Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[Mistwell]

OK I tweeted him. I think we're both wrong in our interpretation, but I'd put it closer to yours than mine. Here is what he said:

[I meant] the idea of players thinking of actions as resources in 5e runs counter to design. want players to think more narratively, action flow intuitively. Ex: Lame that barbarian with two weapons can’t strike with both and rage. No reason clear why they can’t in narrative.

The idea of actions as an economy to think about is better suited to a more tactical game. We don’t see your turn as an efficiency puzzle we expect you to solve. Players might do that on an individual basis b/c they like it, but not focus of design.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK I tweeted him. I think we're both wrong in our interpretation, but I'd put it closer to yours than mine. Here is what he said:

Wait? Is he complaining about players that complain about Barbarian Rage design limiting two weapon fighting or is he saying they are right and it shouldn't be that way?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Wait? Is he complaining about players that complain about Barbarian Rage design limiting two weapon fighting or is he saying they are right and it shouldn't be that way?

Neither - he is saying he doesn't want that type of thought to ever have to occur to a player, but isn't saying anything like that he thinks the rules should change so that it doesn't happen in the places it already does (and given his comments on invalidating player's handbook materials, I think it is clear he doesn't want to actually change the current rules, even though he doesn't think players having to solve the 'efficiency puzzle' should be a design focus).

 

[FrogReaver]

Neither - he is saying he doesn't want that type of thought to ever have to occur to a player, but isn't saying anything like that he thinks the rules should change so that it doesn't happen in the places it already does (and given his comments on invalidating player's handbook materials, I think it is clear he doesn't want to actually change the current rules, even though he doesn't think players having to solve the 'efficiency puzzle' should be a design focus).

My God. He's a walking contradiction!

 

[Tony Vargas]

My God. He's a walking contradiction!

Great Artists are always misunderstood.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So Mearls want D&D to be more of a improv story telling experience rather then a game?

 

[jgsugden]

I've never feared the complexity, so action economies never scared me. I felt like they've made mistakes in game design, but the basic move/action/bonus/reaction architecture or the full round action versus move/action architecture have worked for me. I've taken it further and moved on to a segmented combat system with no rounds and actions that were meant to approximate real time... swinging a greatsword did more damage, but was slower than dagger attacks. Honestly, that was my favorite system even though it was built on an AD&D architecture.

However, Mearls doesnt give a toot about me - and he shouldn't. He is concerned with making the game accessible to new players. And his comment, to me, basically boils down to saying that if you can break down the game and make more efficient combinations ... well, it makes the game less accessible to new players that don't enjoy ebing mocked because thy do not know the right moves.

 

[CapnZapp]

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."

I think he's full of it.

Stop pretending D&D is not the game for optimizers and min-maxers.

It took us maybe ten minutes to see through the lie that was "you don't have a bonus action unless you have an ability to claim it". Balderdash.

Saying "you don't have it" to mean "since you don't have it you can't lose it" is poppycock.

Each character has a potential action, bonus action and reaction each and every turn. Simple fact. The key to an effective character is making sure you're using all of these.

---

Besides, "action economy" is of huge importance when it comes to designing Solo creatures. No wonder the MM has so weak support for this if the lead designer can't even admit the central role of an action economy!

---

tl;dr: MMearls really could learn from Bill Clinton - everything is about the (action) economy, stupid!

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My God. He's a walking contradiction!

Yeah, for all the "Mike Mearls is ruining D&D!" nonsense that happens, the reality is actually that he's trying very hard as a designer to not impose his own ideas on everyone else without consideration of what they want.

That's why we have multiple guidelines for designing 'balanced encounters' despite Mearls not thinking such a thing is necessary, and game balance achieved by various things being Bonus Actions so you can't do them all at the same time despite Mearls not liking the resulting player thought about which Bonus Action to use when.

 

[CapnZapp]

And I think all four of you (the other three being I think [MENTION=6854936]Sorcerers Apprentice[/MENTION], [MENTION=913]Schmoe[/MENTION], and [MENTION=6848185]CubicsRube[/MENTION]) have misinterpreted what he said. Read MarkB's post.

This is the sentence, "If this phrase [action economy] 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 how I read that sentence, "If the phrase action economy comes up as part of the design process, we have probably come dangerously close to messing with a balanced element of the game that's working well. If we're thinking of actions as an economic resources that are being spent such that we are about to change what it's spent on, I think we've made the game too complicated and run the risk of messing up what was working well."

I don't think he's referring to what the players are thinking about the action economy (he never mentions players). I think he's thinking about the designers playing around with the existing action economy (he does refer to designer, and that's who "we" and "we're" are referring to in that sentence). By doing things that, for example, effectively expand the number of actions a PC can take on a turn or a round, which can mess with what they can do with certain feats or multiclass levels or combinations like dual wielding or sneak attack or smites or bonus actions.

Assuming that's what he means, he's right. Stay away from messing with the existing action economy. It works well, and as MarkB said, it's currently universal and limited and specific. It's the one place in the rules where, if you push that envelope, deeply unexpected results can happen fundamentally changing the entire feel of the game. It's the one place where, if you screw it up, a single combat can go from 5 minutes to 35 minutes for a group, and cascade effects can happen.

Whatever gamist tactical feel you prefer, it can be done within the existing action economy. There is no reason for the designers to bring it up as part of changing it or expanding it in some way.

Okay I get it now.

So the message becomes "Mike, stay away from removing or changing bonus actions"...?