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.

 

[Maxperson]

So, it's absolutely two, except when its not but once we throw out those as contradictions its back to exclusively two?

If you throw out the contradiction, then yes you're back to only two. Two is specified a half dozen times, and there is one contradiction. If you don't throw it out, then you have to change it to apply to more than two. Those are your choices.

Personally, I have no problem changing the rule to apply to more than two, and had intended to do so for my second campaign even before you pointed the contradiction out.. RAW is two, though.

 

[5ekyu]

If you throw out the contradiction, then yes you're back to only two. Two is specified a half dozen times, and there is one contradiction. If you don't throw it out, then you have to change it to apply to more than two. Those are your choices.

Personally, I have no problem changing the rule to apply to more than two, and had intended to do so for my second campaign even before you pointed the contradiction out.. RAW is two, though.

RAW is two plus a clear case that would involve more.

Key point being, saying "this is how two fo this" is not the same as saying " only two can do this" and having a reference to a case that's called out as one but would normally involve more than two is telling.

 

[Lanefan]

If you throw out the contradiction, then yes you're back to only two. Two is specified a half dozen times, and there is one contradiction. If you don't throw it out, then you have to change it to apply to more than two. Those are your choices.

Personally, I have no problem changing the rule to apply to more than two, and had intended to do so for my second campaign even before you pointed the contradiction out.. RAW is two, though.

And the holy number for all contests shall be two. No more, no less. One shall not be the number as it is too few, though its presence may be countenanced if used only as a means of progressing on to two. Neither shall three be the number, as three by virtue of being more than two requires that one must be removed such that only two remain.

Four is right out.

Lan-"obviously the designers of this rule don't go in for team sports, where there can be considerably more than two people involved in the same contest"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

RAW is two plus a clear case that would involve more.

Key point being, saying "this is how two fo this" is not the same as saying " only two can do this" and having a reference to a case that's called out as one but would normally involve more than two is telling.

Except that if you read the rules, that's not how the designers present their rules. They don't present combat, skills(other than ability contests), encounters, etc. by talking about two people. Taking the rules as a whole, it's clear that what you are saying here is not what WotC is doing with ability contests. They are saying it requires two, and then providing one contradictory example that CAN involve more than two. They are not perfect.

 

[epithet]

Except that if you read the rules, that's not how the designers present their rules. They don't present combat, skills(other than ability contests), encounters, etc. by talking about two people. Taking the rules as a whole, it's clear that what you are saying here is not what WotC is doing with ability contests. They are saying it requires two, and then providing one contradictory example that CAN involve more than two. They are not perfect.

I think it is more likely that they are saying it requires more than one and using two as the standard, exemplary reference. It might be accurate to say that the presentation of the rule assumes two, but nowhere does it say that a skill contest requires exactly two contestants, and no more. That's something you're reading into it where it doesn't belong. Examples in the rules involving more than two contestants aren't a mistake or an accident, they serve to illustrate that the entire rule structure of an ability contest is designed to be flexible in that regard.

Why one Oerth would you think that Crawford & Co. would design a limitation into the ability contest rule that would restrict it to two contestants? That doesn't even make a little bit of sense. For Pelor's sake, it isn't even a discrete system within the rules, it's just an example of how to use ability checks. If you want to do something with an ability, and one or more other characters want to prevent you from doing that or to do it themselves first, everyone makes an ability check and you all see who comes out with the highest number. It is the most basic, simple thing, and you're trying to shoehorn artificial limitations and restrictions onto it on the basis of your assumption that the format of the rule's illustrative text is the rule itself, and sets the immutable structure to which all ability contests must adhere.

D&D doesn't work that way, Max. It moved a bit in that direction with 3.5 and 4e, but that's not how 5e is designed.

If Crawford had intended ability contests to be limited to two contestants, the rules would have said so. It would be explicit. "This is for two characters opposing each other. If you have more than two characters, each acting to oppose the others, use this other rule, as follows: ..." That's not what was done, at all. Instead they established the basic system of doing things with abilities, then refined it with DCs for character vs world situations and "high adjusted roll wins" for opposed checks, or character vs character situations. When there are exceptions, like saving throws, they describe them in detail. The simple fact that there is not an exception set out for resolving opposed skill checks among three or more characters means, definitively, that the basic system for resolving opposed skill checks applies to those scenarios. In other words, since "specific beats general," if you don't have a specific rule for "3 or more," then the general ability contest rules apply to contests among several characters.

 

[5ekyu]

Except that if you read the rules, that's not how the designers present their rules. They don't present combat, skills(other than ability contests), encounters, etc. by talking about two people. Taking the rules as a whole, it's clear that what you are saying here is not what WotC is doing with ability contests. They are saying it requires two, and then providing one contradictory example that CAN involve more than two. They are not perfect.

What is also not perfect is an arguement working from a position of RAW letter of the law which needs to throw out contradictory examples in RAW.

