Lists of what I am not allowing will be passed around the room.

[Morrus]

There's no need to playtest every rule. Sometimes you can tell by reading alone. Take the Slayer theme. I don't have to see it in play to know I don't like it. Sometimes you don't actually have to eat the dog poop to know it's gonna taste foul.

That's not the point of play testing. The point is to play the rules presented and then answer the specific survey questions about it. That feedback is then used to develop the game. If you haven't played the system as presented, you can't answer the questions honestly, and posting on a forum "I didn't like the look of the play test material so I changed it" isn't feedback in any meaningful sense.

A play test is a two-way thing; it carries an obligation. It's not a free gift. Sure, you can ignore that and just play the thing as a free game and change it about how you like, and nobody can stop you, but let's not pretend you're play testing at that point.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

A little... early for this, eh?

Also, players will have expectations. Human nature and all. A good DM doesn't stand on high and proclaim "thou shalt not have expectations". That would be silly -- though somewhat appealingly megalomaniacal. A good DM manages expectations, often meeting their players halfway.

The problem is D&D Next is coming off as everything is optional to a whole new level. If they come through with what they claim then you have to be careful with your expectations because each game will most likely be different.

 

[Tallifer]

It looks to me like I will have to go through Next with a fine tooth comb and make a list of what I don't want to use, and pass that around to my players. In my opinion this seems like it's going to be a lot of work and that player's can't have expectations until after they have spoken with their DM.

It must be fun to play with such an adversarial dungeon master. Why not ask your players what they want to do and go with the flow?

 

[El Mahdi]

It must be fun to play with such an adversarial dungeon master. Why not ask your players what they want to do and go with the flow?

Or another approach, find out what your players want, be open about what you want as DM, then chart a course that fulfills both. It's a group game, and the DM is also part of that group.

However, some do find playing with adversarial DM's as "fun". You may not, as I also do not, but it's just as much an acceptable and viable way to play an RPG as yours and mine.

I think one should be careful about trying to color somebody else's play style or preferences as "unfun"...

 

[Mercule]

There's no need to playtest every rule. Sometimes you can tell by reading alone. Take the Slayer theme. I don't have to see it in play to know I don't like it. Sometimes you don't actually have to eat the dog poop to know it's gonna taste foul.

Yes and no. I can tell you that I don't like the flavor of a martial character (Rogue) getting what can only be considered a supernatural ability (night vision at 2nd level), even though I think it's quite balanced.

Mechanics, not so much. I thought I was going to hate skills as ability checks and had a WTF moment on reading the advantage/disadvantage bit. In the one session we've had, so far, I decided the skills might be okay (not sold, but not hating it). I also decided that advantage/disadvantage is possibly the coolest thing in the playtest.

Rules don't always play the way they read. That's the point of the playtest. Saying you can assess all the rules just by reading them is as arrogant and a developer publishing rules without ever testing them.

 

[El Mahdi]

The problem is D&D Next is coming off as everything is optional to a whole new level. If they come through with what they claim then you have to be careful with your expectations because each game will most likely be different.

Then I guess it's a good thing that 5E is being made in a manner in which different expectations (playstyles, character styles, etc.) can all play at the same table (at least to an extent).

Also, I think a system that can be a different game at each table is a good thing, and a feature that should be built upon and expanded as much as possible...and in the end means one doesn't have to be as careful. The game one wants is simply a matter of choosing the parts you want. That's a win-win for everybody.


But the quoted post above still doesn't answer what this has to do with the playtest... Are you foreseeing the need to do this once the complete game comes out (provide a list of what's not included...)? Or are you talking about providing a list to your players of the parts of the playtest you won't be using?

The first seems a viable assumption to hold or discuss. Though I believe that this system will more likely require a list of what you are including, rather than excluding (a positive default assumption, rather than a negative one...)

However the second seems to negate the entire purpose of a playtest.

Maybe you can clarify as to what you meant on the OP...

 

[Sunseeker]

As people have poited out since the first reply...

Your point? You were told just as the rest of us were that DDN is going to be the inclusive edition, not the exclusive one, and yet you constantly hammer it for not being your particular flavor of DDN. Like so many, I do believe you are missing the point and that DDN simply isn't for you.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I don't like the flavor of a martial character (Rogue) getting what can only be considered a supernatural ability (night vision at 2nd level)

...hm? Spending a minute in the dark so your eyes adjust is supernatural? Does that make me a wizard?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yes and no. I can tell you that I don't like the flavor of a martial character (Rogue) getting what can only be considered a supernatural ability (night vision at 2nd level), even though I think it's quite balanced.

Mechanics, not so much. I thought I was going to hate skills as ability checks and had a WTF moment on reading the advantage/disadvantage bit. In the one session we've had, so far, I decided the skills might be okay (not sold, but not hating it). I also decided that advantage/disadvantage is possibly the coolest thing in the playtest.

Rules don't always play the way they read. That's the point of the playtest. Saying you can assess all the rules just by reading them is as arrogant and a developer publishing rules without ever testing them.

Nonsense. From a mechanics perspective, maybe. But for flavor, I don't have to playtest to know I will not buy a game that has lots of mechanics like slayer and at will magic missile and healing to full overnight. I'm not contesting that it may be perfectly balanced. It breaks my immersion, so numbers be damned. Flavor does not need to be tested.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yeah, this.

To be honest, determining that you're going to make huge changes already is extremely premature - you can't possibly know how the system is going to shake out.

And if you have decided that you're going to need a big list of banned items in order to be happy playing the game, then it sounds like you may be happier with 3e, or AD&D, or another game entirely.

Your not getting what is being said. Apparently the game is being designed as one big option and those options aren't going to be for everyone, which the design of the game will be taking into account.

The options that Next will be presenting will not be for everyone, like the game is built for someone to make their own edition out of.

So in short, I will have to go through the game and decide which of those options I want to leave out and make sure I get that info to my players before each game.