Something Awful leak.

[Boarstorm]

Well, for one, it might be an actual meat-world document.

He specifically mentions pdfs.

Edit: To clarify...

Prior to getting the pdfs, I assumed that they might, as a base module, create a really simple basic game which might please some OSR types, and also be newbie friendly as well.

 

[pauljathome]

Problem is, they shot down that other "leak" a couple of weeks back. Now, if this leak is also false, they should simply shoot it down and be done. No problem. But if it's true...

There were also a whole slew of Enworlders who shot down that other leak. People who claimed (I am assuming correctly) to have seen the actual playtest rules.

They are all remarkably quiet on this particular leak.

Sounds pretty real to me.

That said, it is still very early days and lots of things will doubtless change.

 

[Paraxis]

On posting the pdf, it takes a lot of work to dewatermark and look for hidden info in the document so they can not tell wich copy was posted. He might not want to share because if it doesn't clean it 100% wotc legal team could swoop down on him.

 

[Nathal]

I think they're gearing up for an April Fools joke.

The guy had me at the flat math and ability scores, but I just don't buy this:

You have to raise a common class character to level 10 before you can unlock the uncommon ones. Or you can unlock them right now for 400 Wizard Points. Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare.

All things are possible I guess, but I'm still refraining from judgment until I get 5e in my hands.

 

[Ratskinner]

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the writer doesn't seem to relate any actual events from playing with the rules? The closest he comes seems to be the parts about a -5 penalty, and how that has to change....

I'd expect to see something like "This looks clunky as written, but plays really smoothly." or the opposite "This looks really good, but in play..." There's no "It sucked when our wizard..." Just "Monte loves Wizards too much!" and "There's not enough 4e here!" (Which may or may not be true...but still isn't really informative.)

I feel kinda like this is (at best) someone who fished an early draft out of the trash but didn't actually play it.

 

[whydirt]

Again, the comments about randomized classes came from other posters making jokes about the leaks and are not part of the playtest information. We've already heard directly from WotC that certain classes will be labled as common, rare, etc.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Problem is, they shot down that other "leak" a couple of weeks back. Now, if this leak is also false, they should simply shoot it down and be done. No problem. But if it's true...

If it's true, they have a slight problem, because they can't disavow it, and they can't just stay silent (because that amounts to confirmation, and because of the negative reactions to it).

Let's be honest for a second. Trevor Kidd and WotC PR made a terrible mistake by denouncing the Giants in the Playground Troll. The mistake is obvious, by responding to the Troll, he created an environment where any future Trolling that is not denounced by a WotC Spokesperson has a ring of truth to it.

We know WotC PR is error prone. I chalk Kidd's statement on the Giants leak to be one of those errors and not an official stance by WotC to hunt down and denounce future "leaks" as trolls. It was an error made in good faith by WotC, they were attempting to protect their customers from blatant deception.

WotC should have referred to the Troll attempt as one of many that will happen in the weeks and months before the NDA is lifted and a public playtest begins. That official information about the next edition of DnD will come from WotC itself or trusted news outlets.

 

[Mark CMG]

That official information about the next edition of DnD will come from WotC itself or trusted news outlets.

That's about the only thing we know for certain. This leak feels false to me since there is the claim that this is an earlier rendition (iteration? ) of the playtest material and that there is a 1.5ish version now. If this person has access, why not post the most recent? And if they do not have access, how can they know there is a 1.5ish at this point? The leak seems to contradict itself in that way.

 

[Tortoise]

Something to keep in mind about play testing. Typically you can't expect to have the entirety of the documents that comprise the rules available to the specific group. Most documents are likely snippets involving pregenerated characters designed to test a variation of some elements of potential rules. What a couple of groups are testing may not be what other groups are testing at a given time and may get swapped group to group to get different perspectives in digestable chunks.

While I am not a playtester, if I were the company doing such a large project test this is how I would make sure it was handled in the earlier stages. It would serve numerous purposes, only one small one is nailing NDA breakers and defending against trolls. The main one is allowing developers to focus on the details of some aspects of the game instead of having to work on the whole thing at once.

Also, if I were working on it I wouldn't want to build the roof first, but the foundation. Earlier playutests would look a lot more like earlier versions than later versions and later elements would begin to appear as things progressed in the play test phases.

Even if the poster from Something Aweful is breaking NDA, I seriously doubt we're getting more than a grain of the possibilities. Therefore we should calm down, sit back, put our feet up and enjoy the show. We'll have our own chances to see chunks of material when the open playtest starts and even then I doubt any of us will see more than one bit of the elephant at time.

 

[Janaxstrus]

That's about the only thing we know for certain. This leak feels false to me since there is the claim that this is an earlier rendition (iteration? ) of the playtest material and that there is a 1.5ish version now. If this person has access, why not post the most recent? And if they do not have access, how can they know there is a 1.5ish at this point? The leak seems to contradict itself in that way.

I've beta tested release 1.5 of a game, and not been selected to test 1.6. It's not that uncommon to switch testers, especially if they haven't been helpful (and judging by that guy's opinions, I doubt it was that helpful of feedback provided)