Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[SuperTD]

So on Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour stream on Tuesday, he mentioned his thoughts on Action Economy briefly.

"If this phrase comes up as part of the design process, we have probably done something wrong. If we're thinking of actions as an economic resource that are being spent, I think we've made the game too complicated."

This is interesting to me, though perhaps not surprising given we know Mike's distaste for bonus actions. To me, action economy is something that pretty much cannot be avoided. Even if you only have one type of action - lets call it, for example, an "Action" - you still have to weigh up what you do with it, since now everything uses that resource. What you do with your action is your decision point during the turn.

If perhaps you're looking at action economy in relation to groups of creatures, it's also still relevant. A part of 4 players vs 4 orcs means each team has the same number of actions, but a party of 4 players vs 10 orcs, even if still balanced (higher level characters for example), means you have to consider the number of things the orcs can do on their turn. When there are only 4 orcs, maybe the best thing they can do is attack. But with 10, you can spare a couple to spend there actions grappling the fighters while the remaining orcs skirt them and run for the back line. I've always considered it an important feature of asymmetrical games which is a good idea to consider, especially for important battles. We all know what happens when you stick a party up against a higher CR creature that doesn't have legendary actions - parties will frequently stomp all over what should theoretically be a hard or balanced fight due to the amount of stuff they can do.

I'm interested to hear other people's take on this, especially people who might agree with Mike on this stance. Why does thinking about Action Economy mean the design team have failed?

 

[Keith Lamond]

For the most part, the action economy is necessary to handle class features where a user can do something quick along with their normal action during a turn. It provides a place for these additional actions to take place, while defining that you only get one.

That said, the action economy rules do impose some limitations that don't make sense when you think of it. Why shouldn't a player be able to take bonus actions instead of an action and a bonus action. Since a bonus action is by definition quicker than an action, you'd think it would be possible.

 

[MarkB]

I think there's still a feeling of needing to differentiate the game from 4e, where the action economy was very much a versatile tool to be leveraged to the best possible advantage. It's the foundation the Warlord was built upon, and was also very important for other classes and powers.

When Mearls says it's a failure to have to think about the action economy, I suspect that to a large extent he means that the team want to avoid thinking about ways to mess with the action economy. There's no denying that 5e has a very specific action economy, but in the game as it's been designed so far, the available options to actually leverage that action economy, to bend and twist it to one side's advantage, have been kept reasonably limited and specific - and also universal, in that few if any of them are class-dependent. Anyone can take a bonus action, anyone can Ready an action, anyone can take a reaction.

Bonus actions are probably the slippery slope here, due to their specialised nature - different classes use them for different things, and some builds will struggle to find a use for them on a given turn while others will struggle to make do with just one.

 

[Rossbert]

That said, the action economy rules do impose some limitations that don't make sense when you think of it. Why shouldn't a player be able to take bonus actions instead of an action and a bonus action. Since a bonus action is by definition quicker than an action, you'd think it would be possible.

It is irrational in hindsight but understandable when you account for the 'I know what I mean' blind spot you can get in development.

As far as I can tell the bonus action was not intended as a slot but as a thing you got to do as a rider on some special actions. If you take X action under circumstance Y, it does XZ. I imagine they added the one per turn thing to try to head off potential abusive chaining. The problem came when they realized they needed things that could be done in that sort of extra space that they didn't want directly linked to an action like starting a rage or casting a spell that can't work as an action. Now instead of a bonus it became a resource because things that used it became much more common, especially with the optional rules thrown in.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think what he was trying to say is the more a player has to think about the action economy, the more problematic it is. To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy: if your game shuts down, because someone can't decide what to do with their minor action (or bonus action), you might have an action economy problem. That is a stylistic issue (some games and some players put great emphasis on these types of decisions), but 5e's style is to keep play fast moving.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's called an 'economy' because every action is "worth" something. Some are "worth" a full action, some are "worth" a bonus action, some a reaction, some are free actions etc. And once you introduce this "value" to things you can do within what is supposed to be a narratively-motivated game... a player stops things thinking about what they CAN do, but rather what they can "afford" to do. Actions and activities are no longer narrative choices to think up and execute... they are discrete bundles which you have to "buy" in order to be allowed to accomplish them.

