Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[SkidAce]

You didn't miss much. [emoji1]

Corduroy pants?

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 1e until now in many many rpgs...many players at many tables ask themselves, their gms or focus in on "how much can i get done in this "phase" or "scene" with an eye to figuring out how to get the most.

That is action economy.

That's a reasonable definition...

Maybe, as others have said, the key to that at table a is winning the gm player negotiation stage.

Maybe at table b the key to that is getting in more smaller steps (actions in a turn) and the key is in design and choices?

I'm not crazy about dichotomies, in general and I'm sure there's a spectrum between those, but I acknowledge that's a reasonable analysis, and helpful in understanding the point Mearls may have been making...

To imagine as a designer that your players shoukd not be or wont be doing this when constructing your game (one built with very strong mechanical structure and balance interactions focusing on resources) is imo extremely worrisome.

I think the point he was making was "we are designing standard 5e for table (a)," which is consistent with 5e DM Empowerment. In contrast, 3.x was designed for table (b), with high rewards for system mastery.
5e, with enough optional rules can be pushed in that direction, the trick he's trying to pull, there was to add an option that might be used, in isolation, by table (a) such that it would work for them...

 

[Satyrn]

Corduroy pants?

Prog Rock trio in kimonos.

 

[Yaarel]

If bonus actions were presented as improving your actions rather than adding to them, maybe there would be a more natural flow to combat.

That is pretty much how I view the ‘object interaction’ flourish. It isnt an action in itself, but rather an improvement of either the action or the move.

If the bonus action was a special use of the flourish, as it improved the main action, then it would retain the natural flow of combat (and help sustain the feeling of simultaneity).