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.

 

[reelo]

Could we, maybe, get back on, you know.... TOPIC?
Please?

 

[5ekyu]

Boy did this ever blow up over the last 24-36 hours.

A few quick hits on some random things read over the last 15-ish pages...

Initiative ties: why break 'em at all? Let things happen simultaneously - way more realistic, and doesn't break the game in any way.

What to spend accumulated treasure on: someone already mentioned training, which I highly recommend adding in if you're not already using it. There's also tithes (for Clerics, Paladins and maybe Druids) and guild fees (for Wizards, Rogues, and various others), which never seem to get enough attention. The realm might levy special taxes on rich adventuring types. There's strongholds, castles and fortresses; though why parties don't more often pool their resources and build just one castle as a home base for everyone baffles me. And all this doesn't even get to buying magic items.

Character sheet in the PHB: why? Hasn't anyone ever heard of a blank sheet of paper? Have some printable character sheet examples online, sure, but don't waste PHB space with one.

Adding pages to the PHB: adding means adding, not replacing. Adding 16 pages to a 320-page book thus gives a 336-page book, and as the original suggestion/request was to ADD pages with info relating to <I forget what, now> there's no reason to worry about what the new info would be bumping.

Lazy writing and-or design: for my own part, if someone were to call my writing 'lazy' I would take it as explicitly saying - not just implying, but outright saying - that I hadn't put enough effort into it. Fair enough if true, but valid cause to be offended if untrue. Far better to call it 'derivative' or 'unoriginal' if the intent is to mean that there's not enough new content and-or the content comes across as a rehash of something done before.

Lanefan

"Adding pages to the PHB: adding means adding, not replacing. Adding 16 pages to a 320-page book thus gives a 336-page book, and as the original suggestion/request was to ADD pages with info relating to <I forget what, now> there's no reason to worry about what the new info would be bumping."

I was surprised it took so long for this to come up.

This idea ignores several realities.

Publishing pages counts matter for quite a few reasons. So, just add 16 pages is often more than the % of math. Page counts are chosen and/or strongly influenced by many pragmatic business reasons beyond the "inside the game side" when one looks at large scale productions.

Aldo, the the more pages on x added, the more you increase the "stuff to work thru factor" which directly hits accessibility to newer players.

Finally, and imo burying the lead, the 16 more pages gets to 336 is arrived at with a false premise unstated - that these 16 pages on this topic are the only pages where some players or gms might want more info. In reality, there's more like dozens or hundreds of pages "needed" to address the various questions that go beyond where the 5e guys chose to draw their line.

Just look at the last few days on this thread alone - a dozen pages on skill dcs, pages on surprise and threat, pages on how many gp it takes to buy +1 social-fu shoes, etc etc etc.

The fallacy embedded in "add is just add" is that if that was the case all that would be added is that which scratches your itch and ignores everyone else's itch.

For these reasons that's why "add is really replace" is more useful as a premise for rpg choices like "what do we put in the phb vs the dmg vs the setting sourcebook and other later products?"

 

[Oofta]

Could we, maybe, get back on, you know.... TOPIC?
Please?

A forum thread needs a topic?

The original tweets could be boiled down to: "We looked at what worked and didn't with the previous editions and made a design decision that it's not practical to try to give people rules for everything."

So when people complain about the stealth rules (or the lack therein), they're really just disagreeing with the design intent.

But that would end up with a really short forum thread where people wouldn't have a chance to get their grundies in a bundle and bicker endlessly about minutiae. It would be basically "Yep, they were right for the most part" versus "I wish the rules would be more comprehensive and detailed". We could have stated our opinions and gone off to do something productive in about 2-3 pages.

But this is the internet, so that's never going to happen.

P.S. for what it's worth, I agree. But meanwhile I need to counter someone else's post, so I'll get back to you.

 

[Maxperson]

That isn’t how people work. The rare folks who can sustainably be on guard at all times are represented by the alert feat and/or very high perception.

But also because it’s incredibly rare, and because knowing things are out there doesn’t stop things taking you by surprise. Since I’ve mentioned it already ITT, I’ve been homeless. I’ve shared space with homeless vets and homeless ex-cons. Very alert people. People, in many cases, who see literally everyone as a threat.

Literally anyone can be taken by surprised, and sucker punched. That’s reality.

