Run It

[Janaxstrus]

Nice chorus line... Should I just take my feedback and bury it in the backyard then? I don't want to pollute anyone else's D&D.

One of the playtest experiences I read here, said that the DM hand waved a dead cleric to life at full hit points. Does this invalidate the entire experience? Does it mean that group's feedback is worthless because they didn't play by the rules? The rules say death happens, make it part of the story. This group played it like it never happened. Should these sinners be hanged? Or drawn and quartered?

It's a game. We're not testing radioactive chemicals that might result in a nuclear catastrophe if mishandled. Everyone will test however they want to test, many will not play it at all, just give it a read, and provide their feedback. It's not like we've been sworn to a prime directive we must adhere to, or else suffer the consequences of a court marshal.

If you read the OPTA, you might see you were sworn to a lot of things

To that end, modifying the game is useless to them in this stage of the feedback.

 

[FickleGM]

If you read the OPTA, you might see you were sworn to a lot of things

To that end, modifying the game is useless to them in this stage of the feedback.

Careful now. If you persecute him with facts, he may equate it to CENSORED GODWINNED!

 

[Fanaelialae]

Run it.

Of course. Keep in mind, however, that the playtest only came out yesterday. My group only meets on Saturdays, so plenty of us haven't even had an opportunity to run it as of yet.

Nothing wrong with discussing it in the meantime. After all, it's not so different from previous editions (in many respects) that our former experiences and preferences wouldn't be relevant.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nice chorus line... Should I just take my feedback and bury it in the backyard then? I don't want to pollute anyone else's D&D.

Parsing the difference between "feedback" and "This isn't working how I Want" is part of why I posted.

One of the playtest experiences I read here, said that the DM hand waved a dead cleric to life at full hit points. Does this invalidate the entire experience? Does it mean that group's feedback is worthless because they didn't play by the rules? The rules say death happens, make it part of the story. This group played it like it never happened. Should these sinners be hanged? Or drawn and quartered?

That feedback might eventually relate to how deadly the adventure is, or about how the adventure didn't give the DM many tools to show in play how combats might spiral into each other (though it is a pretty explicit warning up front).

I don't understand it. It doesn't jive with any version of D&D I've ever played and enjoyed. And I get bored silly playing dungeon delves. If I'm going to do any playtesting, it will be using an actual adventure, that I or another DM writes, in a universe we're familiar with, which automatically means, tinkering. Otherwise, if I try to run Caves of Chaos, I'm guaranteed to have a dismal time. And that's going to affect my feedback.

Feedback about how you had a lousy time on something they ACTUALLY wrote is a lot more valuable to them than feedback that you had an awesome time on something they weren't really involved with.

If I was hired to playtest Halo 4, but decided that I'd have a better time playing Xenoblade Chronicles, I can't give useful feedback on Halo 4. I didn't do the thing they asked me to do. Your feedback on the playtest materials isn't very valuable if you don't use the actual playtest materials.

If I'm talking to you about the history of the Peleponesian Wars and you say, "Well, I like lemon curry," that's a non-sequitur. It's irrelevant.

Another cross-purpose to this is that it will allow people to re-examine their pre-concieved notions about how D&D "needs to" work. If you have a lousy time in dungeon crawls, try this one. Point out specifically where your time was lousy, and why. Be as specific and pedantic as possible. This will help them design better things.

If after the first combat, the fighter's player says, "Dude I don't feel like a fighter at all, I can't mark anything, I can't stop people from running by me to attack the wizard, I can't tide of iron, I can't second wind or come back strike, I can't do jack! And the cleric healed the wizard, so I'm going into the next fight with half my hit points, and that's after expending my one hit die!" I might pause and say, "okay, let's try this, everyone heal up to full, hey cleric, you still have your spell slot where you used cure light during the rest, Fighter, change your theme from Slayer to Guardian, let's see how that goes. I'll stick some healing potions in the next encounter to ease up the hit point situation, and we'll go from there."

I'd encourage you to, instead of changing things mid-game, ask the fighter to jot down some notes about why he feels the way he does with in-play examples ("When I tried to defend my friend from the goblin, I couldn't!"). It will at least help WotC know that they might need to be more explicit about how to play future playtest characters, or what purpose it serves to have a "slayer" as the fighter, or how to address low HP's.

If you change things up and everyone had a good time and you tell WotC "Everyone had a great time!", then they're going to miss those messages.

 

[Pour]

Idk, if I am playtesting the rules as written, and we're not jiving with it after an hour, and I afterward inform WotC of what wasn't working, wouldn't that be just as okay as if I played through 4 hours not liking it? Furthermore, wouldn't it behoove the designers if I tried a few things to alleviate the trouble, mind you not broad sweeping edits like the elimination of the advantage system- but maybe allowing this or omitting that, and submitting our changes as potential fixes to the problem we experienced? I don't presume to be the one to 'fix 5e' if it even needs fixing of my sort, but I imagine the more experiences and testimonies they have, the better. It just feels that we are running appropriate playtests because we are using the material provided, then doing what every DM does, making changes to suit us. I'd think they'd want to know the changes just as much as a dry run- because we're providing house rules which could become rules rules. Just looking at the playtest doc, there's a few house rules from past editions that made it into official rules.

 

[P1NBACK]

Idk, if I am playtesting the rules as written, and we're not jiving with it after an hour, and I afterward inform WotC of what wasn't working, wouldn't that be just as okay as if I played through 4 hours not liking it? Furthermore, wouldn't it behoove the designers if I tried a few things to alleviate the trouble, mind you not broad sweeping edits like the elimination of the advantage system- but maybe allowing this or omitting that, and submitting our changes as potential fixes to the problem we experienced? I don't presume to be the one to 'fix 5e' if it even needs fixing of my sort, but I imagine the more experiences and testimonies they have, the better. It just feels that we are running appropriate playtests because we are using the material provided, then doing what every DM does, making changes to suit us. I'd think they'd want to know the changes just as much as a dry run- because we're providing house rules which could become rules rules. Just looking at the playtest doc, there's a few house rules from past editions that made it into official rules.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this sentiment.

I think the point of the original post was to point out that a lot of people are just arm-chair game designers who are looking to change stuff they haven't even seen in play.

And, that's the crux of the issue. Seeing stuff in actual play is a lot different than reading about it and theorizing what may or may not happen.

So, instead of being an arm-chair game designer and just immediately changing everything, why not actually test the mechanics that are presented as changes to the game of D&D for the better?

If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But, you won't necessarily find that out by houseruling it right away, will you?

 

[Doug McCrae]

We're playtesting the thing in front of us as it is.

Run it.

As it is.

In the module, the last paragraph of the first boxed section seems to be saying the opposite - change this to suit your taste and tell us what you changed.

 

[FickleGM]

In the module, the last paragraph of the first boxed section seems to be saying the opposite - change this to suit your taste and tell us what you changed.

I haven't read the module (my DM asked us not to), so specifics of the playtest are not known. If the case is as you say, then I'll definitely soften my stance (I might have someone drawn and quartered, but it will be a decision made in a softer stance).

 

[jadrax]

Yeah, the guidelines for the module play-test actually encourage you to change it. There trying to get feedback on if you can use the rules to run the game you would normally run.

Personally I am probably going to put back some of the stuff they cut from the original , i.e. the actual Keep on the Borderlands.

What I don't think would be helpful is actually changing the rules at this point.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the module, the last paragraph of the first boxed section seems to be saying the opposite - change this to suit your taste and tell us what you changed.

Great find!

Still, I imagine if you change it by completely trashing it...the reasons for this may be useful, but the feedback you give on what you changed may not.