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.

 

[Hriston]

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

You’re playing games with verb tenses now. I agree with you that for the fiction “I have punched someone” to be established, you must first roll initiative and an attack roll, compare the result to the target’s AC, and if it’s a hit, then it can be said that you have punched that person, and I haven’t claimed otherwise. My claim is that the fiction “I am trying to punch someone” and all attendant actions up to the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not can be established in advance of initiative being rolled and that it’s well within the rules to do so.

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.

Participants don’t “go” in an order in the fiction. The players take their turns in an order at the table. What this corresponds to in the fiction is the order in which resolutions of actions taken in any given six-second period of time happen. This continues throughout the combat encounter, which is the only single event initiative can be said to represent, except it only represents the timing of its outcomes and not the outcomes themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

You’re playing games with verb tenses now. I agree with you that for the fiction “I have punched someone” to be established, you must first roll initiative and an attack roll, compare the result to the target’s AC, and if it’s a hit, then it can be said that you have punched that person, and I haven’t claimed otherwise. My claim is that the fiction “I am trying to punch someone” and all attendant actions up to the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not can be established in advance of initiative being rolled and that it’s well within the rules to do so.

And that sets up problems. You've established the fist being an inch or less from the face of the person being punched, and yet if his guards kill you, that attack never lands gets an attack roll..........somehow. That's why it's better to do it the way I do and just use it as signaling that you are going to attack, not that you are attacking. The fist cocked back is plenty sufficient to illustrate that something bad is going to happen, without setting up the problem of a punch that has all but hit(all attendant actions up until the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not), yet never gets an attack roll. Because if the punch is that close to getting an attack roll, virtually nothing could stop that attack roll, even being killed by 4 guards.

Participants don’t “go” in an order in the fiction.

Sure they do. All attacks don't happen in the same second or fraction of a second. It's rare for something truly simultaneous to happen.

The players take their turns in an order at the table. What this corresponds to in the fiction is the order in which resolutions of actions taken in any given six-second period of time happen. This continues throughout the combat encounter, which is the only single event initiative can be said to represent, except it only represents the timing of its outcomes and not the outcomes themselves.

Where initiative goes wrong is in carrying over round to round. It's not even remotely realistic that people will have the same timing over and over and over. I will be changing initiative after this first campaign to be re-rolled every round to represent a more realistic in-game initiative.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects. For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn. So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends. Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.

Turn order is an abstraction. It's not meant to be realistic. Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well. Trying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects. For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn. So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends. Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.

Turn order is an abstraction. It's not meant to be realistic. Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well. Trying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.

That's simply not true. It would be true if I was trying to mirror reality, but that's not my goal. Those issues you mentioned aren't very big over all. They happen only on occasion, and it's actually more realistic if stuns aren't always precisely the same length

 

[Hussar]

That's simply not true. It would be true if I was trying to mirror reality, but that's not my goal. Those issues you mentioned aren't very big over all. They happen only on occasion, and it's actually more realistic if stuns aren't always precisely the same length

I think that it happens a lot more than you think. There's pretty much at least one effect every single round that keys off of a character's turn. Whether it's reactions, things like Shield spells or monster effects. I get the impulse, but, honestly, I think it's far more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that it happens a lot more than you think. There's pretty much at least one effect every single round that keys off of a character's turn. Whether it's reactions, things like Shield spells or monster effects. I get the impulse, but, honestly, I think it's far more trouble than it's worth.

It's another one of those perspective things. For my group, the minor inconveniences of timing won't be a big deal and rolling every round is more fun and realistic. To each his own.

 

[Hriston]

And that sets up problems. You've established the fist being an inch or less from the face of the person being punched, and yet if his guards kill you, that attack never lands gets an attack roll..........somehow. That's why it's better to do it the way I do and just use it as signaling that you are going to attack, not that you are attacking. The fist cocked back is plenty sufficient to illustrate that something bad is going to happen, without setting up the problem of a punch that has all but hit(all attendant actions up until the moment of determining whether the punch hits or not), yet never gets an attack roll. Because if the punch is that close to getting an attack roll, virtually nothing could stop that attack roll, even being killed by 4 guards.

The problems you’re talking about don’t exist. I think it’s sufficient to say if we haven’t determined whether the attack hit or missed yet, then uncertainty is still on the table. No one’s establishing an attack that “virtually nothing could stop”. It’s a punch in mid-swing.

