Losing Interest in the D&D Next Playtest?

[Shemeska]

I haven't been paying much attention recently, largely because so far they really haven't talked about any of the topics that interest me. So far it's largely about some of the rules topics and game mechanics, and I'll say the following, "In my opinion game mechanics and rules are not interesting in and of themselves."

You're making a new rules framework that seems to be trying to evoke some of the feel of various past editions and perhaps with a bit more stealth, some elements from 4e. That's all fine and dandy, and I'd play it if my group wanted to at some point, but the rules and their development aren't the parts of D&D that I find interesting or things that captivate my creative attention.

What are the flavor and fluff elements in 5e? Will they bring back the gobs of classic D&D flavor elements and tropes that evaporated or got radically changed in 4e? Will the Great Wheel cosmology be back? Will I get archons rather than 4e so-called "archons". Eladrins rather than the 4e sorta-vaguely-not-really "eladrin". Modrons? Yugoloths? Concordant Opposition? The cardinal Elemental Planes? The Ethereal? The Astral?

Will all of the other myriad classic D&D elements that went away for a few years come back? That's what I'm still waiting to hear anything on, and the answer to that is really going to determine how closely I pay attention in the future.

What's going to happen with respect to the various campaign worlds? Will they see support? And if so in print or only DDI? What's going to happen with FR after it pretty much collapsed with the Spellplague into something almost unrecognizable and the subsequent not-exactly-warm-embrace by its fans? Will FR retcon the Spellplague? Will it support the Spellplague as some sort of alternate timeline and go back to something more representative of the setting pre-4e? That's the sort of details: the flavor aspects of it all, that I want to know. That's what's going to be the baited hook for me to nibble at, and possibly get caught by for 5e.

Rules, not so much, and as such my interest has been fairly low in the absence of the more juicy things IMO.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, I cannot actually playtest it anyway, since it would require me to convince a group of players to participate.

Since the first playtest package didn't include any modules it also wasn't particularly interesting to me.

All I could say was that I very much disliked the example adventure (being bare-bones and extremely repetitive design) and liked the monster write-ups.

Also, the timing was a bit unfortunate because my DDI subscription expired shortly before the survey. I haven't decided yet when to resubscribe, particularly since I'm unsure for how long...

 

[GX.Sigma]

What are the flavor and fluff elements in 5e? Will they bring back the gobs of classic D&D flavor elements and tropes that evaporated or got radically changed in 4e? Will the Great Wheel cosmology be back? Will I get archons rather than 4e so-called "archons". Eladrins rather than the 4e sorta-vaguely-not-really "eladrin". Modrons? Yugoloths? Concordant Opposition? The cardinal Elemental Planes? The Ethereal? The Astral?

A designer has already talked about bringing back the Great Wheel cosmology, and the playtest document goes out of its way to mention the Ethereal Plane. This, along with the fact that "High Elf" is a specific subrace of Elf, suggest that the 4e Eladrin will not exist in 5e. The fact that Dungeon magazine has put out a call for freelance Planescape adventures indicates that it's on their radar.

What's going to happen with respect to the various campaign worlds? Will they see support? And if so in print or only DDI? What's going to happen with FR after it pretty much collapsed with the Spellplague into something almost unrecognizable and the subsequent not-exactly-warm-embrace by its fans? Will FR retcon the Spellplague? Will it support the Spellplague as some sort of alternate timeline and go back to something more representative of the setting pre-4e?

They said pretty early on that they want to support all of the Realms' history, and allow players to play in whatever era they want. Recently it has been revealed that Ed Greenwood will have a leading role in how 5e presents the Realms. Exciting times.

 

[Nagol]

The playtest packet actually does a great job of providing new instructions and plot hooks not available in the original. The Bestiary together with the Caves of Chaos provides many tools for DMs to still do an accurate playtest but make the playtest interesting.

I've started a blog series on how the D&D Next playtest packet can be used to convert classic adventures for playtesting purposes. Our group has played through Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, and Slave Pits of the Undercity. I've converted Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh as well for our next session. In each case we want things to be interesting, but our primary goal is to be able to playtest well for Wizards (our group playtests for various companies often and we take playtesting very seriously).

