Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

TwoSix · Sep 25, 2018

Oofta said:
Being called a 5E apologist is not new to this thread, it's kind of this forum's equivalent of being called Hitler. So what I'm trying to say is that you're defending a phrase because of the way you would use the term while the generally accepted usage of that term appears to mean something else on these forums.

That seems a bit of a stretch, considering this forum is easily 90+% in favor of 5e.

Maxperson · Sep 25, 2018

Ristamar said:
A link to the relevant Sage Advice (since I didn't see it posted):

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/06/is-initiative-a-contested-ability-check-vs-everyone-in-combat/

Thanks! I didn't realize he had answered this and was just making a general statement about how he does the Sage Advice.

Maxperson · Sep 25, 2018

5ekyu said:
What is the difference between "who goes first me or you" as a dex contest between multiple people and an initiative check?

In a contest the high roller would go, and nobody else would get a turn. Initiative doesn't work that way. Everyone gets to go, because it's not an opposed check.

You are splitying haors to construe an absence.

I wasn't splitting hairs at all. There is a very big difference between only one person getting to act and nobody else getting a turn(contest), and everyone getting to go and simply using a dex check to establish order(initiative). See the link provided by @Ristamar. Jeremy Crawford established that I am correct here, though I really didn't think he would have to rule on something so clear.

Maxperson · Sep 25, 2018

pemerton said:
I don't think I fully get your question.

If a player has a PC goal like I'll free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons, then I'd expect that to drive play to some reasonable extent. And likewise if a player has a PC goal like I will become the richest baron in all the land. But I would expect that character to drive a quite different game from typical D&D, in which the gathering of the treasure is largely an afterthought to the action, yet is treated as a major win condition. (By "the traditional style of game play" I take it that you mean looting dungeons for treasure. My sense of how treasure plays in 5e as it is presented, seems to be pretty much like Keep on the Borderlands but without the XP awards.)

I understand the "treasure as afterthought to action" approach in the context of those editions that make having treasure to spend an important element of character development, or that make it a literal win condition (in classic D&D you need to find it to earn XP, and then spend it to join the endgame; in 4e it is part of the doling out of PC abilities, either literally in the form of magic items, or in the form of the medium used to acquire magic items). I don't really get it for 5e, though. As a win condition it seems to have become detached from the actual play of the game and the develpoment of the characters. So why does it loom so large?

My point is that the player also drives the spending of the treasure. If my goal was to free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons, my money would go to bribing the right people, purchasing information, perhaps raising and provisioning an army, maybe hiring assassins, and more. As a proactive player, I don't need the game to tell me that I can spend money on those things. As a DM, I don't need rules to tell me how much to charge for those things. In fact, the more rules are put in place for something, the tighter the box that is around the people playing the game, and a lot of people find it difficult to step outside of the box. I'd rather the box be almost non-existent or at worst made out of cardboard for a topic this easy.

Treasure in 5e doesn't seem like an afterthought to me. It seems like something that just requires some player thought.

Oofta · Sep 25, 2018

TwoSix said:
That seems a bit of a stretch, considering this forum is easily 90+% in favor of 5e.

Let me paraphrase the same basic discussion I've had multiple times over the last few years:

Anonymous Internet Person: "The stealth rules [or other aspect they don't like] are total donkey-poo. 5E is lazy design."
Oofta: "It was a design decision to keep the rules flexible, and one I personally agree with. In fact there's a podcast where they talk about how they had detailed rules ..."
Anonymous Internet Person: "AAAAARRRRRGGGHHH! Another person who thinks 5E is perfect!"
Oofta: "I've never said that, there are several things I'd change and do in my home campaign such as..."
Anonymous Internet Person: "Whatever, you moronic noob apologist. If you love 5E so much, why don't you marry it?"

And so on. I may be exaggerating a tiny bit on that last statement, but it seems to be the fallback for people who don't accept that no game can be perfect or be the best game for everyone.

I like the design style of 5E, warts and all. I don't mind having to do a small amount of effort to get it to fit my group and my style. There is a vocal minority who complain incessently about one aspect or another that seem to always end up telling me I think 5E is "perfect".