I get how a reality works. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in D&D, the rule is as long as you have noticed a threat, you cannot be surprised. Everything alive or undead is a threat, even plants. As it is written, you could not be sucker punched in 5e, which due to the afore mentioned reality, seems hokey. Except that a lot of D&D goes against reality, so you telling me that "It's plain, colloquial, language." doesn't change anything in how it is written, or what it might really mean.

no, it’s a rule. It is patently, obviously, factually, a rule. It is exactly as much a rule as “When there’s is a tie, higher mod wins, players win ties against NPCs.” It’s just a different rule from that.

I called it a non-rule rule, so clearly I said it was a rule. I said it was a non-rule rule, because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done. They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful.

But it is very spelled out. Just not as much as some other very spelled out systems.

4e is obviously very detailed. GURPS is more detailed. Does that mean that 4e isn’t actually detailed?

A system that is very spelled out doesn't have all the holes and ambiguity that 5e has. You can't escape a few, but 5e has tons.

Let's take a bit of the second page of the combat section.

Other activities on your turn.

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

This one contradicts itself within the same sentence. You can communicate however you are able, except only with brief utterances and gestures, not however you are able. What is a brief utterance, anyway? One word? Two words? Five words? A sentence? The whole 6 seconds? Clearly not the entire 6 seconds, because you can say a whole lot in 6 seconds, which wouldn't be a "brief utterance." Except why not the entire 6 seconds? That's the length of you turn and unless you are casting a spell, it seems like you should be able to talk that long.

Reactions. Entire threads have been devoted to trying to pin that one down.

 

[Maxperson]

Most of the games I play evince a fairly clear connection between the what and the why of play. Two of those games - 4e and Classic Traveller - place emphasis on gear and treausre, and it's clear in both games what that stuff is for.

That doesn't really answer my question. Especially since you also play games, such as D&D, that are built around the traditional style of game play, yet you have no issue tossing that aside to run your style of game. Why expect players to be proactive with goals and desires with things other than treasure, but not treasure?

 

[Maxperson]

So what is the analogue of rolling damage and tracking a hit point total in the case of the parkour jump?

Rolling damage is not a part of the attack role and resolution. Neither is hit point tracking. Damage and hit points is a different part of the combat process. There doesn't need to be an analogue for it in the skill process/

I don't think there is one. Which is my point. The core 5e combat rules are not "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you kill the orc". They're "Roll a d20 and add STR to see if you get to engage in this other mechanical process about ablating hit points."

If this makes combat different from skills, then skills are also different from skills. Jump results in moving through the air X feet. Knowledge checks result in something completely different. That combat has a different result either doesn't make it different from the skill process, or there isn't even any uniformity in skills, since like combat, the results are different.

You even acknowledged that there were a few skills that were "exceptions" to the rule. Well, combat is also a single skill that is an exception to the rule if you want to think of it that way. It's just a skill check that has a lot of time and space devoted to it, because you use this skill a lot more than the others.

 

[5ekyu]

I think your mistaken your saying designing good narrative and strategy are in ANY WAY mutually exclusive. They can ignore each other or support each other. Their is Zero reason why even choosing to make narrative your starting point or priority would damage your strategic your design. In fact the only real rule here is that both need to be functional and they are only strengthened when they support each other. In other words if I want the story of an epic Fire based sorcerer known for burning his enemies to ache having the ability to build that sorcerer brass dragon an ancestor giving him firebolt and burning hands means at level one I can be a fire based sorcerer, the dragon ancestry origin then informs that story some more allowing placing you on a path for background improvement... for example... I could have also have red dragon ancestry how does that inform my design? Do I have evil tendencies an have to restrain my self or strong desire to burn out corruption from brass dragon ancestry? Also, "Additionally, parts of your skin are covered by a thin sheen of dragon-like scales. When you aren’t wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier." I have scales!! Mechanically the AC bonus is nice... story how visible are they if they are red do the look like a rash? Do people who notice think I am sick and avoid me? If they are noticed to they fear my red dragon origins thinking I might call forth a red dragon ancestor to destroy them or perhaps revere me as if royal blood because they serve Bahamut and feel I am some how closer than they are too this great power? I mean look at the entry itself... its not just some bland strategic statement and its not just fluff ether... its both. D&D is at its best when they grow on each other not when people impose personal conflicting beliefs on "how it should be" on each other.

