D&D 5E So... what happened during the playtests?

[Raith5]

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.

Yeah I remember a whole lot of of use of the term modularity. WOTC posted an elaborate blog post where they split D&D into basic, standard and advanced D&D with different styles and game systems (I cant find the article). But the eventual PHB and DMG essentially had a standard account with "advanced" game concepts essentially located in sidebars and sub classes. Not a bad approach IMO, I can see why they did it that way, but it was a far cry from the early modularity/ dials/'D&D for everyone' mantra.

 

[ClockworkNinja]

I know they were extensively debated at the time, but I am not keen on reading dozens (hundreds) of old threads about the topic...

Afraid you can't even do that, as WotC deleted the entirety of their official forums.



This thread prompted me to check some of the old playtest packets saved on my computer. Earliest I could find was from march 2013 (has it really been that long?!)

One feature I notice is classes giving a single +1 Ability score increase at level 1. So a hill dwarf monk for example could get +1 CON from being a dwarf, +1 WIS from being a hill dwarf, and +1 DEX from being a monk, rather than the +2/+1 racial bonus we use now. I kinda wish they had kept this, as it encourages unusual race/class combinations.

Skills changed a lot- this old packet's skill list includes "Break an Object", "Gather Rumors" "Jump" and "Swim" for example. At one point the designers considered doing away with skills entirely, either only ever using ability rolls, or going freeform- e.g. a character with the sailor background could argue that they should add their proficiency bonus (or proficiency dice, depending on the packet) to checks made to climb, swim, or tie knots, but they would only have "sailor" written on the character sheet. Fans revolted pretty hard against the loss of skills as I remember.

Reading the old equipment list was fun- I had completely forgotten about double-ended swords and spiked shields.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

And the DMG has modules, and 3.x-style feats & MCing are optional rules. Maybe they didn't deliver big, but they delivered.

Yeah I remember a whole lot of of use of the term modularity. WOTC posted an elaborate blog post where they split D&D into basic, standard and advanced D&D with different styles and game systems (I cant find the article).

Yep. And we have the basic PDF, the standard rules in the PH, and the optional rules in the PH + modules in the DMG. Basic, Standard, Advanced.

5e may not have delivered on every one of it's impossible promises, but it did deliver on some and/or to some degree.

 

[TerraDave]

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.

Yes. I think they started with this idea that some tables would be leaning towards 2E, some towards 4E, some towards simpler, some towards more complicated...

In the surveys they where able to cross-reference edition preference with feedback on the rules set...and found much less division then expected. Across editions, people liked advantage, but not so much skill dice, and so on.

Importantly, they didn't not get a huge outcry for complexity or super granular options. Or tons of supplements. This was in sharp contrast to the conventional wisdom in RPG design circles, which assumed that gamers really wanted tons of crunch.

Instead they realized that preferences would very across players, including the need to satisfy important minorities, like people who want really simple classes, or gnomes, or whatever, because even loosing these minorities could stop a table from playing a particular edition.

They also realized that having a cleaner core made it easier to then add back in different options specific to different tables that didn't need to be in big discrete "modules".

 

[Ashrym]

The play test was like trying out a lot of Unearthed Arcana rules articles and giving feedback. Just play with those and you have a general idea of the process.

What actually happened was WotC came out with the tavern brawler feat and far too many of my characters took proficiency in improvised weapons as a standard instead of situational combat style... And I had fun.

 

[GreyLord]

I feel they made the major design choices early in the playtest but you're welcome to disagree.

I feel the same way. They ignored almost ALL of the Old school comments in the surveys in lieu of listening to PF, 3e and 4e players, and it shows in the final document.

Admittedly, the majority of the crowds they were expecting to attract were from those groups, so it makes sense for them to listen more closely to them, and they were probably larger in size than those still from the older editions, which gave their choices more weight.

However, there were some items that were particularly LOUDLY discussed online, which had people wanting things done with 5e, but instead of those showing up, the exact opposite happened at times.

This gives the appearance that once major ideas were done, 5e's designers ignored anything that fell outside their vision of what they wanted, even if a majority of the online groups wanted something different.

HOWEVER...and this is probably pretty big...it could be that those who are silent, or not seen voicing opinions online had different views and different thoughts and were the majority instead in regards to some decisions.

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.