I'm perfectly happy to discuss aspects of the game that I tweak or to share ideas on [spin the wheel of random topics] how to create a challenging game for higher level characters. What I have a problem with is people that incessantly whine that certain aspects of the game are broken or that the rules (and by inference) the developers are lazy while ignoring design intent and advice on how others have addressed the issue successfully.

Sacrosanct · Sep 25, 2018

KenNYC said:
I don't know about that. Game reviewers are not quite the New York Times. Often times they are someone like Tom Vassel or Rahdo, who review games on youtube or run game cons. They almost never give a bad review to games. If they frequently did, a la a scathing Broadway critic circa 1950, how long do you think they would continue to get free games from publishers?
.

I think you're mixing up video game review system with RPG reviews. There is very much a problem with video game reviewers giving better reviews than you'd expect for those reasons you mention, but I don't see that in the TTRPG industry. People like Merric, Tenker, KotDT, etc don't hold back or feel like they are pressured to give positive reviews. And many don't get free products. They buy it like everyone else and then give reviews on it. Years ago, when I won Best New Game of the Year from DieHard Gamefan, I had no idea until it happened. They bought the game themselves and did their process without any communication with me at all until it as announced.

Sacrosanct · Sep 25, 2018

Oofta said:
Let me paraphrase the same basic discussion I've had multiple times over the last few years:

Anonymous Internet Person: "The stealth rules [or other aspect they don't like] are total donkey-poo. 5E is lazy design."
Oofta: "It was a design decision to keep the rules flexible, and one I personally agree with. In fact there's a podcast where they talk about how they had detailed rules ..."
Anonymous Internet Person: "AAAAARRRRRGGGHHH! Another person who thinks 5E is perfect!"
Oofta: "I've never said that, there are several things I'd change and do in my home campaign such as..."
Anonymous Internet Person: "Whatever, you moronic noob apologist. If you love 5E so much, why don't you marry it?"

.

Oh, they aren't anonymous. We know who those half dozen or so posters are who keep saying those things

And in TwoSix's defense, those half dozen, while being prolific posters so they make up a good slice of the posts, are a pretty small % of the people who are actually members here. I would like to think that 90% of people on a 5e forum are supportive of 5e. Ambivalent people tend not to post. Like how I never posted during the 4e era. It's mostly fans, and then a smaller % who hate the game and MUST BE HEARD how much they hate things about it

Hriston · Sep 25, 2018

pemerton said:
Actually, I think @iserith'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 @Hriston 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.)

I haven't been following this thread too closely, so forgive me if my response is off-topic. I'm not really sure what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s reading of the surprise rules is, although I tend to agree with his readings in general. Where I fall on the "sucker punch" issue, however, is that it's a matter of winning initiative, rather than anything having to do with surprise. Of course you can sucker punch someone. Simply declare an action to punch them. If you win initiative, then that can be described as a sucker punch.

cmad1977 · Sep 25, 2018

Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

Al'Kelhar said:
Look, if there's one thing I know for sure, it's that back in the day, if your elf didn't have a bagel to feed the carrion crawler under the drawbridge of the ruined castle, it was back to rolling 3d6 six times in order. Which is why 5E is the best system. Yet. QED.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

There are a number of reasons. That is one of them.

iserith · Sep 25, 2018

Hriston said:
I haven't been following this thread too closely, so forgive me if my response is off-topic. I'm not really sure what @iserith's reading of the surprise rules is, although I tend to agree with his readings in general. Where I fall on the "sucker punch" issue, however, is that it's a matter of winning initiative, rather than anything having to do with surprise. Of course you can sucker punch someone. Simply declare an action to punch them. If you win initiative, then that can be described as a sucker punch.

Sorry, I haven't been reading this thread either past the first page, but figured since I was mentioned twice I should at least say I haven't been following the conversation.

Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Oofta

Legend

Sacrosanct

Legend

Sacrosanct

Legend

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

cmad1977

Hero

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Similar Threads

Related Articles