Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

5ekyu · Sep 30, 2018

Maxperson said:
Which is perfectly fine. If they want to expand the contest rule to include indirect opposition, they are free to do so. They just can't claim that RAW supports it, and we are discussing RAW here.

Actually, if i recall correctly the initiative as contest discussion came out of a claim someone made about the initiative tie-rule and what would happen *if* that initiative tie rule were removed or did not exist.

That pretty much starts the foundation of what we are discussing here at "not RAW" since RAW the initiative rule is there.

But hey, whatever spin one needs - all power to you.

Parmandur · Sep 30, 2018

pemerton said:
I've played AD&D arena combats and Keep on the Borderlands, and likewise. I'm not sure what that shows, though. In my case, probably that I was not a very good AD&D player - as I have never really got into the exploratory/ASL aspects of that game, which are pretty significant for B2. I don't know about your case, but I'm inferring that your 4e PCs had not motivations, did not act protagonistically, didn't improvise, and never engaged in skill challenges adjudicated in the manner the DMG and DMG2 set out.

Actually, it's more that I got into character playing the Castle Ravenloft board game. My experience with 4E proper was pretty much Keep on the Shadowfell, and the DMs first time doing his thing. So, no, the full blown "skill challenge" didn't really happen. Honestly, I doubt skill challenges we're really tested by most groups that tried 4E for a short while, not in the way drawn out in the books.

Maxperson · Sep 30, 2018

5ekyu said:
Actually, if i recall correctly the initiative as contest discussion came out of a claim someone made about the initiative tie-rule and what would happen *if* that initiative tie rule were removed or did not exist.

That pretty much starts the foundation of what we are discussing here at "not RAW" since RAW the initiative rule is there.

That was me. My claim, which is 100% true, is that if the initiative tie rule specifically regarding ties between players and the DM had not been written, the initiative rule would play out identically. It says the DM decides. I didn't attempt to change RAW into meaning something completely different, like these others are doing. There would quite literally be no difference in how initiative plays out without that one sentence. Saying that the rule plays the same with or without that one sentence, isn't the same as altering RAW.

But hey, whatever spin one needs - all power to you

If you're going to make snide comments, it helps if you know what you are talking about first.

Sadras · Oct 1, 2018

pemerton said:
Well, by the criterion I suggested, that would make the mechanics poorly designed.

Conversely, if we really think that flanking an opponent is an advantageous way to fight, then there is nothing unnatural about manouevring into such a position.

EDIT: Saw this elaboration a bit further downthread:

There are two ways of thinking about this:

(1) It makes sense to manoeuvre carefully across a battlefield dotted with enemies, which is what is going on.

(2) Stop motion action resolution - which means that it doesn't hurt your friend any to maneouvre carefully rather than take the risk of running straight there - is unrealistic.

I think both (1) and (2) are true. A different system might impose some sort of cost against the friend if the ally manoeuvres more carefully to get there. Or it might make the flank more effective if the ally runs straight there (which 4e's charge rules approximate to).

I have no issue with 1 or 2 in instances where it makes sense, but every time becomes ridiculous, and this wasn't only from a DM's perspective, this was initially highlighted verbally by a player during our 4e games. In 5e it is worse because AoO occur once a character has left an opponent's reach not a threatened area - so you could run circles around your foe. A clear mechanical advantage generally trumps anything else. To keep on denying it, is an inability to accept reality IMO.

Hussar · Oct 1, 2018

Parmandur said:
Actually, it's more that I got into character playing the Castle Ravenloft board game. My experience with 4E proper was pretty much Keep on the Shadowfell, and the DMs first time doing his thing. So, no, the full blown "skill challenge" didn't really happen. Honestly, I doubt skill challenges we're really tested by most groups that tried 4E for a short while, not in the way drawn out in the books.

