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.

 

[Sadras]

For me Fate is rules light, D&D is intermediate with various versions like 3.x leaning towards the heavy, while RoleMaster is rules heavy (but it has been a while for me re RM).

But perhaps I'm biased as I've been playing D&D for 30+ years, so...

 

[clearstream]

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.

You said that "I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal" Per RAW, "remains the same" must be taken strictly literally, otherwise we are proposing RAI. In the case of trying to snatch up a ring, remains the same is easy to apply: no one snatches up the ring. That's true no matter how many are involved, until there is a clear winner. In the case of a foot race, remains the same is not easy to apply, because perforce the situation has changed. Worse still, where more than two creatures are involved, allowing affairs to "remain the same" for some binary compares, and "not remain the same" for others, is paradoxical.

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".

Yes, I think that was a poor example so will retract it. I think there is a reasonable question about whether the generality of "the DM decides... the difficulty of the task" includes that the difficulty of the task may be established by the rolls of other parties. There are a few basic cases -

1. There can only be one winner, all others lose out; and
2. There are shades of winning and loss, so a ranking is needed; and
3. Non-zero sum: creatures succeed or fail independently.

The RAW literally states that a tied Contest results in things remaining the same. That cannot be precisely true in terms of what is imagined, because even in the holding the door shut example surely the contestants might shift their feet slightly as part of their struggle! However, it can be precisely true in terms of the mechanical outcome: there either is one winner, or there is no change in progress toward an outcome. Contests are narrow. Broader, is a more usual ability check against a DC set by the DM, for example a climb, where creatures succeed of fail independently. Then there is our in-between case, which is seen most evidently in Initiative checks, which have been confirmed to be ability checks so that Jack of All Trades applies to them.

I don't see the value of conflating the different methods, and I don't believe that is what the RAW taken literally implies. I do agree that separating them out and choosing between them is not so clear as it appears at first glance.

 

[Parmandur]

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, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has the right of it. There is no difference between a contest and rolling initiative, other than a specific ruling regarding ties.

I was talking about arm wrestling. In the ring case, just have the tied folks grab it at the same time. Happens.

 

[Maxperson]

I was talking about arm wrestling. In the ring case, just have the tied folks grab it at the same time. Happens.

It's really hard for two people lunging at a ring to grab it at the same time. It's maybe an inch across. They would be far more likely to knock the ring away and no one get it or just fail to have anyone grab it, than to grab it at the same time. Now, with a length of rope or chain I could see both grabbing an end and having to roll opposed strength the next round, and in fact I would rule it that way. That would involve a house rule, though, as the situation has changed and RAW says the situation does not change.

 

[Hriston]

Regardless, it's not a contest as defined by 5e and as we are informed by Sage Advice.

I think the "it" here is problematic in terms of this conversation and the question answered by Jeremy Crawford's tweet. I actually agree with your and Jeremy's statements that initiative is not a contest when understood as a phase of combat, one of the steps given in the "Combat Step by Step" sidebar, in which the participants make DEX checks which are then compared to one another to establish an "initiative order". Now, the DEX checks themselves are referred to as "initiative rolls", and it's those rolls that I would say are contested by the other rolls made during the initiative phase. Otherwise, if they're not contested rolls, what's the DC to succeed on the DEX check?

At best, you can argue that it's an indirectly opposed roll, though even that fails when you examine initiative further. The PCs are not opposing each other or engaging in any sort of contest with one another, yet they also roll initiative. The same with any neutral parties or allies who might be in the fight. These parties are all just moving when they can, not contesting or opposing one another.

They also roll initiative because they're opposing their foes. I think up-thread I made some statements to the effect that the check of every participant is contested by the check of every other participant, but I'd like to walk that back a bit. The opposition should be understood in terms of sides in the conflict.

The DM can still decide that, both with and without the rule. The rule doesn't state that the order has to be sequential. He can fully, within the rule as written(or if never written) opt to choose simultaneous as the order.

I agree that technically the DM can determine that tied opponents have their turns resolved simultaneously, but I think that can also be seen as an abdication of the power granted by this rule, and amounts to just letting the tie stand. A certain reading of the word order, and the seeming intent of the initiative rules to establish such an order, implies a sequence of turns, rather than simultaneous resolution.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Having multiple overlapping but inconsistent subsystems doesn't make a system light. 5e has multiple overlapping subsystems for STR-related feat: a die roll system (ability/skill checks) and a read-result-of-number system (carrying, lifting, dragging, jumping). Which one applies to arm wrestles?

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.

The implication of this, to me, is that if it's a sword rather than a ring that also counts as a house rule!

My view is the converse - that extrapolation from the one-on-one example to three competitors is not house-ruling, but is applying the rules that have been provided.

 

[pemerton]

For me Fate is rules light, D&D is intermediate with various versions like 3.x leaning towards the heavy, while RoleMaster is rules heavy (but it has been a while for me re RM).

I agree with your ranking (except perhaps I'm not sure that 3E is much lighter than RM). But I might move them all a bit down the scale - I think I see Fate as being a bit heavier than you see it.

 

[pemerton]

You said that "I assume "remains the same" is not strictly literal" Per RAW, "remains the same" must be taken strictly literally, otherwise we are proposing RAI. In the case of trying to snatch up a ring, remains the same is easy to apply: no one snatches up the ring.

But do no arms move? If the ring is on the other side of a room, does no one move?

Suppose the ring is on the other side of a room, and two people are racing to get it, and there is a concealed pit in front of the ring? If the contested checks tie, so that everything "remains the same", does that mean neither character has moved and hence neither has a chance to fall in the pit?

More generally: it's not a principal of interpretation in any other domain that words can or must bear only their most literal meaning, so I'm not sure why that would apply in relation to RPG rules.

The RAW literally states that a tied Contest results in things remaining the same. That cannot be precisely true in terms of what is imagined, because even in the holding the door shut example surely the contestants might shift their feet slightly as part of their struggle!

That's exactly my point.

 

[Parmandur]

Amusing to note, WotC and WizKids have announced a sixth D&D Adventure board game, Dungeon of the Mad Mage, coming out in March 2019.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the "it" here is problematic in terms of this conversation and the question answered by Jeremy Crawford's tweet. I actually agree with your and Jeremy's statements that initiative is not a contest when understood as a phase of combat, one of the steps given in the "Combat Step by Step" sidebar, in which the participants make DEX checks which are then compared to one another to establish an "initiative order". Now, the DEX checks themselves are referred to as "initiative rolls", and it's those rolls that I would say are contested by the other rolls made during the initiative phase. Otherwise, if they're not contested rolls, what's the DC to succeed on the DEX check?

There doesn't have to be a DC. Specific beats general and initiative is a specific kind of check that doesn't involve contesting or DCs.

They also roll initiative because they're opposing their foes. I think up-thread I made some statements to the effect that the check of every participant is contested by the check of every other participant, but I'd like to walk that back a bit. The opposition should be understood in terms of sides in the conflict.

Are they, though? I can roll initiative and not oppose of my foes. I can go run over to a rock and kick it with my foot as my action. Any opposition is indirect at best, and non-existent at worst. That takes it out of the realm of contest all by itself.

I agree that technically the DM can determine that tied opponents have their turns resolved simultaneously, but I think that can also be seen as an abdication of the power granted by this rule, and amounts to just letting the tie stand. A certain reading of the word order, and the seeming intent of the initiative rules to establish such an order, implies a sequence of turns, rather than simultaneous resolution.

I don't see how it can be an abdication of the power. The DM decides is the power. Him deciding they go simultaneously is an active use of that power. I see what you are saying about turn order, but ordering them together is still technically an order.