Run It

I know we've all got our preconceived notions and idealized game-runs bumping around in our brains. From "No save or die!" to "Fighters must have powers!" to "Wizards can't have at-wills!", we've all got stakes in the sand.

And I know we're all hopeless tinkerers and engineers. We all can see what new characters we can make and what new experiences we can have and what new monsters we can engineer.

But as we're playtesting, I'd like us to, if possible, keep something in mind:

We're playtesting the thing in front of us as it is.

Run it.

As it is.

Put aside your philosophies and ideals and tinkering tools for a moment, and see what happens when you run it as it is presented. Imagine this is the first time you've ever run a pen-and-paper game. See what happens.

That's going to be the most useful feedback. If we can describe not what we'd like to see or what we might think is best, but if we can describe actual play experiences we've had with the actual rules in front of us.

We can bring back in our philosophies and our tinkering at some later point. Keep them, but keep them in the back of your mind.

Let the rules be what they are. Judge them for what they are, and the experience they deliver. Don't hold them up to the ideal in your head. Hold them up to the clear light of day. Do science to them. Explore them. Use them. Then digest your reactions to the actual play.

I know it's tough. And I know that the first page of this thread will have people saying "No, shut up KM." But I really think the best thing we can do is be objective about our actual experiences, not evangelistic about what we hope to experience.

We'd all like to run our own awesome D&D Games. But, do you see that game in front of you?

Run it.

100% agree. I've seen a few things I don't like at face value, but I'm going to go with them for now.

Doesn't do any good to test our own version of the game.

Agreed. Running it is the what they intended us to do with it. While I have enjoyed the theoretical debate on a couple of topics I really want to see how this thing plays! Now if only they'd let us run it via VTT....

Must spread xp around jadda, jadda...

By which I mean to say you are 100% correct.

I myself feel the urge to change long rests and shift around some themes and backgrounds, but I shall not. It helps that the prospect of shaping the next edition of D&D by a tiny degree and DMing again help motivate me. It doesn't help that I have to twiddle my thumbs until my prospective players all find the time for a game.

This is definitely the best way to approach playtesting.

It is however also quite useful to discuss the playtesting material itself, becasuse at least for me there are a few things which I am failing to understand, and of course if I cannot understand something then how can I test it properly?

I'm glad you posted this; I think it definitely needed to be said.

Playtest the rules the way they are, and focus on the internal consistency of what you have. THEN if you want to try some new idea and can explain whether it worked better or worse, you can do that.

I couldn't agree more. Seriously.

I totally agree with OP

I don't know if I can run Caves of Chaos as is. I don't understand it. It doesn't jive with any version of D&D I've ever played and enjoyed. And I get bored silly playing dungeon delves. If I'm going to do any playtesting, it will be using an actual adventure, that I or another DM writes, in a universe we're familiar with, which automatically means, tinkering. Otherwise, if I try to run Caves of Chaos, I'm guaranteed to have a dismal time. And that's going to affect my feedback.

Read DM Guidelines, Page 1, the paragraph starting with "The first rule of being a good DM". In Captain Barbosa's words, the documents are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

If after the first combat, the fighter's player says, "Dude I don't feel like a fighter at all, I can't mark anything, I can't stop people from running by me to attack the wizard, I can't tide of iron, I can't second wind or come back strike, I can't do jack! And the cleric healed the wizard, so I'm going into the next fight with half my hit points, and that's after expending my one hit die!" I might pause and say, "okay, let's try this, everyone heal up to full, hey cleric, you still have your spell slot where you used cure light during the rest, Fighter, change your theme from Slayer to Guardian, let's see how that goes. I'll stick some healing potions in the next encounter to ease up the hit point situation, and we'll go from there."

Then if I provide this as my experience with the playtest, I don't think Mearls is going to knock on our door and tell us we're doing it wrong. It's as valid a feedback as any. I have 4 different groups I play with, that bring 4 different styles to the table. Tinkering is just the nature of the beast for D&D. And I believe for the first time, they are taking this into account.

I think you're missing the point, [MENTION=65726]Mengu[/MENTION].

Maybe try Caves of Chaos. You might like it. How do you know it'll be dismal if you've never played anything like it?

And, maybe tell your Fighter player, "Hey, maybe I didn't explain that we weren't playing 4E tonight. We're playing the 5E playtest and things are going to be different. Sometimes different requires an adjustment period. Let's give it a shot. If we all hate 5E after we're done with this Caves of Chaos thingy, our 4E books are right there within arm's reach... "