WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[KarinsDad]

I think the author and many of the posters here are blowing the "actions per side per round" and "actions per player" way out of proportions here.

In 3E, what happens if the NPC Wizard casts Sleep on the PCs? He decreases their actions per round.

What happens if he casts Slow or Haste or Confusion?

What happens when a PC goes unconscious?

There are a lot of spells and activities outside of summoning spells which either increase or decrease the number of PCs or NPCs actions per round in 3E.

Do we want to get rid of all of these spells in 4E as well and just play a shoot them until they drop game? Do we want auto-Second Winds while unconscious, just so that the PC can get back up again and the player's turn does not get skipped? Do we want to take this "actions per round per side" issue to that level? Do we want to be playing Monopoly here so that every player gets his turn and each turn lasts about the same amount of time?

Personally, I think it is ok for each player to have one or two cohorts or companions and still be able to summon in a creature or two. I can see real issues if it gets to be more than this, but I think each DM can handle that by talking with his menagerie players and putting limits on it if it becomes a problem.

 

[AllisterH]

I think the author and many of the posters here are blowing the "actions per side per round" and "actions per player" way out of proportions here.

In 3E, what happens if the NPC Wizard casts Sleep on the PCs? He decreases their actions per round.

What happens if he casts Slow or Haste or Confusion?

What happens when a PC goes unconscious?

There are a lot of spells and activities outside of summoning spells which either increase or decrease the number of PCs or NPCs actions per round in 3E.

Do we want to get rid of all of these spells in 4E as well and just play a shoot them until they drop game? Do we want auto-Second Winds while unconscious, just so that the PC can get back up again and the player's turn does not get skipped? Do we want to take this "actions per round per side" issue to that level? Do we want to be playing Monopoly here so that every player gets his turn and each turn lasts about the same amount of time?

Personally, I think it is ok for each player to have one or two cohorts or companions and still be able to summon in a creature or two. I can see real issues if it gets to be more than this, but I think each DM can handle that by talking with his menagerie players and putting limits on it if it becomes a problem.

?????

You honestly cant see the difference between the monster casting Sleep on the party and the situation where one guy plays a fighter and is adventuring with a druid, ranger and a wizard with their menagerie?

Come on Karnsdad, trying to belittle us with comments like this serves no purpose.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the author and many of the posters here are blowing the "actions per side per round" and "actions per player" way out of proportions here.

In 3E, what happens if the NPC Wizard casts Sleep on the PCs? He decreases their actions per round.

What happens if he casts Slow or Haste or Confusion?

What happens when a PC goes unconscious?

Keep in mind that "Action-Denying" abilities are less prevalent in 4E, exactly because the designers identified them as a potential problem.
Look at the conditions we know so far - very few of them make it impossible for a character to act, they typically just restrict the type of actions you can do.
(From a player participation point of view: Even if your character actually is totally unable to act, you at least get to roll a save every round. Only if you are really dead it's over.)

You can still see it as over-blown (and maybe you're right), but it was one aspect that was identified as "unfun" in 3E.

There are a lot of spells and activities outside of summoning spells which either increase or decrease the number of PCs or NPCs actions per round in 3E.

Do we want to get rid of all of these spells in 4E as well and just play a shoot them until they drop game? Do we want auto-Second Winds while unconscious, just so that the PC can get back up again and the player's turn does not get skipped? Do we want to take this "actions per round per side" issue to that level? Do we want to be playing Monopoly here so that every player gets his turn and each turn lasts about the same amount of time?

Personally, I think it is ok for each player to have one or two cohorts or companions and still be able to summon in a creature or two. I can see real issues if it gets to be more than this, but I think each DM can handle that by talking with his menagerie players and putting limits on it if it becomes a problem.

The goal is not to remove such spells, but to find ways to create them without "breaking" the action economy in favor of the PCs?
How do you deal with it without one PC taking more spotlight then the rest? How do you handle it to ensure that the workload on the PC doesn't get too high? (Both are also concerns for the "special" player, the Dungeon Master.)

 

[Fenes]

If you think running both sides is boring, wait until you try watching someone run both sides.

You don't watch it, that's the point:

"While you go for the high priest and his bodyguard, the militia that followed you battle with his acolytes".

(combat scene between PCs and NPCs)

"As you stand over the bloody corpse of the evil high priest, the milita deals with the rest of the acolytes, most of which are dead or fleeing".

