D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Jester David]

So... they should force everybody to play D&D on a computer so that they can automatically collect play stats from everyone's games? Because that's how video game companies do it. It's the whole reason public betas have become a big thing; before broadband Internet became near-universal among gamers, video game companies seldom did public betas.

No, they should look at how companies running beta tests for ten times their numbers deal with feedback and see how they can adapt those methods.

Even simple things such as coordinating where feedback is posted on the message boards, posting lists of known issues and problems, having forms where people can submit problems could make receiving feedback easier.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I've been (and still am) extremely optimistic about the final 5e product, as long as the playtest continued in the manner it was. It meandered a lot, and each packet made significant changes. But if each packet can be considered a point on a scatter plot graph, I think it is heading in the right direction.

However, I'm concerned about the early end of the playtest for a few reasons.

1. It seems like they really need a chance to make adjustments to the Sept packet and see how we feel about them. It's a major update, and the history of the playtest has demonstrated that it takes a couple packets to get anything major "right."
2. I know I've brought up little details that I haven't seen anyone else talk about (I'm not arrogant enough to assume no one else brought them up in the survey--but they weren't a topic of any online discussions I saw), and they were easy fixes that were actually addressed in later packets. Without opportunity for such feedback, a lot of such thing might slide right under the radar.
3. It "feels" a little premature. As far as concepts, there are still some big things that haven't been addressed sufficiently. Monster design, magic items, healing modules (whatever happened to the scalable regeneration with a slow healing default that was mentioned on more than one occasion?) and the legacy system, for starters.

Three more packets is probably about right. One seems to be really pushing it.

Of course, I might be wrong, and they might show off their brilliance. I'm sure it will be a lot better than a lot of people think it will. If that's the case, I will be quite happy. Otherwise, I'm going to end up, yet again, with an edition of D&D (like every other one) that has flaws requiring way more house-ruling that I care to do.

 

[the Jester]

Read my second sentence. I also said you CAN run any adventure in ANY edition, and that includes 4e. BUT I pointed out that 4e has an expected play style and that play style includes minis and maps. To the general 4e player, that is what they will expect from a 4e game because that is the expected play style of 4e. This adventure doesn't conform to the standard expected play style of 4e, so it will be/may be disappointing to 4e players. I then stated that it will take a ton of work on the part of the DM to run this adventure.

I started playing in 1982, I love playing theater of the mind, and I have run 4e without maps. My preferred edition is Mentzer redbox basic, where the rules get out of the way and I can run the game me and my group want to play. But I still stand by what I have said. If they want to market MiBG to 4e players, they should at least put a disclaimer on it that says it will need a lot of finesse to run it like a traditional 4e game. I can understand why people who love 4e are not liking what they see with 5e and with MiBG.

Fair enough.

I have to say, though, as someone how loves 4e (while recognizing its weaknesses) and runs it pretty much by the book and with the expected style, I'm loving what I see with 5e. (But I haven't looked at MiBG specifically, so I can't speak to that.)

 

[the Jester]

Three more packets is probably about right. One seems to be really pushing it.

The thing that I find problematic is that we haven't yet gotten to playtest a bunch of stuff at all: no dragonborn or tiefling, no sorcerer, bard or warlock, no multiclassing- all important elements. I would expect that those things ought to receive at least a chance at revision through playtesting, and I'd think that a massive playtest of multiclasing would "stress test" a ton of combos and ferret out a lot of hidden problems. Here's hoping that there's still enough time for feedback on this stuff to matter.

Also, here's hoping for a fix to the human!

 

[DMSamuel]

Fair enough.

I have to say, though, as someone how loves 4e (while recognizing its weaknesses) and runs it pretty much by the book and with the expected style, I'm loving what I see with 5e. (But I haven't looked at MiBG specifically, so I can't speak to that.)

