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.

 

[Lanefan]

So why do those with higher DEX tend to go earlier? They're too twitchy to help themselves?

Good question, and that I've no good answer for it is part of why Dex has no bearing on initiative in my games regardless of what the RAW might want.

(And an arm wrestle surely wouldn't be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)

Most of the time yes, particularly if the difference in strength is large; but not always. Technique, willpower, pain tolerance, (over)confidence, and even luck (edit to add: and length of arm) can all factor in to a single match.

Now if the same two people arm-wrestle in a best-of-seven then the stronger will almost inevitably win four before the weaker does. But the stronger will not always win 4-0, which puts any single match into 'doubtful' territory.

 

[clearstream]

It wouldn't be, which is why DMs are allowed to decide not to go with a roll. Remember, ability checks are only rolled when the outcome is in doubt, and that includes contests. You are free to declare that someone with a 15 automatically beats a person with a 14. That doesn't alter the fact that it's a directly opposed contest whether you roll or not.

I agree that it's strictly up to the DM. If they think there is no chance of success, they won't give the character a roll.

In my campaign world, some characters should - as heroes - have a chance of beating a Storm Giant at arm-wrestling. Their check represents a myriad of details contributing to their performance on the day, that static linear values cannot capture. That includes motivation: desire to win.

 

[clearstream]

I think the assumption that @billd91 has made is probably the same as the one that @Hriston has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about.

That sounds better. So is this an example of what can happen?

A gets 11 and so does B.
C gets 10.
D gets 12.

A and B must place, but under a Contest they can't tie. They roll once more, right? Say, eventually placing D, B, A, C.

I think a DM could choose to use a Contest for a foot race. I would not, because I envision that foot race participants can tie. I also don't see the value of the possible extra rolls: one Strength (Athletics) ability check per participant is what I would call for.

The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and @Maxperson handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

In contrast to the foot race, a Contest is ideal for a situation like this where there will be one winner and the rest lose out.

Recollecting that in the case of ties the original state is unchanged, no one gets the ring unless a character makes a check that beats both of the other two. Per Contests, they will possibly need multiple attempts before a character snatches up the ring: one check each per attempt.

The cases to hand show where a DM can get good narrative value out of using the Contest mechanic (it narrates a struggle for a ring excellently), and where they might not (for me, a straight ability check better narrates a foot race).

 

[pemerton]

That sounds better. So is this an example of what can happen?

A gets 11 and so does B.
C gets 10.
D gets 12.

A and B must place, but under a Contest they can't tie.

I don't see why under a contest there can't be a tie. From the Basic PDF, p 58:

If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it.​

I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal - eg if the two characters are racing for the ring, and tie, presumably this doesn't have to mean that they haven't moved at all. (It could be that they are both just standing there, each eying the other looking for an opening, but I think that would be an atypical narration in D&D because it goes to mental rather than physical aspects of a PC's behaviour.)

If A and B tie the roll, then they tie the race. I don't see the problem.

a straight ability check better narrates a foot race).

But what's the DC? And if A, B and C all make the DC, how to we tell who wins?

 

[clearstream]

I don't see why under a contest there can't be a tie. From the Basic PDF, p 58:

If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it.​

I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal - eg if the two characters are racing for the ring, and tie, presumably this doesn't have to mean that they haven't moved at all. (It could be that they are both just standing there, each eying the other looking for an opening, but I think that would be an atypical narration in D&D because it goes to mental rather than physical aspects of a PC's behaviour.)

If A and B tie the roll, then they tie the race. I don't see the problem.

To me it seems like it is clear that I was addressing RAW, which is strictly literal. Under RAW, contests don't have tie as an outcome. I agree with you that a DM might interpret one as meaning they tie in the race: RAI.

But what's the DC? And if A, B and C all make the DC, how to we tell who wins?

