Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[pemerton]

What you describe is literally the 5e skill resolution system.

No it's not, for two reasons.

First, what I decribed is a system that can be used to resolve beating someone in a sword fight, jumping out of the way of a scything blade, or persuading someone to sell you a used chariot at a good price. The 5e skill system does not do the first of these things (that would be an attack roll instead), probably does not do the second of these things (that looks like a saving throw to me), and is ambivalent at best in relation to the third of those things (which falls within the domain of social conflict).

Second, succeeding at a skill check in 5e does not guarantee that the PC achieves what s/he hoped to. As per p 58 of the Basic PDF, "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." Action declaration in 5e is in terms of task attempted, not conflict to be resolved. As the game is written and presented, whether succeeding at the task results in success at the conflict, or failing at the task results in losing the conflict, is a further matter that depends entirely on GM adjudication.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My own view is that the standards are radically different, for the reasons I gave plus others that I'm happy to offer if you're curious but otherwise won't bore you with!

EDIT: I thought I'd test my intutioins about sports commentary, which I'm less across than other domains of criticism. I Googled "hawthorn hawkd lazy play" and the top hit was from foxsports.com.au, which included ""This is the lazy midfield play that Billy's talking about and would frustrate the Cats," Brown said." I won't bore you with the further elaboration, that pertains to teams and a football code that you probably don't know or care about, but the judgement is about the technical discipline and adequacy of the team's performance, not their individual degrees of personal effort.

No I can understand your view of holding professionals to different standards. I even agree, in general...they’re professionals and will be subject to criticism of their work.

I just don’t significantly differ with relation to posters here. I can disagree with them or agree with them, criticize their opinions and they mine. Again, within the normal bounds of courtesy and general etiquette. Nothing wrong with disagreement and debate.

As for the football bit...sounds like a pretty strong critique of their performance, no? And if you’re criticizing an entire team’s performance (or that if all their midfielders), then I don’t see how that doesn’t reflect upon each of them. Or else their comments may have been followed up with something like “Except for Dangerfield, I’ll give him that.”

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, the chapter on combat is pretty nittanoid and detailed, and in general is pretty thorough. There are numerous other examples in the DMG of chapters that are thoroughly written. The chapter on skills is, by contrast, under-written. All I'm saying is moving the chapter on skills a bit in the direction of the chapter on combat. Not a lot, just a bit.

The combat chapter is full of holes and needs a lot of DM intervention.

Let's start with surprise.

"Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

What does that even mean? In a game where shapechangers abound and illusion magic is common, and where everyone can be an evil villain in disguise, literally everyone and everything a PC sees is a noticed threat. That would mean that it's impossible to sucker punch someone as the threat is noticed so no surprise can happen. However, if you ask people you'd probably get a nearly universal consensus that sucker punches are possible? Does that mean that you have to notice an active threat? It doesn't say active threat. What if the sucker punch happens after the start of the encounter? Is it impossible then? The DM has to decide these things.

On to initiative.

"If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character."

The rule for ties between the player and DM is that the DM gets to arbitrarily decide which goes first with no consistency required. DM Fiat in a box!! That's hardly a detailed rule. They might as well have said there isn't a rule for it. They do give an optional rule that can give consistency, but the default is basically no rule at all.

Now for your turn.

The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter."

The most common actions are described for combat. What about the myriad of less common actions? What are they? What are the rules for them? The combat section doesn't tell you. It's entirely up to the DM whether to allow an action, deny it, decide what the rules will be for them, etc.

Hell, that's just the first page of the combat section.

 

[5ekyu]

Put it this way: Prince Valiant has a simple rule for fine clothes - they add a bonus to the Presence pool in circumstances in which status or appearance matter. This is in a context in which the rules for social influence are quite simple (because not different from the combat rules: make a sucessful check, either opposed or against a set difficulty as the context adjudicated by the GM suggets).

What is the bonus for wearing fine clothes in 5e? How many gp worth of jewellery correlates to advantage on CHA checks - or would that be "mundane mind control" stepping on the toes of casters of charm spells?

It's not like no other RPG ever actually reconciled collecting wealth as a goal of play with having a use for that wealth within the context of the game. Classic D&D has strongholds; Classic Traveller has powered armour and starships; 3E and 4e have magic items.

If the idea, of 5e, is that it's meant to be fun in and of itself to sit around with my friends discussing the imaginary artworks my imaginary character has bought with the imaginary money I took from imaginary dungeons, then (i) the books could come out and tell me that, and (ii) I find that the game promotes odd aesthetics - if I was ever in the mood to do that, I'm not sure it would the same mood that would want to make me play out a wargame-style combat.

See here is the rub, in 5e or any game system, the impact of "fine clothes" should be very situational and setting dependent. So, how many tables of rules chart of clothes vs situation vs gp cost do you want.

As gm, off the cuff, I can think of quite a few ways fine clothes could be useful - and since my character recently had hers stolen by rampaging gruesome, more clothes will be bought soon.

Yes an advantage for certain social checks in the right setting.
Simply being able to blend in at certain circumstances.
Helping with disguises.
Helping with cons.

