D&D 5E Has 5E Restored or Diminished Your Faith in WotC?

[Banshee16]

Really? How is announcing an open playtest and actually demoing the prototype game at a con NOT reaching out to fans? I'm seeing the opposite of what you're describing.

I believe that part of the problem is when the game prototype demos are occuring primarily at a Con. For those of us who live across the continent (or on another continent), flying over to demo the game just isn't realistic.

With Paizo, it was easier to see what they were doing, because they kept releasing "snapshots"....not simply "we're bring prestige classes back", or "we're getting rid of elves" or whatever....but actual, functional sets of the rules as they stood at that moment of development, so that *everyone* who was interested could take a look and help them to identify problems....whether perceived or literal.

Instead, the prototypes are at conferences (so far), and everyone participating is bound by NDA, so all they can say is "trust us, it's great, it looks promising".......which, for some of us, just doesn't raise confidence.

To be fair, I think the paradigm has changed. Paizo did their thing in a very different environment than WotC when developing 3E, for instance. But I think the world has changed. And there appears to be enough bad blood on both sides of the edition divide that I'm not sure that being secretive about it will rally get them any points.

If my only chance at seeing the game, and what they're doing with it is to go to a conference, then likely I won't learn much until it's released. There's only one conference in my city in a year, it's a small one, and I don't think any official WotC staff actually attend. So I doubt there'll be a demo.

I'm *not* going to say one edition is better than the other. I will say I *prefer* one over the other. But the overall idea of this thread was to ask whether they've restored our faith with 5E.

To which all we can really say is "how"? They haven't given us much in the form of concrete facts. Aside from that select few, who are legally limited from telling us anyways.

Banshee

 

[Herschel]

That's only because people aren't paying attention. The playtest at D&DXP was *public* as in anyone was welcome, but not *open*. The open playtesting begins in the spring.

Very much so, but that doesn't change the way it makes some people feel about the whole process. Perception as reality and all that.

 

[Banshee16]

Lastly, for the serious fans of 4E, don't assume you're being abandoned yet. We know almost nothing about the more complex end of the 5E design. They've said very clearly that they want to build upon a simple core, and that getting that core right first is critical. I suspect that the first public playtests will involve that core, with more modules being added over time as they get the more basic stuff ironed out. So, right now, it seems like they're ignoring you, but by necessity they have to save the stuff you'll like for later.

This is a good point.

It's also why I'm a little leery. I feel there are different design parameters between 3E and 4E, and wonder if it's possible to combine both into 5E.

Maybe it is...I don't know. I guess, with the Book of Nine Swords, you had pieces of 4E working with 3E, but there were purported balance issues.

If they can find a way to get the manoeuvers for characters like fighters and rangers from 4E, and put them into an edition with spellcasters that work more like 3E spellcasters (in general) possibly with some component similar to what they introduced with reserve feats etc., they could be on to something.

I don't envy them the challenge. If they stray too far either way, they risk losing even more customers.......piss off the 4E fans who feel their edition was killed prematurely, or who don't want elements of 3E creeping into their game, or further anger the 2nd Ed and 3E fans who chose not to follow D&D into 4E.

Interesting challenge. Hopefully they can find some way to make both sides happy.

Banshee

 

[Consonant Dude]

With Paizo, it was easier to see what they were doing, because they kept releasing "snapshots"....not simply "we're bring prestige classes back", or "we're getting rid of elves" or whatever....but actual, functional sets of the rules as they stood at that moment of development, so that *everyone* who was interested could take a look and help them to identify problems....whether perceived or literal.

Instead, the prototypes are at conferences (so far), and everyone participating is bound by NDA, so all they can say is "trust us, it's great, it looks promising".......which, for some of us, just doesn't raise confidence.

To be fair, I think the paradigm has changed. Paizo did their thing in a very different environment than WotC when developing 3E, for instance. But I think the world has changed. And there appears to be enough bad blood on both sides of the edition divide that I'm not sure that being secretive about it will rally get them any points.

Apples and oranges. Paizo copy-pasted humongous chunks of 3.5 and added clutter on top of it. Anyone can offer snapshots quickly doing that.

