DDXP Begins Today!

[Stalker0]

I doubt we'll be seeing a character sheet soon.

We live in an age where everyone and their granny has a camera in their pocket, I am floored we haven't seen a character sheet yet, nda or no!

 

[mudbunny]

We live in an age where everyone and their granny has a camera in their pocket, I am floored we haven't seen a character sheet yet, nda or no!

My guess is that each character sheet had something uniquely identifiable about it, probably in layout, and that they also took the name of who played what character, so that they could easily determine who leaked what if they had to.

 

[howandwhy99]

For many years now I've gotten the feeling that classes and class abilities are thought of solely as combat roles and powers. The following quote from Mearls' Escapist interview about the essentials does a lot to ease my mind. Plus, they are deliberately talking about highlighting combat, role play, and exploration as different game elements. I guess we'll learn more soon.

Then you extend that to other classes, where it's really important to have that different feel because otherwise, especially for beginners, it's easy to lose track of "well, you're giving me all these choices, but what's really different?" If you want to sell me on this, and say what's interesting about this class and why should I pick it, you need those very visceral, big differences. That just flows into the rest of the design where you just look at it and say "if that's good for beginners," and if you look at advanced players - I mean, if you look the 4th Edition handbook and you look at those players - you have to be well versed in D&D to understand the difference between the classes. It's the old - I see this comment a lot online - "It doesn't read very well, but it plays very well."

Also, there was another thread were I posted my example of what a Cleric does when not viewed as a fighter. Below is the relevant portion. I'm hoping they take into account how classes mean more than combat styles.

I should point out, I like to think different classes are suited to different strategies when it comes to playing the game. Mages warp the world around them!; Fighters lead from the front and take out swaths of lesser warriors; Thieves sneak in, take everything, and leave the place unlivable ("How do we eat now?"). Clerics on the other hand, what do they do? Hmm... Here's my estimation of a high level cleric run by a masterful player:

The cleric goes down to the 1st room of dungeon level 1. There are goblins here, though few. The cleric uses his divine powers, wiles, and talent for converting others to convince the goblins to join him. He does the same in room 2 (it's probably easier as the others are already following him). After that it's the whole level. As they go down to level 2 the challenge is upholding morale and loyalty, not necessarily withstanding a confrontation. He does this all the way down gaining followers and power (big time cleric treasure) as well as goods and information until he finds the BBEG. Then? Well he tries to convert him too, because "why stop here?" But maybe this bad boy is a little out of reach. Or maybe he's an Archdevil or something else naturally evil and vile. If that BBEG hasn't had the wisdom to get out of Dodge City yet, then he's in line for a colossal smackdown. ...and almost every one of them holding a stick is from his puny, worthless minion horde. (Which he probably called them most of the time too).

 

[fjw70]

My guess is that each character sheet had something uniquely identifiable about it, probably in layout, and that they also took the name of who played what character, so that they could easily determine who leaked what if they had to.

If they did do that they didn't tell us about it so it wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

I too am surprised that playtest info hasn't leaked yet. I won't leak but not everyone is as ethical as me (I actually buy the books and DDI subscription I use).

 

[Alphastream]

Those numbered tent cards are a simple convention for tracking initiative that I first saw playing 3e, and I have used them during D&D Encounters (4e). I also know the DM, and Alphastream favors this method of tracking init because it gives the players a visual on when their turn is coming up. If there is a delay that would change the init order you just exchange the cards to reorder the initiative round when the player or monster comes back in.

So, in short, its edition neutral.

As my friend Saracenus says, the table in the first picture is one I ran and I like to use table tents. One of my friends started using the system in Living Greyhawk as a way for us to be ready for when our turn comes. I use them as both player and DM because it is a very strong visual way to help players know their turn is coming up.

Here's my question...

Can the demo-players who signed an NDA talk about ANYTHING of their experience? Their impression or whether they liked what they played or not? Or if I FELT like D&D to them, even if they can't say why?