The focus in my game is on PC action, not NPC action. Mounts, cohorts, NPC followers, NPC allies and all take a backseat to PC actions. I want people to roleplay their individual player characters, not to run a bunch of chess pieces over a battlemat as an armchair general. If someone wants to control a direboar in a fight, then he can either directly control it with orders (thereby sacrifcing his own actions), or play a druid and wildshape into one. But everything that's not a PC is run by the GM in my game.

 

[Steely Dan]

Does this have anything do with Frank Gambale's economy of movement technique?

 

[Wormwood]

The focus in my game is on PC action, not NPC action. Mounts, cohorts, NPC followers, NPC allies and all take a backseat to PC actions. I want people to roleplay their individual player characters, not to run a bunch of chess pieces over a battlemat as an armchair general. If someone wants to control a direboar in a fight, then he can either directly control it with orders (thereby sacrifcing his own actions), or play a druid and wildshape into one. But everything that's not a PC is run by the GM in my game.

Wisdom there, and absolute agreement on my part.

I misunderstood your original post, however. And I really have seen DMs roll dice for two sides of a combat before.

 

[Fenes]

Wisdom there, and absolute agreement on my part.

I misunderstood your original post, however. And I really have seen DMs roll dice for two sides of a combat before.

Oh, yes, I saw that too. Nothing like watching the DM roll, comment and detail the actions of 7 Dwarves in a fight against 30 Orcs.

Although I'd roll for NPCs if it became crucial or important - if the whole party is unconscious or otherwise unable to take action and was sending a henchman to balance over a spiked ledge to drop the McGuffin into the lava, for example. Although I might just have a player make the roll at that point.

In a slightly less orthodox campaign however, where we rotate DM duties, often several times during a session, we have had good expereinces by having players whose characters are not involved in a scene take control of an NPC - especially if it is an NPC they created as DM themselves. It had the interesting effect that one NPC acting as an agent for one player character ended up, controlled by the same player, bailing on the PC when the NPC discovered a lot of treasure - as the player said (paraphrasing) "even if it hurts my PC, taking the treasure and running for it is what this NPC would do".

 

[Gentlegamer]

You don't watch it, that's the point:

"While you go for the high priest and his bodyguard, the militia that followed you battle with his acolytes".

(combat scene between PCs and NPCs)

"As you stand over the bloody corpse of the evil high priest, the milita deals with the rest of the acolytes, most of which are dead or fleeing".

The focus in my game is on PC action, not NPC action. Mounts, cohorts, NPC followers, NPC allies and all take a backseat to PC actions. I want people to roleplay their individual player characters, not to run a bunch of chess pieces over a battlemat as an armchair general. If someone wants to control a direboar in a fight, then he can either directly control it with orders (thereby sacrifcing his own actions), or play a druid and wildshape into one. But everything that's not a PC is run by the GM in my game.

A sensible way to handle the matter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"While you go for the high priest and his bodyguard, the militia that followed you battle with his acolytes".

(combat scene between PCs and NPCs)

"As you stand over the bloody corpse of the evil high priest, the milita deals with the rest of the acolytes, most of which are dead or fleeing".

The thing is, if I've spent some sort of resource to get the followers as part of my character concept, that isn't very satisfying for me. I want the followers to concretely add to my power, not just be background fluff.

It would be a group decision then to add cohorts to the game. And if they are added, everyone gets them, so there is no problem on the player vs player action economy issue, and the DM can adjust his adventures accordingly.

This would preserve the action economy, and even give a bit of an older-edition feel to it.

Of course, it might give cohorts to people who don't want them, it might undermine the idea that the PC's are the main characters, it might bog down the game in "extra turns" (and thus extra choices and extra die rolls)...

 

[Fenes]

The thing is, if I've spent some sort of resource to get the followers as part of my character concept, that isn't very satisfying for me. I want the followers to concretely add to my power, not just be background fluff.

Well, usually, you don't spend a feat on followers in my games, they are acquired through actions in game. And, of course, they do add to a character's power - although mainly in a less detailed way, by taking care of minions, and by providing (usually lots) influence and power outside combat.
If someone takes a leadership feat, then we handle it by letting the player create the cohort, and by considering the cohort as loyal (to the death and such, unless specified otherwise). That's quite a difference from the rest of the "followers".
For summonned creatures, well - same as fireball, best used to take out a bunch of weak foes, just over time rather than instant.