The thing is, they were using the playtest to refine the game and get a general idea of the direction they were going, along with some focused feedback on specific mechanics. They hired a professional survey/marketing/statistics firm to help with the feed back and filter it properly. They were not using the open play test to fine tune balance and a lot of details, they were doing most of that with their internal play tests. In fact, classes like the Bard, Sorcerer (except for one foray where they were testing the waters for a more 'radical' version of the class), Warlock, Monk, Ranger, and (I think, IIRC) Paladin were not even in the play test. I can't remember if they had the Barbarian. They were mainly after whether or not the new system 'felt like D&D' and played smoothly, rather than how balanced such and such was. This is not say say that they did not try out new mechanics at all, things like advantage/disadvantage, Battle master dice and such went through several iterations, just that it was more of a test of the general design of the over all system and how it played and the 'feel'--all filtered through very specific feedback surveys that had a lot of focus and design behind them.
D&D 5E So... what happened during the playtests?
- Thread starter Ancalagon
- Start date
I feel they made the major design choices early in the playtest but you're welcome to disagree.
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
There was a lot of online discussion during the playtest that Wizards of the Coast pretty much ignored.
They started with a lightweight version of D&D with streamlined rules, few character options, no tactical combat, and average math and the polls told them that was good enough to make petty much every happy except a few vocal minorities on the Internet. They decided to ignore the edition warriors and refined the original system.
What really changed was Wizards of the Coast's official statements.
What do you mean by "changed the official statements?"
I didn't expect you to post in my humble thread, but I would certainly to like to hear your take on it...
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
Oh... not like "I had 3 flagons of ale too many" intoxicated...
Tony Vargas
Legend
Don't feel too bad, it was kinda a chore, really.
The first playtest packet was released along with a 'Caves of Chaos' adventure. Then there was survey, asking how you felt good a job each element of the playtest did at capturing the feel of the classic game, and whether it was over-/under- powered or just right. In the very first survey, a handful of not-exactly-classic game elements - spells like Thunderwave, Witchbolt, and Healing Word - were included in the choices, and, you'll note, they're in 5e. Only in the first survey, though, after that, it stuck to what was in the latest packet, and that was always stuff with some roots in older editions - the one exception being the Sorcerer which was intriguing but never got a second take in the playtest.
In a nut-shell, the Next (the playtest version of D&D) started out strongly reminiscent of 1e AD&D, experimented with a range of things to try to make martial characters competitive, dropped them all, experimented with a range of things to make it more 3e-like, kept a few, and ended up strongly reminiscent of 2e AD&D - but 5e turned out even more 2e-like when it hit the shelves.
I suppose it helped WotC or they wouldn't have kept at it for 2 years.
Both the Barbarian and Ranger were in some playtest packets - the Ranger one player had in Crystal Staff seemed OK, actually, in contrast to the complaints about the final product. I have a vague memory of someone playing a Paladin, but it may well have been a Cleric tricked out to resemble one.
I couldn't explain why, maybe it was the way each successive packet felt in relation to the one before, but I got that impression, too. Maybe it was the way Mearls talked up 2e going into the process, and ended up with something that felt a lot like 2e. :shrug: Not really that important, whatever the degree to which the playtest influenced the design, we did keep the torch burning for D&D in those years it was off the shelves.
And, the result's been a success.
At the beginning of the playtest, the game designers thought that the fan base was very divided so they told us that 5e would be very modular to cater to everybody's needs. "Module" was the solution to everybody's problems.
After the first iteration of the playtest, Mearls came out and told us "you're not edition warriors" (his words, not mine). From that point on, module stopped being the buzz word.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
Part of that could have to do with that at the beginning of the playtest it was Monte Cook at the helm, and then he left the company.
Another part could be that what the various internet forums and sales data suggested at the time - that the D&D fan-base was scattered across different editions or games and didn't share much common ground on what they wanted D&D to be - didn't turn out to be what their playtest survey results suggested - that a clear majority opinion existed within the survey participants.
Also, there is a bit of a change between the build-up of the word "module" as a buzz-word (and "dial" along with it), and the delivery of the DMG's array of optional rules - the game can be tuned to create very different experiences with those options, but the manner in which they ended up being presented didn't match relatively common expectations of what "module" and "dial" were going to mean, so it's not entirely uncommon for someone to say that modular design and "dials" got tossed out at some point even though I see more or less what was talked about present in the final game.
Yup. I suspect some people thought that the DMG would have like chapters that plainly spelled out "With the rules we've included, here's what you need to select and use to recreate BECMI" or "AD&D" or "3E" or "4E", etc. Rather than just offering the various rules and options and letting DMs create the type of game they wanted... some players thought they'd just get handed an edition-recreation packet and wouldn't have to do any work for themselves. But WotC finally came to the same realization the rest of us had... which is "If you're a DM who doesn't want to put any work in to making the 5E game how you want it to be... why are you bothering to change editions away from the one you actually already like?"
Sacrosanct
Legend
This wasn't the argument you made that he disagreed with though. So I'm not following.
It's like:
"They did X, Y, and Z."
"No they didn't."
"Well, I think they did A, but if you want to disagree, fine."
That doesn't make any sense to me.
I can see why it doesn't make sense to you
. I wasn't exactly clear and I made a few assumptions.Mr Mearls justified every one of his decisions with the survey results. I assumed it was clear that this was the only data he was interested in. In other words, he ignored what people were saying online and ignored the edition warriors.
Morrus compiled every single piece of information on D&D Next he could find. I assumed he agreed that the official statements changed.
I assumed he disagreed that each iteration was only a refinement of the first one. In my opinion, major design choices are things like simple combat, few character options, streamlined rules, and not to worry too much about the math. There was quite a bit of tinkering throughout the iterations but none of them changed these fundamentals or the overall experience so that's why I call them refinements.
For example, we never had a playtest version with slower but more tactical combats. Most of us liked how it was in the first playtest (according to the survey) and they kept it. They could have tried something different to see if they couldn't get a higher approval rating. I don't think Mr Mearls is stupid. When the 4e fans were asking for more tactical options in the forums, Mr Mearls knew they wanted more than flanking! They didn't challenge their fundamentals nor did they listen to what people were saying online.
Anyways, that's just my perception of the playtest.
Similar Threads
