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.

 

[Sadras]

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?

Only if Hussar and/or Pemerton are playing at the same table as Maxperson.

 

[ad_hoc]

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?

Kill all the lawyers.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

No, because at the table the DM just makes a ruling and the game goes on. Sometimes, if the players feel strongly about something they we will discuss it afterwards and figure something out, with arguments made about the rule and what people want, but usually even that much doesn't happen. Usually, because I'm trying to make the game more fun and not less fun, and I know my players, the ruling results in more fun being had.

The RAW arguments happen here, because most of the time people are asking what the rule means, or discussing the rules. Bringing in how you would house rule something doesn't really help a rules discussion most of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Only if Hussar and/or Pemerton are playing at the same table as Maxperson.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] maybe. I'm pretty sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] isn't the kind of person to disrupt a game. If he didn't enjoy it he would probably just be polite about it and let me know he wouldn't be playing again, or be one of the players to talk to me about the ruling afterwards.

 

[Numidius]

Kill all the lawyers.

Gordian knot-like solution to the problem

 

[Sadras]

@Hussar maybe. I'm pretty sure @pemerton isn't the kind of person to disrupt a game. If he didn't enjoy it he would probably just be polite about it and let me know he wouldn't be playing again, or be one of the players to talk to me about the ruling afterwards.

It was only a tongue-and-cheek comment. I think our various roleplaying differences are very much exaggerated online to the point where we participate in these endless discussions with each other.

 

[Hriston]

This is a False Equivalence. Initiative isn't combat.

It isn't the entirety of combat, no, but initiative is one of the five steps of combat and so falls under the umbrella description of "a clash between two sides".

Spells and attacks come with levels, too. Are levels combat? Are levels direct opposition?

Of course not, levels are not one of the steps of combat.

the same with initiative. Just because it leads to direct opposition, doesn't make it direct opposition.

You've got this backwards. Direct opposition in the form of the start of a combat encounter leads to the rolling of initiative.

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.

You can talk on your turn. The key here, however, is the group started to attack you before you rolled initiative, so the direct opposition is already present.

 

[Oofta]

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?

In general, I have one rule for this kind of stuff: the DM is right, even if they're wrong.

In other words, at the table whether I'm DMing or playing when a DM makes a ruling the player can ask for clarification but at the table the DM makes the rules for their game. If I feel strongly I may take it up outside of the game but honestly I never see arguments like the one that has gone of for the last umpteem pages happen in real life.

Life is too short to argue minutiae at the table but arguing about it on the internet is one of the reasons web sites like this exist.

 

[Kobold Boots]

In general, I have one rule for this kind of stuff: the DM is right, even if they're wrong.

In other words, at the table whether I'm DMing or playing when a DM makes a ruling the player can ask for clarification but at the table the DM makes the rules for their game. If I feel strongly I may take it up outside of the game but honestly I never see arguments like the one that has gone of for the last umpteem pages happen in real life.

Life is too short to argue minutiae at the table but arguing about it on the internet is one of the reasons web sites like this exist.

Standard rule at my table is:

The DM needs to be able to make decisions on the fly to keep the game moving. If a player wishes to contest a ruling such that it is done correctly in the future they can, (kind of like throwing an NFL challenge flag) and the DM will look up the rule in question and advise everyone how the situation will be judged in the future such that everyone can know how the game works at the table going forward. This is done after the game and distributed to everyone via email, added to the house rules.

If the ruling significantly affected the outcome of a combat or event then the DM reserves the right to compensate the player's character in some reasonable way, but the outcome of the combat or event will not be retconned unless all at the table agree and changing the event does not invalidate events happening after the situation occurred.

(e.g. If a player broke a sword as a result of a bad ruling or lost some equipment - then the matter can be hand waved or equipment can be given to compensate.. If the broken equipment was a rope and half the players fell to their deaths - such that five hours of gameplay thereafter was invalidated by the hand wave - no dice.)

Of course, in a situation like the last one, we might spend a bit more time looking over the rules regarding rope breaking before ruling.. but I've also been in situations where rulings needed to be handled inside the duration of a 3m egg timer because folks wanted a faster play.

2c
KB

 

[Oofta]

Standard rule at my table is:

The DM needs to be able to make decisions on the fly to keep the game moving. If a player wishes to contest a ruling such that it is done correctly in the future they can, (kind of like throwing an NFL challenge flag) and the DM will look up the rule in question and advise everyone how the situation will be judged in the future such that everyone can know how the game works at the table going forward. This is done after the game and distributed to everyone via email, added to the house rules.

If the ruling significantly affected the outcome of a combat or event then the DM reserves the right to compensate the player's character in some reasonable way, but the outcome of the combat or event will not be retconned unless all at the table agree and changing the event does not invalidate events happening after the situation occurred.

(e.g. If a player broke a sword as a result of a bad ruling or lost some equipment - then the matter can be hand waved or equipment can be given to compensate.. If the broken equipment was a rope and half the players fell to their deaths - such that five hours of gameplay thereafter was invalidated by the hand wave - no dice.)

Of course, in a situation like the last one, we might spend a bit more time looking over the rules regarding rope breaking before ruling.. but I've also been in situations where rulings needed to be handled inside the duration of a 3m egg timer because folks wanted a faster play.

2c
KB

Tying this back to the reason for this thread, one of the reasons I like 5E's approach in general is the emphasis of rulings over rules for the reasons you talk about. It's more important to keep the action going than to spend time flipping through a book looking up what the DC should be for climbing an ice ledge (or whatever challenge the PCs are facing).

It still happens occasionally of course, and I understand why some people like more complete rules. But for me? Give me some leeway to play the game the way that works best for me and my group.