That's just off the top of my head. I guarantee my players will find more.

But in my experience, once you take something as mundane as clothing choices and distill them down to "other ways to get a plus" you typically wind up heading towards the Christmas tree of pluses.

What's next? GP rates for food for +1 plus to hp rolls? GP rates for better shoes for +1 to stealth or 5' dash?

As I suspected the code is "let me convert gold yo plusses" not "gimme rules for what treasure is for"?

My character plans to spend gold helping children in towns we pass thru, setting up allies and contacts in places we leave, staking businesses and using glyphs and sending to help establish a network. Silly me for forgetting that "what treasure is for" is really "another +1 somewhere." The rules for this... in the book.

Now, I have to go find a tailor.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, that's pretty much the DMG saying "don't bother."

Other than directly saying go ahead and bother if that's what you like to do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It contradicts your claim that it is insulting, and that it's about "what's the easiest way to get this done". Eg if a band is trying to compose a pastiche of their top 10 hit to try and get another hit, that may not be easy. Some popular song writers are good at this; others struggle at it.

You’ll have to quote me where I said it was insulting. I specifically said it was negative but that it could be so without crossing the line to be insulting.

Lazy in this context is about the content of what has been produced (within some salient context for the making of critical judgement), not about the process of its production.

This makes me think you did miss the point. You don't answer the question - what is money for in the context of gameplay - by producing a mediaeval price guide (which in any event the game includes).

I didn’t answer because you already gave plenty of examples of what it can be used for. You don’t need me to answer...you already know.

There are no charts or guides for many of the things that wealth can be used for in the context of the game, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used. I can give you plenty of clntext from my own game....but would that mean anything to you?

I think we’re bumping headling into what Mearls was saying in his tweets, no?

 

[Maxperson]

Here's another way of thinking about this: what is the point of setting up a game where a significant premise is collecting treasure, and then not addressing what that treasure is for - either from the game point of view, or (given that the game involves establishing a shared fiction) from an in-fiction point of view?

Why do I need the game to tell me what treasure is for? I can decide or myself whether I want to give it away, hoard it, use it to build a castle and land, purchase a title of nobility, use it to influence the world in some manner, collect it in order to try and persuade someone with a magic item I want to sell it to me, buy jewelry for a significant other, and on and on and on. I tell the DM what I am doing, and the DM sets the price and difficulty numbers if necessary.

Clearly treasure is for spending!!

 

[Maxperson]

I think you've missed the point.

What is the purpose of money from the point of view of gameplay? Eg given that gameplay doesn't generally produce the result that armour or weapons ever get damaged; and given that the amounts of money that the game tends to be asume will be recovered make other cost of living expenses trivial; what is the money for, in the game, other than writing bigger and bigger numbers in a box on the PC sheet?

Classic D&D implicitly answers this question by (i) giving me rules about how my 9th-or-thereabout level PC can build a castle or tower or hideout or whatever, and (ii) giving me costs for doing so which are at least within a ballpark order of magnitude of the amonts of money the game will result in my PC collecting.

D&D 5e also answers it by giving you the price to upkeep a keep or castle. Clearly you have to spend money to buy or build one before you will be upkeeping it, or maybe you inherited or married into it. However you get there, it's an answer that 5e gives to you. It just doesn't give you the build prices. The DM can hand those out, though.

 

[pemerton]

As for the football bit...sounds like a pretty strong critique of their performance, no? And if you’re criticizing an entire team’s performance (or that if all their midfielders), then I don’t see how that doesn’t reflect upon each of them. Or else their comments may have been followed up with something like “Except for Dangerfield, I’ll give him that.”

Likewise in a commentary on a concert, one performer might stand out as having delivered something better, more interesting, etc than the rest.

I'm not sure where you're trying to push with the "reflect on them" - it's generally a goal of commentary and criticism to avoid personalising it, and to focus on the work rather than the character of the creator/performer. If Dangerfield was performing better, he can take some pride the others can't - but that doesn't mean the rest of them should feel ashamed. Judgement, and response to judgement, aren't dichotomous in that sense.

 

[pemerton]

Let's start with surprise.

"Any character or monster that doesn’t notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

What does that even mean? In a game where shapechangers abound and illusion magic is common, and where everyone can be an evil villain in disguise, literally everyone and everything a PC sees is a noticed threat. That would mean that it's impossible to sucker punch someone as the threat is noticed so no surprise can happen. However, if you ask people you'd probably get a nearly universal consensus that sucker punches are possible? Does that mean that you have to notice an active threat? It doesn't say active threat. What if the sucker punch happens after the start of the encounter? Is it impossible then? The DM has to decide these things.

Actually, I think [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s take on this - reading it in the context of the "adventuring" section of the Basic rules and the rules for hiding/reamining unnoticed - is pretty sound. I'm not sure if [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] agrees fully with iserith, but I'd be surprised if Hrison doesn't also have a pretty solid reading of it.

(Multiple readings isn't per se a sign of poor rules. Any complex rules system is likely to admit of multiple readings at certai points.)