D&D 5E To Anyone Writing 5E Material

[ren1999]

Actually play-test your module.

I've noticed in almost every module that monsters and challenges weren't tested at all or mistakes would easily have been identified and corrected.

Many monster stats are wrong starting with the abilities. When looking up the indexes for monster racial bonuses, feat bonuses, and special qualities, the math doesn't add up. That means many authors were just adding and subtracting from defenses freely. The authors who actually put the math to the right side of each stat did a better job.

Many of the monster powers are contradictory or just not play-tested enough so that the powers are explained easily. A lot of this is guess work or looking at previous 3.5 material to find out just how the power works.

5E absolutely will fail if the authors themselves don't play D&D. Or are too busy to play-test their writing.

So far, "Crypt of the Everflame" gets the only passing grade by me. But the modules that follow and modules of ---- edition are just awful. I noticed that many were asking the players to play-test the modules. That should have happened before the modules were published.

Learn the game.
Explain clearly the math in the module. Don't make up numbers.
Explain clearly the details of the powers in the module.
Play-test every skill challenge and encounter.
Have a party of pre-generated characters in the module.
Dare to publish something as beautiful as the latest Pathfinder material.
Look how nice "Legacy of Fire" and "Jade Regent" looks.

 

[WarlockLord]

Get char-opers to test your game.

 

[trancejeremy]

Learn the game.
Explain clearly the math in the module. Don't make up numbers.

I think these two things are the game system's fault.

I was following the recent Paizo RPG Superstar contest, and one of the comments about the monster design phase was them saying "Don't worry too much about the math, we have a spreadsheet to figure that out"

I think if you've gotten to that point, the game is too complicated.

While D&D has its roots firmly in wargaming, if you look at much of the wargames back then, they were pretty darn simple. Maybe a 32 page booklet.

I mean, 3e was literally the first RPG system I had no idea how to make monsters for. I just couldn't figure out how to do it. And I used to play Star Fleet Battles. (And made my own ships.) If you're more complex than SFB, I think that's a wrong turn.

 

[RangerWickett]

Playtest the plot to avoid railroads and to provide lots of fun and meaningful choices.

Playtest the combats to make sure they're dynamic and challenging.

And tell the people designing the game not to be complicated. I, and I think most people, neither care nor would be affected if a monster in 3e had 37 skill points when it should only have had 36. For the sake of people whom that would offend, cut down on the number of fiddly things that don't matter, so we'll have fewer opportunities to inadvertently piss off perfectionists.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I was just going to XP [MENTION=23464]ranger[/MENTION]Wicket, but can't. Was also going to write how you saved me from having to post. Oh well.

 

[Umbran]

5E absolutely will fail if the authors themselves don't play D&D. Or are too busy to play-test their writing.

The author should by no means be the one to playtest the work. That's like having an author be their own editor.

 

[ren1999]

The author should by no means be the one to playtest the work. That's like having an author be their own editor.

But that's good. The author should play-test and editors should play-test and comment.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Dare to publish something as beautiful as the latest Pathfinder material.
Look how nice "Legacy of Fire" and "Jade Regent" looks.

I agree with everything except this. While I understand your point, and in today's adventure market presentation is what will get people to read more than a paragraph, I do not think it is a necessity. Look at some of the best modules ever written... they are black and white, hand drawn maps (clean though) and few images. most of the old classic TSR modules have amazing content with a low-end look.

 

[Piratecat]

But that's good. The author should play-test and editors should play-test and comment.

I always playtest, but it's far more valuable to have someone else run your adventure while you shut up, sit there, and watch. "You don't know what you don't know," as they say, and this is the best way I've found to see where problems spring up.

 

[bargle0]

Get char-opers to test your game.

For that to be useful, they'd have to pay attention to feedback from CharOp. WotC has a terrible track record on that point.