D&D 5E Comparing two versions of the rules

[pemerton]

First, the obvious thing is that the 4E text is speaking about a particular mode of play that happens between encounters

When I promised @Charlaquin a separate post, I hadn't read yours yet!

To elaborate on what yuu say: 4e sets out exploration as something that happens between encounters. Encounters are defined as both combat and non-combat; the latter (per PHB p 9):

include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. Sometimes you overcome noncombat encounters by using your character’s skills, sometimes you can defeat them with clever uses of magic, and sometimes you have to puzzle them out with nothing but your wits. Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter.​

The topic of non-combat encounters is revisited on p 259:

Noncombat encounters focus on skills, utility powers, and your own wits (not your character’s), although sometimes attack powers can come in handy as well. Such encounters include dealing with traps and hazards, solving puzzles, and a broad category of situations called skill challenges.​

When you (i) read these descriptions of non-combar encounters, and (ii) read the DMG on skill challenges which includes discussions of skill challenges nested within combat encounters, and (iii) read the DMG account of traps which allows that traps can occur within combat encouners, and (iv) realise that some skill checks (eg Atheltics to jump, Intimidate to get a foe to surrender, etc) may be made in combat, and (v) read the bit I quoted to Charlaquin which explains how skill challenges broadly follow the exploration loop, then I think the clarity of these categories - exploration, combat encounter, non-combat encounter - breaks down a bit.

And the remarks about adjudication - how the GM has to decide whether to call for a check, and what check to call for - clearly aren't confined to exploration. If a player in a 4e game has his/her PC, during a combat, move from A to B or lift up a rock or whatever, the GM has to decide if a check is needed and if so what sort of check (and the DMG has a whole discussion of this under headings like Hindering Terrain), as well as deciding what sort of action is required (Minor, by default, but that's not the only possibililty).

My point so far has been that, despite 4e's aspiration to classificatory clarity, it's actually all a bit of a mess as far as classification is concerned, and the exploration procedures very clearly bleed into the encounter part of play. But that doesn't change the fact that encounters are at the heart of play.

And this is where I see the contrast with the 5e rules text, which says - almost as an afterthought - that "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured". This is a reference to process, but carries with it no implication of situation, or finality of resolution, which for me at least is what is implied by encounter (although my reading of 4e here may be influenced by my knowledge of other parts of the rules text together with my long experience of how it actually plays).

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.

This doesn't strike me as strongly as it does you, although I think I can see what you're seeing. (And perhaps what you're seeing here is what @Charlaquin was talking about in her post upthread.)

Given that I am now seeing it (or at least seeing something in this neighbourhood), for me it seems closely linked to what I said just above about encounters. Encounters demand resolution; and resolution, or at least satisfying resolution, in a RPG demands a process that produces finality and isn't just more open-ended talking among participants! So it's not a surprise that 4e makes a better attempt at setting out clear resolution procedures. Because it needs them if its to deliver the game of encounters that it is promising. Whereas a game of exploration doesn't generate the same demand.

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.

(Maybe that's an exaggeration - probably some people played exploratory 4e, though I'm not quite sure how; and probably some play encounter-oriented 5e, though again I'm not sure how as the system will push against them. But I'm reasonably confident of my general thesis.)

 

[pemerton]

the 5E text is speaking about the game itself (which I would generally call exploration (in the Forge sense), or roleplaying, anyway).

I wanted to post a separate reply to this so as to hive off the Forge-related discussion:

I think the 5e text is flexible enough to cover both process-sim-ish (in Forge terms, "purist for system") simulationism, and what the Forge calls "high concept" simulationism (which I tend to call 2nd ed AD&D style, or DL style, or White Wolf/storyteller style). That is, the back-and-forth of the exploration-oriented discussion can encompass both finding out how the world works as determined by the system (this is also the default ethos of Classic Traveller, I think, though not how I myself play it) and finding out what adventure/story the GM has in store for us this afternoon.

The 4e encounter breaks away from this (to use the Forge terminology) simulationism. Encounters have a point, and the system has to let that point be realised. It can be a gamist point (in 4e that's mostly showing off to your friends how deft you are in your mechanical and tactical play) or a narrativist point (which is how some of us on these boards have approached 4e). But the point isn't just to find out what the system tells us happens The system (and the conversation that is part of the system) is a means, not an end.

What my two-paragraph analysis leaves out is can 5e, despite its exploration-oriented play loop, deliver play that has a point? I can't answer this from play experience. I look at the mechanics, especially the out-of-combat mechanics, and feel that it may struggle a bit. That's one reason I don't play it. For those who do use it 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.

 

[Li Shenron]

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).

As you wish, but to your question "In what interesting way or ways do they differ, if at all?", I have to answer "in no interesting ways", with the focus being on the "interesting" rather than "no". Because these refers on general ways to play the game, so whatever the differences if any, they don't matter at all. They give a starting point on what the game is about, and then a lot of groups diverge into various directions. If the text is similar is likely because they wrote the section using the previous edition as a basis.

 

[pemerton]

As you wish, but to your question "In what interesting way or ways do they differ, if at all?", I have to answer "in no interesting ways", with the focus being on the "interesting" rather than "no". Because these refers on general ways to play the game, so whatever the differences if any, they don't matter at all. They give a starting point on what the game is about, and then a lot of groups diverge into various directions. If the text is similar is likely because they wrote the section using the previous edition as a basis.

