D&D 5E Should D&D Next be having the obvious problems that it's having at this point in the playtest?

[ForeverSlayer]

This is going to be a discussion thread about D&D Next and it's current state.

I've been reading a few of threads on here, especially the one where the rogue single-handed takes out the dragon that was designed to challenge three PCs and the other thread about PC's doing too much damage. I'm just wondering if D&D Next should be having the obvious problems they are having. I mean are they playtesting their material before they send it on to the public to playtest or are they just coming up with material and then sending it on to the public. If they did a standard playtest then they would have seen that there is a problem with damage output and with creatures like the dragon.

With their resources and staff I would expect their material to be better than it is without the obvious mistakes. I know it's still in the playtest phase but it should be better than this to be honest. The more of the playtest I see the less I like it and the more I cozy up to Pathfinder.

I don't think my expectations are set too high for a company like Wizards or has their ability decreased and my expectations are in fact set too high?

 

[jrowland]

To answer your question, I think your expectations are too high.

At this stage they are exploring the "boundary conditions" of what is acceptable and doable to the play-testing public. We are seeing some wild swings. Mostly they are looking at class mechanics. Expertise dice, Skill Dice, vancian spellcasting, other spellcasting, etc. Monsters are barely touched. This is as it should be. Balancing classes is hard, balancing monsters is easy (in a fiat monster regime like most editions...3rd Ed is the exception to this. Balancing monsters in 3rd Ed is harder).

These "boundary conditions" set the design space the designers must operate within to design a game the playtest public likes. Until these boundaries are set, we are likely to see playtest packets "go out-of-bounds" as it were (the obvious problems you allude to).

Its like the GRE or SAT test. These early playtest swing the "score" wildly, but after a tests, the parameters get narrowed and the swings become less wild.

Case in point: At-will spells. There isn't much public support for pure vancian anymore. People want a spell or two to cast at-will and thats likely not to change at this point. Expertise dice are very popular, and will likely stay, but the actual mechanic is in flux.

Notice, there is no Sorcerer or Warlock in the latest packet. It would be foolish to think that WotC has decided to remove those from the game. It is likewise foolish to think anything in the current playtest is written in stone or anything missing from it is permanent.

Of course, WotC could easily blow it still. The most likely scenario being they putz around too long and corporate forces them to "Finish it!" before the playtest putzing is done.

 

[Evenglare]

I think what the OP is saying though is that... well since they have publicly said they are on further play tests, why are we still having problems of the fundamental game? If they are starting to do other stuff why are we still in limbo after a bit more than half a year later still having major balance issues with the core game? At least that's my question. It doesn't give me very much confidence that they are already going on to test stuff that they will have to change significantly after getting feed back from these playtests.

 

[Blackbrrd]

The playtests we are getting have a rough Alpha-phase cut to it. It's a bit unusual, as most companies usually go with a more refined, Beta-phase product in their testing. I think they are checking out the boundaries as the jrowland said. There is nothing wrong with Alpha-phase material, but it can obviously get some people like the OP the impression that the quality is shoddy.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think what the OP is saying though is that... well since they have publicly said they are on further play tests, why are we still having problems of the fundamental game? If they are starting to do other stuff why are we still in limbo after a bit more than half a year later still having major balance issues with the core game? At least that's my question. It doesn't give me very much confidence that they are already going on to test stuff that they will have to change significantly after getting feed back from these playtests.

I agree with a lot of this. Why would you move on to something else before you've finished the first part? You may have to end up changing the second part because you had to go back and clean up the first part etc... Eventually it ends up being one giant mess that will take forever to get out of. I would work on each bit in sections and I wouldn't move on to the next part until I was sure the first part was done and ready to go.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I am much more hopeful than this.

Doing the public playtest gives them a broader field on which to draw (more edge cases likely to be found and identified) -- it then only depends on whether they attempt to meet the objections that they consistently are told about. We've seen that they do (except perhaps in the representation of races, esp. humans, which has remained unchanged). It also allows the company to maintain interest in a line that (I suspect) is losing enough support to Pathfinder and perhaps other games.

A public playtest also slows them down, though -- significantly, I'd expect, as they consider the many, varied responses they get. There's clear pros and cons at play.

