Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

clearstream said:

This is why I judge 5e in the main tiers of play to be possibly more complex than 3e, because I think on a straight count of decisions 5e characters have more options. That said, I've only thought about the main actions and the character abilities (from class, archetype, background, race). I think at higher tiers the two converge and perhaps 3e is more complex (if optional elements like prestige classes or epic skill uses are factored in).

Click to expand...

Even at lower levels, I suspect that 3E is more complex in relation to skills and spells, which are big chunks of (non-combat, and sometimes also combat) action declarations. Especially on the GM side.

3E also requires more frequent choices of feats for all players.

Returning to the contest/footrace discussion:

clearstream said:

Tthe precise mechanical outcome of a tie in Contests is expressly defined. The rules literally read "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." Crossing the finish line, even tied, is not the situation remaining the same as before the contest. No one is saying a DM can't run it that way. I'm suggesting that it is a poor reading of "remains the same" to have things not remain the same: this is a claim about a precise mechanical outcome, not what we picture the scene to look like.

<snip>

I can't honestly see why it isn't easier to have everyone make one standard ability check, and have them finish the race in descending order - high to low. To the point however, I'm also suggesting that the generality of "the DM... decides the difficulty of the task" gives scope for ruling this way without the degree of stretch required to use Contests.

Click to expand...

My interpretive intuitions run strongly the other way: the idea that "the DM . . . decides the difficulty" encompasses calling for checks which result in the difficulty being decided by a player-side process seems strained to me, especially when the same page of the rules sets out an alternative framework which (i) involves exactly that, and (ii) is described as being for contests, which a footrace certainly counts as.

And conversely, given that we've already seen that "remains the same" can't be taken literally - even in the ring case, a tied result to reach the ring surely doesn't mean, or at least doesn't have to mean, that no one even took a step towards it - taking it to encompass the outcome of a race in which people both cross the finish line but neither has been established as a winner of a race (so what remains the same is their relative status as competitors) seems fine to me.

Especially as I think the distinction between mechanical outcome and how we picture the scene is always potentially unstable in a RPG, and doubly so in the context of a mechanic like 5e ability/skill checks which seem intended to directly engage the fiction. (Which contrasts with the combat mechanics, as per an earlier debate upthread!)

pemerton said:

My interpretive intuitions run strongly the other way: the idea that "the DM . . . decides the difficulty" encompasses calling for checks which result in the difficulty being decided by a player-side process seems strained to me, especially when the same page of the rules sets out an alternative framework which (i) involves exactly that, and (ii) is described as being for contests, which a footrace certainly counts as.

Click to expand...

That's fair enough, and of course I would say that it doesn't set out an alternative framework. Perforce PnP RPGs are interpreted, entailing that the version we play depends on our interpretations. Seeing as those arise within a web of context we'll each see the whole as justifying our understanding of a part.

pemerton said:

And conversely, given that we've already seen that "remains the same" can't be taken literally - even in the ring case, a tied result to reach the ring surely doesn't mean, or at least doesn't have to mean, that no one even took a step towards it - taking it to encompass the outcome of a race in which people both cross the finish line but neither has been established as a winner of a race (so what remains the same is their relative status as competitors) seems fine to me.

Click to expand...

Here I would point out that rules should always be read to have meaning, otherwise one is not interpreting but erasing. Remains the same cannot be said to describe something that does not remain the same. There is a precise mechanical sense in which remains the same can have meaning.

pemerton said:

I think the distinction between mechanical outcome and how we picture the scene is always potentially unstable in a RPG, and doubly so in the context of a mechanic like 5e ability/skill checks which seem intended to directly engage the fiction. (Which contrasts with the combat mechanics, as per an earlier debate upthread!)

Click to expand...

That's true. A good example is squeezing past a foe in combat, where it just doesn't work for players to picture the creature not somehow intruding on the foes space, even though it is literally entitled to by RAW. If I were dissatisfied with using creature's check results as a Difficulty Class, then I'd probably revert to Contests to cover it.

I think a fair question is, how would you rewrite Contests so it literally entailed that creatures could make progress toward a goal of crossing a finish line, and end up with a tie?

clearstream said:

Here I would point out that rules should always be read to have meaning, otherwise one is not interpreting but erasing.

Click to expand...

Sure. But in the tied footrace result what remains the same is the status of the competitors qua competitors. Furthremore, in the context of gameplay, a conflict was framed - who's the fastest - and that contest remains unresolved. So the narrative tension also remains the same. Elements of the fiction are different - the competitors are now at place B rather than place A - but I've already pointed out that that can happen with the ring example, and you've already pointed out that that can happen with the "trying to force the door" example.

clearstream said:

I think a fair question is, how would you rewrite Contests so it literally entailed that creatures could make progress toward a goal of crossing a finish line, and end up with a tie?

