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.

 

[Mistwell]

Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party. Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group. So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well. Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.

Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own. We can always find another wizard.

Now, to add in the missing-info aspect: there's also a rogue character D in the party, a decent sort. In this battle D is also getting snowed under, only from my position on the field my character can't see this due to some obstacle or other. I-as-player, however, can look at the minis on the grid and see that D is toast unless someone bails him out.

So now we have three options:

Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up and let character C sink or swim on his own.
Metagame-driven choice: I go and bail out character D.

Great scenario. Useful enough I wish it had a shorthand to refer back to for other discussions.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, they aren't anonymous. We know who those half dozen or so posters are who keep saying those things

And in TwoSix's defense, those half dozen, while being prolific posters so they make up a good slice of the posts, are a pretty small % of the people who are actually members here. I would like to think that 90% of people on a 5e forum are supportive of 5e. Ambivalent people tend not to post. Like how I never posted during the 4e era. It's mostly fans, and then a smaller % who hate the game and MUST BE HEARD how much they hate things about it

True enough. I could call out [redacted] or [redacted] who raise the same complaint across multiple threads even if it's off topic. At a certain point it makes you wonder if they're just trolling.

But I'm trying to avoid another bicker-fest, and at a certain point I've just learned to ignore them. Well, I try to ignore them even if sometimes I fail my wisdom check.

 

[Satyrn]

True enough. I could call out [redacted] or [redacted] who raise the same complaint across multiple threads even if it's off topic. At a certain point it makes you wonder if they're just trolling.

But I'm trying to avoid another bicker-fest, and at a certain point I've just learned to ignore them. Well, I try to ignore them even if sometimes I fail my wisdom check.

You fail that Wisdom check a lot. I'm just saying.

 

[billd91]

I haven't been following this thread too closely, so forgive me if my response is off-topic. I'm not really sure what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s reading of the surprise rules is, although I tend to agree with his readings in general. Where I fall on the "sucker punch" issue, however, is that it's a matter of winning initiative, rather than anything having to do with surprise. Of course you can sucker punch someone. Simply declare an action to punch them. If you win initiative, then that can be described as a sucker punch.

Not sure I’d call that a sucker punch. The issue of relying on a lucky initiative roll indicates that the target of your punch isn’t really a sucker. Actually catch him by surprise and he can’t help but give you the first shot at him. That’s a real sucker punch.

 

[TwoSix]

And in TwoSix's defense, those half dozen, while being prolific posters so they make up a good slice of the posts, are a pretty small % of the people who are actually members here. I would like to think that 90% of people on a 5e forum are supportive of 5e. Ambivalent people tend not to post. Like how I never posted during the 4e era. It's mostly fans, and then a smaller % who hate the game and MUST BE HEARD how much they hate things about it

Yea, I just don't feel like being a strongly positive fan of 5e on this forum is going to get you a lot of abuse. There's just not enough actual acrimony.

Even 5 Int geniuses like 5e.

 

[Oofta]

You fail that Wisdom check a lot. I'm just saying.

The first step to dealing with an problem is to acknowledge that you have one. The second might be to take the Resilient feat. Or maybe I just need new dice.

 

[Hriston]

Not sure I’d call that a sucker punch. The issue of relying on a lucky initiative roll indicates that the target of your punch isn’t really a sucker. Actually catch him by surprise and he can’t help but give you the first shot at him. That’s a real sucker punch.

If you win initiative, that can mean that you did catch him by surprise (not mechanical surprise, mind you). If you fail to win initiative, then he's quick enough to avoid being suckered because he caught you out of the corner of his eye or something.

This is a matter of "pre-narration", a.k.a. fortune-at-the-end. I suggest using fortune-in-the-middle.

 

[Jester David]

Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party. Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group. So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well. Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.

Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own. We can always find another wizard.

Now, to add in the missing-info aspect: there's also a rogue character D in the party, a decent sort. In this battle D is also getting snowed under, only from my position on the field my character can't see this due to some obstacle or other. I-as-player, however, can look at the minis on the grid and see that D is toast unless someone bails him out.

So now we have three options:

Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up and let character C sink or swim on his own.
Metagame-driven choice: I go and bail out character D.

Great example.

You can get deeper still.
How do the players of C and D feel about character death? Have they had a bad week and need a win? Are they new or experienced?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

My point is that the player also drives the spending of the treasure. If my goal was to free my loved one from the evil duke's dungeons, my money would go to bribing the right people, purchasing information, perhaps raising and provisioning an army, maybe hiring assassins, and more. As a proactive player, I don't need the game to tell me that I can spend money on those things. As a DM, I don't need rules to tell me how much to charge for those things.

Hmmm - there's many, many times I've found the price lists for hirelings, servants, etc. in the 1e DMG to be extremely useful as otherwise I-as-DM wouldn't have much of a clue what would be reasonable to charge for such. Guidelines not rules, to be sure, but very useful nonetheless.