Mike Mearls and "Action Economy"

[Yaarel]

Einstein has the best definition of elegance. As simple as possible, but not simpler.

The rest is deciding which needs help the most to take into account.

 

[mrpopstar]

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

Immersion is really not that loose a term, and it is subjective only so far as we rely on self-reported mechanisms, but there are certainly objective measures with which it can be quantified. For example, meta-game thinking is something we can observe; can we not infer immersion based on those observations?

 

[Tony Vargas]

. For example, meta-game thinking is something we can observe; can we not infer immersion based on those observations?

No.

Immersion is a personal experience, it may be that resentment towards the meta-game is common to those who cry immersions in these discussions, but it needn't be an issue to all.

. 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.

Abject nonsense: intent does not make a limited resource into an unlimited one.

In order to have no Action economy, you'd have to have literally no choice in how to use your action. Let alone actions.

narrative immersion (defined as being absorbed in a shared fantasy that transcends mechanics)

That's the nice thing about immersion, it's wholly subjective, so we can each have our own, mutually incompatible definitions of it. That also means a game can't be designed to enhance or block immersion, such blocks or facilitations exist only in the seeker of immersion, himself.

and simple adjudication ("simple" being a definitive quality of elegance).

But not a complete definition of it. An elegant system can be, or seem quite complex, elegant simplicity can open up great depth...

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

Simply having no system would be simple, but not elegant. And, as I said, elegant simplicity can open up depth.

The 3.x fighter, for instance is an elegant design, and the things you can do with it are more complex and varied than can be done with prior or subsequent fighter designs.

And, 5e has un-done each of the examples of simplification-to-elegance, two of them, completely

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.

Is it? There's less to it, thanks to the slow pace of publication, but is it elegant, in that reduced complexity? Or just less complete? Honestly, it's the latter. It pays a price in increased complexity to present standard rules that are more familiar (thus feel simpler, in the sense of easy to grasp) to fans of the TSR era, and to provide options like feats & modular MCing to fans of 3.5/PF.

 

[SkidAce]

I dont know man...we started using the word elegant as son as we started playing 5e, the term seems to fit to us.

 

[mrpopstar]

No.

Immersion is a personal experience, it may be that resentment towards the meta-game is common to those who cry immersions in these discussions, but it needn't be an issue to all.

I don't know anything about resentment or crying, but I'm familiar with the definition and experience of immersion, and I don't find it any more obscure or difficult to observe than any of the myriad psychological presentations outlined in the DSM-V.

Abject nonsense: intent does not make a limited resource into an unlimited one.

In order to have no Action economy, you'd have to have literally no choice in how to use your action. Let alone actions.

The action economy refers to the resource management of typified "actions" (e.g. move, action, bonus action, reaction). It's not about how you use them, it's about having each as a resource to be used.

That's the nice thing about immersion, it's wholly subjective, so we can each have our own, mutually incompatible definitions of it. That also means a game can't be designed to enhance or block immersion, such blocks or facilitations exist only in the seeker of immersion, himself.

All experiential things are subjective in terms of our personal experience, even schizophrenia, but that does not render them amorphous or immeasurable.

But not a complete definition of it. An elegant system can be, or seem quite complex, elegant simplicity can open up great depth...

I very clearly said "a definitive quality" not "complete definition."

Simply having no system would be simple, but not elegant. And, as I said, elegant simplicity can open up depth.

No need for hyperbole, and I don't disagree that elegance and simplicity allow for depth.

The 3.x fighter, for instance is an elegant design, and the things you can do with it are more complex and varied than can be done with prior or subsequent fighter designs.

And, 5e has un-done each of the examples of simplification-to-elegance, two of them, completely

It's clear to me that you lament some of 5th Edition's changes.

Is it? There's less to it, thanks to the slow pace of publication, but is it elegant, in that reduced complexity? Or just less complete? Honestly, it's the latter. It pays a price in increased complexity to present standard rules that are more familiar (thus feel simpler, in the sense of easy to grasp) to fans of the TSR era, and to provide options like feats & modular MCing to fans of 3.5/PF.

You are particularly grumbly today. LOL

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't know anything about resentment or crying, but I'm familiar with the definition and experience of immersion, and I don't find it any more obscure or difficult to observe than any of the myriad psychological presentations outlined in the DSM-V.

I have to admit, I find those pretty obscure. And also quite different from those of prior versions of that publication...
So, while I won't doubt claims of experiencing immersion or not, I do often find the rationalization offered at the same time suspect.

The action economy refers to the resource management of typified "actions" (e.g. move, action, bonus action, reaction). It's not about how you use them, it's about having each as a resource to be used.

Managing a resource is a matter of deciding how (and wether, and when) to use it. In the case of the action economy, it's primarily a question of how.

You are particularly grumbly today. LOL

Oh, I'm always like this, it's just your subjective perception of me that's different, today.

