Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?

[Dragoslav]

Yeah, well, as I have said in other threads around here, I think D&D is and has always been an "action adventure" system designed to give characters interesting decisions to make such as might be faced and made by an action hero. "Realism" doesn't really come into it at any point, and I'm absolutely fine with that and think that, frankly, it ought to stay that way.

? Not sure why you quoted me for this. Maybe you thought I was making a snarky point masked behind a clever one-liner, which, if so, I'm afraid I have to disappoint you... I was just making a nerdy joke based off of something I found amusing in the video. (specifically, the several rounds of combat in the video followed by the one combatant taking knee and saying an obligatory prayer made me think of the whole "taking a short rest and spending healing surges after combat" in 4e)

Anyway, more on topic, I'm another fickle person who sometimes enjoys "realistic" combat/settings and who sometimes enjoys whatever you would call the alternative (oversized weapons, flashy maneuvers, etc.). Though I have to say, after watching those videos Balesir combat, I realized that real swordfighting is much flashier than the badly-choreographed fights in a lot of fantasy.

 

[Balesir]

? Not sure why you quoted me for this. Maybe you thought I was making a snarky point masked behind a clever one-liner, which, if so, I'm afraid I have to disappoint you... I was just making a nerdy joke based off of something I found amusing in the video. (specifically, the several rounds of combat in the video followed by the one combatant taking knee and saying an obligatory prayer made me think of the whole "taking a short rest and spending healing surges after combat" in 4e)

Sorry - I read your comment as "why bother with realism when you have "healing" in a short rest after combat!

Since I don't regard hit points as "damage", per se, I find "healing surges" perfectly acceptable, but it could still be a good point, so I commented on the broader "unrealisticness" of D&D.

Anyway, more on topic, I'm another fickle person who sometimes enjoys "realistic" combat/settings and who sometimes enjoys whatever you would call the alternative (oversized weapons, flashy maneuvers, etc.). Though I have to say, after watching those videos Balesir combat, I realized that real swordfighting is much flashier than the badly-choreographed fights in a lot of fantasy.

Heh - the actual results can be a lot flashier than many "realists" imagine, for sure - but the "traditional" RPG models of combat really don't represent the ways that they achieve this at all well.

 

[Consonant Dude]

Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?

Because accounting is boring and we should try to have less of it RPGs, not more. It's just not fun for people around the table to wait for their turn and the swifter we make things, the better for everybody.

 

[jrowland]

Why not treat the action economy... like an economy?

Because accounting is boring and we should try to have less of it RPGs, not more. It's just not fun for people around the table to wait for their turn and the swifter we make things, the better for everybody.

Accounting is fun for some people. Video games like Civ1-5 are essentially resource accounting. Those who enjoy that kind of game don't see a problem with accounting. Its a means to an end.

There was an Avalon Hill war game, Napolean at Bay (any of those Avalon Hill wargames really) where the old maxim "an army fights on its stomach" was a key component of the game. Supply chains and their effects are a large part of wargaming. Whether you are talking thousands of troops or a single squad of five, this aspect is appealing to some.

Having an accounting module for the action economy is a good idea for the "broad appeal" I think WotC is looking to for. Having it fit within the core is important too.

If all you want to do is lessen the time you have to "wait your turn", you could always have less players. However, having an action economy "on-a-dial", as it were, so you can dial it to your preference, is a much better approach.

 

[Dragoslav]

Accounting is fun for some people. Video games like Civ1-5 are essentially resource accounting. Those who enjoy that kind of game don't see a problem with accounting. Its a means to an end.

There was an Avalon Hill war game, Napolean at Bay (any of those Avalon Hill wargames really) where the old maxim "an army fights on its stomach" was a key component of the game. Supply chains and their effects are a large part of wargaming. Whether you are talking thousands of troops or a single squad of five, this aspect is appealing to some.

I'm a huge fan of games like Civilization, Europa Universalis, and so on, but people play those games for completely different reasons than D&D. Those are grand strategy games, whereas combat in D&D is purely tactical. It makes sense (and is satisfying, in its own way) in a Civ game to spend an hour mulling over all your options, changing sliders, etc., and then saying, "Hm... yeah, I'll end my turn now."

Besides, single combat doesn't allow you nearly so much time for deliberation compared to if you're a ruler/general planning out the "big picture." Players trying to squeeze the most they can out of X number of action points for a 6-second round of combat just bogs things down.

I'll admit that I'm often guilty, while playing in 4e campaigns, of over-deliberating on my turns, so I've been trying to not agonize over it so much lately and just go with what seems like a good idea without needing to think about it too much.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Accounting is fun for some people. Video games like Civ1-5 are essentially resource accounting. Those who enjoy that kind of game don't see a problem with accounting. Its a means to an end.

Playing Civ at the upper difficulty levels is essentially puzzle accounting. A lot of people like Civ without the micromanagement and play it at lower levels in other ways. Making Hero System characters is accounting. A considerable of people who enjoy Hero enjoy it despite this, not because of it.

Very few people like accounting as accounting in their games. Some people are willing to put up with X amount of accounting to get certain types of play.

 

[Consonant Dude]

Accounting is fun for some people.

So is self-mutilation. Anything is fun for some people.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome people are sharing their thoughts on the next edition, this idea included. But I also think it's important that concerns are expressed. I have concerns whenever anything affects speed of play, ease of prep and accessibility to newbies. I think there's a silent majority out there that's not interested in intricate ideas but in ease of use. So I'm sharing.

