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.

 

[epithet]

It doesn't count as an ability contest, though. It is an ability check, but it's only kinda sorta opposed, since those who win don't have to do anything to oppose anyone with their turn. Even when it is opposed, it's not direct opposition like you have when you arm wrestle or try to beat someone to a ring.

All true, which is why you can call it whatever you want to. You can call it a contest, or a not-contest, based on your perception of it relative to other ability checks (opposed and otherwise.) It doesn't matter what you call it, it's just initiative.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, that's clearly not the case. If the Orc on the other side of the door is trying to push it open and the paladin is opposing that strength check, at the very least the ranger can use the help action to participate. It's not difficult to imagine that same paladin and ranger teaming up to push a hill giant over a cliff: "Let the warlock hex his strength, then you take the left leg and I'll take the right leg." A contest happens whenever an ability check is opposed. It's ultimately flexible.

The ranger is helping one of the TWO in the contest. If you read the contest section below, it specifies two.

"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 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."

If you want an example of an ability contest that's more like initiative than, for example, a grapple check, consider the following: the party makes an uneasy alliance with a hobgoblin to overcome the threat of the drow slavers who have captured them all. The group manages to overwhelm the drow that has the key to the prison, but that drow throws the key to an accomplice on the other side of the room. The pass is incomplete, and there is a scrum to see who comes up with the key among the drow accomplice, the hobgoblin who will betray you if he can, and your party rogue. All three make an ability check, with the high score getting the key in hand. Now, Max loves initiative, so for the sake of argument we'll say that it was obvious to everyone a round ago that the first drow intended to throw the key to his accomplice, and the accomplice, the hobgoblin, and the rogue all readied actions to catch or intercept it, and we're on the first drow's turn when the key is thrown. These ability checks are all reactions, all simultaneous. It's a three-way ability contest.

No one has said the rules can't be adapted to more, but by RAW it's two to a contest.

 

[epithet]

An ability contest requires direct opposition, and initiative isn't direct at all. Everyone is just moving to do stuff and the roll is to see who goes first, second, third, etc.

That really depends on how you look at initiative. It's like hit points or armor class in that way - it is an abstraction that takes more than one thing into consideration. It does certainly reflect who has the better reflexes and can react to whatever happens in the round, but it also is an active effort to do unto others before they do unto you. It can be viewed either way, and either way you view it... it's still just initiative.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course it does. The rules don’t say there’s no part of the swing midway between the punch being pulled back and it making contact. It’s a moment that “exists” in the fiction just as it would if the same situation happened in the real world.

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. They are about what they DO say.

This is incorrect. There's nothing in the rules that requires initiative to be rolled before a player makes an action declaration for his/her character to attack. In fact, for combat to be happening in the first place, someone needs to have made such a declaration, otherwise there’s no combat to resolve.

This is a yuge 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.

 

[epithet]

Max, come on man. Those are guidelines for playing a game, not Holy Writ and Scripture. The use of a two-person contest as an example doesn't mean, or even imply, that there can only ever be two people in the contest. The very phrasing of it: "Sometimes, this thing happens," implies that "other times, other things happen."

 

[epithet]

...
No one has said the rules can't be adapted to more, but by RAW it's two to a contest.

You didn't ask me, but I'm gonna give you some advice anyway, since you said you were going to be running your first 5e game here soon. Forget "RAW" and "RAI" as concepts in your first session, and for a few after that, too. They'll poison your thinking. Be flexible and adaptive, because you will be nervous (everyone is, even after they've been DMing for years) and you'll forget all kinds of things if you try to focus on details.

What you want to start with is "rules that work." That's got to be your foundation, and you can work from there. If you don't remember what the rule is for a situation, just think "what are they trying to do?" and "how hard is that going to be for them?" Wing it, make a ruling instead of looking up a rule, and the game will flow much better.

That said, when you get more comfortable with running the game, a few sessions in, trying to bring your game more in line with the technical rules isn't a bad idea. With a few exceptions, the 5e rules are a marvel of consistency and provide a pretty great framework to hang a narrative off of. Just remember that there will always be circumstances where you need to toss them out, even if just for a moment. Chris Perkins is a legitimately great DM, and he pulls stuff out of his butt when the situation calls for it. Your players will do things you're not prepared for, so be prepared to go off-roading.

