D&D 5E (2014) Mike Mearls on 5e design he regrets. Bonus Actuons.

[SkidAce]

Heathen! How dare you get back on topic!?

I am overcome with shame.

 

[bsss]

I think bonus actions are fine.

A smaller thing that is beneficial to your character that is limited by action economy so you can't spam it and also have to sometimes choose between what bonus action you would like.

I was thinking while driving the kids to school/daycare that it's funny how far off the original topic this conversation has gone (which always amuses me)...

I think the bonus actions themselves are fine; they're conceptually not different than minor actions, which I think are also fine. I think the problem is they didn't scope what a bonus action could or couldn't be, or where it comes from, so the mentality around it is "optimize your turn, don't waste a bonus action" rather than "oh, do this tiny extra thing, sure".

 

[Maxperson]

Hmm, I don't disagree, but I think "cheating" is strong for D&D when in the lottery example the expectation is that the 99.99[999999]% of the numbers are losers, yet in the D&D case, your number is probably going to win or at least not outright lose, it's just a question of what you get out of the pick.

It's just a viewpoint. A lot of folks here view fudging as cheating. Some so strongly that even having a piece of fudge near the table is looked at suspiciously. A lot of folks don't view it as cheating.

 

[Maxperson]

I am overcome with shame.

 

[jayoungr]

I think bonus actions are fine.

A smaller thing that is beneficial to your character that is limited by action economy so you can't spam it and also have to sometimes choose between what bonus action you would like.

I agree.

Furthermore, there is no rule that won't be somehow warped by a certain subset of players. That doesn't mean the rule shouldn't exist.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I exaggerated the range for effect, I guess, but what I mean is the "no tuning" seems to be that some other independent entity has decided (randomly or a prewritten module or whatever) what does show up, and so it shall be. That's definitely no tuning by the DM to me --- unless! the DM wrote the tables or module in the first place, and then all bets are off again, because they may have subconsciously tuned their material to their party. So the conundrum sneaks its way in again.

Well, depends on when they made them. I've had games in the past where I built encounter tables before I even had a clue what a party was going to look like except in the broadest sense (i.e. knowing how character generation worked). This was admittedly with games that had a more typically compressed power level than games in the D&D sphere (specifically BRP and Fantasy Hero), so you could argue I was setting up encounter tables with the reality of almost any party in mind, but it wasn't specific to the party I'd get.

And I agree regarding surprise player adds or removes. Though, does addressing the metagaming count as making the real challenge un-real? Was it real before and now not, because it changed? If it changed the same way in situation 6 as in situation 8, are those both equally real or un-real, or does the DM's intent change the real-ness? These are all, I think, slippery questions that elude a definition of "illusion".

The problem is if going down that rabbithole, just the number of players you're going to get in the first place doesn't count, an its hard to view that as not changing the challenge level anyway.

 

[GobHag]

And when they try stuff that's not in favour of the players?

Bad! Of course. I challenge the players so that they can feel accomplished and satisfied--Doing things just to make the world 'feel real' is a bad instinct and goal(To me, though I don't respect simulationism really).

 

[Lanefan]

I mostly agree with you on all of these except the barbarian player one --- or at least I think that one gets some kind of pass because of the practicality of that absence potentially ruining the whole table experience for the group, if they'd otherwise get wiped or whatever.

Why would the player's presence or absence make any difference to the encounter? The Barbarian is still there, still doing what it does, and still contributing to the party's hoped-for success in said encounter. Only difference is that someone else at the table is doing its dice-rolling and maybe making some decisions for it.

In that way we're quite simulationist, I suppose: the characters carry on doing what they do even if they don't happen to have a player attached at the time (though if the missing player has left instructions, those are followed as best as possible).

 

[Lanefan]

I play sandboxes with a lot of adventuring opportunities. Yes players seek challenges they can handle which is quite realistic.

A dishonest reward would be getting the treasure and acclaim after the DM removed two goblins from a total of eight because the party is weakened and likely can't handle eight.

Players using intelligent strategies and exploits is encourages just like real life. Winning is victory. The DM's job is to keep it real. Don't bend reality to suit the group or the group really isn't doing anything but playing dress up. And I suspect many games are doing just that. The fix is in for them. That is just anathema to a gamist.

I'm with you in principle here but I think it's more anathema to a simulationist than a gamist: those eight Goblins are there for an in-fiction reason and suddenly having two of them wander off or disappear is highly unlikely to properly simulate the actions they would be taking if the fiction was real.

 

[bsss]

Why would the player's presence or absence make any difference to the encounter? The Barbarian is still there, still doing what it does, and still contributing to the party's hoped-for success in said encounter. Only difference is that someone else at the table is doing its dice-rolling and maybe making some decisions for it.

In that way we're quite simulationist, I suppose: the characters carry on doing what they do even if they don't happen to have a player attached at the time (though if the missing player has left instructions, those are followed as best as possible).

Well, as you guessed, in my games we usually do not (I can't definitely say never, but maybe never) have anyone play the absent characters. Back in the very active but very random high school years, we even had a "barrel rule" where the PCs for absent players went "in the barrel" and were just conveniently not active participants for that session they were missing. When their players were back, pop open the barrel and out comes the PCs. Obviously, the party had the barrel with them at all times.

You can probably tell how close we hewed to simulationist lines. =)

---

Silly story aside, I don't think it's that unusual to have a varying number of players at a table, session to session (or even mid-session), but I don't know where people fall on if that's reflected on the PC side at all.