As an example... you're outside a castle with a 15' wall and you want to get inside. Narratively, you'd say "Okay, I run up to the wall, throw my grappling hook up and over, catch it on the edge, and then climb up the rope and hop over." And then in an "economy-less" game... the GM would say "Okay, good. You've done it." (Or perhaps maybe adding in a die roll to see if it's done.)

But with an action economy... now every single bit of this narrative action has a "cost", and for your turn you only have a certain amount of "action capital" with which to spend to try and accomplish each of these now discrete bundles of action. And the game has been set up that certain actions cost one amount, others cost another amount, certain classes get to spend "less" amounts to "buy" the same thing, some features will let you "buy" (and do) two bundles at once, some remove the costs altogether. But as a result of all of this... everyone has to spend so much of their turns thinking about these costs and how best to spend their money, they end up losing the narrative and story of what they were trying to accomplish in the first place.

"Okay, I'm going to use 10 feet of my Move to get to the wall and my one Object Interaction to get the grappling hook out of my backpack-- hey, can I throw it up and over with that same interaction? If I can, then I guess I'll do that, and then because I'm a Thief I want to use my Bonus action to climb the rope using the rest of my Movement and can I then jump down on the other side as my Free action? If I do all that do I still have my Action left? Okay, then I want to use my action to Hide on the other side of the wall."

And goodness forbid if the player doesn't actually KNOW what all these actions "cost" and has to keep asking whether they can do X, or if they need to flip through all their paperwork to try and figure out what these things cost and whether they have special features that can change the costs or remove costs or whatever. The game can grind to a halt all because the game has provided "costs" to ostensibly make it easier to "balance" what someone can do in a turn, and to give out special class features so everyone can do individual cutsy little "things".

If the game could trust players to think up and execute narrative action without going overboard or be unable to think of things to do... actions and their "economy" wouldn't be necessary. You'd instead just "do stuff" and the GM would tell you what happened after you did.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[SuperTD]

It's called an 'economy' because every action is "worth" something. Some are "worth" a full action, some are "worth" a bonus action, some a reaction, some are free actions etc. And once you introduce this "value" to things you can do within what is supposed to be a narratively-motivated game... a player stops things thinking about what they CAN do, but rather what they can "afford" to do. Actions and activities are no longer narrative choices to think up and execute... they are discrete bundles which you have to "buy" in order to be allowed to accomplish them.

As an example... you're outside a castle with a 15' wall and you want to get inside. Narratively, you'd say "Okay, I run up to the wall, throw my grappling hook up and over, catch it on the edge, and then climb up the rope and hop over." And then in an "economy-less" game... the GM would say "Okay, good. You've done it." (Or perhaps maybe adding in a die roll to see if it's done.)

But with an action economy... now every single bit of this narrative action has a "cost", and for your turn you only have a certain amount of "action capital" with which to spend to try and accomplish each of these now discrete bundles of action. And the game has been set up that certain actions cost one amount, others cost another amount, certain classes get to spend "less" amounts to "buy" the same thing, some features will let you "buy" (and do) two bundles at once, some remove the costs altogether. But as a result of all of this... everyone has to spend so much of their turns thinking about these costs and how best to spend their money, they end up losing the narrative and story of what they were trying to accomplish in the first place.

"Okay, I'm going to use 10 feet of my Move to get to the wall and my one Object Interaction to get the grappling hook out of my backpack-- hey, can I throw it up and over with that same interaction? If I can, then I guess I'll do that, and then because I'm a Thief I want to use my Bonus action to climb the rope using the rest of my Movement and can I then jump down on the other side as my Free action? If I do all that do I still have my Action left? Okay, then I want to use my action to Hide on the other side of the wall."