Click to expand...

The current text is "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." I don't actually think that needs rewriting - the situation as I understand it refers to the narrative situation, the situation of contest or opposition, not just or even primarily the details of the fiction.

The rewrites I would suggest to future editors would be to refer to "two or more contestants". While it would be possible to spell out what "situation" means in more detail, I assume this is another instance of studied ambiguity in the 5e rules: the current wording allows those who eschew all metagaming, and who don't like to think about the process whereby playing a RPG generates a compelling fiction, to interpret "situation" as referring purely or at least primarily to the infiction state of affairs. (I think this is how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] reads it, for instance.) Of course on that reading you will get puzzles or incomplete rules, like needing to "house rule" to resolve a footrace. But that again seems to be part of the deliberate ambiguity in the way the 5e rules are written.

clearstream said:

The perpetual struggle to claim one's own version is not a house rule, and some other guy's version is. I think it comes from a fear that a house rule is a lesser creature than an interpretation. FWIW I think a ruling means judging that based on the text and situation, a rule means X. So a ruling is RAI. Whereas a house rule is in place where the text needs to be added to or outright altered to reasonably have the natural language meaning desired.

Click to expand...

I think it's more duration. A ruling is to deal with a case that comes up once and keep the adventure going. A house rules is when you codify that for if it comes up again (or because it comes up repeatedly).

clearstream said:

To the case at hand, the precise mechanical outcome of a tie in Contests is expressly defined. The rules literally read "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." Crossing the finish line, even tied, is not the situation remaining the same as before the contest. No one is saying a DM can't run it that way. I'm suggesting that it is a poor reading of "remains the same" to have things not remain the same: this is a claim about a precise mechanical outcome, not what we picture the scene to look like.

Click to expand...

*shrug*
I think the people in this thread have spend five to ten times as much time debating that "rule" than Crawford probably spend writing it. It's an amusing quirk of the language. Every edition has them, the weird rules elements that exist when a very specific and precise situation interacts with a hard literal reading of the rules. That's literally why we have "RAW" versus "RAI".

If I were ruling that situation, I'd call one of two ways:
RAI. No one wins. Tie. We move on.
RAW. Situation remains unchanged. Race isn't over. Reroll. We move on.

And if anyone argues the point I glare at them from behind my DM screen.

ad_hoc said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Then we have no point of comparison at all and we can argue that it is light or heavy, crunchy rules or narrative storytelling.
That's coming out and saying it's a "7" on the scale, but not defining what a 1 or a 10 is. If it's even out of 10 and not 15...

ad_hoc said:

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

Click to expand...

You're missing a statement there for basic logic.

It's saying "Dogs are purchased by millions of new people into pet ownership. They must be easy to maintain."

So if a contest is tied the condition existing before the contest remains after it.

The race is a construct not the outcome.

Two people are engaged in a foot race. Neither has won the foot race before the contest.
The two people tie on the contest. Neither has won the foot race after the contest.

Don't let the irrelevant details of the construct confuse the outcome based on the rules framework.

Thanks,
KB

clearstream said:

To the case at hand, the precise mechanical outcome of a tie in Contests is expressly defined. The rules literally read "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." Crossing the finish line, even tied, is not the situation remaining the same as before the contest. No one is saying a DM can't run it that way. I'm suggesting that it is a poor reading of "remains the same" to have things not remain the same: this is a claim about a precise mechanical outcome, not what we picture the scene to look like.

Click to expand...

How pedantic do we need to be here? If the contest resulted in a tie for any of the examples in the book, does that imply there was absolutely no motion? That positions haven't changed in the slightest? I don't think that's what they're trying to say - rather that the relative status of the participants with respect to the contest hasn't changed. So if they tie in a footrace, it doesn't imply they haven't moved, just that their status relative to each other hasn't changed. In other words, they ran the race, got to the finish line, but neither could claim victory over the other.

billd91 said:

How pedantic do we need to be here? .

Click to expand...

Depends on if it's Wednesday. There's a spike in language without logic mid week most weeks.

KB

pemerton said:

(I think this is how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] reads it, for instance.) Of course on that reading you will get puzzles or incomplete rules, like needing to "house rule" to resolve a footrace. But that again seems to be part of the deliberate ambiguity in the way the 5e rules are written.

Click to expand...

You don't actually need to house rule to resolve a foot race. A simple dex check is sufficient. "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing." Moving quickly, such as you would in a race, is modeled well enough with a dex check or multiple checks.

It's only if you want to do a foot race as a contest that you would need to house rule. Contests require two contestants, so if the race has more than two it moves out of RAW contests, and contests require direct opposition, which doesn't exist in a foot race.