WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Thyrwyn]

Fun is an issue in any setting, too. That is why we are having such an interesting and varied discussion on the subject. For some, consistency is fun; for others, getting to do stuff is fun. Balancing the two is tricky. . .

 

[Dausuul]

Fun is an issue in any setting, too. That is why we are having such an interesting and varied discussion on the subject. For some, consistency is fun; for others, getting to do stuff is fun. Balancing the two is tricky. . .

Oh, I agree. And I actually think the idea of cohorts providing buffs instead of actions is a worthwhile one. I just have a pet peeve about people dismissing concerns of "realism" or "believability" with "Well, in a world where [insert fantasy element here]..."

IMO, one good fix would be to have the cohort be able to take actions, but make it so that the cohort's best option by far is to provide a passive buff. So, for instance, your cohort can either attack with a pathetic attack bonus for pathetic damage... or stand next to you and use his Bodyguard special ability, which takes a standard action and gives you +X to your defenses until the cohort's next turn.

That way, verisimilitude is preserved--your cohort could go on the attack any time, it's just not what he's good at. At the same time, the cohort doesn't slow down the game and doesn't upset the action economy.

Of course, this requires the existence of separate "cohort classes" for cohorts; they couldn't use the standard PC classes. I'm okay with this, some people might not be.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

Fun is an issue in any setting, too. That is why we are having such an interesting and varied discussion on the subject. For some, consistency is fun; for others, getting to do stuff is fun. Balancing the two is tricky. . .

Great point.

For me and my players, getting to do stuff is fun. Therefore, I advocate on the side of a stricter action economy. If yours like to have a less abstract system in order to preserve a sense of reality (treating everything as a literal figure with mechanics), then you would want a less strict action economy.

Unfortunately, it seems like there would have to be a real paradigm shift in order for both sides to be completely satisfied (I am of the opinion that they are almost mutually exclusive, at least at that level of satisfaction). The more realistic approach is that both sides will have to give a little to be happy with rules that we get in June.

 

[Harshax]

Oh, I agree. And I actually think the idea of cohorts providing buffs instead of actions is a worthwhile one. I just have a pet peeve about people dismissing concerns of "realism" or "believability" with "Well, in a world where [insert fantasy element here]..."

IMO, one good fix would be to have the cohort be able to take actions, but make it so that the cohort's best option by far is to provide a passive buff. So, for instance, your cohort can either attack with a pathetic attack bonus for pathetic damage... or stand next to you and use his Bodyguard special ability, which takes a standard action and gives you +X to your defenses until the cohort's next turn.

I'm totally on board (and even suggested) that cohorts provide buffs, but when I read something like this, I immediately want to change sides. I don't want rules that say - 'Here's your cohort, he sucks, because otherwise you'll get to many cool actions.' There just isn't any motivation to get a cohort. Even moreso, cohort rules such as this will make your sidekick nothing more than a liability.

Players want cohorts for many reasons. Outside of roleplay, those reasons usually revolve around bolstering a weakness. If bolstering that weakness means the cohort is going to be exploited by every 2-bit kobold priest with charm person, or spring every trap, or fall in every pit, or get knocked unconscious every combat, then you've undermined a big reason to get one in the first place.

If the 'Action Economy' is so ding dang important, then the only reasonable solution to action inequality, is to give everyone an opportunity to share the surplus of an NPC being part of the party. I mean, the whole point of the blog was that the game needs to be absolutely Socialist in terms of spreading Actions fairly and evenly to all participants.

I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure if you enforce false balance in the economy, you end up with a broken market. Either you end up with all your actions being outsourced to India, or a trade surplus with another economy that has no interest in your actions, or a glass ceiling on supply and demand where apparently powerful actions are purposely diminished so as not to *complete devalue* the existing surplus of weaker/minor actions, or an embargo from other economies who trade actions only with those who do not falsely influence the value of their own actions.

In other words, if an animal, mercenary, henchman, or sidekick is introduced to the party, its actions should not be any different than if you encountered said creature in an adventure. If it runs different than it would if ran by the DM, you have a false economy.

