resource allocation over in-game fiction. I don't think there is anything mathematically inherent in these rules that produces these effects, but I've observed them in my players. This isn't a question of whether they can "see through" the king's suit. In my playtest experience, the different presentation produced a different result.

-KS

(*) I'm reading this theme in this thread. I'm not accusing you of adopting "broad over narrow" as an absolute position.

I can´t agree more with KidSnide. And I would xp you if I still could.

I repeat my point: mabe in a tactical combat module, there is space for minor actions. Limiting the narration to what fits into your turn is one thing that made 4e and even 3e combat technical, and uninteresting.

When I remember 2nd edition combats, it was something that I remember as if I took part... and 5e combat made me feel that once again. Early 3rd edition combats also felt that way, but 4e combats are remebered as (and I hate myself for saying it, as it is my edition of choice right now...) "it was so cool when I used power x" instead of "It was so cool, when the mage desperately threw the oil lamp at the priest and killed him with it"... I miss those things.

And don´t tell me that has nothing to do with minor actions and AEDU structure... it has everything to do with it. (Maybe not at your table... but definitely at mine)