Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

doctorbadwolf said:

Which answer are you referring to, because this one literally does not contradict anything I’ve said, but simply clarified that init is an ability check, not a skill. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/29/is-initiative-a-skill/

Click to expand...

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

hawkeyefan said:

If the question is how can characters use their gold, a list of items with prices certainly seems to be advice on exactly that

<snip>

The intended design goal of 5E goes against the above. They don't want rules for everything. They don't want every group to play the game the same way.

<snip>

They expect the DM to have input on the game and how it works. And I think this also applies to the players, by implication. Come up with an idea...."Hey I bought some fancy clothes...can I gain advantage when I try to persuade the duke to help us?" and bring it to your DM rather then to the rule book.

Click to expand...

A couple of initial things:


That tells me something about their expectations - they expect everyone's games to have rather circumscribed fighting, prayer and sorcery (unsurprisingly, much like most editions of D&D since forever!).

Those discrete, different, detailed and tigjhly circumscribed systems also are the reason I can't take the idea of 5e as "rules light" seriously. I mean, yes if the comparison class is Hero and Magic Realm - but otherwise not remotely.

And this goes back to the issue of equipment lists: the game doesn't just have an equipment list for swords and shields, for wands and bat guano. It has ultra-detailed rules for how these things factor into key activities of gameplay: a sword boosts your damage roll - a mechanical thing - in this precise way; a shield boosts your AC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; a wand boosts your spell DC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; having a pouch of bat guano and other knick-knacks opens up mechanical possibities that otherwise aren't there.

The fact that the game takes one design approach to fighting and casting spells (which themselves tend to have a strong focus on their use in fighting) and a different approach to dressing up in fine clothes to impress people tells me something about the game.

hawkeyefan said:

Could they have come up with rules for wardrobe and the impact it has on Persuasion or other social checks? Sure. Could they have come up with rules for how to build strongholds? Sure.

But they realize the importance of these things will vary from table to table. So they've left such things up to a specific group to decide.

Click to expand...

But grappling, or conjuring prismatic spheres, or repelling vampires through prayer, is of equal importance at all tables?

hawkeyefan said:

This is why I don't think there will be any convincing you. I think it's a key aspect to the design. Not feeling the need to spend time and space around a bunch of areas of the game whose importance will vary drastically from game to game and committing a bunch of mechanics to those areas ahead of time.

Click to expand...

In this discussion there's also a recurrent tndency to think that uniform resolution = 3E-style "rule for everything". But Cthulhu Dark has uniform resolution rules that fit on less than an A4 page. Prince Valiant has uniform resolution rules that fit on a couple of pages. HeroWars/Quest has uniform resolution rules that fit on about half-a-dozen pages.

Part of what makes 5e a rather complex system is its wide vareity of resolution subsystems that aren't straightforwardly integrated (eg deft finger moves to pull of stage magic may well invoke the skill/ability resolution system; deft finger moves to cast spells rarely do - they are a player-side fiat mechanic) but generally can't just be ignored (eg in Burning Wheel the sorcery subsystem can be ignored, and magic use resolved by a skill check - on the Sorcery skill - like anything else; in 5e there's no default generic mechanic that can be used in lieu of the magic subsystem).

I think that Moldvay Basic is basically a complete game - it puts itself forward as a dungeoncrawl game, and it has the mechanics to deal with that. I think that 5e is an incomplete game, in that it puts itself forward as covering a range of stuff for which its rules and mechanics are incomplete. Not because they need to be if it's to be kept "light", but because there are other design sensibilities at work - in particular, a preference for GM decision-making as to what happens in most cases that don't involve fighting or casting spells.

It's like a feature of classic D&D, which results from the extension of gameplay beyond the dungeoncrawling it was designed for, has been erected into a principle.

hawkeyefan said:

My game is not exactly the style you assume above, but my players' characters have indeed accumulated some money through play. They've used that money for a variety of things....most of which are more narrative than mechanical. They've established a trading company and they've needed funds for political purposes. There is upkeep involved in that, and a whole bevy of NPCs to pay for, and further investments related to the busines. One PC used the funds to establish a temple. Another used money to help in his search for his family.

