D&D 5E Comparing two versions of the rules

[Panda-s1]

Busted.

I'm actually a 4E Fan who has never played or even experienced someone else play WoW.

I'm sure I just broke the D&D Internet with that statement.

same.

actually that's not true, I did eventually play free WoW for a few hours and got bored. I then later played FF14 and became very not-bored, so I kinda get it.

but at the time people were like "it's like WoW " and I'm just like "okay."

 

[Charlaquin]

On a serious Note-

Second description has a tone that is geared at speaking to players reading the book and how the DM is likely to respond. It also goes into more detail of what is going on in Edit- Exploration mode. This is a player facing description (and more interesting by far)

First description has a tone that is matter of fact and is mostly neutral in player/DM facing.

Sort of. The second text starts with player-facing description (“Between encounters, your characters explore the world...”) then shifts to DM-facing description, starting from “Follow these steps to run the game in exploration mode,” and then returns to player-facing from “The Dungeon Master decides whether or not something you try actually works” on. This is a bit strange to me because it’s from the 4e DMG, so I would expect the whole thing to be DM-facing, since it’s not a book players are really expected to read.

In contrast, the first text is largely neutral, describing play from the perspective of an impartial observer, rather than directly addressing the players or the DM. This is also an interesting choice since it is from the 5e basic rules, and nearly-identical text is also found in the PHB. Both documents that are primarily for the players, but are expected to be red by both players and DMs.

One major difference that stands out to me:

Some tasks involve a skill check or an ability check, such as a Thievery check to pick the lock on a chest, a Strength check to force open a door, or a Perception check to find hidden clues. Characters can perform other tasks without any check at all: move a lever, take up a position near the entrance to watch for danger, or walk down the left fork of a passage.

This suggests that it is the nature of the action that determines whether or not a check is required - picking the lock on a chest is an action that inherently requires a Thievery check, while moving a lever inherently does not.

In contrast, the other passage says:

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

If circumstances make the action challenging, the DM determines what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results. This suggests to me that picking a lock might or might not require a check and it is the DM that determines whether or not a check is required, not the nature of the action. Further reinforcing this contrast is this bit from the 4e passage:

Decide what you want your character to do and tell the Dungeon Master. The DM tells you to make a check and figures out your chance of success (a target number for the check).

So, in my assessment, 4e and 5e follow the same basic play loop of:

1. DM describes environment
2. Players declare actions
3. DM determines results
4. Repeat

But, there is a subtle distinction in how step 3 gets resolved. In 4e, the DM determines what kind of check, if any, is needed, sets the difficulty, and interprets the results. In 5e, the DM determines the results themselves, calling for a check if necessary to help make that determination.

 

[dave2008]

Busted.

I'm actually a 4E Fan who has never played or even experienced someone else play WoW.

I'm sure I just broke the D&D Internet with that statement.

Same here, but then I really haven't played video games at all in many, many years

 

[Fenris-77]

Same here, but then I really haven't played video games at all in many, many years

Me neither. The last game I played with any fervor was Tenchu Stealth Assassin for the PS1.

 

[Charlaquin]

I did try WoW twice, but just couldn’t get into it.

 

[Bohandas]

THIS CANNOT BE! 4E IS WORLDZ OF WARCRAFTZ . THER EIS NOTHING OUTSIDE OF COMBAT


ahem...

I thought 4e was more like chess if all the pieces moved the same way

 

[Hriston]

First, the obvious thing is that the 4E text is speaking about a particular mode of play that happens between encounters, Exploration, while the 5E text is speaking about the game itself (which I would generally call exploration (in the Forge sense), or roleplaying, anyway).

Other than that, the 5E text seems to vacillate between resolving actions by the DM decides and the dice decide, whereas the 4E text seems to do a better job of describing the relationship between those two things in a more concrete, procedural way.

 

[Li Shenron]

Here are two rules extracts

These extracts aren't even "rules" by the way.

 

[pemerton]

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).

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":

You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​

So, in my assessment, 4e and 5e follow the same basic play loop of:

1. DM describes environment
2. Players declare actions
3. DM determines results
4. Repeat

But, there is a subtle distinction in how step 3 gets resolved. In 4e, the DM determines what kind of check, if any, is needed, sets the difficulty, and interprets the results. In 5e, the DM determines the results themselves, calling for a check if necessary to help make that determination.

I think there is a difference between the two sets of extracts, but I don't feel that this is it. From the 4e PHB p 10, quoted in the OP:

The Dungeon Master decides whether or not something you try actually works. Some actions automatically succeed (you can move around without trouble, usually), some require one or more die rolls, called checks (breaking down a locked door, for example), and some simply can't succeed.​

I really do not think there is a significant difference in the adjudicative funciton assigned to the GM. THis is reinforced by the quote from p 178:

The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one.​

I think both texts give the GM the responsibility for adjudicating the fiction, and then establishing whether and what sort of check is required. And both set out an account of how to do that (which I haven't quoted) - in 4e this is primarily skill descriptions; in 5e it is primarily stat descriptions with skills sitting under them. (I think this is one of the better features of 5e.)

I'll explain what I think the difference is in a separate post.

 

[pemerton]

These extracts aren't even "rules" by the way.

They are statements of the procedures for the playing of a game. I normally call those rules. But I don't think the label is that important (a rose by any other name and all that).