As with some other ability checks, the DC is established by the results of other creatures' checks. Such as when Wisdom (Perception) is used actively against another creature's Dexterity (Stealth). I like to use a similar kind of check for locks and traps, i.e. I set the DC by making a check for a putative locksmith. The reason is that I was dissatisfied with the possible levels a Rogue with Expertise, Bardic Inspiration and Guidance could reach, relative to the DC table, in that kind of fairly static situation.

It is clear there is a lot of possible crossover between the various kinds of ability checks. Hence this discussion.

 

[pemerton]

To me it seems like it is clear that I was addressing RAW, which is strictly literal. Under RAW, contests don't have tie as an outcome.

But I just quoted RAW (p 58 of the Basic PDF) which says "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. . . . If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it." That is RAW allowing for a tie in a contest.

As with some other ability checks, the DC is established by the results of other creatures' checks.

Well, p 58 of the Basic PDF tends to suggest that that is a contest ie "one character’s or monster’s efforts [eg trying to remain hidden, or trying to make an unbreakable lock] are directly opposed to another’s [eg someone trying to spot everyone nearby, or someone trying to break the lock]." Because the only other option it mentions is a check in which "the DM decides . . . the difficulty of the task".

 

[Maxperson]

I'm pretty sure that 3E, which is pretty similar to 5e in relation both to ability/skill checks vs DCs and opposed checks, states that arm wrestling is not an opposed check but a straight comparison of STR scores.

The fact that in 5e I have to choose whether to use the same approach - which is how the game handles carrying capacity, and jumping - or use an ability check, with no real guidance on which mechanic applies when (see eg the recent thread about how to adjudicate jump attempts beyond STR in feet) is - for me - more evidence of the non-lightness of 5e.

Soooo, having fewer rules that allows you to just choose what to do(assuming you are ignoring the contest rules) somehow makes 5e more rules heavy, but if 5e had more rules to tell you how to run everything like arm wrestling, it would be more rules light?

I also don't think 3.5 dictated how to do an arm wrestling match, but it does get into opposed skill checks, which depend on a roll with the higher winning. And it goes into several strength based contests like bull rush, etc., which just involved opposed strength checks. If you were correct about arm wrestling, those opposed strength situations would also just involve the highest strength winning, rather than having the person with a 20 strength having to roll(and lose a fair amount of the time) an opposed strength check with someone with a 3 strength.

 

[Maxperson]

The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and @Maxperson handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

Since RAW doesn't cover this, I would rule that it works like a contest. A contest requires 1) direct opposition(unlike initiative and racing), 2) that only two are competing, and 3) that only one can succeed. With initiative, everyone succeeds in being able to take a turn, barring something overriding that later like unconsciousness or paralysis.

Here are the three requirements. "Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed,"

Going outside of that requires a ruling on the part of the DM which adds to or alters that rule(a house rule). I would house rule that all three make opposed dex checks and that the highest wins and gets the ring. If the highest roll is a tie, nobody has succeeded and the situation remains the same.

 

[Maxperson]

But, in the ring case, it's not a simple DC. After all, what happens when all three succeed? Do you then compare the checks? In that case, why have a DC in the first place?

In any case, @pemerton has the right of it. There is no difference between a contest and rolling initiative, other than a specific ruling regarding ties.

And the fact that a contest required direct opposition, and initiative is indirect. And the fact that a contest requires there to be only two in direct opposition, while initiative has no such requirement and the vast majority of the time has more than two. And the fact that everyone rolling initiative can succeed in taking a turn(the goal of initiative), but a contest requires that only one can succeed. So other than those three things, which completely contradict the contest rules, yeah, sure, they're the same.

 

[Maxperson]

@Hussar, obviously I agree with you: it makes zero sense to me that the resolution of a foot race changes in any fundamental way because in one race the aim is to the first to cross the line and in the other the aim is to be the one to pick up the widget sitting on the finish line. (And does being the one who breaks the ribbon count as "direct opposition" in @Maxperson's terms or not?)

No it does not count as direct opposition. It's indirect opposition, even though only one can get to the ribbon first. They are competing side by side, not directly against each other.