Yes, sorry - to be fair to you, I did go off on a tangent about MiBG It irked me a bit because I was very excited for it - to see a product that was usable by all three editions (3.5, 4, next), and I was hoping it would give some insight into the rules modules that are to be optional for 5e (tactical combat in a add-on rules module is what they have hinted). When it turned out not to do that it was a bit of a let down.

In general, I like 5e just fine. I think the June playtest packet is the most polished and close to what I want in a game. I think the most recent packet (august) is a travesty - no skills but throw in lores with a +10? No thanks. But I am just one opinion, so *shrug*

 

[variant]

No, they should look at how companies running beta tests for ten times their numbers deal with feedback and see how they can adapt those methods.

Even simple things such as coordinating where feedback is posted on the message boards, posting lists of known issues and problems, having forms where people can submit problems could make receiving feedback easier.

They aren't beta testing anything.

 

[Sonny]

Yes, sorry - to be fair to you, I did go off on a tangent about MiBG It irked me a bit because I was very excited for it - to see a product that was usable by all three editions (3.5, 4, next), and I was hoping it would give some insight into the rules modules that are to be optional for 5e (tactical combat in a add-on rules module is what they have hinted). When it turned out not to do that it was a bit of a let down.

In general, I like 5e just fine. I think the June playtest packet is the most polished and close to what I want in a game. I think the most recent packet (august) is a travesty - no skills but throw in lores with a +10? No thanks. But I am just one opinion, so *shrug*

It's a travesty because the skills rules module wasn't in it? It's not like it's a core part of the game. They have some fine tuning to do on the math before releasing the skills module in the next packet, it's not like it's been forever replaced.

 

[DMSamuel]

It's a travesty because the skills rules module wasn't in it? It's not like it's a core part of the game. They have some fine tuning to do on the math before releasing the skills module in the next packet, it's not like it's been forever replaced.

It's more than just the skills that make me not like the August playtest packet. Yes, I think it is a travesty because, as I said, the June playtest packet was about as close to great as I think the game can get as far as matching what I want out of a new edition of the game.

And as I also said, it's just my opinion and I know that, so *shrug* to each their own. I consider the changes from june to august to be bad.

Well, this is the playtest, so you actually can't say that it hasn't been forever replaced because, honestly, we just won't know until the game is released. Is it likely that it isn't forever replaced? Of course! You are probably right, but that doesn't mean that my opinion of the 'temporary' replacement is invalid. They are, after all, running the playtest to get feedback about things - this is my feedback, I'm voicing it in public.

 

[Warbringer]

I think we're saying the same thing.



If the core of the game Dungeons & Dragons is Abilities, Race, Class, d20s, AC, and Hit Points and people can't get through that list without feeling that the game is going in a direction they don't want to go at some point they might want to consider that they don't like D&D. Or want everyone's D&D to be another game.

I expect DDN to look like (even if it takes a few Splats and an Unearthed Arcana 5e):
Ability ....

I think we are, and as to the structure you proposed I think we get there eventually...

My opinion on basic is changing in that I think it will be even more targeted at the non-player demo than the redbox, given the brand conversations last night.

Hell, I think now this should look and feel like a board game... Sort of old hero quest meets whfrp meets zombicide ... 20 or 30 pregen cards, losts of cheap minis, 10 or 15 scenarios....

 

[Obryn]

If 4e is truly, really, someone's far-and-away favorite edition of D&D, than yes, 5e is probably going to hold little to no interest for them. To me it feels like 5e is designed for someone who likes 4e, but isn't beholden to it, or is more accepting of getting the same general "feel" as 4e without the specifics of 4e's structure. I can see it being very appealing for this kind of 4e player to co-create a "D&D experience" that works for them, while also allowing players looking for a 1e/2e/3e vibe to participate at the same table.

I'm about as big a 4e fan as you're likely to find, but I don't want Next to emulate a "4e experience." I have 4e for that. I need it to be a good game on its own. This packet looks good. Good enough for me to run a playtest with it ... which I'm doing next week. We shall see! It will probably not be my weekly game, but it may be another good one to pull off the shelf sometime.

-O