Three economies of D&D

[AeroDm]

The recent upsurge of edition threads made me rethink my opinions of the various editions. I hold all of them in esteem, but I generally feel that each edition stands upon the shoulders of the previous to go farther. Yet, many posters who's opinions generally impress me unequivocally hold that older editions are superior to newer editions. I sought to reconcile this apparent oddity by looking at the game from a new angle on the most recent post on my site (see sig). Here is the relevant part that I hope is a new or at least interesting angle on the debate.
----------------------------------------------------
D&D has three economies.

The first economy is the accrual of power or the ability to build a character; how a character spends resources to acquire powers and options and plusses. The first economy includes everything from the rate at which classes grant powers, picking a race that provides stat bonuses to key stats, to spending gold on equipment. This is an important economy and a robust system leads to a really enjoyable character creation and planning process.

The second economy is the spending of power or the ability to play a character; how the resources acquired are funneled and spent through the finite actions available. If you spend a move action jumping over a crevasse, fail, and spend the rest of your actions gaining your footing and climbing out of the pit, that was an economically poor round. If a feat lets you spend a surge for a +2 bonus to a d20 roll and you spend all 12 surges every combat tricking out every d20, that is an economically strong decision because you consumed more resources in the same amount of time for greater average output per action. A system that invests rules in the second economy provides a fun tactical experience where aptitude in the system is rewarded with effectiveness.

The third economy is the *player’s* experience of playing the character. This economy is more ambiguously defined through how cumbersome it is to be effective and how much time it takes. A system that requires you to rack your brain to be tactically effective is no fun if you aren’t interested in racking your brain. At the same time, if it takes you three minutes to resolve your turn and then you have to wait 15 minutes until you are up again, that might not be fun. You might prefer an economy that only gives you 30 seconds to resolve your turn if you get to go again in three minutes or feel engaged outside your turn.

What follows is a generalization across editions, but hopefully a defensible one.

It feels like Third Edition focused on improving the first economy. Third Edition provided incredible character creation options to hone in on your vision. Unfortunately, as the options ballooned, the second economy grew out of control and many builds were too effective for the game to have balance. Fourth Edition sought to improve the second economy while preserving as much of the first economy as possible. If 4e had to choose, it chose the second economy, but strived to preserve the first.

Both editions dramatically improved on the economies they sought to improve, but largely ignored the third economy. It isn’t to say that they didn’t care about it, just that it took a back seat to other priorities. I also wouldn’t argue that 2e or older editions *focused* on the third economy, but rather the games were options-light enough that the third economy sailed along healthy and strong. That speed of play made combat feel more chaotic. It made you feel like you didn’t have to make a tactically perfect decision because you’d go soon enough again. It was also a lot of fun.

I personally really enjoy the investment in the first economy that 3e introduced and cannot imagine playing without the investment in the second economy, but I miss a robust third economy. As the game has grown more complex, the third economy needs attention or it will wilt. All of the economies are crucial to the overall play experience and it is probably the product of multiplying the three economies that best describes the game. As the third economy has wilted, the overall fun (for some) has actually decreased despite the game being mechanically superior.

The good news is that if you buy this concept that the quality of the game is the product of the three economies, even modest investment in the third economy will pay tremendous dividends since the product of the first two is so great.
----------------------------------------------------
So what do you think? Right direction or missing the point?

 

[Crothian]

I was hoping this was going to be about Economy.

I can't say if you miss the point as I'm not sure what the point is. I'm not sure economy is the best word and it might be that a single word for this is not needed.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, I'm gonna agree that "economy" is an awkward word here. Not sure what to recommend as a replacement though.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Maybe the phrase is mechanical paradigm?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'll actually support the use of the word "economy" by the OP.


It's a somewhat peripheral use of the word, but it's appropriate.


The OP is discussing the utilization of resources and the focus on what resources matter in each edition. Hence, he's speaking to the "currency" in each edition...which might be gold in Old D&D and XP in more recent editions and "kills" even more recently (3e and 4e).

But, at least how I understand the OP, it's about managing the currency within the economy of different editions...and that currency fluctuates by edition.


1e = exploration as the "economic medium/currency"
2e = exploration and plot resolution
3e = killing stuff and plot resolution
4e = killing stuff


NOTE: that's how I understand it...I could be wrong...please enlighten me if so...but I don't think the OP is that far off.

 

[AeroDm]

So obviously I disagree about the usage of the word "economy" because I picked it, but economics is the study of the production and consumption of goods and services. In game terms, this is the availability and consumption of power. The three tiers discussed look at three different levels.
(1) The production of power into the game and how it is acquired;
(2) Once acquired, how it is produced into game play; and
(3) One produced into game play, what resources have to be spent to experience that power.

But semantics aside, I really wasn't looking for approval or disapproval of the usage of the term. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that someone might prefer a different term. I'm more thinking about the general concept about how the game and the rules we develop play out across different spectra and how different editions have focused differently on different dimensions.

 

[Argyle King]

The second sounds a lot like 'economy of actions.'

I'm not sure that I'd agree more fun comes from investing more attention into the second economy.

Aside from that, I don't really have much to add.

