Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

pemerton said:

Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here as I think one can with approximately equal justice argue that it is a matter of interpretation.

For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class.

Click to expand...

That can be taken to afford the DM complete fiat over the DC, including making the DC equal the result of another creature's check, or it could be taken to mean the DC must be a static value because of those final words "represented by a Difficulty Class".

If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest.

Click to expand...

This can't be taken to fix the participants in place, in the imagined fiction. So I think it can either be taken to have a mechanically precise implication ("remains the same as it was before" means no progress toward the goal) or it it could be taken as you propose (they were drawn before, and remain drawn). As you know, I find this last a bit more of a reach, while conceding its pragmatic value.

(I'm not sure eg about a chess game.)

Click to expand...

As a minor digression, I've found contests in the sense of games or sports can be better represented by multiple checks, than a single roll. The basic structure is: 1 win gives a side a winning position, 1 win from a winning position wins, 1 win from a losing position returns to neutral. Somewhat like advantage in Tennis. This narrates well and puts more weight on ability.

If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking.

Click to expand...

Here I'd like to come in with an alternative view: we could say instead that the system offers flexible tools for resolving circumstances at our table. 5th pulled back a bit from offering individual mechanics for very precise circumstances, to offering flexible mechanics that can cover a wide variety of circumstances, provided a DM is there to decide how to apply them. I propose that the fact we can have this debate speaks to flexibility in the mechanics.

pemerton said:

Nor than lifting stuff. But, per p 60 of the Basic PDF, that's a function of raw STR score.

Click to expand...

When you have to lift the other arm during arm wrestling, get back to me on that. What you are doing is giving me a Red Herring. Strength having different rules for lifting and carrying in now way makes it anything other than simple to know by RAW that an arm wrestling match is a strength ability check.

Is arm wrestling Lifting and Carrying? Nope. Is arm wrestling adding strength bonus to attack rolls and damage? Nope. Is arm wresting the only thing left, an Ability Check? Yep! It's right there under "or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation." Those are the three options and the first two are automatically eliminated.

clearstream said:

I think I wouldn't describe 5th as simple or light, but rather using that word "streamlined". Placing it as an intermediate system seems well justified to me.

Click to expand...

I always say that this depends on the sample size.
If you're comparing 5e to all of D&D and D&D spin-offs (Pathfinder, 13th Age) it is very light, but not at light as Basic or OD&D.
If you're comparing 5e to all store-bought RPGs, such as Numenera, Fate, Star Trek Adventures, Shadowrun, GURPs, Palladium, Genysis, Vampire, etc then D&D 5e seems fairly rules heavy and well into the crunchy end of the spectrum.
If you're comparing 5e to any RPGs including those like Tearable RPG, All Outta Bubblegum, Honey Heist, and the like then D&D buries the complexity needle.

pemerton said:

Personally I'm a bit struck by what seems to be the predominant view in this thread - that 5e can't resolve a footrace without house rules. (I'm not sure eg about a chess game.) If that's true, then the system is far more narrow than its superficial presentation would suggest. Even if its not true, the fact that its not self-evident one way or another is striking.

Click to expand...

Is there another version of D&D with codified rules for a footrace? Or a chase for that matter?

Jester David said:

I always say that this depends on the sample size.
If you're comparing 5e to all of D&D and D&D spin-offs (Pathfinder, 13th Age) it is very light, but not at light as Basic or OD&D.
If you're comparing 5e to all store-bought RPGs, such as Numenera, Fate, Star Trek Adventures, Shadowrun, GURPs, Palladium, Genysis, Vampire, etc then D&D 5e seems fairly rules heavy and well into the crunchy end of the spectrum.
If you're comparing 5e to any RPGs including those like Tearable RPG, All Outta Bubblegum, Honey Heist, and the like then D&D buries the complexity needle.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That provides good context which frames its weight well.

Jester David said:

Is there another version of D&D with codified rules for a footrace? Or a chase for that matter?

Click to expand...

I guess you're conscious of the Chase rules in the 5th edition DMG, and maybe the Pursuit rules in Out of the Abyss? I probably wouldn't use them for a short footrace, but maybe a marathon...

clearstream said:

I guess you're conscious of the Chase rules in the 5th edition DMG, and maybe the Pursuit rules in Out of the Abyss? I probably wouldn't use them for a short footrace, but maybe a marathon...

Click to expand...

(I am. Which is why I said “another”. )

Maxperson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Initiative involves the DM comparing the results of the combatant's DEX checks, just as s/he does in a contest. The initiative roll itself is just a DEX check. How it's handled is what makes it special, which is just like a contest except for the specific rule on breaking ties.

Maxperson said:

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.

Click to expand...

You can decline to oppose the efforts of monsters to kill and eat you if you want, but according to the rules, combat is typically "a clash between two sides". If you get too far away from that description, it probably doesn't need to be resolved in combat.

Maxperson said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the order the DM is meant to decide in the event of a tie between combatants is the sequential order normally determined by initiative. I believe that's the intent.

pemerton said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and in a broader sense this constant rules-based need to break ties just doesn't make sense to me.

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

Click to expand...

This leads to an odd answer: the DC isn't set until after the rolls are made, at which point the DC is set as the value of the highest roll that is not the winning roll.

In other words it's a floating DC.

Lanefan

Jester David said:

I always say that this depends on the sample size.
If you're comparing 5e to all of D&D and D&D spin-offs (Pathfinder, 13th Age) it is very light, but not at light as Basic or OD&D.
If you're comparing 5e to all store-bought RPGs, such as Numenera, Fate, Star Trek Adventures, Shadowrun, GURPs, Palladium, Genysis, Vampire, etc then D&D 5e seems fairly rules heavy and well into the crunchy end of the spectrum.
If you're comparing 5e to any RPGs including those like Tearable RPG, All Outta Bubblegum, Honey Heist, and the like then D&D buries the complexity needle.

Click to expand...

What if we don't compare it to any RPG?

Just measure how easy it is to pick up and play.

5e is bringing millions of new people into RPGs. It must be light.

Jester David said:

Is there another version of D&D with codified rules for a footrace?

Click to expand...

Not that I can think of (classic D&D has evasion rules, but they're a bit different). But 4e does have a generic resolution system - skill challenges - that can be used to resolve a race. (It will play out more like the Ben Hur chariot race than an Olympic event - whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste, but I think 4e wears its gonzo on its sleeve.)

I would have assumed that 5e was equally clear - it's resolved by making checks and comparing them (or perhaps a sequence of checks as [MENTION=71699]clearstream[/MENTION] suggests, though the Basic rules don't offer a system for aggregating check results into an overall outcome). But the predominant view in this thread seems to be that, in fact, you can only run a contest between two characters and they have to be fighting over something (a ring, a door, etc) and so to resolve a race you need to house rule.

Lanefan said:

the DC isn't set until after the rolls are made, at which point the DC is set as the value of the highest roll that is not the winning roll.

In other words it's a floating DC.

Click to expand...

Which looks curiouly like a contest!

I guess what I'm missing is what's at stake in distinguishing what you describe from a contest and positing it instead as a house rule. No one has actually explained in a way that is clear to me why it matters that two (or more) characters are struggling to be the first to break the ribbon rather than the one to grab the ring.