D&D 5E Frustrated with Next

[slobo777]

You're telling me it took them the better part of a year to nail down the fact that the game would have six stats, AC, and hit points?

No, I'm saying that bit I suggested is likely the "core" that is being described as completed, whilst most of the rest is up for grabs and more likely to change due to feedback in play testing.

I have no real interest in either defending or attacking the designers.

At the moment I'm thinking I probably won't be playing 5E (4E still wins - please release the "quick combats" module!), but I see no major flaws with WotC presenting a very early stage of design, and going through multiple changes due to player feedback.

I recall some early rumour-mongering blog posts before the initial public playtest docs, which were already admonishing WotC for having the game in a "final version", that they would be ignoring player feedback - it was just a media circus and that the whole thing was a giant marketing exercise to push substandard product. This is obviously not the case, as playtest docs 1, 2 and 3 have been making big changes, and the design team has been responding to feedback by making changes to the game rules.

It seems to me, no matter what the design team do in public view, there will be blog posts, forum threads etc telling that they are "doing it all wrong". Of course a lot of the time posts that tell them to go faster will be by different people than posts that tell them to take things cautiously, but the general weight of the critiques seems to be negative for no good reason (other than perhaps we all like to have something to be grumpy about)

The playtest process is a big experiment for them and us, there is no precedent on how to proceed, and no real-world experience that internet theorists can base their advice on, other than ropey analogies to software development.

 

[Raith5]

At the moment I'm thinking I probably won't be playing 5E (4E still wins - please release the "quick combats" module!), but I see no major flaws with WotC presenting a very early stage of design, and going through multiple changes due to player feedback.

I am a 4th ed fan and I agree that DDN is going the right way about it. I am not sure it will produce a game that I will like, or a module that emulates the things I like about 4th ed, but the process of DDN is hard to fault. But one thing that has changed is that I originally though WOTC's idea of two years of playtesting was mad, but given the tasks and expectations they have created, I am not sure it is going to be enough!

 

[Dice4Hire]

You're telling me it took them the better part of a year to nail down the fact that the game would have six stats, AC, and hit points? That's the sort of game design that takes FIVE MINUTES... or less.

The problem with trying to defend their effort is that even when you cut them slack it looks bad. The game is lacking. Everyone can see that. Even the people who defend it. There's just a difference of opinion as to whether the incompetence lies in the actual design or just the project management. How many more months do we have to wait before "I'm sure they're fixing it!" rubbish expires?

I really wonder why you keep posting about Next. It is obvious you hate everything about it and have contempt for those who are making it.

 

[n00bdragon]

I really wonder why you keep posting about Next. It is obvious you hate everything about it and have contempt for those who are making it.

Because I like talk about the actual topic at hand and back up my opinions with logic, reason, and facts rather than shallow jabs at other posters or wide-reaching assumptions about their beliefs and motives.

 

[billd91]

Because I like talk about the actual topic at hand and back up my opinions with logic, reason, and facts rather than shallow jabs at other posters or wide-reaching assumptions about their beliefs and motives.

Aside from jabbing at "the usual suspects," you mean?

 

[Blackbrrd]

To me it looks like they have done some important design decisions like flatter math, while they are trying out all kinds of things when it comes to classes and such. If this was a computer game, I would say we were in the Alpha test (nothing is final).

... I do hope they switch over to a Beta when they think they have got their things together so that we can help them find problems like the 4e math problem for higher levels. It's better than having them "fix" it with feats later on.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You're telling me it took them the better part of a year to nail down the fact that the game would have six stats, AC, and hit points? That's the sort of game design that takes FIVE MINUTES... or less.

The problem with trying to defend their effort is that even when you cut them slack it looks bad. The game is lacking. Everyone can see that. Even the people who defend it. There's just a difference of opinion as to whether the incompetence lies in the actual design or just the project management. How many more months do we have to wait before "I'm sure they're fixing it!" rubbish expires?

Do you really think you should speak for everyone? Maybe it looks bad to you, but you may not even be representative for a significant minority... (maybe you are, but do you know?) Speak only for yourself!

I have no problems running this game with the rules provided, not adding a single rule. Not bending a rule. And trying to interpret rules, that are not absolutely clear in a way, that makes the game fun for the players and me)

Tactical depth is high enough, monsters are dangerous enough (although most are unclassed and weak because of that... maybe we just need a guide to add class levels to them)

In my opinion, the game is already in a quite good shape. Of course, I wish it was possible to have a little bit lower power level for level 1 or some different issues, but all in all, the core seems solid.

Now we will hopefully get weekly or biweekly updates to different things, so that we have time to test each individual for a wile, but still get new things to test every other week or so.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Because I like talk about the actual topic at hand and back up my opinions with logic, reason, and facts

Such as?

 

[Steely_Dan]

Do you really think you should speak for everyone? Maybe it looks bad to you, but you may not even be representative for a significant minority... (maybe you are, but do you know?) Speak only for yourself!

I have no problems running this game with the rules provided, not adding a single rule. Not bending a rule. And trying to interpret rules, that are not absolutely clear in a way, that makes the game fun for the players and me)

Tactical depth is high enough, monsters are dangerous enough (although most are unclassed and weak because of that... maybe we just need a guide to add class levels to them)

In my opinion, the game is already in a quite good shape. Of course, I wish it was possible to have a little bit lower power level for level 1 or some different issues, but all in all, the core seems solid.

Yes, same here; and I find 5th Ed the most conversion-friendly version to date.

 

[timASW]

Do you really think you should speak for everyone? Maybe it looks bad to you, but you may not even be representative for a significant minority... (maybe you are, but do you know?) Speak only for yourself!

I have no problems running this game with the rules provided, not adding a single rule. Not bending a rule. And trying to interpret rules, that are not absolutely clear in a way, that makes the game fun for the players and me)

Tactical depth is high enough, monsters are dangerous enough (although most are unclassed and weak because of that... maybe we just need a guide to add class levels to them)

In my opinion, the game is already in a quite good shape. Of course, I wish it was possible to have a little bit lower power level for level 1 or some different issues, but all in all, the core seems solid.

Now we will hopefully get weekly or biweekly updates to different things, so that we have time to test each individual for a wile, but still get new things to test every other week or so.

Couldnt agree more. I've had no problems at all running on-going adventures with it and filling in the occasional gap.

In my recollection being more "rulings not rules" was actually one of the design goals of this edition. And one that I and clearly many others have wanted for a while and am happy to embrace, at least at this point.