Click to expand...

What I find most striking about this is that you classify all this action as "not mechanical".

hawkeyefan said:

It seems to me based on your comments here, and in other conversations, that you want all mechanics to be determined ahead of time so that the players and DM have this established understanding of exactly what's possible and what works and how ahead of time. There's no judgment needed on the DM's part.

Click to expand...

The last sentence seems pretty absurd in the context of a RPG: I don't think you can have a game in which fiction >> mechanics >> fiction without some sort of judgement being made, and in anything like a traditional RPG allocation of participant roles that will be the GM.

I just don't think that "the GM decides what happens" is a very interesting example of "light" design, especially when it's not implemented consistently (which it isn't in 5e - that's not the rule for resolving fighting in 5e).

I also think that "the GM decides what happens" isn't the best recipe for satisfactory play, but in the context of this discussion that's a secondary thing.

Lord Mhoram said:

When there are rules for everything (3rd and 4th) then you get constrained on what you can do by looking at character sheet. In a more freewheeling game, you just think up stuff your character would do, and the GM tells you what roll to attempt to do it.

Click to expand...

You present this as if it is a dichotomy that covers the field.

Given that in my 4e game the PCs have set back ghouls with their prayers (other than by way of the Channel Divinity mechanics), used jellies at a banquet to illustrate the vulnerabilities of gelatinous cubes, opposed city officials in court cases, used their chaos sorcrery to seal the Abyss, tamed bears that were attacking them, stolen a triceratops from its hobgoblin handler and ridden it across the battlefield, and countless other stuff I can't recall - none of which is an action declaration mentioned in the rulebooks or on a character sheet - I don't recognise your characterisation.

Like many other posters in this thread, you seem to equate uniform resolution system with a series of discrete quasi-simulationist subsystems for each field of possible endeavour. That's not how 4e (and the games that inspired its mechanics, whether directly or indirectly - Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Prince Valiant and others) works.

pemerton said:

Given that in my 4e game the PCs have set back ghouls with their prayers (other than by way of the Channel Divinity mechanics), used jellies at a banquet to illustrate the vulnerabilities of gelatinous cubes, opposed city officials in court cases, used their chaos sorcrery to seal the Abyss, tamed bears that were attacking them, stolen a triceratops from its hobgoblin handler and ridden it across the battlefield, and countless other stuff I can't recall - none of which is an action declaration mentioned in the rulebooks or on a character sheet - I don't recognise your characterisation.

Like many other posters in this thread, you seem to equate uniform resolution system with a series of discrete quasi-simulationist subsystems for each field of possible endeavour. That's not how 4e (and the games that inspired its mechanics, whether directly or indirectly - Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Prince Valiant and others) works.

Click to expand...

In the 3.x and 4E games what I described is what I saw being played - (knowing that the plural of anecdote is not data) - just speaking of personal experience.

Overall I've found 5E to much much easier to teach to people who have never roleplayed than 3.x/PF or 4E; and the minimal mechanics outside combat has led to much more creative choices of character actions by players than I ever saw in 3/PF or 4E.

The whole point, as I see it, of ruling vs rules, is that you rely on the GM to tell you how the interaction with his world works, and the rules are a support for the GM to do this... as opposed to the rules defining how you interact with the world. To me that is a welcome change of pace, and a nice return to the "old days". It also really helps push the concept of table variation - something I see as a very very good thing. Every game should be that particular group's game, with whatever rules modifications, structure or odd habits that they play. In my opinion moving to a new table should almost be like changing companies but doing the same job - a lot of it is the same, but there are individual changes. The old classic concept "The GM is GOD - game organizer and director" is something I support - the printed rules are for the GM to modify to fit his world; and players talk to GM when making characters for his world.

I've never accepted a character at my table in any game I run that was built without a conversation about tone of my game, what rules I allow, what rules I don't allow, and such.

