Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[mrpopstar]

D&D is a roleplaying game, where the player takes on the ‘role’ − the persona, the identity, the perspective − of a character and engages the world as that character.

A "role" is nothing but a set of outlooks and behaviors. It can either be assigned (third-person) or assumed (first-person).

D&D offers a highly distinctive kind of ‘immersion’ that is rare elsewhere.

A brand of immersive experience, yes.



EDIT: "Assigned" can also be understood as "controlled."

 

[Garthanos]

Because the action economy has already been designed, it is set. The context is about delineation of what is not a good idea to mess with when designing new options within that already set system.

If we're thinking of actions as an economic resource that are being spent, I think we've made the game too complicated.

Not buying it ... Your first attempt was to pretend he was talking about the players not having to think about the action economy... he definitely isnt.

Additionally if you make action effect associated with a subclass ability which does too much (or even too little) for its type, you break things... ie not thinking about the action economy == bad idea NO matter who the "DESIGNER" we is, who made the game.

 

[Parmandur]

If we're thinking of actions as an economic resource that are being spent, I think we've made the game too complicated.

Not buying it ... Your first attempt was to pretend he was talking about the players not having to think about the action economy... he definitely isnt.

Additionally if you make action effect associated with a subclass ability which does too much (or even too little) for its type you break things... ie not thinking about the action economy == bad idea NO matter who the "DESIGNER" we is, who made the game.

He states in the Tweet up thread that he means making the player's think about the action economy is the failure point he wishes to avoid. It's right there in plain English, no interpretation necessary. And again, this was I'm the context of not messing up the action economy, which is finished, with a subclass addition.

 

[Garthanos]

He states in the Tweet up thread that he means making the player's think about the action economy is the failure point he wishes to avoid. It's right there in plain English, no interpretation necessary.

OK then he didnt say what he meant originally and people are reacting to the original statement.. which didnt even mention "player", the clarification makes sense advocating designers not thinking in terms of action economy is not tenable.

 

[Garthanos]

I can see activating Rage to be similar to opening a door, or pulling out your sword. It's sort of a Bonus Action, but not quite, as we want to eliminate some of the other interactions with the Bonus Action framework.

I can see raging as a reaction too... ie IRL it generally is

 

[Parmandur]

OK then he didnt say what he meant originally and people are reacting to the original statement.. which didnt even mention "player", the clarification makes sense advocating designers not thinking in terms of action economy is not tenable.

In the context he was using it, the meaning was clearly "keep it simple, stupid," which is quite tenable.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

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?

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.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I want to know what they are doing about the Exit Economy. You know, when a PC has to walk across a room (or"area"), maybe open a door, and step through. Everyone has to do this to exit one area into the other. If the room is 30', it's just one Exit Action, right? And everyone gets a free Exit Interaction so they can open the door? (Or close it). But nothing is mentioned about what it takes to walk to the door, close it AND lock it. What about if the room is cluttered? Does it take two Exit Actions? What about a chamber that doesn't' have a room? Or what about if you are in a cave system? There's no specifics about how much of a cavern area counts as an actual 'area'?

...if the above confused you, it should. As far as I know there is not such thing as an "Exit Economy". Yet. My point was that, IMHO, "No, there is no such thing as an 'Action Economy' in an RPG". This term only came into existence because someone decided to attempt to parcel out what players and GM's have been doing for decades into a 'specific action-choice-that-takes-X-amount-of-time'.

My point is that when Mike says:

"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."

...that I think he's talking about it in a "detailed mechanical choice", where every choice available to a PC needs to be given some allotment of "time". This "Action" is then divided up into smaller and smaller parts. A "Full Action" takes 6 seconds. A "Partial Action", takes 3 seconds. A "Bonus Action" takes 1.5 seconds. A "Free Action" takes 0.5 seconds. Then they list EVERYTHING in the game in terms of one of these "actions". But this is a BIG problem, again, IMHO.

The problem is that when a game has decided this, players/GMs will naturally start asking..."So, can I do TWO 'Partial Actions' then? Pulling out a Wand and using it is a Partial Action. If I already have the wand out, can I just use it twice in the Round?". Now what? Well, now the game has to make an exception or make some kind of qualifier under "Using Wands". And that's just one of an innumerable number of things that can take place in the course of of a TTRPG session. TTRPG's, by their very nature, are NOT "tactical turn based" affairs. Some aspects may seem like it...but they aren't. They aren't because virtually ANYTHING can (and should!) affect things as play moves on.

Until someone actually coined the term "action economy", it was never a problem. What would be considered an "action economy problem" now would have just been a slight disagreement or question about some action. "Can I use two wands in one round if I have one already in each hand?"...now the GM and players think about it, decide what they want for their game, and say 'yes' or 'no' or something else 'yes, but...'. No matter what their decision is, it wouldn't be "right" or "wrong"; it would just be how they choose to run their game. But with this "action economy" now labeled and specifically defined into 'types of actions', NOW you have arguments when the rules clearly look like it would be (or wouldn't) possible to use two wands in one round...because the player/GM can both look at the "rules for Actions". Now there's a third party involved in the discussion (the Rule Book). Now the player and the GM each start searching through the books looking for other "actions" that support their standpoint on the matter. ... ... I think that was what Mike was trying to get at. If everyone at the table starts pointing to 'choices of things to do in a round' as supporting their particular desire, all that does is lead to table arguments and accusations of "My Players are Rules Lawyers!" or "My GM is a Control Freak!".

I for one am EXTREMELY HAPPY to read what Mike wrote. Just because he isn't' focusing on "action costs", doesn't mean he's not thinking of how to word certain rules and things. It just means he's not focusing on assigning an "action cost" to every freaking thing in the book, and instead leaves any specifics of what is or isn't possible in the hands of the GM.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Yaarel]

I want to know what they are doing about the Exit Economy.

But nothing is mentioned about what it takes to walk to the door, close it AND lock it.

In this case, the Players Handbook grants:
• Move
• Action
• Flourish

So.
• Move (30' across a room)
• Flourish (close an open door − as a minor component of the move action)
• Action (lock the door)

Strictly speaking, a hero only gets one flourish. Afterward, any second flourish requires an action. So flourishes include: open a door, close a door, and possibly lock a door depending on the kind of lock and how convenient it is to lock it. But, the hero can only do one of these three with the flourish. The second one requires an action. And the third one is unavailable during that turn.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

yeh problematic because of the nature of D&D arguably since D&D got initiative and multi-attacks