 

[AeroDm]

I'll actually support the use of the word "economy" by the OP.


It's a somewhat peripheral use of the word, but it's appropriate.


The OP is discussing the utilization of resources and the focus on what resources matter in each edition. Hence, he's speaking to the "currency" in each edition...which might be gold in Old D&D and XP in more recent editions and "kills" even more recently (3e and 4e).

But, at least how I understand the OP, it's about managing the currency within the economy of different editions...and that currency fluctuates by edition.


1e = exploration as the "economic medium/currency"
2e = exploration and plot resolution
3e = killing stuff and plot resolution
4e = killing stuff


NOTE: that's how I understand it...I could be wrong...please enlighten me if so...but I don't think the OP is that far off.

I think I am headed in the same direction as you but we're not in quite the same place. I'm not really sure my end destination because this is more just a thought I had and wanted to discuss. Maybe we are actually in the same boat and we're just using different terminology; hopefully we'll find out.

The difference that I see from your post is that I'm not looking at the *intent* of the game, but the *focus* of the rules. So when someone sat down to design the game, what sort of design goals were they aiming at. We can't really know definitively, but I think we can generalize. It feels like 3e put more emphasis on a robust system that facilitated character options. It also feels like 4e put more emphasis on ensuring a more consistent play experience. Both of those are really positive goals, yet a lot of people prefer earlier editions (despite acknowledging that the designers succeeded at those goals). Those people are either naive (which I doubt because I've seen their opinions) or judging the game by a different metric. This was an effort to determine that different metric.

 

[grodog]

AeroDM: I think your use of "economy" was fine given the set up of your theory/argument. It works for me, as does your general assessment of the 3.x/4.x editions' take on your economy model.

It does seems to me that you have focused your model on the player game-play economy, and I'm curious to see how/if your assessments of each edition change when you examine the economy model through the eyes of the DM vs. the player.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello AeroDM,
Interesting ideas and thread - I'm really enjoying your various discussions so please keep the ball rolling. By the way, using the term "economy" was fine by me - I understood what you were conveying.

A possible idea if you divide the time playing as:
- Meta/Out-of-campaign Mode: Character creation, determination and adjustment, rules discussion, instances in the game where a period of time is passed, determination of who's picking up the takeaway.
- Exploration Mode: Fairly free-form with exchange of ideas both in character and out. Basically, the players have a combined turn occasionally turning to the DM/GM for further input or reactions. Divided into Exploration and Conversation.
- Combat Mode: Structured and ordered exchange of action and judged/resolved reaction.

In regards to your three economies:

1) Character Creation, Planning and Determination
- Exists almost purely in out-of-campaign mode. This can be as complex or as simplistic as the rest of the game demands. The more complex, the more pressure is placed upon economies 2) and 3). As much information needs to be taken out of economy 2) and into economy 1) as possible to produce a game with fewer calculations and greater fluidity of play.

2) The Economy of Actions in a Round
- This exists almost purely within the realm of combat mode (not counting an overly mechanical playing of 4e skill challenges). It becomes about optimizing all the possible juice out of each action in a round. This relates somewhat to economy 1) and how actions are resolved and in 4e almost pre-planning a routine or program of sequential powers to optimize a group's actions in a round.
- Some enjoy this style of play but to me, it becomes a game within a game that divorces itself from the genuine story of the combat and the true terror that characters would experience encountering monsters. A player does what is tactically most suitable rather than worrying about what is most representative of what their character would do.

3) Play Dynamics for the Character's Player
- The interesting thing is that economy 3) is spread across the three modes of play and thus is perhaps a good reason why you think it so important. Some players enjoy "building" or "crafting" a character (rather than "choosing" a character as I think you have mentioned previously).
- During exploration/conversation, the player wants to feel that they (through their character) have valid ideas that will impact the world the DM/GM has crafted and that will impact the success (and possibly failure) of the group of players sitting around the table and the characters they are playing.
- During combat mode, there has been an exponential increase in things to track - to the point where I think 4e with all its status effects to remember or mark down has begun to overburden the play. While I think 3e kept a reasonable medium in this regard, it was stung by two related issues: actions (particularly high-level magic) that were tedious and time-consuming to successfully resolve, and the time lag between instances of a player's input. 4e addressed these quite well although the time lag issue produced a problem of it's own in terms of combat grind (something that MM3+ and essentials has looked to address with more powerful and dangerous monsters). I'm still not quite sure they have got the balance right although lower-level 3e play and that high heroic/low paragon-level 4e play are in my opinion the ones that come closest. If you could distill the essence of those two things together, you might be into a winner.

However, the thing that 3e and 4e lose most quickly by having such a dominant "economy 2)" is the connection to the campaign world highlighted by OD&D, AD&D and early 2e play. By having minimal mechanics in the way, the players were encouraged to interact more directly with their imaginations and the world their characters were living in. It was a game more about exploration, discovery and wonder than the pursuit of successful action resolution. Importantly, many groups have been able to translate such play into both 3e and 4e but it is more through the group's play-style and determined momentum than the 3e/4e rules guiding them along such a path; an argument could easily be made that the 3e/4e rules sets actively push such groups from such a path.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise