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

[ForeverSlayer]

Well, the extended playtest has produced one major success: as far as I know, none of the D&D team have been laid off this Christmas. That's a first for the Hasbro-owned WotC, IIRC.

In all fairness we don't know if the playtest has anything to do with that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I don't mind the playtest taking a long time but I didn't expect to see level 20 when level 1 isn't solid.

 

[Pog]

Theory 1: it's a sign that 5e is all over the shop, too rushed and too confused
Theory 2: it's some clever play testing strategy that will result in a great game
Theory 3: it's a marketing strategy to keep people talking on the net

i have no idea ... Wait and see

 

[the Jester]

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

Yeah. Dude, this is a late alpha playtest. If you want a complete, fully-tuned game, you're looking in the wrong place- that isn't what the playtest is about. The fact that they are giving us levels up to 20 means that they want to start tuning the higher level stuff and make sure it works. Stuff like the rogue vs. dragon fight are exactly why they gave us the full 20 levels (and I'd wager that nothing above 10th is really even half-done)- so we can find the problems.

I don't know what all the comments I've seen about how WotC is playtesting three packets ahead and the current stuff is set in stone are all about- where do folks get that idea? Did WotC say that, or is it another one of those "I heard it in a post by some random guy and now I believe it" type of things? Have you noticed the level of change in response to feedback from packet to packet? While I'm sure they are a touch ahead of the public playtest, I really doubt whether they have more than a few dozen internal playtesters. Even that is likely a high number.

So yeah- I think you aren't just expecting too much, it sounds like you may be missing the point of the playtest entirely.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yeah. Dude, this is a late alpha playtest. If you want a complete, fully-tuned game, you're looking in the wrong place- that isn't what the playtest is about. The fact that they are giving us levels up to 20 means that they want to start tuning the higher level stuff and make sure it works. Stuff like the rogue vs. dragon fight are exactly why they gave us the full 20 levels (and I'd wager that nothing above 10th is really even half-done)- so we can find the problems.

I don't know what all the comments I've seen about how WotC is playtesting three packets ahead and the current stuff is set in stone are all about- where do folks get that idea? Did WotC say that, or is it another one of those "I heard it in a post by some random guy and now I believe it" type of things? Have you noticed the level of change in response to feedback from packet to packet? While I'm sure they are a touch ahead of the public playtest, I really doubt whether they have more than a few dozen internal playtesters. Even that is likely a high number.

So yeah- I think you aren't just expecting too much, it sounds like you may be missing the point of the playtest entirely.

I'm not expecting a full fledged game, if you actually took the time to read my posts then you would see that. I get playtests, been partaking in them for years but the way Wizards is going shows me they don't have it together. We aren't talking about grammar errors here, we are talking about the fundamental system breaking down at horrible levels. All Wizards had to do was run a test battle and see this but for some reason they got the playtesters to do it and it makes them look bad.

Using the "expecting a full game at this point" doesn't fly because nobody has said that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Double post.

 

[DEFCON 1]

All Wizards had to do was run a test battle and see this but for some reason they got the playtesters to do it and it makes them look bad.

It only looks bad to people like you who do in fact have completely unrealistic expectations. The rest of us look at it and realize it's all a part of the normal playtesting process.

What you apparently want is not to actually playtest the game... but for all the work to be done behind the scenes FIRST without any input on your end... and then you get handed a document that is all nice and shiny but just missing some artwork. Because apparently finding things that don't work isn't what you actually want to do.

If your idea of playtesting is playing a game that doesn't in fact need any work... then you have a mistaken impression of what playtesting is.

 

[SageMinerve]

It's not unrealistic, it's establishing a functioning base mechanic before jumping off to something else. Other gaming companies do it so why does Wizards think they need to go a different route. Right now the playtest looks like a jumbled mess that will take them ages to get out of. I mean they have already jumped to level 20 before taking care of level 1 to 5.

Yep.

(EDIT: I changed the author of that last quote because I copied the wrong poster; sorry!)

Nope.

One of the constant problems throughout all editions of D&D, especially pre-4th, is how high-level play mechanics were (not) developed: they always felt like a tacked-on part of the game that didn't work well with how lower-level games played and felt.

4th edition had another kind of problem: putting aside the fact that material was under-developed for high levels (especially monsters), high levels exacerbate the problems of 4th ed, that is the way combat took a zillion years.

If you develop high-level play only after low-level play is almost locked up, you will get the same results.

High levels MUST be developed in parallel to low levels, NOT after.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not expecting a full fledged game, if you actually took the time to read my posts then you would see that. I get playtests, been partaking in them for years but the way Wizards is going shows me they don't have it together. We aren't talking about grammar errors here, we are talking about the fundamental system breaking down at horrible levels. All Wizards had to do was run a test battle and see this but for some reason they got the playtesters to do it and it makes them look bad.

I'll repeat: This is exactly what playtesters are for.

It's completely unrealistic to expect WotC to test each monster against each possible fight permutation. That's why there is this gigantic open playtest! I'm not really sure what you think the playtest is for, if not to ferret out these issues- and especially during alpha testing, there are going to be TONS of these things that come up. Our purpose (as playtesters) is to find them, report them and let the designers fix them... then check next packet for improvement or backsliding. We are the guys who are running the test battle you want. The open playtest is not just an excuse to give the game away for free; it's actually, by God, to test the system.

Again, Mearls has stated we're in alpha. Expecting a smooth, finished system in alpha is just silly. Even if we were beta testing, we should expect to uncover problems, and instead of going, "zomg problems!" we should report them in our feedback so they can be fixed. That's what we are for. The playtest documents aren't just a free new game.

 

[Gundark]

That's why I think companies like Paizo are better suited for table top role playing games because they don't have the pressure of suits breathing down their necks. I honestly think the suits at Wizards still haven't gotten the point that you can't produce fast paced RPG's using overhead and rake in the profits, mass produced RPGs in a way.

I don't think that August of 2014 is "corporate suits breathing down their necks" . Two and a half years with WotC resources is totally reasonable.