It'll look like the latest game to have D&D on the cover. And it'll look a lot more like D&D than it does other systems. It's not going to be like Runequest, or Legends of Anglerre, or WFRP, or The One Ring, or anything else but D&D and it's derivatives. It may turn out to be a superficial resemblance, but looking like D&D isn't going to be the problem. Playing like D&D, when there are so many different ways to play and different versions have such different consequences for playing in particular ways; it's beyond any game to manage that.
D&D 5E I'm just not that "Psyched" about Next.
It'll look like the latest game to have D&D on the cover. And it'll look a lot more like D&D than it does other systems. It's not going to be like Runequest, or Legends of Anglerre, or WFRP, or The One Ring, or anything else but D&D and it's derivatives. It may turn out to be a superficial resemblance, but looking like D&D isn't going to be the problem. Playing like D&D, when there are so many different ways to play and different versions have such different consequences for playing in particular ways; it's beyond any game to manage that.
tlantl
First Post
Yes well there's that I guess.
The problem for me is that the last four iterations of the game went from bad to worse. With few if any redeeming features. I used to look forward to writing the next chapter of my adventures and getting the gang together to play, 3e came along and made DMing a chore. 4e came along and I no longer want to play D&D.
Next is their chance to earn back my trust but it seems that they are already heading in a direction that I'm not a big fan of, so unless Next looks a lot different than the other garbage they've tried to foist on me then I'll keep my money and find a group that doesn't have a hard on against AD&D.
Last edited:
To me 4e is definitely different from 3.5 and much better than anything before . It has new mechanics and by far the best combat rules and character building tools . And with every iteration of Next I see more 4e creeping in.
Steely_Dan
First Post
Hence my trepidation with the latest playtest packet, hopefully they stick more with the 1st packet in the next one.
Hussar
Legend
The problem with that though is that you're basically saying that they're done. They got it right in the first package and nothing else is needed. Which is great for you, but, if they truly want to develop a new game, they're going to have to keep piling stuff on to see what works and what doesn't.
Going "back" to an earlier iteration isn't what playtesting is about.
I have to agree when i step back and look at my overall enjoyment of D&D from the early 80s to today it has been a slight but steady angle of decline from AD&D to 4E. I still hold out hope that 5E can reverse that trend. The good news is by the time the two remaining years of playtesting are completed I should know one way or the other without spending a dime.
Ahnehnois
First Post
It's about finding the best rules, regardless of which iteration they come from. If a new addition to the playtest is poorly received, it should be either changed or removed. Otherwise, why bother playtesting at all?
CasvalRemDeikun
Adventurer
While true, we really don't know the answer to which one was liked more until we see the next playtest. If it backtracks to something more like the first playtest, then it is safe to assume that more people liked the first playtest better, if it continues the trend set forth by the second playtest, it is safe to assume that the second playtest was liked more.
To be honest, I would rather they didn't even bother with the third playtest. They have already said that one of the things that a great deal of people are clamoring for WON'T be in it, so why not take the energy they would be putting into reviewing the results of the third playtest and put them into creating the fourth one (though, in this case, it would end up being the third one).
Hussar
Legend
Agreed. I don't know why you'd think I'd not agree with that. But, just because an addition is well received doesn't mean that you stop either. Something that is well received can still be changed and modified in an attempt to make it better. If the changes are not approved of, then step back to the earlier iteration.
But you can't simply say, "Well, 80% of playtesters liked X, so, I guess X is in" and move on. Well, you can do that, but, then you're going to annoy the crap out of a lot of people. Because that 20% that don't like X will rarely be the same 20% that don't like Y and you wind up with no one actually liking your game.
Warbringer
Explorer
Innovation rarely comes from customer surveys and test feedbacks, but they can help you build a pretty complex trade off model about how those innovations are perceived.
As play testers we are seeing the elements as linear elements, because thats how they are being presented. The analysis shows how's the elements interconnect , and if the surveys are properly designed, where the trade off points are ( if not ...they should call me
)
I expect to see many disparate and novel elements in the playtests over the next 9-12 months ... And, i am really looking forward to the next playtest...
As play testers we are seeing the elements as linear elements, because thats how they are being presented. The analysis shows how's the elements interconnect , and if the surveys are properly designed, where the trade off points are ( if not ...they should call me
)I expect to see many disparate and novel elements in the playtests over the next 9-12 months ... And, i am really looking forward to the next playtest...
Similar Threads