I could see myself using either of these approaches depending on the situation. If you're out of initiative with no threats around then sure - you run up and climb the wall, because actions don't exist outside combat. If there's action around you however, I'll absolutely be using the rules to see how much you can accomplish in your turn, because I play the monsters fairly and by the rules so the players need to as well. I know they wouldn't like it if I said the orc runs 200' towards you, climbs the wall then shoots an arrow from the top at you in one turn. The rules are their to make sure every player/character is on an even footing, and to minimize the need to have the GMs make judgement calls (I know some people are happy to run this way.)

And goodness forbid if the player doesn't actually KNOW what all these actions "cost" and has to keep asking whether they can do X, or if they need to flip through all their paperwork to try and figure out what these things cost and whether they have special features that can change the costs or remove costs or whatever. The game can grind to a halt all because the game has provided "costs" to ostensibly make it easier to "balance" what someone can do in a turn, and to give out special class features so everyone can do individual cutsy little "things".

If the game could trust players to think up and execute narrative action without going overboard or be unable to think of things to do... actions and their "economy" wouldn't be necessary. You'd instead just "do stuff" and the GM would tell you what happened after you did.

I think that it's not unreasonable to expect the players to have an idea of how much they can do in a turn, and to know their character abilities. If you're a new player, fine - say what you want to do and I'll say if it's feasible - probably erring on the side of generosity, or if something's out of the scope of what they can do I'll try and suggest an alternative that accomplishes what I think they're aiming to do. That's part of the DM's job in my view.

 

[nswanson27]

For all the things that can grind play to a halt, i don't think action economy is one of them - at least not in 5e. 5e is a long ways from that. If a table is suffering from this, it's due to indecisive players needing to just make up their minds quicker. A much bigger offender is spell lookup times in the players handbook, and then when you find said spell, needing to scan through multiple paragraphs to find the section relevant to the scenario.

 

[5ekyu]

"I'm interested to hear other people's take on this, especially people who might agree with Mike on this stance. Why does thinking about Action Economy mean the design team have failed?"

I think its wrong. pie in the sky wishful thinking of a system where basic tactical complications don't play a major role.

"How many and what kinds of" things i can do is at the heart of chargen *for any game* where the combats are expected to be choice driven and tactical.

But its also vague because action economy is used for several widely different things - the number of actions a group has *and* the number of types of actions a single entity has and how to get the most of them in play.


When you take a look at what Mearls has said about BA and such, his suggestions and inklings were not to remove them, just repackage them. instead of Healing word being a BA that allows a cantrip there would have been a spell which had healing word healing and an attack.

Put another way, instead of giving you turns as "box of stuff you do" where you assemble/load the box up yourself from a lot of different parts - one action, one bonus action, one reaction - you would get a lot of (an awful awful lot of) pre-loaded boxes.

Want to healing word and stabilze? thats a new pre-loaded box.
Want to healing word and guidance? Thats another pre-loaded box.
etc etc etc

In other words, instead of selling you a kit you can make many many box-loads from... we will sell you a lot of boxes in a lot of different products.

No thank you.

****

5e is far from perfect... i personally think the bonus action spell restriction should have been on quicken, not bonus action spells - since other BA do not limit actions.

I do not have a problem myself with bonus actions not being usable as actions since they seem intentionally placed into "these will conflict - one or the other not both" clusters.

But, really, as far as "action economy" goes - even with the Mearls "sold by wotc pre-loaded boxes" you will still be looking for the same thing, the same optimizations - which of the "combo-boxes" best fits our needs right now while also looking for a good set of reaction options.

looks like pathfinder is turning it into multiple boxes of the same size (three actions and one reaction) and making several of what are now "actions" into "multi-action" options. that *may* be cleaner in the long run but it still feeds the action economy optimization and keeps AE front and center during chargen.

Edit to add


IMO - their biggest error was to not utilize action economy and other factors as up-front elements in their scenario balance encounter design CR based mechanism in the DMG. there is where they can afford to be "not so simple" and get "under the hood" and they wound up with a system which IMO abstracts way too much to be accurate beyond low level parties of standard configuration.

of course, arguably the Gm should not need it by later than that.