D&D (2024) You're not planning on getting 2024 D&D? Why is that?

[CellarHeroes]

Other: I bought the core 5e books 10 years ago. They're still in pristine condition. No need to buy a new set of 5e.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not sure what that means.

Assuming the follow the RAW, a group working from PHB will have their DM call for checks based on uncertainty. Working from the DMG, they'll have their DM call for checks when there are consequences that matter for success and failure.

DMG 5e yields something more like fail forward. The check must have consequences which draw the play away from outcomes that are simple dead ends. To give an example chosen for simplicity, a failure during a climb cannot leave the climber exactly where they were: it must be consequential (otherwise, don't roll.) Falling could be consequential, but so could something else... like dropping the precious porcelain vase you're struggling up the wall with.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Other: I bought the core 5e books 10 years ago. They're still in pristine condition. No need to buy a new set of 5e.

Agree.

If its a different game, I don't need or want it because I already like 5e.

If its the same game, I don't need or want it because I already own it.

 

[GothmogIV]

In those situations if the DM just decides yes or no based on his whim, that's not fair to the players. A roll is fair and the persuasion skill is generally the way to do it.

And I think that's the crux of it right there: if you don't have a good DM--someone who is adversarial instead of collaborative, for example--you need all of these mechanics in order to have a chance of success. The role of the DM is very different in 5e than in other editions, in my experience, and I can see where an AI DM could run 5e due to all of the mechanics and rules that player's can use while playing. Watching my daughter play Baldur's Gate III was been illustrative for me regarding how people play 5e.

To repeat: I want everyone to play what they want, the way they want to! Have fun with your friends. There is no right way to do this, only the way(s) that people enjoy. I hope the updated rules rock for all the people who choose to buy and use them!

Incidentally, my oldest is going off to college next week to begin her freshman year (weeping, weeping) and she's taking my 5e books with her so she can play while at school. Have at it!

 

[Maxperson]

Assuming the follow the RAW, a group working from PHB will have their DM call for checks based on uncertainty. Working from the DMG, they'll have their DM call for checks when there are consequences that matter for success and failure.

DMG 5e yields something more like fail forward. The check must have consequences which draw the play away from outcomes that are simple dead ends. To give an example chosen for simplicity, a failure during a climb cannot leave the climber exactly where they were: it must be consequential (otherwise, don't roll.) Falling could be consequential, but so could something else... like dropping the precious porcelain vase you're struggling up the wall with.

Or the rope above you snapping. I see what you are saying, but I don't think the 5e rules are exactly fail forward. The DMG includes an optional rule for failing forward. I believe they call it success with a consequence where if you fail by I think it's 3 or less, you still succeed but there is a consequence like the falling vase.

 

[Maxperson]

And I think that's the crux of it right there: if you don't have a good DM--someone who is adversarial instead of collaborative, for example--you need all of these mechanics in order to have a chance of success.

You had to have completely misread what I posted to come up with that. Nowhere did I say or imply that you need mechanics in order to have a chance of success.

 

[mamba]

And I think that's the crux of it right there: if you don't have a good DM--someone who is adversarial instead of collaborative, for example--you need all of these mechanics in order to have a chance of success.

not everyone playing D&D needs tons of rules as protection against evil DMs, that is a lot of you reading something into it that isn’t there

As a DM I can say, yes, the king found your speech convincing or no, you were quite frankly insulting to the king and his guards kick you out, or, quite frequently, let’s roll for it and find out if you convinced the king. There is no need for me to always decide that on my own

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I already own several versions of a game called "Dungeons & Dragons" (including 5e, and several other games just like it) with more than enough material to play for the rest of my life. Why do I need to continue purchasing new books for the same set of rules to play the same game if it doesn't offer anything different from the options that I have now? Making minor changes to the existing rules doesn't require a new set of books. That could have been done as an update, errata, or an optional supplement.

 

[Stoutstien]

Or the rope above you snapping. I see what you are saying, but I don't think the 5e rules are exactly fail forward. The DMG includes an optional rule for failing forward. I believe they call it success with a consequence where if you fail by I think it's 3 or less, you still succeed but there is a consequence like the falling vase.

This is the point i disagree with many gms and the DMG. Failing forward, partial successes, degrees of success, and all those concepts are just unnecessary noise that hurt the game and conflict with an eloquent process.

The GM should always know what failure means before rolling. If they don't know that there no reasonable reason for the check to occur. The dice are meant to be a neutral method to decide an outcome not a tool to inject randomness to the world for the sake of it.

This means that failure needs to be defined at the same time as determining if the roll is needed and the DC after adjusting for situational modifiers.

Where WoTC shat the bed is they gloss over the vast range of possibilities when your talking about failure. If you ask most GMs what failing means they talk about roll results rather than anything else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those questions are addressed in the PHB no added rules needed.

What does the new book have to say on the subject?