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.

 

[Numidius]

I'm looking for different approaches in 5e, in contrast to my experience in past editions, since I'm going to decide if to start a 5e game, or not. I'm particularly concerned about the combat phase as a whole, if it has an inevitable rigid format to be followed until its conclusion, or there are ways, perhaps in the rules themselves, to play it out more freely.

 

[Numidius]

Sadras, dice rolling is fine, by me.
What I mean is if the conversation at the table is generally going fluently, when rulings by DM occur, or if it derails the story, halting too much the game, in your opinion/experience.

 

[billd91]

Thanks for the reply, pemerton. In your experience, are there ways to stop a combat, once it is engaged, to avoid it from ending only with the total death of the enemies?

Are there RPGs that don’t have this? Since a fundamental aspect of the game is playing a role, the ability for a character (PC or NPC) to choose to not fight to the death has always been there.

 

[Sadras]

I'm particularly concerned about the combat phase as a whole, if it has an inevitable rigid format to be followed until its conclusion, or there are ways, perhaps in the rules themselves, to play it out more freely.

The rules for combat are as they have always been, except less complex.
Conclusion of combat is usually death, flee, surrender or negotiation.
Participants within a combat are allowed to communicate with one another so it does not always need to end in the death of one side (the players play the characters and you as DM roleplay the NPCs/monsters). So in truth, you will determine how rigid combat will be.

What I mean is if the conversation at the table is generally going fluently, when rulings by DM occur, or if it derails the story, halting too much the game, in your opinion/experience.

Ignoring any other possible factors*, in my own experience the game flows smoothly, including when one introduces a house rule in the moment due to a new circumstance/situation.

*Other factors include DMing experience, player experience, table cohesiveness...etc

 

[Maxperson]

If your interpretation of RAW is that narrow, that contests can ONLY be between 2 characters, simply because that's the examples given, that's on you.

If you ignore the rule that straight out says it's between two characters, that's on you. I'm not stating it "simply because of the examples" and you know it.

 

[Numidius]

Are there RPGs that don’t have this? Since a fundamental aspect of the game is playing a role, the ability for a character (PC or NPC) to choose to not fight to the death has always been there.

Right...

 

[Maxperson]

What would be the DC? Given that it depends on how fast the other competitors run, it's very natural to think the DC is set by a roll that is modified by their DEX and skill in the same way.

Just set one.

I'm with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on your insistence that the example of two contestants is a rule, as opposed to an illustration or a core case from which further (and utterly straightforward) extrapolation might be made.

I'm not using just the examples. The rule says "One against another"(two), "Both"(two) and "One trying to prevent the other"(two). The examples just back up the rule.

Your oddly narrow interpetation of "direct opposition" is something I've already remarked upon. In this post I'll just add: there's nothing in the fiction of trying to outrun someone, compared to trying to be the first of the two of you to snatch up a ring, that suggests a different resolution mechanic should be required; and there's nothing about the mechanic that is suggested for the ring example that seems at all inapplicable to the footrace; which means that your insistence that the two are different from the point of view of resolution is not grounded in any sound principle of interpreting and applying RPG rules that I'm aware of.

You do know what direct means, right? In the context of direct opposition it means "with no intervening factors in between" or "with no one or nothing in between". In a footrace, there is space in between the runners. When arm wrestling, there is not. The footrace is indirect with the opposition, and the arm wrestling is direct with the opposition.

I will also agree with you that the contest mechanic works great for resolving a footrace. It's just not covered in 5e by the contest rules, because it's indirect and sometimes also because of more than two runners.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules for combat are as they have always been, except less complex.
Conclusion of combat is usually death, flee, surrender or negotiation.
Participants within a combat are allowed to communicate with one another so it does not always need to end in the death of one side (the players play the characters and you as DM roleplay the NPCs/monsters). So in truth, you will determine how rigid combat will be.

You can also knock them out. 5e has a rule where when an attack that drops the opponent to 0 is dealt, the attacker has the option to instantly declare it a knockout blow.

 

[Numidius]

Sadras, thanks for the clarifications.

Pemerton, re-reading your reply, are you suggesting I should pay attention to the "economy" of combat encounters & short/long rests in 5e?
Say: we don't do much dungeon crawl, nor use AdvPaths, is that going to be a problem, possibly a game breaking one?

 

[Numidius]

You can also knock them out. 5e has a rule where when an attack that drops the opponent to 0 is dealt, the attacker has the option to instantly declare it a knockout blow.

Interesting.

IYE does such a debate on a RAW vs RAI kind of thing, like the contest you've been discussing here, happen at the table, during play, let's say, with rules lawyers players?