Just remember, "the rules say you can't do that" is right up there with "rocks fall, you all die."

 

[5ekyu]

The ranger is helping one of the TWO in the contest. If you read the contest section below, it specifies two.

"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 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."



No one has said the rules can't be adapted to more, but by RAW it's two to a contest.

Except for the cases where RAW its not...

DMG under a section enigmatically called Contests again uses the common nomenclature of referring to one vs one for "common cases but then specifically calls out Hide checks **as contests** and the last time I checked hide checks vs Wisdom could involve more than a pair of folks.

"For example, when a creature tries to hide, it engages in a contest of Dexterity against Wisdom. "

Note that, as in the case of initiative, a hide contest involving more than one spotter can turn into a case where you best some and you dont best others at the same time from the same check.

 

[Maxperson]

Except for the cases where RAW its not...

DMG under a section enigmatically called Contests again uses the common nomenclature of referring to one vs one for "common cases but then specifically calls out Hide checks **as contests** and the last time I checked hide checks vs Wisdom could involve more than a pair of folks.

"For example, when a creature tries to hide, it engages in a contest of Dexterity against Wisdom. "

Note that, as in the case of initiative, a hide contest involving more than one spotter can turn into a case where you best some and you dont best others at the same time from the same check.

Also in that section it explicitly says as the very first thing, "A contest is a kind of ability check that matches two creatures against each other." Two. Only two. The portion on hiding you point out seems to be yet another of the contradictions in the rules that I've noticed. That appears to indicates more than two, but the wording in both the PHB and DMG specify that it is only two.

 

[Maxperson]

You didn't ask me, but I'm gonna give you some advice anyway, since you said you were going to be running your first 5e game here soon. Forget "RAW" and "RAI" as concepts in your first session, and for a few after that, too. They'll poison your thinking. Be flexible and adaptive, because you will be nervous (everyone is, even after they've been DMing for years) and you'll forget all kinds of things if you try to focus on details.

What you want to start with is "rules that work." That's got to be your foundation, and you can work from there. If you don't remember what the rule is for a situation, just think "what are they trying to do?" and "how hard is that going to be for them?" Wing it, make a ruling instead of looking up a rule, and the game will flow much better.

That said, when you get more comfortable with running the game, a few sessions in, trying to bring your game more in line with the technical rules isn't a bad idea. With a few exceptions, the 5e rules are a marvel of consistency and provide a pretty great framework to hang a narrative off of. Just remember that there will always be circumstances where you need to toss them out, even if just for a moment. Chris Perkins is a legitimately great DM, and he pulls stuff out of his butt when the situation calls for it. Your players will do things you're not prepared for, so be prepared to go off-roading.

Just remember, "the rules say you can't do that" is right up there with "rocks fall, you all die."

I've been doing this since 1e and I've found that the way that works best for me when starting to run a new edition is to start by following all of the rules, even to the point of slowing down the game to look things up. I learn best by doing, and doing it this way gives me a strong foundation to jump off of when I start changing the hell out of the rules. It won't poison my thinking, because my thinking is firmly in the land of the rules do my will, not the other way around. After the first campaign, I will indeed be adaptable and flexible.

I really do appreciate the advice, though. Not many here would try to help like that.

 

[5ekyu]

Also in that section it explicitly says as the very first thing, "A contest is a kind of ability check that matches two creatures against each other." Two. Only two. The portion on hiding you point out seems to be yet another of the contradictions in the rules that I've noticed. That appears to indicates more than two, but the wording in both the PHB and DMG specify that it is only two.

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

Alternatives, one could stick to RAW they use the two or one v one normally as frankly the most common cases likely are but the exceptions they note show it can be more as well if one does not choose to throw them out.

As I recall, the general guideline is use the common language and I can tell you in my experience it's not unusual at all to refer to "how to instruction" as if it's one working on it or interactions as one-on-one but in many many cases that is not to be taken as "never do more".

I mean, most likely many fast food training on taking orders references it as one on one exchanges but I doubt if a couple walks up and orders together you stay employed long if you tell them one person per order.