It's been a good conversation, but I'm pretty certain that regardless of what the designers presume to be the best implementation of the Action Economy, I for one will disregard it for a more favorable and reasonable system of spreading the wealth at my socialist table.

ymmv,

Harshax

 

[Stogoe]

If the 'Action Economy' is so ding dang important, then the only reasonable solution to action inequality, is to give everyone an opportunity to share the surplus of an NPC being part of the party. I mean, the whole point of the blog was that the game needs to be absolutely Socialist in terms of spreading Actions fairly and evenly to all participants.

But not all players want to deal with being forced to roll attacks for the druid's crummy weasels. You can't just pawn followers off on an unwilling player. And yet sitting around/playing DS/having a smoke while the druid rolls all the attacks for his own crummy weasels is untenable, too.

So the solution is to have summons and followers and woodland critters use from the same pool of actions as the druid itself. Which also means that summons and followers and woodland critters can be invested with actual power instead of being so much rez-bait.

 

[Harshax]

But not all players want to deal with being forced to roll attacks for the druid's crummy weasels. You can't just pawn followers off on an unwilling player. And yet sitting around/playing DS/having a smoke while the druid rolls all the attacks for his own crummy weasels is untenable, too.

So the solution is to have summons and followers and woodland critters use from the same pool of actions as the druid itself. Which also means that summons and followers and woodland critters can be invested with actual power instead of being so much rez-bait.

If someone doesn't want to roll for a druids crummy weasels (which is not going to be an issue, since we already know that they have weather magic and wildshape), then don't. Only participate in the economy if it is of interest to you - but don't make everyone else, who are interested in having full representation and participation in the economy stop, just because you're a weasel hater. The purpose of the economy is equal representation for all players, if a player refuses that representation, that doesn't mean you have to shutdown the exchange.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

If someone doesn't want to roll for a druids crummy weasels (which is not going to be an issue, since we already know that they have weather magic and wildshape), then don't. Only participate in the economy if it is of interest to you - but don't make everyone else, who are interested in having full representation and participation in the economy stop, just because you're a weasel hater. The purpose of the economy is equal representation for all players, if a player refuses that representation, that doesn't mean you have to shutdown the exchange.

So if I don't want to dual play my character and a summoned weasel, I am playing the game wrong and the others go along until I see the error of my ways? What if I have a group of seven players and the six that don't play a druid say "no dice" to playing his pets? Does that mean they are wrong and all have to wait for him again?

What you are proposing is, play the summoned critters and like it or sit on your hands. The status quo remains - it is a stick with no carrot.

 

[Harshax]

So if I don't want to dual play my character and a summoned weasel, I am playing the game wrong and the others go along until I see the error of my ways? What if I have a group of seven players and the six that don't play a druid say "no dice" to playing his pets? Does that mean they are wrong and all have to wait for him again?

What you are proposing is, play the summoned critters and like it or sit on your hands. The status quo remains - it is a stick with no carrot.

No, it's a carrot with no stick. I could equally argue that you want me to stop playing a druid with crummy weasels because you don't like little furry creatures with cute hands. If there are summoners akin to 2E Druids (which is unlikely), and the suggested gameplay is to share the responsibility of running the summons, you sitting on your hands is the equivalent of leaving the table to microwave a burrito during social encounters. You've chosen not to participate, even though we've decided on an economy in which you have an equal share.

Banning weasels from the game because you don't like to co-play them isn't fair or fun. Inclusive gameplay through exclusive game rules is no solution at all.

 

[hong]

If there are 6 people who don't want to handle a summoned monster and 1 that does, the 1 should suck it up.

If there are 6 people who are fine with handling a summoned monster and 1 who isn't, the 1 should suck it up.

This is an issue that should be left to each individual group to handle.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

The flaw in your argument is that I have nothing summons, animals, or even little furry creatures with cute hands specifically. They can, and probably should, stay in the game.

However, they need to have a mechanics change to prevent a problem from occurring where the balance of playtime is altered by one person. The druid still gets his pets, but the rest of the party does not have to decide between playing one or watching.

Imagine if I had a spell X that allowed me to cast another spell immediately after. I could use that spell to cast X, to cast X, ad infinitum. I am playing the game as written and the other players should respect that, right? No, I would quickly be told that I need to let others have a chance to play their character. Same deal with the pets, but less extreme.