My view is different. I agree with @Hriston (and perhaps to an extent with @Charlaquin, but I'm less sure there) that there is a very important difference, because one emphasises the encounter as the crux of play, while the other treats exploration as an end in itself.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Narrate the results of the characters' actions​

The narration is the conclusion of step 3 of the flow of play. What I see as the difference between 4e and 5e in this regard is the process used to arrive at that narration, specifically in how the DM determines whether or not a check is required.

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.​

The phrasing “let them make their skill checks” further reinforces to me the idea that skill checks are something the players are entitled to by the rules, rather than something the DM asks them to make to help make their determination of the outcome of an action.

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.

I don’t get that out of the text you’re quoting. When the rules say breaking down a locked door requires a check... My interpretation is that it always requires a check. Yes, the DM determines whether or not the action succeeds, but in the case of an action that requires a check, the do so after comparing the result of the check to the DC they set.

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.

I’ll be interested to read it.

 

[pemerton]

@Charlaquin, writing my second reply to @Hriston as well as my post just upthread reminded me of your comment in one of the other threads about the relative anxiety 4e (cf 5e) caused you as a GM.

I think some of this is the fault (to use that dreaded word!) of the 4e DMG, which could (I think) do a better job of explaining the tolerances of the system, the devices open to GMs, etc.

But I think this might also be related to a particular (broadly Gamist, in the Forge sense) approach to the point of the encounter in 4e play. If the gamist goal is to be achieved, by the players, by overcoming the GM's challenge fair and square, just as the rules provide for, then I can see how the anxiety (I hope that's something like the right word) that you described could arise. And I personally don't think this is the best way to approach 4e.

I think gamist 4e is better approached more "lightly" - so that it's more about showing off, through clever moves etc, then about the ultimate fairness of and victory over encounters. I think that takes quite a bit of pressure off the GM, and allows her/him to run encounters a bit more fluidly and openly and even frivolously.

My own 4e play had a bit of the above and also fairly light narrativism (in the Forge sense), and again that allows for a more relaxed GMing approach which still allows the players to make their points about character, theme etc.

The best 4e book, in my view, for getting at (or at least pointing towards) some of this stuff is actually the Worlds and Monsters preview. I think it's a pity that more of that wasn't further developed and then incorporated into the DMG.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t get that out of the text you’re quoting. When the rules say breaking down a locked door requires a check... My interpretation is that it always requires a check.

We've cross-posted a bit. But just in relation to what I've quoted from you, I feel you're injecting a rigidity that isn't intended or implied - I think it's more of an illustration than a blanket rule. (But in making that statement I think I'm drawing on other aspects of the 4e rules, especially in the DMG, and reading them back in to inform the text at issue.)

In my other posts I think you'll see how I'm coming at the phenomenon that (I think) is the one you're seeing, but in a slightly different way or from a slightly different perspective.

 

[Charlaquin]

@pemerton : It’s difficult for me to follow your point because I am not really familiar with Forge lingo. But, I do think your contrast of encounter focus vs. exploration focus is interesting. I’m less sure about the existence of a point as the key contrast between those styles. I think a “point” (though I would rather call it a “goal”) is essential to making what we do with all these rules a game. Encounters, in my view, are scenes in which there is an obstacle to the players achieving their goal. Perhaps that’s where the difference lies - in 4e style play, encounters have self-contained goals, while in 5e style play, encounters are obstacles to the accomplishment of goals that exist independently of the encounter.

Also yes, I do think anxiety is an appropriate description of the feeling I got from trying to DM 4e.

 

[Charlaquin]

We've cross-posted a bit. But just in relation to what I've quoted from you, I feel you're injecting a rigidity that isn't intended or implied - I think it's more of an illustration than a blanket rule.

I certainly think it’s possible that my interpretation was not the authors’ intent, but I believe my interpretation to have been a fairly common one, and if it was not the intent, that speaks to a certain lack of clarity in the writing. The 5e passage makes it very clear to me that a check is something I ask the players to make when I can’t fairly determine the outcome of an action on my own. The 4e passage makes it sound to me like a check is something that certain actions inherently require, and it is my responsibility to determine when a player has declared such an action and inform them that a check needs to be made.

In my other posts I think you'll see how I'm coming at the phenomenon that (I think) is the one you're seeing, but in a slightly different way or from a slightly different perspective.

Indeed, I think we are noticing the same subtle distinction, but have understood it in rather different ways.

 

[iserith]

This discussion's a little wanky for my tastes, but I didn't want this nugget to go unnoticed or forgotten in case it is of some use to the participants.

D&D 4e Rules Compendium, noted as "the most up-to-date versions, reflecting refinements since the current edition was released in 2008," says:

"The Dungeon Master determines if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation and directs a player to make a check if circumstances call for one. A player often initiates a skill check by asking the DM if he or she can make one. Almost always, the DM says yes."

I bolded the part you will not find in D&D 5e. I believe this further reinforces the notion that a task and a skill check are interchangeable in some sense in D&D 4e in a way that it is not in D&D 5e. This subtle difference, plus the D&D 4e DMG's open embrace of "Yes, and..." and other such player authorship make gameplay different at the table in my experience.