Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[Garthanos]

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.

Yes but you know how many will just pretend its not in there because I do not know (mayhaps Mearles hero worship where people even come up with apologetics for his misstatements instead of accepting that yes he even acknowledge he didnt say what he really meant.)

 

[Parmandur]

Yes but you know how many will just pretend its not in there because I do not know (mayhaps Mearles hero worship where people even come up with apologetics for his misstatements instead of accepting that yes he even acknowledge he didnt say what he really meant.)

Certainly the action economy is present, but it is not normally something all that conciously dealt with, but in the background adjudicated by the DM using common sense. If it becomes too front and center, certainly that is dull and undesirable.

 

[Garthanos]

Certainly the action economy is present, but it is not normally something all that conciously dealt with

unless you are designing the game or making new mechanic and class capabilities for the game.

 

[Parmandur]

unless you are designing the game or making new mechanic and class capabilities for the game.

The game is already designed, the action economy isn't being changed. Mearls was saying that messing with the action economy in new mechanics is a failure from the get-go, as that is counter to the design goal of keeping the action economy in the background. Simple, straight-forward and clear.

 

[Garthanos]

The game is already designed, the action economy isn't being changed.

And every new class ability involves deciding how it works in with the existing action economy.... what action or bonus action or reaction or flourish or whatever that it takes to use it.

 

[Garthanos]

Because having the DM winging what action cost for your new classes ability is stupid .. AND I do not care if Mearles likes the word....

 

[Parmandur]

And every new class ability involves deciding how it works in with the existing action economy.... what action or bonus action or reaction or flourish or whatever that it takes to use it.

Sure, but the context was about avoiding anything that alters the action economy or brings it to the forefront. Context is everything.

 

[Parmandur]

Because having the DM winging what action cost for your new classes ability is stupid .. AND I do not care if Mearles likes the word....

If the action economy is well designed, there should be no effective difference between careful calculation of every move and winging it. Matt Mercer's repeated use of "I'll allow it" comes to mind. That's what makes a TTRPG different from a computer game, a human being is adjudicating ("winging it") for action resolution using guidelines.

 

[Garthanos]

duplicate removed.

 

[Garthanos]

If the action economy is well designed, there should be no effective difference between careful calculation of every move and winging it.

LOL you didnt play with the Teens I did in the 70s... one didnt know how to swim so you make a dexterity check every round to avoid taking real damage.

You are being really presumptive in my opinion.