D&D (2024) Have we potentially seen the end of the OneD&D Playtest?

[UngainlyTitan]

I hope not. Even completely ignoring the issue of trying to revoke the OGL 1.0a or not even comparing it to the OGL 1.0a, the nOGL 1.1 is an objectively very bad license for a potential licensee and something that no one in their right minds (even those that still support WotC) should ever agree to.

I suspect that at a certain level that is the whole point of that licence.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I think the sensible approach (and the one the design team would like) would be to adopt a slower schedule of playtests, which would both result in more helpful feedback and give them an excuse to delay the next one until people have cooled off a bit.

I think what management will actually decide to do is try to distract people from the controversy by releasing new playtest materials. Probably whatever part they think will get people excited and/or distracted, regardless of what part is actually ready. They'll get completely useless feedback, but who cares, they don't need to share it. And then when their bosses ask why the company's top brand is doing bad they can say it's partly how much people hated the most recent playtest rather than clearly being the ineptitude of management.

Understand that WotC's management are mediocre at their jobs, particularly terrible at community relations, and trying to save themselves. If making the game intangibly a little worse (through getting a bunch of unhelpful feedback) and making their designers unfairly look terrible is the cost of keeping their jobs then that's the price they will pay.

 

[Azzy]

I suspect that at a certain level that is the whole point of that licence.

I agree.

 

[Nadan]

I am apathy toward the whole OGL sh*tstorm and still somewhat excited for the playtest, but if the insider mail speak true, those executives are really idiotic to handle situation like this.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am apathy toward the whole OGL sh*tstorm and still somewhat excited for the playtest, but if the insider mail speak true, those executives are really idiotic to handle situation like this.

Certainly seems to be a case, where the senior management was not accepting (or perhaps even looking at) feedback from the trenches.

I cannot imagine that Crawford or Perkins could not have told them the likely outcome and if they listened they could have gamed out at least a decent PR strategy.

 

[Greg Benage]

I suspect that at a certain level that is the whole point of that licence.

Yeah, I suspect they’re quite happy with all the support for D&D on DMs Guild.

 

[Blue]

I fail to see why OGL drama would change wizards plans for the playtest.

If I playtest your game, and don't tell you anything or tell you untruths, does this help you?

The point of the thread is that right now there will likely be (a) a lot less responses ("don't tell you anything") and (b) a lot more review bombing ("I tell you untruths").

If you aren't going to get a good amount of honest feedback, then sending out playtest documents is useless.

They still need to sell books. And it's been 10 years since they updated the players handbook. And they still want feedback on those updates.

It's still in their best interest to make the best one DnD game, for the most players, that they can.

Sure, but a public playtest may have tainted feedback right now.

 

[SkidAce]

I think maybe they have delayed or stopped releasing the playtest material because they think we might call their bluff on 1.0a being revoked.

And we might publish it for ourselves, lessoning the draw of OneD&D.

Or at least steal the bits we like for our homebrew 5e games, which is what I'm likely to do.

 

[mellored]

If I playtest your game, and don't tell you anything or tell you untruths, does this help you?

The point of the thread is that right now there will likely be (a) a lot less responses ("don't tell you anything") and (b) a lot more review bombing ("I tell you untruths").

If you aren't going to get a good amount of honest feedback, then sending out playtest documents is useless.


Sure, but a public playtest may have tainted feedback right now.

Can't say I see how review bombing would help anything. Nor do I see it being very effective.

I mean, how does making clerics worse help anyone, or get them to change OGL?

And it's pretty trivia to throw out all the 0 score surveys. A lot less work than you spent filling it out.

Canceling your subscription, on the other hand, should be effective.

 

[Horwath]

Can't say I see how review bombing would help anything. Nor do I see it being very effective.

I mean, how does making clerics worse help anyone, or get them to change OGL?

And it's pretty trivia to throw out all the 0 score surveys. A lot less work than you spent filling it out.

Canceling your subscription, on the other hand, should be effective.

some will review bomb right now.
It just a vent.

Next should be little more fun:
fill in survey as normal, just rate all features opposite.
What you thing is good, give it a little worse grade, what you think is bad, give it a good rank.

let them sort it out.