Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[MechaTarrasque]

Since I don't expect anything to change in 5e (except there will probably be a lot fewer bonus action spells in the future), it occurs to me that 6e could simplify the action economy in a couple of ways:

1) If PF2's 3 actions take off, that could be a good way to go (and I could see concentration changing from "you can only concentrate on one thing" to "it takes 1-2 actions to maintain concentration (depending on the effect [and I am hoping there will be some martial concentration things in 6e])" with "controlling you summoned critter takes 1 action").
2) You could make it 1 PC-triggered action (PT Action), 1 move, and 1 externally-triggered action (ET Action) that could cover OA's and things like moving the target for hex/hunter's mark. That way you only have to worry about moving and taking a PT Action unless you kill something, the DM throws you a bone, or someone in your party has a PC with a class feature that lets him/her trigger ET Actions in his/her allies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4ed was build with emphasis on strategy, resource, positioning, ... with the result we know.

Actually more tactics (w/in combat) than strategy (before combat or at chargen/level-up) which was more the 3e emphasis, and 4e got very 'narrativist,' as well as 'gamist.'
D&D has always been very much a resource-management game, in its more gamist portions, though, so that's not saying much...

5ed is much more about story making. Seem to work.

5e is in no way a 'story game.' It's much more old-school RPG than that. Storyteller, the stereotypical story-game and D&D (2e at the time, which 5e strongly evokes), the poster boy for "roll playing," were always painted as antithetical, for instance.

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.

Exactly. So why are actions not a resource to be managed like spells? Not because they're managed in combat, since spells certainly are. Probably because they're available to all characters, while spells are class-specific. You can opt out of the spell-resource economy by playing a fighter or rogue or berserker, you can't opt out of the action economy.

 

[Schmoe]

Geez, Mearls must be really disappointed with how 5e turned out.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Krachek]

5e is in no way a 'story game.' It's much more old-school RPG than that. Storyteller, the stereotypical story-game and D&D (2e at the time, which 5e strongly evokes), the poster boy for "roll playing," were always painted as antithetical, for instance.

I read once in sage advice an answer M Mearls was giving about treasure.
He was telling: "If you feel the need to give a +3 weapon to a 1st level character go ahead. It will make a great story."
I used "story making" in that sense.
M Mearls choose to put players character and story in priority over actions and others resources management.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

I think it's important to keep Mearls' context in perspective: He is speaking specifically in reference to action economy. He doesn't want us approaching actions like a resource we expend as we interact with the game. The economics of all other resource expenditure is not the topic of discussion.

 

[Leatherhead]

One of the reasons for bonus actions is so that healers can do something else besides heal during. Don't a lot of players find just healing during their turn boring?

More frustrating than boring. Mostly because of all the toxic "Why didn't you heal me?" style arguments.

 

[mrpopstar]

Actually more tactics (w/in combat) than strategy (before combat or at chargen/level-up) which was more the 3e emphasis, and 4e got very 'narrativist,' as well as 'gamist.'
D&D has always been very much a resource-management game, in its more gamist portions, though, so that's not saying much...
5e is in no way a 'story game.' It's much more old-school RPG than that. Storyteller, the stereotypical story-game and D&D (2e at the time, which 5e strongly evokes), the poster boy for "roll playing," were always painted as antithetical, for instance.

Exactly. So why are actions not a resource to be managed like spells? Not because they're managed in combat, since spells certainly are. Probably because they're available to all characters, while spells are class-specific. You can opt out of the spell-resource economy by playing a fighter or rogue or berserker, you can't opt out of the action economy.

I think it says a lot about the goals and future of D&D when we consider the implications of game actions that have been divorced of perceived economies. All signs point towards a game that nurtures narrative immersion and system elegance.

 

[Tony Vargas]

consider the implications of game actions that have been divorced of perceived economies. All signs point towards a game that nurtures narrative immersion and system elegance.

I'm not sure which part of that makes the least sense. The idea that 'economies' implied by having finite, quantitative, resources that must be managed, are merely 'perceived?' The inherent contradiction between the way 'narrative' is generally used in the RPG community (ie Forge 'narrativism') and the way 'immersion' is (as a subjective measure of the simulationist qualities of a system)? (Though, I neither usage makes much sense, in the first place, anyway.) Or the characterization of any (sub)system in D&D's long history as 'elegant?'

Particularly as to the last, the things that have struck me as bordering on elegance in D&D include, and are probably limited to, the consolidation of resolution into the d20 system, the design of the 3.x fighter, and the consolidation of saving throws into attack rolls. 5e retains one of those - though, I suppose, technically, things like guidance and bardic inspiration mess with the elegance of d20 just a bit.

He was telling: "If you feel the need to give a +3 weapon to a 1st level character go ahead. It will make a great story."

Like Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon? Not that I think Jen acquiring the Green Destiny (or, rather it being essentially magical) exactly /made/ that story, but sure...

I used "story making" in that sense.

I take that quote more in the sense of DM Empowerment. Rather than have a hard-coded part in balance, magic items are gravy, there for the DM to ladle on as he sees fit.

I suppose trying to downplay action economy (since it /is/ there, it can't be eliminated, just de-emphasized in presentation), so that players will tend more towards just describing actions and leaving it to the DM to decide whether said action gets resolved in a single round or not (very old-school, actually, right out of the 1e DMG), could contribute to that, too. Anything that leaves uncertainty on the players' side of the screen for the DM to resolve, ultimately does.

 

[Yaarel]

'Immersion' is a subjective measure of the simulationist qualities of a system.

As a player who highly values ‘immersion’, I would define it differently.

Most importantly, ‘immersion’ is a subjective experience, akin to a vivid daydream.

Systems that are conducive to achieving this kind of psychological experience, probably have more to do with rules that are ‘natural language’, and rules that avoid miniatures and grid. In other words, there is less dissonance between shared active imagination and interacting with rules.



There are systems that are highly ‘simulationist’ in the sense of quantifying a relatively consistent physics of the gaming-verse, mechanically, but in a way that interferes with immersion, 3e comes to mind.