D&D 5E Comparing two versions of the rules

[Sword of Spirit]

TL;DR: In 4e it is the encounter that is crucial; in 5e it is exploration that is crucial. Frankly, I think nearly everything else about the underlying cause of the "edition wars", about who does or doesn't enjoy 4e vs 5e, etc, flows from this.

This would be interesting to discuss. I can think of how some of that influenced why 4e didn't work for me, but I'm not sure how much of it (even if we're limiting it to mechanics rather than fluff).

 

[prabe]

In the OP, quoting from the 4e DMG p 20:

Narrate the results of the characters' actions​

This is reiterated on p74 , under the heading "Running a Skill Challenge":

Huh. It wasn't clear to me that was speaking solely to the DM. It does sound more as though the players/characters are making the skill checks and it's up to the DM to say "no."

 

[pemerton]

This would be interesting to discuss. I can think of how some of that influenced why 4e didn't work for me, but I'm not sure how much of it (even if we're limiting it to mechanics rather than fluff).

You're right that I'm not talking about the character of the fiction per se. The basic fictional elements in 4e are pretty familiar within the D&D corpus (warriors, wizards, healing-and-fighting clerics, kobolds, orcs, demonas, gelationous cubes, etc, etc).

The "shape" of the fiction (not a very precise word, sorry) I think falls recognisably within the D&D corpus, but is not necessarily typical (depending on what one treats as the paradigm). For instance, the sort of game that Gygax describes in the closing pages of his PHB (under the heading Successful Adventures) and in the opening pages of his DMG (where he talks about how it might be permissible to suspend wandering mosnter checks in some circumstance) will tend to produce a fiction in which planning, caution, careful exploration (in the literal sense of that word), rationing of resources, etc figure prominently. I don't play Torchbearer, but of contemporary RPGs I think it is one that aims directly at producing this sort of fiction.

Whereas 4e I think will tend to produce fiction that involves drama, frequent (and frequently successful) heroic effort, and characters who are more focused on the "now" than on the "we'd better carefully check what's behind that door". I don't know many D&D novels - only the early DL ones - but I think the shape of 4e's fiction is closer to that than to the fiction that Gygaxian dungeon crawling will tend to produce.

I would say that the reason for that difference in fiction goes back to the difference in play procedure/focus and associated mechanics that I've pointed to: 4e treats the encounter - that is, the chalenging situation that demands a resolution - as the basic unit of play. Exploration (in the not-strictly-literal-and-more-technical-sense) is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. To borrow (and hopefully not mangle too badly) some phrasing from @Charlaquin, in exploration play, and in Gygaxian play, encounters are things that hold up your exploration (in Gygaxian play that get in the way of your looting, which is the point of exploration in that version of the game).

Whereas in 4e encounters are the crux of the game. To quote the back of the 4e PHB, The world needs heroes! Heroes are people who overcome challenges and resolve crises.

And in the context of a RPG, if you want the focus of play to be on resolution, then you have obliged yourself to come up with mechanics that will enable that. Which (in muy view) underpins all the more detailed minutiae of the 4e action resolution systems.

That's not to say that 4e is perfecly coherent - upthread I've already pointed to its muddled terminology, and it's littered with legacy aspects that push in the opposite direction to its general thrust (eg the presence of Thieves Tools on the equipment list, which makes prep and planning matter in that domain at least).

Still, I think the general thrust is evident, starting from those words "Between encounters, your characters explore the world."

 

[Charlaquin]

To borrow (and hopefully not mangle too badly) some phrasing from @Charlaquin, in exploration play, and in Gygaxian play, encounters are things that hold up your exploration (in Gygaxian play that get in the way of your looting, which is the point of exploration in that version of the game).

Ehhh... That makes it sound like in what you’re calling “exploration play” the encounter is getting in the way of the “point” of the game. That might be the case in what you’re calling “Gugaxian play” (I couldn’t say, never having played in that style myself), but it’s certainly not the case in what I would consider the style of play 5e facilities. The “point” of 5e play, in my view. is to explore what the PCs do when they encounter conflict. In order to do that, the PCs have to want something (treasure, fame, power, justice, revenge, whatever) and something has to come into conflict with that goal (monsters, environments, people, the gods, whatever). The point is in getting to see how that conflict gets resolved - in the playing out of the encounter. The encounter may be holding the characters up from achieving their goals, but in so doing it is facilitating the goals of play.

 

[Imaro]

@pemerton , I have to ask are you comparing and have you read the actual 5e core rulebooks (not the trimmed down free rules)? Because if not this comparison isn't really apples to apples.

 

[FrogReaver]

The big difference I see is that the 5E rules seem to say the DM narrates the results, and (what I have to guess are the 4E rules) don't say who narrates the results. There's an implication there that the players have more narrative authority in 4E than 5E, per the RAW (if I'm reading them correctly).

The big difference in play (for me):
4e
1. Start Combat
2. Play Combat on a tactical grid and become focused foremost on optimizing tactics
3. An hour later when combat ends everyone is drained from all the tactics
4. Explore / Socialize about 30 mins until the next encounter comes up and then spend another hour repeating steps 1-4.