Sure they do. All attacks don't happen in the same second or fraction of a second. It's rare for something truly simultaneous to happen.

I don’t know from where you’re getting “simultaneous”. Maybe what I said wasn’t clear. By “don’t ‘go’ in an order”, I meant not in initiative order. The absence of initiative order doesn’t imply simultaneity. What it means is that in a roughly six-second chunk of time, the participants take various actions at various times all of which take various amounts of time to resolve. For ease of gameplay, the initiative order establishes the order in which those actions are completed and resolved.

Where initiative goes wrong is in carrying over round to round. It's not even remotely realistic that people will have the same timing over and over and over. I will be changing initiative after this first campaign to be re-rolled every round to represent a more realistic in-game initiative.

That’s fine. There are lots of variations on initiative to choose from. I don’t think using a single initiative result for the entire combat is wrong, though, any more than using a single DEX (Stealth) check result to cover the duration of an attempt to stay hidden. It’s kept simple for ease of gameplay.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t know from where you’re getting “simultaneous”. Maybe what I said wasn’t clear. By “don’t ‘go’ in an order”, I meant not in initiative order. The absence of initiative order doesn’t imply simultaneity. What it means is that in a roughly six-second chunk of time, the participants take various actions at various times all of which take various amounts of time to resolve..

The fact that they don't go at the same time IS an initiative order. It's just not called out as that.

For ease of gameplay, the initiative order establishes the order in which those actions are completed and resolved.

Which is the same as the order they happen in. The various actions at various times occur in a precise order determined by initiative. If that wasn't the case, you could not stop someone from performing the action they declared, even by killing the PC. There would be no way to tell that the action of the now dead PC didn't happen at a "various time" prior to being killed.

 

[Hriston]

The fact that they don't go at the same time IS an initiative order. It's just not called out as that.



Which is the same as the order they happen in. The various actions at various times occur in a precise order determined by initiative. If that wasn't the case, you could not stop someone from performing the action they declared, even by killing the PC. There would be no way to tell that the action of the now dead PC didn't happen at a "various time" prior to being killed.

If your action declaration to kill the PC is resolved at a higher initiative count than the PC’s action declaration to do whatever it was the PC was trying to do, then you can be sure that the PC’s action was left incomplete and didn’t have the effect the PC was trying to accomplish. Narrate the outcome however you wish.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with rerolling initiative every round, is that there are a number of knock on effects. For example, there are a number of effects that last until the beginning or end of a character's next turn. So, the Monk goes late in round 1, stuns the opponent, goes first in round 2 and his stun effect ends. Or things like Opportunity attacks and other reactions get kinda wonky when you start messing with turn order.

For effects like this, have them last exactly a round. If the Monk stuns someone on initiative 6 then that stun lasts until init. 6 next round, regardless of when the Monk's next initiative comes up. These durations would be tracked by the player of the character that caused them, so here the Monk's player would, on init. 6 in the second round, advise the DM that the stun had worn off (unless of course it was renewed in the meantime, but you get the drift).

To cover Max's point about variable duration being more realistic (which it is), instead of having the duration be a locked-in 1 round (or 20 "segments") have the player roll a d20+10 to give how many segments the stun lasts. Stunned on 6 this round means you could snap out of it anytime between 15 next round and 16 the round after. (and don't bother telling me 5e doesn't have segments; for this, it would now)

Turn order is an abstraction. It's not meant to be realistic. Heck, the arbitrary length of a round is an abstraction as well. Trying to add "realism" to an abstract system is a deep dark rabbit hole that never really ends.

There's some places where one can very easily bring a bit of realism back in, and re-rolling initiative to simulate the unpredictability and fog of war is one.

Also, there's nothing saying that every round has to be exactly 6 seconds other than a "rule" (in other words, guideline) in the book. Most of the time it might be, but I know in my own game (modified 1e where rounds are nominally 30 seconds) I've had "rounds" last anywhere from just a few seconds{a} to several minutes{b} each.

a - an example is purely psionic combat, where each "action" happens at the speed of thought - the whole thing can be over in 10 seconds or less.

b - ship-vs.-ship naval combat, where it can take minutes for the ships to maneuver into firing position.