Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[CapnZapp]

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:

Okay never mind - let the nerdrage continue!

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Would have laughed if the thought wasn't so frightening #replace_MMearls_now

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Then you should tell him about the Rogue, and the way you need to play it in meta-gimmicky ways optimizing your reaction to gain any mileage out of it...

 

[CubicsRube]

It's almost like we shouldn't think about anything in d&d in economical terms, such as magic item charges, spell slots, hit dice, abikities that charge on a short rest......

Wait....

D&D IS a resource based game. At it's core. Whether you refer to that as ab "economy" or not is semantics.

There are plent yof games out there that work more narratively and less on economic style play, but d&d they ain't.

 

[Zilong]

It's almost like we shouldn't think about anything in d&d in economical terms, such as magic item charges, spell slots, hit dice, abikities that charge on a short rest......

Wait....

D&D IS a resource based game. At it's core. Whether you refer to that as ab "economy" or not is semantics.

There are plent yof games out there that work more narratively and less on economic style play, but d&d they ain't.

Mechanically, sure, encounters are basically resource drains. But I would not be, nor do I think any of my players would be interested if I were to describe D&D as a game about optimizing resource. Narrative is, for when I play at least, always the driving force, not whether or not Rachel the cleric can use every one of her action, bonus action, reaction and whatever else in the most efficient manner. Granted, there is some enjoyment to be found in doing your best to help the group, but that is true even in less mechanically focused systems.

For that reason I'm content with this edition's and its designer team's approach in trying to de-emphasize the mechanical bookkeeping clutter. Concerns about the action economy from a design standpoint fall into the extra clutter as far as actually running and playing the game for gamers I know.

 

[Krachek]

Personally I would merge the bonus action to attack into the attack action.

Caster should be able to use and control concentration spell during their action on round after the initial cast.

Some features like second wind, cunning action can be worded in a more intuitive manner, without using a bonus action.

Spell like hex or hunter's mark can be worded "before you attack a target you can cast or place the effect on the target".
Of course sometime it would give an extra d6 of damage. but overall it would be more elegant.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's almost like we shouldn't think about anything in d&d in economical terms, such as magic item charges, spell slots, hit dice, abikities that charge on a short rest......

Wait....

I laffed

 

[SkidAce]

Re: action economy


Each poster should be limited to one "over reaction" per post or triggering quote.

 

[Krachek]

It's almost like we shouldn't think about anything in d&d in economical terms, such as magic item charges, spell slots, hit dice, abikities that charge on a short rest......

Wait....

D&D IS a resource based game. At it's core. Whether you refer to that as ab "economy" or not is semantics.

There are plent yof games out there that work more narratively and less on economic style play, but d&d they ain't.

4ed was build with emphasis on strategy, resource, positioning, ... with the result we know.
5ed is much more about story making. Seem to work.

 

[mrpopstar]

That's pretty much what I was thinking ... maybe without paraphrasing Jeff Foxworthy.

[HI]The more a game forces you to think about the rules of the game (the meta-game), the more it becomes a certain type of game. That's neither good, nor bad, but it is. For example, I love playing Cosmic Encounter, but that's not necessarily what I want from my TTRPG.[/HI]

I don't want to think about the action economy of 5e while playing, and while I can appreciate that it is ... more uniform ... than, say, 1e, I also appreciate that it is less the be-all, end-all of the design than, say, 4e.

Discussion of the "action economy" is truly a discussion of the meta-game, and I think it's safe to say that Dungeons & Dragons wishes to de-emphasize the meta-game in an attempt to emphasize the shared narrative.

That's exactly what I want for the tabletop version of the game!