5e
1. Start Combat
2. Play combat totm which for me makes it easier to roleplay
3. Combat ends much faster 30 mins or so at most.
4. Explore / Socialize for much longer

The backdrop of long tactical combats really made a difference in how the game felt IMO.

 

[pemerton]

The “point” of 5e play, in my view. is to explore what the PCs do when they encounter conflict. In order to do that, the PCs have to want something (treasure, fame, power, justice, revenge, whatever) and something has to come into conflict with that goal (monsters, environments, people, the gods, whatever). The point is in getting to see how that conflict gets resolved - in the playing out of the encounter. The encounter may be holding the characters up from achieving their goals, but in so doing it is facilitating the goals of play.

This is interesting. I've bolded two bits.

The first doesn't depend on action resoution mechanics or procedures. It just depends on players declaring their actions. It's the "Listen" step in the 4e procedure quoted in the OP, or the "Players describe what they want to do" step in the 5e procedure. (Ie the second step in both.)

The second does depend on those mechaincs and procedures. Because those are the means by which the people at the table work out how the conflict gets resolved. This is why (in my view, at least), 4e makes such a big deal of having robust conflict resolutoin mechanics and procedures, for both combat and non-combat encounters. Those are what we use to tell how the conflict gets resolved. The different participants engage with them differently (eg in a skill challenge the GM has a very different set of things to do from the players) but they all engage with them.

It's less clear to me that/how this is the case in 5e, especially as you're presenting it (or at least as I'm understanding your presentation). Eg if the GM is prima facie unconstrained in deciding how to adjudicate an action declaration, I'm not sure how the table gets to see how the confict gets resolved. But the players certainly do get to learn how the GM envisages the ficiton and its unfolding - which I would think of as a form of exploration.

This is what I was pointing at in my second reply upthread to @Hriston where I said "For those who do use [5e] for non-exploratory, point-serving play, I think they must do something to the loop to give it a degree of finality/closure that's not there in the explanatory text that I've quoted." I'd be very interested to hear what you think about this. (Not that you're obliged to reply, obviously! But the expression of interest is quite genuine.)

 

[prabe]

I'm not @Charlaquin but I'll chime in (and she can answer for herself if she wishes). I know you're using the online/free 5E documents, but I have the 5E DMG next to me, so I'll use that.

The first doesn't depend on action resoution mechanics or procedures. It just depends on players declaring their actions. It's the "Listen" step in the 4e procedure quoted in the OP, or the "Players describe what they want to do" step in the 5e procedure. (Ie the second step in both.)

"The players describing what they want to do" (or what they want their characters to do) isn't the same thing as "The PCs do [thing]." In 5E, before the PCs do [thing] there are two questions the DM needs to answer (DMG, p. 237): Is the task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? Is the task so inappropriate or impossible that it can't work?

If the answer to both questions is "no," then you can roll, maybe (I personally use a lot of passive scores, rather than interrupt, e.g., a social interaction). Once you've rolled (or decided you won't), then the PCs do [thing], or maybe [other thing] happens, depending.

The second does depend on those mechaincs and procedures. Because those are the means by which the people at the table work out how the conflict gets resolved. This is why (in my view, at least), 4e makes such a big deal of having robust conflict resolutoin mechanics and procedures, for both combat and non-combat encounters. Those are what we use to tell how the conflict gets resolved. The different participants engage with them differently (eg in a skill challenge the GM has a very different set of things to do from the players) but they all engage with them.

It's less clear to me that/how this is the case in 5e, especially as you're presenting it (or at least as I'm understanding your presentation). Eg if the GM is prima facie unconstrained in deciding how to adjudicate an action declaration, I'm not sure how the table gets to see how the confict gets resolved. But the players certainly do get to learn how the GM envisages the ficiton and its unfolding - which I would think of as a form of exploration.

It doesn't feel to me as though the DM in 5E is as unconstrained as you think, nor am I sure how you've come to think the table doesn't get to see the conflict resolved. PC wants to talk down the seller of a river boat, and makes Charisma (Persuasion) roll (and rolls high, because the character is a bard and built to be good at this); DM knows how low the seller can go, and reduces the price to that. It's not super conflicty, I'll grant, but I think there's resolution there. I know 4E had Skill Challenges, but not having played that, I don't have that as a point of comparison.

This is what I was pointing at in my second reply upthread to @Hriston where I said "For those who do use [5e] for non-exploratory, point-serving play, I think they must do something to the loop to give it a degree of finality/closure that's not there in the explanatory text that I've quoted." I'd be very interested to hear what you think about this. (Not that you're obliged to reply, obviously! But the expression of interest is quite genuine.)

I think I don't understand what you mean by "non-explanatory, point-serving play." I also don't understand why you think there's no finality or closure in ... non-combat encounters (might be too broad; feel free to narrow). It's not unusual for me to have a session with no combat, and nothing but interacting with the world and people, and doing research, and all-a-that; any of which can move the relevant story thread/s along at least as much as fighting can. To me, it feels as though moving the story thread/s along is the point of the play, and 5E at least seems to be working well for that.

It is, of course, possible-shading-to-probable that between your not having played 5E and my not having played 4E, conversation is ... more difficult.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I’ve been trying to come up with a response myself, but a lot of the language you use is very alien to me, @pemerton . I will post something on the subject later, though.