I always kinda chuckle when I see the "4e is a boardgame" thing trotted out. Considering that we had what, six, seven years of D&D Miniatures, the game, which was the 3e combat system, virtually verbatim, played out as a tabletop wargame. To the point where DDM material (like the Marshall) was actually compatible with the 3e ruleset.

If you want to play any version of D&D as a boardgame, you can. It's not like it's hard. 4e is no different than any other edition in this.

UngeheuerLich · Oct 1, 2018

Hussar said:
I always kinda chuckle when I see the "4e is a boardgame" thing trotted out. Considering that we had what, six, seven years of D&D Miniatures, the game, which was the 3e combat system, virtually verbatim, played out as a tabletop wargame. To the point where DDM material (like the Marshall) was actually compatible with the 3e ruleset.

If you want to play any version of D&D as a boardgame, you can. It's not like it's hard. 4e is no different than any other edition in this.

I played 4e quite a while and no, it was no boardgame. It however lost the possibility to play with combat as war and instead embraced combat as sport too much.
Thus at a certain point combat felt like a board game to me, both as player and DM. WHat is the best pace to stand on and what is the best power to use. And so on.
At low levels we had great theater of the mind combats, but that changed with just a few levels when you had your full repertoire of encounter and daily powers and some utility. Positioning. Many small hold effects that just last a few turns. And design of monsters and powers disallowed gaining so much advantage in the beginning of combat to make scouting etc really pay off. Add the strict rules for adjucating powers and then you know why the combat part feels boardgamey and why your roleplaying part might adjust to that playstyle. But that started with 3.5 and 4e in a certain way was the logical successor.
5e gives a lot more room for creativity which the narrow design of 4e does not. Before it is brought up by someone else, page 42 also sadly lost its value when you level up because of the way the level bonus was designed...

And the conclusion: i really wanted to like 4e forever bit thaz was as impossible as it was with 3.5. I hope my love with 5e will lassts as long as this edition lasts. And I hope the eventual 6e will embrace and build up on the 5e design.

pemerton · Oct 1, 2018

SmokeyCriminal said:
Initiative is a curious mechanic. During a combat "round" of 6 seconds everyone is taking their turn at the exact same time. But the DM can't resolve all those actions at once. So everyone rolls Initiative to see in which order the actions get resolved, not to see who "goes first".

I don't think you can call it a contest because if you want to go last but you rolled the highest in initiative, then you what?... lost by winning?

So why do those with higher DEX tend to go earlier? They're too twitchy to help themselves?

clearstream said:
Participants in a footrace can come in first, second, third etc, and draw, so a straightforward Strength (Athletics) ability check is a better mechanic to apply. Contests are not for ranking, they're for cases where creatures are directly opposing each other.

Edit to give an example. Five creatures race, getting Strength (Athletics) checks of 11, 16, 2, 12, 11. They place in this order - 16 (wins), 12 (second), 11 and 11 (tied for third), 2 (last).

But how is that not an application of the contest mechanics (ie a comparison of opposed checks)? It is not comparing the results of a check to a GM-set DC.

Maxperson said:
It seems pretty clear at this point that multiple people in this thread can't tell the difference between indirect opposition like races, initiative, and javalin throws, and direct opposition like arm wrestling, snatching a ring off the ground before the other guy, and preventing someone from opening a door.

Or - to add to [MENTION=84661]Tallifer[/MENTION]'s alternative suggestion - don't think that any such difference is salient to the contest rules.

To say that two opponents in a footrace are not directly opposed or that it's not the case that only one can succeed (at coming first) seems strained to me. (Compare eg an exam, where each is trying to do his/her best but neither is trying to best[/I the other in a head-to-head competition. And then compare an exam to a buzzer-based quiz show. Etc.)

The alternative logic means that a race to get to point X first is not a contest, but putting a ring there which the first competitor has to grab and stick on his/her finger makes it one. That's odd to say the least. More generally, I think that 5e has the resources to resolve simple running races as well as "king of the hill" type competitions without needing to enter the murky territory of "house rules".

