Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[Hussar]

A lot of people trying to be ‘right’ about what constitutes a contest. Embarrassing.

5e is light mechanically.

Again, compared to other versions of D&D? Sure. Compared to RPG's in general? Not even close. Good grief, a 200+ page rulebook for making characters is a "light" game in your view? Seriously?

Heck, even the Basic Rules comes in two books and still clocks in at well over a hundred pages. That is NOT a light game.

 

[Maxperson]

I would hardly characterize it as predominant. You've got one or two people who are playing silly buggers semantic games and the rest of us who could resolve that using the existing rules without much worry. The only reason that there is an argument at all is because [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] refuses to accept that just because the book says a contest uses two opposed characters it cannot then be used for more than two.

I didn't say you couldn't use those rules for more than two. I said RAW limits it to two, and if you go outside of RAW, you are creating a house rule. I myself have no problem using it for more than two, though I would limit it to directly opposed checks and not for something like a footrace.

 

[Hussar]

This is a False Equivalence. Initiative isn't combat. Initiative is initiative. Combat is swinging your sword at someone's AC. That's direct opposition, but isn't an ability check, so there's no contest there, either.



Not relevant. Spells and attacks come with levels, too. Are levels combat? Are levels direct opposition? No. the same with initiative. Just because it leads to direct opposition, doesn't make it direct opposition.



Sure there is, at least sometimes. You round a corner and a group starts to attack you. There wasn't time to talk before initiative, but someone in the party wants to give peace a chance.

Nope. Even by RAW you are wrong here. The ONLY time you roll initiative, by RAW is when combat starts. You CANNOT use initiative in any other case. Initiative is the first part of combat. And, you cannot actually have one without the other in D&D. Nor does initiative lead to direct opposition. You have the opposition (combat starts) first, and then the contest among the actors to find out who acts first in combat (initiative).

Since we're being all sticky about RAW and all that.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. Even by RAW you are wrong here. The ONLY time you roll initiative, by RAW is when combat starts. You CANNOT use initiative in any other case. Initiative is the first part of combat. And, you cannot actually have one without the other in D&D. Nor does initiative lead to direct opposition. You have the opposition (combat starts) first, and then the contest among the actors to find out who acts first in combat (initiative).

Since we're being all sticky about RAW and all that.

I'm not wrong. Initiative is not itself combat. Just like movement, which is a part of combat is not combat. And just like jumping, which is a part of combat, is not combat. And like hiding, which is a part of combat, is not combat. Even though initiative is used in the combat section only, it is not itself combat.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not wrong. Initiative is not itself combat. Just like movement, which is a part of combat is not combat. And just like jumping, which is a part of combat, is not combat. And like hiding, which is a part of combat, is not combat. Even though initiative is used in the combat section only, it is not itself combat.

The difference is, all your other examples are used outside of combat (in combat as well, but, still used outside of combat). Actually, movement is a purely combat thing as well. Outside of combat, you don't move in 6 second chunks of movement, limited to your 30 feet (or whatever). You just go a reasonable distance. There are no rules for movement outside of combat, outside of overland speeds.

OTOH, initiative, and the movement rules (outside of overland movement) comprise two sections of how combat works. You cannot run combat without these. These are essential elements of 5e combat which is more than just the Action action.

So, no, again, you are mistaken. These are parts of combat. Not the entirety of combat, true, since you still have Actions that you can take, but, basically two of of the three things that comprise combat.

 

[Maxperson]

The difference is, all your other examples are used outside of combat (in combat as well, but, still used outside of combat). Actually, movement is a purely combat thing as well. Outside of combat, you don't move in 6 second chunks of movement, limited to your 30 feet (or whatever). You just go a reasonable distance. There are no rules for movement outside of combat, outside of overland speeds.

OTOH, initiative, and the movement rules (outside of overland movement) comprise two sections of how combat works. You cannot run combat without these. These are essential elements of 5e combat which is more than just the Action action.

So, no, again, you are mistaken. These are parts of combat. Not the entirety of combat, true, since you still have Actions that you can take, but, basically two of of the three things that comprise combat.

It's the first line of initiative man. "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat." It doesn't say initiative is combat. It says that it determines the order DURING COMBAT. The actual combat comes after initiative during the turns. It's in the combat section, but it is not combat. In any case, initiative is never, ever, direct opposition. Just as a race is never direct opposition. Direct opposition is head-to-head, not side-by-side.