Sure some people only like the fluff... and others only like the strategy.... I have never found anything in the fluff you couldn't fixed by adding the right other fluff... and good strategy has only ever served make the fluff stronger while good story gives strategy purpose! Want to be a Nature cleric with a few levels of Arch Demon Warlock.... sure ...IF ... you can tell me why in a great story. Perhaps you lost your way in search of power and now your fighting to suppress the taint of your demonic warlock powers and gain redemption in your order through penance and that is why your questing... you have to perform 10 selfless deeds that protect the creatures of the forest that no one else could do or remain banished forever!!! To that end you have joined a party to actively drive you into harms way, into places of evil where the meek an innocent are tormented because their is no hope for salvation that does not have you coming face to face with evils as dark as the taint you invited into your soul.



Actually it is....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cak3ojSuJaM at the 13:21 mark they talk about how it shocked everyone because its now the 3rd most played class in D&D Beyond beating all predictions and and the wizard class in third, the cleric in 4th.

If they ACTUALLY said "3rd most played" I would laugh so hard it likely hurt before asking how they got that from their data.

On dnd beyond I have easily 2 dozen characters generated I have never played once for every character I have there that I have played. It's an easy generated tested for chargen. You gotta know tons of the characters there are just "what ifs".

How could they tell sort the difference between "played" and "not played but looked at"?

Do they judge plead by how many times I experimented with adjusting up on the fly - thinking each of those uses of the "in game tools" was an actual session.

One of the worst data fallacies is the idea that making assumptions "based on the data you have" (without understanding the data you have and its limitations) is "better than nothing" or "better than smaller pools of actual play experiences".

In my experience, one of the restraints on warlock play seems to be the baggage that comes from the patron/pact relationship. It seems like a lot of the more option/more complexity types also share the "less gm in my character" and so once a gm says "ok let's do the talk about your pact and obligations" they start looking for other classes or redefinitions of player agency.

 

[5ekyu]

I get how a reality works. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in D&D, the rule is as long as you have noticed a threat, you cannot be surprised. Everything alive or undead is a threat, even plants. As it is written, you could not be sucker punched in 5e, which due to the afore mentioned reality, seems hokey. Except that a lot of D&D goes against reality, so you telling me that "It's plain, colloquial, language." doesn't change anything in how it is written, or what it might really mean.



I called it a non-rule rule, so clearly I said it was a rule. I said it was a non-rule rule, because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done. They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful.



A system that is very spelled out doesn't have all the holes and ambiguity that 5e has. You can't escape a few, but 5e has tons.

Let's take a bit of the second page of the combat section.

Other activities on your turn.

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

This one contradicts itself within the same sentence. You can communicate however you are able, except only with brief utterances and gestures, not however you are able. What is a brief utterance, anyway? One word? Two words? Five words? A sentence? The whole 6 seconds? Clearly not the entire 6 seconds, because you can say a whole lot in 6 seconds, which wouldn't be a "brief utterance." Except why not the entire 6 seconds? That's the length of you turn and unless you are casting a spell, it seems like you should be able to talk that long.

Reactions. Entire threads have been devoted to trying to pin that one down.

"I called it a non-rule rule, so clearly I said it was a rule. I said it was a non-rule rule, because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done. They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful. "

This was referencing initiative ties and is wrong, just wrong.

Initiative checks are ability checks.
Ability checks where two or more characters trying to all accomplish the same thing (in this case go first) are contests.

Ties in contests are ***not*** defaulted to "gm picks winner" but to situation remains jnchanged.

The initiative tie rule provides a clear tie-breaker that other contests do not have. It defines that to the GM and that is an exception to the rules for ability checks.

 

[clearstream]

The original tweets could be boiled down to: "We looked at what worked and didn't with the previous editions and made a design decision that it's not practical to try to give people rules for everything."

Didn't he also stress that they don't want to make a game that encourages toxic behaviour? By implication he sees that to some extent as a design choice, which is interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

"I called it a non-rule rule, so clearly I said it was a rule. I said it was a non-rule rule, because it quite literally could have been not written without change to how things are done. They really should have just taken that out and saved the page space for something useful. "

This was referencing initiative ties and is wrong, just wrong.

Initiative checks are ability checks.
Ability checks where two or more characters trying to all accomplish the same thing (in this case go first) are contests.

Ties in contests are ***not*** defaulted to "gm picks winner" but to situation remains jnchanged.

The initiative tie rule provides a clear tie-breaker that other contests do not have. It defines that to the GM and that is an exception to the rules for ability checks.

Um, no. This is the rule.

"The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character." This rule clearly states the DM picks the winner, so you are wrong about that.

If there were no rule for that, the DM would still decide how to resolve that tie, going with the monster or the character.