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]

Thus the need for the specific rule regarding the adjudication of a tie during initiative.

There isn't a specific rule, though, when it comes to DM vs. player ties. The rule given is identical to what would happen if no rule existed. The DM would decide. It's a non-rule rule.

 

[OB1]

5e is designed to play out like an action movie rather than a board game.

That is a brilliant insight and sums it up really elegantly. Only thing I’d add...

5e is designed to play out like an action movie rather than a board game or a novel.

 

[pemerton]

the alternative is a combat system that is utter chaos and virtually unplayable. To make a combat playable, there needs to be some way to determine who goes in what order.

Classic Traveller uses simultaneous resolution. So does Burning Wheel.

Prince Valiant and Dungeon World treat combat the same as anything else - the sequence of resolution is established via the table's (and particularly the GM's) management of the fiction. There's no action economy. Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic uses this approach to determine who goes first, and then the action gets passed to someone else at the choice of the person who just acted.

In a Wicked Age (which has a generic resolution system, nothing combat-specific) uses the same set of rolls to establish its version of initiative, and outcomes.

None of these is unplayable, and I would say that each is lighter than 5e.

In RAW, Initiative is not a "Contest" because there are mechanical differences between an Initiative check, and a Contest check, in terms of outcomes. They're similar, but not identical.

For me, it's worthwhile going for formal application of keywords in RAW because it means everyone means the same thing when they use those words.

The implication of this is that the rules, as presented, don't allow us to resolve a foot race involving three or more contestants. Which doesn't seem right to me - the contest rules (ie mutually opposed checks used to establish a ranking) seem to be applicable here.

 

[pemerton]

How, though?

Straight adjudication of the fiction. Opposed checks. Saving throw-type mechanics as you describe. Zones like [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] describes.

Classic Traveller (1977 - so not a new system) uses range bands to establish zones, and for vulnerability to automatic fire and shotgun blasts just relies upon the notion of "adjacency" and "in a group" (ie straight adjudication of the fiction).

13th Age is a contemporary system that uses zones.

DW just adjudicates the fiction.

Etc.

(Also, the idea that squares are "unrealistic" but measuring in feet is not seems implausible - how do we tell where your foot, hand, elbow, etc are in foot-by-foot based AD&D or 5e resolution? There is always going to have to be some level of granularity and stipulation, and by-the-five-foot is no more or less "realistic" than by the metre or by the foot or by the inch.)

 

[pemerton]

So, not to be edition warrior about it at all, but...4E rules have been very successful in a board game format, and I doubt 5E would be.

I think that's because 4e is a tactical skirmish game interspersed among freeform roleplaying - or so I've been told.

EDIT: Those games bear the same relationship to 4e as an arena dice-off would to AD&D. They don't involve adjudication of the fiction. They don't have a skill challenge mechanic. They don't involve any sort of PC motivation or protagonism. In other words, they're board games, not RPGs.

 

[Maxperson]

Classic Traveller uses simultaneous resolution. So does Burning Wheel.

Prince Valiant and Dungeon World treat combat the same as anything else - the sequence of resolution is established via the table's (and particularly the GM's) management of the fiction. There's no action economy. Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic uses this approach to determine who goes first, and then the action gets passed to someone else at the choice of the person who just acted.

In a Wicked Age (which has a generic resolution system, nothing combat-specific) uses the same set of rolls to establish its version of initiative, and outcomes.

None of these is unplayable, and I would say that each is lighter than 5e.

How many of those systems would just snap easily into the 5e rule system?

 

[pemerton]

How many of those systems would just snap easily into the 5e rule system?

MHRP/Cortex+ easily enough.

You could also play 5e with simultaneous blind declaration if you wanted to, or the classic D&D version of that which combines simultaneous declaration with side-by-side initiative. I'm pretty sure I've read posters on this board who run 5e this way.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - I have to admit, I'm kinda disappointed here. You've argued, at considerable length, in other threads that dictionary definitions trump game definitions - most recently about an urchin barbarian being impossible. Yet, here you are, ignoring the dictionary and insisting that RAW readings trump. That's a tad convenient, no?

It boils down to this. A contest in 5e D&D is any time 2 or more actors are trying to do something. End of story. Initiative is a kind of contest, because we are determining who goes first. Note, ties are determined by the DM which can be rolled off. All that means is specific trumps general. In general, contests resulting in ties simply leave the status quo. In initiative, ties are broken. That doesn't make it "not a contest".

But, hey, feel free to continue this pedantic wank. It's entertaining if nothing else.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson - I have to admit, I'm kinda disappointed here. You've argued, at considerable length, in other threads that dictionary definitions trump game definitions - most recently about an urchin barbarian being impossible. Yet, here you are, ignoring the dictionary and insisting that RAW readings trump. That's a tad convenient, no?

No. I'm not ignoring any dictionary definition. Basically, the dictionary definition encompasses all contests, but there are no mechanics for any type of contest outside of the two listed in the game under the contests section, and the special initiative rules which are separate from that.

It boils down to this. A contest in 5e D&D is any time 2 or more actors are trying to do something.

Not by RAW, and not by the Sage Advice which explicitly says otherwise.

End of story.

Yes it is. When you directly oppose RAW and Sage Advice, you lose without a roll as the outcome is not in doubt.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, good grief.

Contests
Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal—for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.

Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding.

If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.

Note, there are two parts here. The bolded part is the important part though. You can EITHER succeed or prevent the other character from succeeding. Just as in an initiative contest, I succeed at going faster than you. We are both trying to go first. Only one of us will succeed. Thus, we roll Dexterity CHECKS, just as in any contest, to determine who goes first. Now, initiative has the additional caveat (i.e. specific trumps general) that we cannot have a tie in this contest, but, other than that, this is definitively a rules based contest.

Now, you can play pedantic silly buggers all day long. But, at the end of the day, you are very much in the wrong here.

But, to be fair, I've completely lost track about why this is being argued. What was the original point that was being made?