 

[cmad1977]

Again, compared to other versions of D&D? Sure. Compared to RPG's in general? Not even close. Good grief, a 200+ page rulebook for making characters is a "light" game in your view? Seriously?

Heck, even the Basic Rules comes in two books and still clocks in at well over a hundred pages. That is NOT a light game.

Yes it is. Page count is irrelevant. The rules are simple to grasp and easy to run with. Hell, players don’t even need to know any rules beyond ‘tell the DM what you want to do and how. If he asks you to roll a die do so.’
5e is a light system.
If you find it to be complex I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[pemerton]

It's the first line of initiative man. "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat." It doesn't say initiative is combat. It says that it determines the order DURING COMBAT. The actual combat comes after initiative during the turns. It's in the combat section, but it is not combat.

I don't really care about the parsing of the 5e combat rules - whereas its non-combat resolution rules are something that I find interesting to discuss, I don't think its combat rules add anything very significant to the RPG repertoire. ("Continuous movement" is an innovation relative to 3E and 4e, but I was running Rolemaster with continuous movement 20 to 30 years ago - and obviously there are any number of RPGs with less rules-bound adjudication of combat that allow continuous movement simply as part of the narration of the fiction.)

But from the point of view of metaphysics, your argument is weak.

"The speed of movement of the pistons determines the rate at which the drive shaft of the engine rotates" clearly implies that the pistons are not the entirety of the engine. But it certainly doesn't imply that the pistons are not part of the engine. And in fact they are part of the engine.

"Initative determines the order of turns during combat" does not preclude initiative being an element of combat. Combat is a process which consists of a sequence of interrelated events. The ordering of those events is part of what constitutes them into the sequence that they are. The thing which determines that ordering is initiative. Considered in the abstract, that thing might be external to the process, or internal to it. Given that the rules for it occur in the chapter labelled "combat" and appear to have no function or utility outside of combat, I would suggest that initiative is in fact internal to, and an element of, combat.

 

[pemerton]

Yes it is. Page count is irrelevant. The rules are simple to grasp and easy to run with. Hell, players don’t even need to know any rules beyond ‘tell the DM what you want to do and how. If he asks you to roll a die do so.’

Rolemaster can be played that way (I know - I've done it). That doesn't make RM a light system. It means that it's a system that can work if the GM carries the load of the rules.

Of course I'm exaggerating a little bit, but then so are you. A player can't build a character using the rule you've given. And they can't really run a character either - most of the stuff a player gets from character building provides ways of doing stuff other than by just "telling the GM what you want to do" - they require the player declaring the use of specific abilities like rage, or casting a spell, or providing inspiration, or whatever. In combat there is also the need to understand the action economy, which isn't just "describe what you want to do". (There are RPGs that work that way, but 5e isn't one of them.)

 

[Maxperson]

I don't really care about the parsing of the 5e combat rules - whereas its non-combat resolution rules are something that I find interesting to discuss, I don't think its combat rules add anything very significant to the RPG repertoire. ("Continuous movement" is an innovation relative to 3E and 4e, but I was running Rolemaster with continuous movement 20 to 30 years ago - and obviously there are any number of RPGs with less rules-bound adjudication of combat that allow continuous movement simply as part of the narration of the fiction.)

But from the point of view of metaphysics, your argument is weak.

"The speed of movement of the pistons determines the rate at which the drive shaft of the engine rotates" clearly implies that the pistons are not the entirety of the engine. But it certainly doesn't imply that the pistons are not part of the engine. And in fact they are part of the engine.

"Initative determines the order of turns during combat" does not preclude initiative being an element of combat. Combat is a process which consists of a sequence of interrelated events. The ordering of those events is part of what constitutes them into the sequence that they are. The thing which determines that ordering is initiative. Considered in the abstract, that thing might be external to the process, or internal to it. Given that the rules for it occur in the chapter labelled "combat" and appear to have no function or utility outside of combat, I would suggest that initiative is in fact internal to, and an element of, combat.

I already acknowledged that it was a part of the combat system. It is just not combat itself. The attempt was made to declare that initiative was combat to somehow justify saying initiative involves direct opposition. Initiative is not itself combat, nor directly opposite to anything, even though it's a part of the combat system.