Having an accounting module for the action economy is a good idea for the "broad appeal" I think WotC is looking to for. Having it fit within the core is important too.

I'd rather they nail the core game first. If there's anything I know about games, it's that it is easier for designers as well as homebrewers to build on top of a solid core than to subtract from an intricate mess.

If all you want to do is lessen the time you have to "wait your turn", you could always have less players.

That sounds terrible to me. It also sounds kinda like what's been happening over time. Less players around the table doing less in a 5-hour session than they used to, because it takes longer to accomplish things in the more modern, intricate designs.

Is it any wonder gamers are asking why people aren't interested in these games? We went from a viral hobby where the character sheet was manageable to accounting and tax forms.

I'd rather have more people at my table, not less. And more newbies getting hooked. And more people finding the prospect of DMing palatable instead of intimidating.

 

[Mallus]

Accounting is fun for some people. Video games like Civ1-5 are essentially resource accounting. Those who enjoy that kind of game don't see a problem with accounting. Its a means to an end.

1) Computer games like Civilization --which I love, BTW-- let the computer crunch the numbers behind the scenes.

2) Ever play hot-seat Civ?, ie multiplayer that isn't online, players in the same room taking turns at the PC.

D&D with a heavy "accounting" component would be as thrilling as 4-player hot-seat Civ multiplayer!

(ie, not thrilling)

edit: my current requirements re: ease-of-use/complexity is this: is the game easy enough to run on a Friday night after work + commute, for a group of equally tired middle-aged parents, while drinking a few glasses of Pinot Grigio?

 

[jrowland]

1)

edit: my current requirements re: ease-of-use/complexity is this: is the game easy enough to run on a Friday night after work + commute, for a group of equally tired middle-aged parents, while drinking a few glasses of Pinot Grigio?

I agree. I like that style of play too.

But what if someone decides they REALLY want to play a combat with a BBEG with much more granularity (accounting)? To say "accounting" is bad is not helpful. Its an opinion, certainly, but in the sense of the this threads discussion, it is far from helpful. No one here is saying a "point-based" action economy as the OP or I suggested should be core. Nor are we saying it needs to exclude the simpler economy as presented in the core.

What I am saying (and the OP I think is saying) is:

1) Core action economy is simple as is.
2) There is a desire (from the op e.g.) for more granularity in a module.
3) Here is a suggested module option for more granularity via "points" accounting
4) Is there anything with the proposed option that might not work? What are the pitfalls?

I am not a fan of tons of accounting either. I dislike the 3E keyword bonus accounting. But I can see where someone CAN like it, and a game that appeals to the Pinot Grigio drinkers and the slide-rule lovers would be pretty cool.

So how would that work? How do you design an action economy that has a dial from LOW accounting to MEDIUM accounting to HIGH accounting?

Check my proposal in this thread. If you don't like the accounting, use the playtest core, If you don't mind some, but not a lot, use AEDU, if you like a lot, use the 6 point economy. There, we can all be happy. So what is the problem?

 

[Balesir]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

You may well be right, but I will continue to say that I think D&D should specifically not (try to) be a "realistic" game, because it never has been and striving for it has only ever made it worse at what it does well, IME. That is a major reason I drifted away from D&D around 1983 and only really came back to it with gusto in 2008, in fact.

Hit Points was a means to an end. Something had to take into account, for lack of a better term, life force.

No, it really didn't - and doesn't. The best realistic RPGs don't use hit points - it's really simple when you open your mind to the idea that they are not merely optional, but poor at conveying how wounds work.

Check out HârnMaster; the only thing even similar to hit points is the "bloodloss" mechanism, where if you lose enough blood you die. Other than that, sheer number of wounds won't kill you (although it might make it more likely you'll die - a subtle but important difference).

Classes can easily be called professions, which we do have in real life: Soldier, Nurse, Detective, and cubicle-dwelling customer support dude are all classes. And again with levelling, means to an end.

I have been a professional all my life - it's not my "character class". It's not even close. The "careers" system in Warhammer Roleplay or Traveller would be closer to "reality". And character class is manifestly not necessary for a roleplaying game - many, many RPGs don't use them.

A system can plainly be both and yes, D&D should be that system as it has been in the past and has and can lend itself easily to all styles and plenty of genres.

I don't believe a system can ever cover both angles well, no. That is not what they are proposing for D&DNext, however; the "modules" that are proposed will make it actually a range of many systems, all of which can be constructed by a gaming group using the elements ("modules") provided. The possibilities here are a lot less straightforward to predict; maybe it would be possible to combine different elements around a core system to support such radically different play styles. The D&DNext I see in the current playtest system, though, won't ever do "realism" well - because of just the elements I have listed above. If I wanted a system that suited realistic world modelling well, I would start with a system that didn't use hit points, classes or levels (quite apart from anything else).

Edit: to be clear, I don't want to stop people trying to play a realistic game using D&D systems if that's what they want. I think it would be a crazy thing to do, since it would involve hobbling the attempted aim from the start - but if folks want to do that, good luck with it. What I would object to, however, would be the design team making "realism" a design goal. The reason for that is simple: every time it has been done in the past it has generated clunky, crude, broken and confusing systems that make the whole game worse at doing what it's actually good at - a game of fantasy teamwork overcoming fantasy challenges.