WotC is designing a new game. I really don't understand how they are secretive about it. We're getting info at a quicker pace than we ever did from the company when they were working on a new version. Presumably, in a few months everyone who has asked to join the open playtest will get to participate.

I think it's good that they gave the embryonic design a first spin for a more limited crowd. It allows them to make adjustments. Also, I think it adds value to an event such as DDXP. What's the point of attending this event if you don't get any premium content?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I haven't had much faith in WotC since the announcement of 3.5 - but, in spite of that, I think I can say that the announcement of 5e has /further/ diminished that faith, to the infinitessimal degree that may still be possible.

 

[Maliki67]

I don't know about restoring my faith, but they do seem to be moving in a direction with 5E that I like. 3E/3.5 had some things I thought improved D&D but in the end was not a system I enjoyed running/DMing, 4E was so far away from "my" idea of D&D that I totally quit following anything WotC did, but from the bits I've heard about 5E, I will at least follow along to see what they come up with.

 

[Mengu]

Please explain more. They've released the most rudimentary core, and no character creation details. How did you get the impression that 5e isn't going to allow wildly dynamic character concepts?

The seminars at DDXP, my playtest experience at DDXP, and conversations with the DM during the playtest, all felt like D&D next, is 1st/2nd edition AD&D with some house rules. Everything about the system, the game, the combat, felt rigid. I did not see an ounce of what I'm looking for in a modern game system that is moving forward from 4e. I didn't even see room for customization in the design. Maybe I'm narrow sighted, or maybe I was just in a bad mood with all the senseless hack and slash we did. I was hoping the "returning to the roots" stuff was PR BS, but sadly for me, it all seems for real. Sure, during the seminars, they alluded to some customization possibilities, but I'll believe it when I see it.

This could all be because playtest is at such an early stage that they haven't even thought about how to introduce the layers of customization they are speaking of, maybe they are just testing some math elements, I don't know. My opinions may change. My current state is just disappointed.

 

[francisca]

Well, except for a fistful of minis, I've not been very interested in pretty much anything WotC has put out for D&D since....uh.....2004. I played the 4e gameday demo, thumbed through some of the books at the gamestore, put them back on the shelf, and said, "Maybe 5e.", and haven't looked back until now.

As Umbran said, faith isn't an issue here. I'll give 5e a fair shot. If 5e is better, or can supplement what I already have on the shelf, I'll buy it. Otherwise, that's probably it for me for good, lest wotc continue with AD&D reprints.

 

[Mark CMG]

I have faith that the individuals designing and working on 5E are doing the best they can to put forth the greatest game they can make. However, I also am aware that as a company that is the branch of a corporation that requires certain financial goals be met, that there is pressure to extend the life of any game far beyond what mnight be called the "core" game. In 2E this lead to tons of settings which practically drove TSR into bankruptcy, in 3E this lead to rules bloat through race and class splat books, in 4E this lead to extending what was once a roughly 10 level game and had become a 20+ level game into a 30+ level game with tons of classes and add-ons all of which the company wishes the consumer to see as "core" elements of the game. The individuals designing and working on the game have some potential design decisions off the table right out of the gate. Even if the designers somehow determined that the way to go was in making a single core rulebook, perhaps one that would encapsulate a tight roleplaying experience that any individual consumer could then use and expand to their own playstyle either on their own or through some supplemental book expansions, there would be no way that would fly within the corporate world in which D&D exists. Now that is just one example, and I am sure all of us could come up with our own examples of what simply wouldn't fly in that environment, but the point is that we can have a great deal of faith in the individuals but in the end what they produce is constrained by what their environment will allow.

 

[Consonant Dude]

The seminars at DDXP, my playtest experience at DDXP, and conversations with the DM during the playtest, all felt like D&D next, is 1st/2nd edition AD&D with some house rules. Everything about the system, the game, the combat, felt rigid. I did not see an ounce of what I'm looking for in a modern game system that is moving forward from 4e.

Did you post a playtest report anywhere that I can read? I have read several reports and none sounded like yours. It would add value to read another perspective like yours, IMO.