I see several people on these boards complaining about the playtest material. If that's the tone with which they provide feedback, I suspect they are not going to be heard. Some of the feedback questions are touchy-feely, but the opportunity for constructive comments is there, and the people who have actually playtested are going to have more useful data than the people who have just read the packets.

I'm pretty impressed at the improvements to the materials seen over the past six months, but there is still work to do. Would it be easier if we didn't see the ugly might-have-beens? Probably -- and that'll be the case for most people who buy the game: the playtesting will be completely invisible to them. For a few of us, though, we have the opportunity (in a very limited way) to help shape something. Are there still problems? Sure -- just as there were with the published versions of previous editions, where edge cases can be exploited.

The solution isn't whining or showing up in every thread saying the same thing. It's trying to build constructive solutions, and then, when given the opportunity, provide articulate and constructive feedback.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This is going to be a discussion thread about D&D Next and it's current state.

I've been reading a few of threads on here, especially the one where the rogue single-handed takes out the dragon that was designed to challenge three PCs and the other thread about PC's doing too much damage. I'm just wondering if D&D Next should be having the obvious problems they are having. I mean are they playtesting their material before they send it on to the public to playtest or are they just coming up with material and then sending it on to the public. If they did a standard playtest then they would have seen that there is a problem with damage output and with creatures like the dragon.

With their resources and staff I would expect their material to be better than it is without the obvious mistakes. I know it's still in the playtest phase but it should be better than this to be honest. The more of the playtest I see the less I like it and the more I cozy up to Pathfinder.

I don't think my expectations are set too high for a company like Wizards or has their ability decreased and my expectations are in fact set too high?

I think your expectations are too high

WotC is making too many "large" changes. I think there should be more frequent but smaller playtest packages being released.

The dragon was an over-level-10 creature, facing off against an over-level-10 PC, in a system where low-level hasn't been sufficiently playtested yet. When you're playtesting something, you're really supposed to test one change at a time. Unfortunately that's just not plausible (could you imagine having a new round of playtesting every time someone changed the damage on a single wizard spell?), but I think jumping from what seemed like level 5 to level 20 was just a bad idea. Even a 10-level jump is probably too much.

So in that example, an unplaytested leveled PC was facing an unplaytested leveled monster. It's not surprising there were balance problems. (I would have expected WotC to have at least made that dragon a solo. If the dragon had still lost, the feedback would have been more valuable IMO.)

 

[Evenglare]

That's all well and good, but why are they going and starting -SEVERAL- playtest packets ahead of us when they are just going to change the stuff we are telling them here? It makes no logical sense no matter which way you spin it. Especially from the revisions I have seen this play test go through. There are some sweeping changes to the game. Why aren't they focusing on the here and now. They need to STICK with something and get it absolutely right before moving on. This is why the play test will fail is because they are on some materials that's way ahead of this packet, then they get feed back, change whats in this packet, which will trickle down to the more complicated stuff, but then WAIT they already have some of the core fundamental aspects of that in place which they will have to change because of what we said.

God it's such a crappy way of work flow. You are essentially doing twice the work.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think your expectations are too high

WotC is making too many "large" changes. I think there should be more frequent but smaller playtest packages being released.

The dragon was an over-level-10 creature, facing off against an over-level-10 PC, in a system where low-level hasn't been sufficiently playtested yet. When you're playtesting something, you're really supposed to test one change at a time. Unfortunately that's just not plausible (could you imagine having a new round of playtesting every time someone changed the damage on a single wizard spell?), but I think jumping from what seemed like level 5 to level 20 was just a bad idea. Even a 10-level jump is probably too much.

So in that example, an unplaytested leveled PC was facing an unplaytested leveled monster. It's not surprising there were balance problems. (I would have expected WotC to have at least made that dragon a solo. If the dragon had still lost, the feedback would have been more valuable IMO.)

Could be I guess but it seems to me like Wizards is someone with ADHD trying to build a house and insisting on putting in the furniture before the roof is even done.

If low level is alright while higher level is a complete mess then you have to go back and look at the system as a whole because there is obviously a fundamental flaw with the design.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm a little worried that maybe Wizards is leaving too much up to the playtest and then blame the people if the game doesn't turn out right. "This is what you people asked for so it's not our fault it failed".