 

[mrpopstar]

I have to admit, I find those pretty obscure. And also quite different from those of prior versions of that publication...

Not at all obscure, and different mainly in terms of organization (so not all that different).

So, while I won't doubt claims of experiencing immersion or not, I do often find the rationalization offered at the same time suspect.

You insist upon the "experience" of immersion. It's not required that you "experience" immersion in order to understand its definition (which has remained constant throughout the many human ages of storytelling).

When you are inside the story looking out, you are immersed. When you are outside the story looking in, you are not immersed. Meta-game thinking is inarguably an observable feature of being outside the story looking in.

Managing a resource is a matter of deciding how (and wether, and when) to use it. In the case of the action economy, it's primarily a question of how. Oh, I'm always like this, it's just your subjective perception of me that's different, today.

 

[Tony Vargas]

different mainly in terms of organization (so not all that different).

Some of those differences are controversial, even arguably political. But, back to the game:

When you are inside the story looking out, you are immersed. When you are outside the story looking in, you are not immersed. Meta-game thinking is inarguably an observable feature of being outside the story looking in.

You are never literally inside the story looking out, you are always outside of it, a player in a game, imagining it. Immersion may be a sense or feeling of being inside it, but it's a very personal one. And, any claims about what makes or breaks immersion are, likewise, very personal, and often don't make much sense.
To use your DSM analogy, again, you may be able to observe a schizophrenic and determine that he fits into the current definition of that diagnosis, but would you trust his explanation of /why/ he's that way, and how he might be cured? He is, afterall, experiencing it first hand.

 

[mrpopstar]

Some of those differences are controversial, even arguably political. But, back to the game:

Only because diagnostic criteria have begun to take cultural contexts into account, which should be obvious but is no less fraught.

Being able to separate my being aggressive from my being Irish American is helpful in a multitude of ways. Arguing that such a thing is politically charged is quite baffling. (To acknowledge the implications of culture is to honor culture. Why do people find that disparaging?)

Back to the game...

You are never literally inside the story looking out, you are always outside of it, a player in a game, imagining it. Immersion may be a sense or feeling of being inside it, but it's a very personal one. And, any claims about what makes or breaks immersion are, likewise, very personal, and often don't make much sense.

Narrative immersion does not imply a literal transference of your physical body into the realm of imagination, and yes, you are demonstrably able to use the English language against itself when striving to make a point.

Dungeons & Dragons is about storytelling, make-believe, and imagination. It asks us to engage with fantasy, ingest narrated experiences, explore and react as would a character existing within a scene (Basic Rules, p. 2). The anticipation is an absorbing involvement (i.e. immersion) in a shared narrative.

I'm not arguing against the fact that there are different aspects of the greater D&D experience that one can be absorbingly involved in. For example, it's perfectly reasonable to be immersed in the meta-game without being immersed in the shared narrative. I'm also not passing a value judgement on any focus of immersion; narrative, meta, or otherwise. I just think it's grossly unfair to say that immersion means nothing/everything when it has a very clear meaning that is being adulterated through misuse of the term.

To use your DSM analogy, again, you may be able to observe a schizophrenic and determine that he fits into the current definition of that diagnosis, but would you trust his explanation of /why/ he's that way, and how he might be cured? He is, afterall, experiencing it first hand.

Why and how are the meta-game in this analogy.



EDIT: It would probably be best if we came up with a different analogy, all things considered.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not arguing against the fact that there are different aspects of the greater D&D experience that one can be absorbingly involved in. For example, it's perfectly reasonable to be immersed in the meta-game without being immersed in the shared narrative.

People also seem able to merge the two, taking the rules as the 'laws of physics' for the world and making conforming to/interacting with those rules part of the immersive experience. Or, alternately, making it an impediment to the experience.

I'm also not passing a value judgement on any focus of immersion; narrative, meta, or otherwise. I just think it's grossly unfair to say that immersion means nothing/everything when it has a very clear meaning that is being adulterated through misuse of the term.

If you can speak of being immersed in the meta-game as easily as in the narrative, then I think you have a functional definition of immersion. I'd probably say 'engaged' instead of immersed, myself, but I'm fine with it.

Immersion as this sacred state or holy grail of gaming that can only be reached in OneTrueWay, or can be 'shattered' by (insert whatever system element the complainant wants forcefully excluded from game) is what I find problematic.

Why and how are the meta-game in this analogy.

"The metagame shattered my immersions!" is certainly one possibility. Or the dissociated mechanics.... Or the genre-contrary rules element...

... Or the enemy agents. Or the wendigo.

EDIT: It would probably be best if we came up with a different analogy, all things considered.

It's served its purpose. The point is the system can't force someone in or out of immersion (in contrast to the analogy, there's no anti - or would it be pro? - psychotics we can just prescribe to fix the issue), it's a personal experience and what facilitates it can be completely different for each individual, and even inconsistent from one instance to the next with the same individual.