(And an arm wrestle surely wouldn't be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)

pemerton · Oct 1, 2018

Sadras said:
A clear mechanical advantage generally trumps anything else. To keep on denying it, is an inability to accept reality IMO.

What am I denying?

I assert that good mechanics align mechanical incentive and PC motivation. If you're pointing to mechanics that don't satisfy that test, then you're pointing to bad mechanics.

I personally don't find the 4e mechanics to be a big deal in this respect - manoeuvring to avoid OAs happens from time to time in my 4e games, but doesn't seem particularly "unnatural" on grounds that manouevring to avoid danger on a battlefield makes some sense. The stop-motion isn't always ideal, but generally we cope with that, or there are enough off-turn actions in play to reduce the sense of it.

But if I found the 4e mechanics to be a big problem in this respect then I would look for something that is better. Or adopt an ad hoc workaround - eg if you run to help a friend by the most direct route, get +2 on your roll to help them. Now there's a trade-off between careful manouevring and hurrying as quick as you can.

Maxperson · Oct 1, 2018

pemerton said:
So why do those with higher DEX tend to go earlier? They're too twitchy to help themselves?

Because higher dex means that often you will just happen to go faster than others, but not always.

But how is that not an application of the contest mechanics (ie a comparison of opposed checks)? It is not comparing the results of a check to a GM-set DC.

It's not an application of the contest mechanics, because like initiative, a race is an INDIRECT opposition, not a DIRECT opposition like arm wrestling would be. The contest mechanics are only for direct opposition.

Or - to add to @Tallifer's alternative suggestion - don't think that any such difference is salient to the contest rules.

It's the first line, man. It doesn't get more salient than to be the entire way a contest is determined.

"Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s." that sets the contest for the entire section, everything mentioned and described also goes along with the direct opposition mentioned. If you want to include indirect opposition like races and initiative in the contest rules, you can add it.

"To say that two opponents in a footrace are not directly opposed or that it's not the case that only one can succeed (at coming first) seems strained to me. (Compare eg an exam, where each is trying to do his/her best but neither is trying to best[/I the other in a head-to-head competition. And then compare an exam to a buzzer-based quiz show. Etc.)"

I am not directly opposing anyone on the game show. The only thing I am doing is trying solo to hit a buzzer. There is no opposition at all in an exam, direct or indirect.

(And an arm wrestle surely wouldn't be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)

Click to expand...

Not really. Pure arm strength is often different than full body strength. You can also be off, distracted, or what have you. If the strength scores are significantly different, I won't have a roll. But if they are within say 4 points of each other, that's close enough to put the outcome in doubt.

clearstream · Oct 1, 2018

pemerton said:
But how is that not an application of the contest mechanics (ie a comparison of opposed checks)? It is not comparing the results of a check to a GM-set DC.

I think this text helps

"The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding."

pemerton said:
To say that two opponents in a footrace are not directly opposed or that it's not the case that only one can succeed (at coming first) seems strained to me.

If the only options are win or lose, and placing is of no interest, then a DM could call for a Contest and that can work out fine. If placing is of interest, the actual rolls become useful. One of the key things about a Contest is a binary outcome.

pemerton said:
(And an arm wrestle surely wouldn't be a contest. Surely the character with the higher STR just wins, absent some rather exceptional circumstances.)

I don't think there are many cases where the RAW suggests a straight comparison of the underlying ability score.

I mean, one can think of Jumping, but then the rules do suggest some kind of check to go further than your usual distance. Another might be Speed in Chases, but then the rules do suggest a check for number of Dashes you can make. I'm not sure there is a single case where the unadorned ability is directly compared to get an outcome. Near universally a check of some kind is called for.

An arm wrestle in particular seems quite close to one of the examples for a Contest - holding a door shut - which could with equal justice be highest STR wins, if that was intended.