It is reasonable to say "contest cannot be more than one" and cite reasond that has to be the case from the play or the in-game reality - showing three man contests never make sense. That argument can survive and thrive in mixed RAW.

Its another to claim that in spite of those kinds of examples for multi-person contests RAW it must be two and only two **not** because three or more is explicitly forbidden but because the references are to two - and then just throw out the RAW that goes counter to two.

But, while I might have believed the "its RAW" was benefit of doubt before, now that its clear the actual position is more like "its RAW sometimes" - credibility is gone on this.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is more likely that they are saying it requires more than one and using two as the standard, exemplary reference.

So you think that they don't do this anywhere else in any rulebook, but this ONE TIME, they do it for some strange and unknown reason?

It might be accurate to say that the presentation of the rule assumes two, but nowhere does it say that a skill contest requires exactly two contestants, and no more. That's something you're reading into it where it doesn't belong. Examples in the rules involving more than two contestants aren't a mistake or an accident, they serve to illustrate that the entire rule structure of an ability contest is designed to be flexible in that regard.

No. The first line of the contest section in the DMG very explicitly says that contests match two creatures against each other. That's not an example. That's a rule.

Why one Oerth would you think that Crawford & Co. would design a limitation into the ability contest rule that would restrict it to two contestants? That doesn't even make a little bit of sense. For Pelor's sake, it isn't even a discrete system within the rules, it's just an example of how to use ability checks. If you want to do something with an ability, and one or more other characters want to prevent you from doing that or to do it themselves first, everyone makes an ability check and you all see who comes out with the highest number. It is the most basic, simple thing, and you're trying to shoehorn artificial limitations and restrictions onto it on the basis of your assumption that the format of the rule's illustrative text is the rule itself, and sets the immutable structure to which all ability contests must adhere.

For the same reason they introduce all the other vagueness and contradictions. They want the DMs to make their own rules for the game, and there's no better way to do that than to provide rules that don't add up entirely. Complete working rules discourage that sort of thing.

D&D doesn't work that way, Max. It moved a bit in that direction with 3.5 and 4e, but that's not how 5e is designed.

Incorrect. 3e and 4e moved away from that sort of thing. They attempted to provide clear rules for everything. You are correct in that 5e is designed differently, though.

If Crawford had intended ability contests to be limited to two contestants, the rules would have said so. It would be explicit. "This is for two characters opposing each other. If you have more than two characters, each acting to oppose the others, use this other rule, as follows: ..."

He was explicit. "A contest is a kind of ability check that matches two creatures against each other." It doesn't get more explicit than that.

 

[epithet]

Ok, Max, so what's the rule for a 3-way opposed ability check? I mean, if the "ability contest" rule doesn't apply, then what does? What would you call it? Unless you can provide a specific rule for that situation, the general rule (everyone makes their ability checks, high adjusted roll wins) has to apply, right?

Or, are you perhaps arguing that, in the universe of D&D "rules as written," three or more people cannot ever oppose one another in any given activity or for any given objective?

 

[Hriston]

The rules also don't say that there's no part of the swing midway between the punch being pulled back and it making contact where a nuclear blast doesn't happen. Rules aren't about what they don't way [sic]. They are about what they DO say.

That doesn't give you license to make up a rule that says when you punch someone, your fist is magically teleported from a cocked-back position to your opponent's face. If you do, I'm going to tell you the rules don't actually say that.

This is a yuge [sic] Strawman. I didn't say that the player can't tell the DM what he wants his PC to do. I said the attack cannot happen until after initiative is rolled, which is true.

No, it isn't true. All that the combat rules require is that attacks are resolved in initiative order. Initiative isn't an event in the fiction with timing before or after someone's fictional attack, so the order of causality is as follows:

1. Outside of turn-based resolution, a player declares an attack-type action.
2. The DM calls for initiative.
3. The declared action is resolved according to the rules in initiative order relative to the action declarations of the other players.

So the fictional act of beginning the declared action can be established in the fiction at any time between 1 and 3. I prefer it to be between 1 and 2 because then the fictional beginning of combat aligns with the mechanical beginning of combat. YMMV, of course.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't give you license to make up a rule that says when you punch someone, your fist is magically teleported from a cocked-back position to your opponent's face. If you do, I'm going to tell you the rules don't actually say that.

Correct. If you haven't rolled initiative, you have not punched anyone, though. Any ruling that says otherwise is a house rule.

No, it isn't true. All that the combat rules require is that attacks are resolved in initiative order. Initiative isn't an event in the fiction with timing before or after someone's fictional attack, so the order of causality is as follows:

1. 
   
   Go through every book and find me one single attack that can happen before initiative is rolled. And yes, initiative is an event in the fiction. That event is people going in an order for their actions. It's not called initiative in the fiction, but initiative directly corresponds with who goes when in the fiction, so it is an in fiction event.