Of a hypothetical 10 people, if 50% say, "good," 30% say "bad", and 20% are "indifferent", or 90% say "bad" or something, that at least gives us an overall impression. It kinda sucks if they can't even talk about their feeling of it.

In general, we can't share anything that isn't already known. You can't "disclose". If something is known to be true, then we can share it. For example, now that the seminar mentioned Vancian magic, I can say "yeah, there is Vancian magic." I can't tell you if that's all there is or anything else that isn't already disclosed.

That may sound crazy if you aren't used to such agreements, but they are very common in RPGs, the tech world, consulting, etc. I like NDAs because they prevent information from coming out before the proper time. Stuff changes and it doesn't help the customer or the company to have incorrect information. For example, I've seen really bad things in an RPG (I've been fortunate to playtest for more than one company) get fixed in the final release. Breaking that NDA would be a disservice to everyone, perhaps preventing someone from ultimately buying a great product.

On the general level, I can tell you what anyone watching the playtest area would have seen: people were having fun. I would say the three tables I ran were easily at the top of the fun chart for what I ran at the convention (I also ran Ashes of Athas - which I help administer - and played LFR). If you've read my Wizards blog you know I'm a gamer that started with Moldvay's Basic and I have an appreciation for every edition. I saw what others have said: may people say "this reminds me of X edition," where X was not the same edition for every playtester saying that. That's a really good sign.

I can also say, separate from the tables I ran, that Wizards is clearly committed to making changes based on our feedback. There have been good changes since my first playtest I mentioned on my blog. And just at the con I saw Wizards really invigorated around making a change based on a suggestion. It isn't lip service, which is really cool. That approach really makes me excited as a fan. A quick/silly example: the goldenrod colored paper, as I heard it, was a suggestion by a gamer prior to the convention.

Will D&D Next be your favorite edition? No one can tell that right now, even if they attended the convention. What is clear is that the playtest of the core seemed to go really well. The best way to find out and to influence the game being what you like is to sign up for the playtest and be a part of the process!

 

[Alphastream]

Oh, and one more thing. As Mike Mearls and others said, and as you can tell from the pictures they shared, we could run the combats with or without a battlemap. I chose to go without because I thought that would be fun and a change from what players were seeing for the majority of the con (and I didn't want to pack a vinyl battlemap in addition to my pre-printed Ashes of Athas maps).

I'll note that one of our 4E Ashes of Athas adventures had 1-2 mapless combats depending on the choices players made.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Oh, and one more thing. As Mike Mearls and others said, and as you can tell from the pictures they shared, we could run the combats with or without a battlemap. I chose to go without because I thought that would be fun and a change from what players were seeing for the majority of the con (and I didn't want to pack a vinyl battlemap in addition to my pre-printed Ashes of Athas maps).

I'll note that one of our 4E Ashes of Athas adventures had 1-2 mapless combats depending on the choices players made.

Hooray for mapless combat. I've always preferred it that way. On the one hand, I SELL miniatures (LGS retailer, me) so I play with miniatures all the time to facilitate that, but...

As a gamer I prefer without (most combats). The main reason would be: without miniatures, I remember being there - as if I WERE my character, seeing things from my character's eyes. WITH miniatures I remember playing a game, looking down at my character from above, detached.

Not quite as satisfying IMO.

 

[Alphastream]

I can say that it was very cool to see everyone's eyes on each other at just about all times. We were truly interacting with each other and feeding off one another.

I do like tactical combat (highly tactical, if you have seen adventures I help write), so I do like the grid and I absolutely love minis. I'm not worried. Best of both worlds? I think the community has the chance to help make that happen through playtest reports.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I can say that it was very cool to see everyone's eyes on each other at just about all times. We were truly interacting with each other and feeding off one another.

I do like tactical combat (highly tactical, if you have seen adventures I help write), so I do like the grid and I absolutely love minis. I'm not worried. Best of both worlds? I think the community has the chance to help make that happen through playtest reports.

Best of both worlds is what I'm looking for, too. Whatever tool is best for the job (I hope they do a good job of spotlighting which might be which).