TwoSix said:

That's probably a point of contention on this thread; I think for quite a few posters that "D&D as unfocused world-sim" or "wander around and see what the DM throws at us" is the dominant modality of play.

Click to expand...

Which means that judgements about "rules light" vs "rules heavy" are being made in comparison to 3E played the same way?

(Did anyone play 4e that way? Talk about maximum suckitude!)

Ristamar said:

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

Click to expand...

Thanks! If it was already posted ITT I missed it.

Interestingly, I think the person that started the “it would just be am opposed ability check” line of discussion is still right. It only isn’t, because the specific rule tells you how to adjudicate who goes first. Without it, there wouldn’t be “initiative”, there would just be, at best, the assumption that groups will fall back on ability checks to determine combat order. Which would be a context, because you’re trying to see who goes first. <shrug>

pemerton said:

I know some people think that a RPG is just a system for finding out what happens in the world, but that's an idea I don't take that very seriously even for Runequest or Traveller, let alone any version of D&D.

Click to expand...

DnD isn’t a narrow game. It isn’t quite generic in the sense that GURPS is, but it is generic in the sense that it deals in goals on a campaign basis, rather than on a total system basis.

DnD is meant to be played by groups that was dungeon crawling and groups that want courtly intrigue, and groups that want both, in one game, from session to session. This is part of why DnD is so popular. It is very well constructed to be a game that can have multiple goals, and let the group simply choose the win conditions.

doctorbadwolf said:

Thanks! If it was already posted ITT I missed it.

Interestingly, I think the person that started the “it would just be am opposed ability check” line of discussion is still right. It only isn’t, because the specific rule tells you how to adjudicate who goes first. Without it, there wouldn’t be “initiative”, there would just be, at best, the assumption that groups will fall back on ability checks to determine combat order. Which would be a context, because you’re trying to see who goes first. <shrug>

Click to expand...

That isn't what Crawford said. He simply said it was an ability check and not a contest. He didn't say it was an ability check and not a contest only because of the tie rule.

Look again at the contest section. This quote makes it impossible for initiative to be a contest by RAW. "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." There is no other way given for a contest to occur, and initiative isn't an ability check where only one can succeed, nor is it one where the efforts are directly opposed to another's.

Maxperson said:

That isn't what Crawford said. He simply said it was an ability check and not a contest. He didn't say it was an ability check and not a contest only because of the tie rule.

Look again at the contest section. This quote makes it impossible for initiative to be a contest by RAW. "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." There is no other way given for a contest to occur, and initiative isn't an ability check where only one can succeed, nor is it one where the efforts are directly opposed to another's.

Click to expand...

Lol ok, max. Once again you “win” by being pedantic and persistent on a tangential point for so long enough that someone else just walks away.

edit: oh, btw, even if we just accept what you’re saying (I don’t), it reinforces my point that the initiative rule is much clearer than what it would be without it, because rather than an ability context that isn’t quite normal, it literally wouldn’t have any RAW viable way to run it other than just literally making something up from whole cloth. There’s be no init score, no way to know what to roll, no reason to assume it should be decided by rolling. Just, <shrug, they’ll figure something out>.

Good thing the very very clear rule on initiative is there, huh?

doctorbadwolf said:

oh, btw, even if we just accept what you’re saying (I don’t), it reinforces my point that the initiative rule is much clearer than what it would be without it, because rather than an ability context that isn’t quite normal, it literally wouldn’t have any RAW viable way to run it other than just literally making something up from whole cloth. There’s be no init score, no way to know what to roll, no reason to assume it should be decided by rolling. Just, <shrug, they’ll figure something out>.

Good thing the very very clear rule on initiative is there, huh?

Click to expand...

I don't even know what you are talking about here. All I've been talking about is the very specific, and very narrow non-rule rule about ties between the DM and a player. I've never said anything about the entire initiative rule as a whole. With that very narrow non-rule rule, quite literally nothing would change if it didn't exist(hence non-rule rule). The DM would still make the decision on how it goes.