Making and using such conversions would be against the terms of use for the playtest package would it not? No derivative work, et cetera?

 

[IronWolf]

I was pretty into the D&D Next Playtest conversations and discussions when the materials were released. I still haven't had the chance to play as the test session I had scheduled was canceled at the last minute.

In the interim I was distracted by the bling that was Dungeon Crawl Classics and a lot of my extra gaming time has been spent reading up on that and playing or running that online.

In regards to pacing of the playtest, I think it has been just about right. I would rather they take their time, solicit feedback, digest feedback and make reasonable modifications based on that feedback. Plus, as already noted, not everyone has time to work in a lot of playtest games, especially if the group is not willing to put their normal game slot on hold and use the Playtest to fill in the cracks.

 

[billd91]

I'd XP you for the OP if I could, Russ. I'm in much the same boat. We've gotten in about 3 hours of play test so far and no prospect for more for another week. So far, most of my player seem to be liking it pretty well. Some seem to be itching for a little more structure, but so far we're quite patient.

 

[DaveMage]

That is a good point. It just can't be compared to Paizo's efforts. It's an entirely different process; Paizo had an existing large system to modify; WotC is writing a new one. In effect, Paizo was starting with the last quarter of the playtesting process: 3.5, the base system, had already been playtested by them and the public for years.

I dunno - D&D has 40 years of playtesting and feedback for what, 6 or 7 versions? You'd think they mostly knew by now what worked and what didn't...

That should allow it to be much faster.

 

[Warunsun]

I dunno - D&D has 40 years of playtesting and feedback for what, 6 or 7 versions? You'd think they mostly knew by now what worked and what didn't...
That should allow it to be much faster.

Actually, if one of the primary goals is to unite the fractured D&D player base and make a game that seems natural to all users of 6 or 7 versions that is a hell of a thing. I think it is probably impossible but it will take a long time if they are genuine in trying.

If you are trying to design a game that works and feel free to ignore what has gone on before then you can be much faster. You will probably even have a better game! But, they claim to be attempting the near impossible to make everyone happy. I believe a lot of this is actual marketing in action over a true desire to unite the player base. What Mearls & Co actually need is a game that people will spend money on or else they get laid off. No one wants to loose their jobs.

There is so much D&D developed and available on the Internet that it will never die as a hobby in our lifetimes even if it totally goes out of print. But they want to sell us more and they want to sell it wide. It is going to take some time to figure that out.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

That is a good point. It just can't be compared to Paizo's efforts. It's an entirely different process; Paizo had an existing large system to modify; WotC is writing a new one. In effect, Paizo was starting with the last quarter of the playtesting process: 3.5, the base system, had already been playtested by them and the public for years. (snip)

Actually, why can't they be compared to Paizo?

Look at the 5E rules in the playtest: there is very little original thinking on display. It's just a mishmash of earlier editions. It's not something radically new like 4E was and really has more in common with a homebrew or fantasy heartbreaker at this stage of its development. Now, if it were more like Old School Hack I'd be jumping for joy!

And that's what kills it for me: this feels like a fantasy heartbreaker. No wonder so many of us are losing or have lost interest.

 

[Morrus]

Actually, why can't they be compared to Paizo?

Look at the 5E rules in the playtest: there is very little original thinking on display. It's just a mishmash of earlier editions .

The hard part is the core math. 3.5 had that pretty much ready-baked for Paizo; they just needed to tweak it. WotC is developing a new, flatter core math.

D&D Next is a LOT more diferent from 3.5 than Pathfinder is. Its very underlying structure is different.

Whether you consider that worth a heavily-loaded label like "orginal thinking" or not is your personal choice - and I'm not really interested in getting into a debate about peoples' value judgements; but it is a difficult task and not the same task performed by Paizo designers.

Hey, you can compare anything you want to anything. I don't personally feel that's a fruitful exercise. Each is its own thing.