Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[Yaarel]

It is worth looking again at the 5e action economy.
• Move
• Action
• Flourish (an object interaction that is a small part of a move or an action)
• Bonus Action
• Reaction
• Communication

That seems unintentionally complicated.



For example, they could have combined all three (Flourish, Bonus Action, Reaction) into a single action type.
• Move
• Action
• Flourish (if using flourish for reaction, it cannot be used next turn for object or bonus action)
• Communication

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

That's the great thing about subjective measures like immersion, you can define them however you want!

Most importantly, ‘immersion’ is a subjective experience....
Systems that are conducive to achieving this kind of psychological experience

Whether a given system is conducive to the subjective sense of immersion is also subjective, of course.

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.

That's the other thing about subjective experience. I've had people claim that simulationist systems are more immersive, and I've had some fairly 'immersive' experiences in 3.0, myself. Then again, I've also gotten that from Storyteller, which is way over on the narrativist side. ::shrug:: IMX, it's investment in the character that's the most significant factor.

 

[TwoSix]

There are a lot of cool RPGs that run with a basic engine of "declare interesting option for your character, make roll to see how well it works". A game with 6 second combat turns, movement speeds measured in feet, and hundreds of tightly codified battle spells ain't one, though.

The problem with trying to design the game around "Tell me what you do in the story, not what actions you can take" is that it means the game is built around stunting, which means the game becomes primarily about negotiating permissions between the player and the DM. The whole reason to have formalized rules is to lower the amount of negotiation required between the player and the DM to agree as to what is happening, which makes the apparent design direction Mike is stating as desirable not work very well for what 5e actually is.

 

[CubicsRube]

It is worth looking again at the 5e action economy.
• Move
• Action
• Flourish (an object interaction that is a small part of a move or an action)
• Bonus Action
• Reaction
• Communication

That seems unintentionally complicated.



For example, they could have combined all three (Flourish, Bonus Action, Reaction) into a single action type.
• Move
• Action
• Flourish (if using flourish for reaction, it cannot be used next turn for object or bonus action)
• Communication

That's not really the economy.

It's:

Bonus action
Action
Move up to your speed

You can do small things like talk and drop objects for free.

That's really only 3 items.

Ive never really had people who've found this difficult. Are other people experiencing that some players are having difficulty with this? It seems odd to me.

I've also never seen the bonus action hunting problem.

I'm not saying they don't exist, but i find it weird that people talk about them like they are a common prpblem when I've never seen them in games I've played or run.

I think theres more complicated subsystems in d&d.

 

[Yaarel]

I've also never seen the bonus action hunting problem.

I'm not saying they don't exist, but i find it weird that people talk about them like they are a common prpblem when I've never seen them in games I've played or run.

Mearls doesnt even want to use ‘bonus actions’ in his designs ... because two-handed fighting already uses it. The action economy proves to be a problem.

 

[Yaarel]

Rules should be like traffic signs − painfully obvious!

When signage is unclear, accidents happen.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Y'know, that's about what I got the impression bonus actions were meant to be. You take an action that entitles you to a bonus action. So you never have to 'decide what to do with you bonus action?' because it's, well, a bonus. They just didn't quite manage to phrase it that way.

Instead of Healing Word being a bonus action that limits what you can do with your action, it should have been an action that healed, and gave you a bonus action attack. That kinda thing.

Yeah, it's a bit limiting and unwieldy, but if you're going to address the complaint of too many action types and people dithering over what to do with their 'unused bonus action' every round, that's where you'd have to go...

Yeah, I think it would have been better to word things like: "When you ~do this action~, you may take a second action this turn." The ~do this action~ could be anything from "cast expeditious retreat" to "have Cunning Action and take the Dash, Disengage, or Use an Object action."

And then in the PHB, you put this:

Second Actions

Some class features, spells, actions, and abilities allow you to take a second action on your turn. You can do almost anything with your second action that you could do with your first action. The only exception is if you have already cast a spell this turn and choose to cast a spell with your second action, you may only cast a cantrip.

Regardless of the actions you take, you can not have more than one second action in a turn. If your second action is an action which would give you a second action, you don't get to take another action. There is no third action unless an ability specifically says so.

This provides a much narrower design space, but it's simplified. This whole quasi-action/half-action nonsense just isn't how players should be thinking in game. You want to minimize that as much as possible.

Also, I believe Mearls is on record having stated that two-weapon fighting should have it's bonus attack rolled into the Attack action, not grant the off hand attack as a bonus attack. Rolling these effects into wording like, "When you take the attack action, you may make one additional attack." and then specify on Extra Attack "This is in addition to any extra attacks you might have from other effects such as wielding two weapons or being affected by the haste spell."

 

[Yaarel]

When it comes to design philosophy I lean toward figuring out how to optimize the most from the best of two worlds.

When it comes to standard mechanics, I want rules to be natural and seemless with narrative descriptions.

When it comes to adjudicating narrative stunts, I want clear rules of thumb, that are flexible enough to handle unexpected situations. The yes - no - or skill check, tends to work well, as long as skills math remains identical with combat math.

 

[Azzy]

I'm really glad that most of you guys don't design games.

 

[mrpopstar]

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?'

I understand "action economy" to be an exercise in the quantification and maximization of available actions. I posit that the action economy is merely "perceived" because actions are not intended as resources and are thus not intended to be managed in economic terms. Mearls advances this argument in the quotes that spurned this thread.

I understand that narrative, immersion, and elegance are (oddly) contested terms among the rabble, but a fresh read of the current iteration of the game offers up a clear focus on narrative immersion (defined as being absorbed in a shared fantasy that transcends mechanics) and simple adjudication ("simple" being a definitive quality of elegance).



Also, I make perfect sense. Always.

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.

Yes, all of those things simplified the system, and simplicity is a defining feature of elegance.

5th Edition has some work to do (again, an argument advanced by Mearls himself), but it is certainly much simpler than previous Editions in many ways. It seems clear to me that the goal is to further consolidate; not for consolidation's sake, but with the intent of aligning the mechanics of the game with tools for talking that empower the shared fantasy.