Though many try to deny that happened, I remember it distinctly as it was presented to me...ironically that was dropped in later presentations.

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.

I think there's an interesting story behind that...but we may never hear it fully, it's Monte's to tell, and I doubt he'll tell it.

Yeah I remember a whole lot of of use of the term modularity. WOTC posted an elaborate blog post where they split D&D into basic, standard and advanced D&D with different styles and game systems (I cant find the article). But the eventual PHB and DMG essentially had a standard account with "advanced" game concepts essentially located in sidebars and sub classes. Not a bad approach IMO, I can see why they did it that way, but it was a far cry from the early modularity/ dials/'D&D for everyone' mantra.

I've said it multiple times recently, but I actually decided to do just that with 5e, and DID create a document that does just that on DMs guild (called 5e Old school). I think that shows that 5e IS highly malleable and adaptable to other editions and even the older editions right back to the original...but that's my opinion and my take on the matter.

I think what may have happened in regards to the modularity was what I mentioned above, WotC realized that a majority of their audience was not going to come from the older edition players (despite that the numbers of these players outnumber the others at a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio...most are either too preoccupied with other interests these days like family, or will only play the older editions rather than playing a new 5e edition) and instead a majority of those taking the surveys and participating in the playtest were those who were familiar with 3e, PF, and 4e.

That made the focus change and of course, with the players coming from a majority of those disciplines, heavily changed what the emphasis and design ideas were towards the game.

I think it may have still turned out very differently if Monte had not left. In some ways, I think some of the older school ideas in 5e may be directly attributable to some of his contributions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel the same way. They ignored almost ALL of the Old school comments in the surveys in lieu of listening to PF, 3e and 4e players, and it shows in the final document.

They never actually released the results of any of the surveys, just commented on them very selectively.

It's easy to fill out a survey, never see the compiled results, and conclude from the way the survey-taker acts on those hidden results that they're pointedly ignoring your opinions and focusing on contrary ones, perhaps even arbitrarily or because of their own prejudices.

Ask a 3.x/PF 4e/E fan, and they'll probably say that the modern fans' concerns were ignored and 5e caters to the grognards.

As a grognard fan of 1e who also liked 3.x & 4e, I look at 5e and see a lot of 2e influence. ;P

However, there were some items that were particularly LOUDLY discussed online, which had people wanting things done with 5e, but instead of those showing up, the exact opposite happened at times.

Other times they went with the crowds' shouting. DoaM, for instance.

I've said it multiple times recently, but I actually decided to do just that with 5e, and DID create a document that does just that on DMs guild (called 5e Old school). I think that shows that 5e IS highly malleable and adaptable to other editions and even the older editions right back to the original...but that's my opinion and my take on the matter.

Especially the older editions, which were very DM-driven the way 5e is, and very open to variants, and not mechanically tight or balanced. You could even make-over 5e to be more and more 3.5/PF-like, but the payoff is slight - you can just use PF, it's already there, it's very well-supported, and anyone can pick up support if Paizo ever slacks off, because it's all OGL/SRD.

I think what may have happened in regards to the modularity was what I mentioned above, WotC realized that a majority of their audience was not going to come from the older edition players (despite that the numbers of these players outnumber the others at a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio...most are either too preoccupied with other interests these days like family, or will only play the older editions rather than playing a new 5e edition)

I can't agree with that. WotC has been chasing the lapsed player from the 80s almost since the moment it took over the D&D franchise. 3.0 proudly declared 'back to the dungeon.' Classic 80s adventures were constantly being reprised. The Red Box came back with Essentials. 5e has gotten review after review likening it to AD&D or 2e.

And, anecdotal evidence warning, I see guys at my FLGS on a weekly basis whom I used to see maybe once a year at a convention. I'm not the oldest guy running D&D there, anymore. Returning players are a very real thing with 5e. It might or might not be succeeding at bringing back the fad years to WotC/Hasbro's satisfaction, but it's doin' something right.

and instead a majority of those taking the surveys and participating in the playtest were those who were familiar with 3e, PF, and 4e.

I think the surveys were probably, ultimately, filled out by a fairly small proportion of gamers. I was one of 'em - I kept filling out those surveys to the bitter end. But, I was all but alone in that among the 40-60 gamers who frequented our FLGS. I could dragoon maybe a half-dozen of them at a time into playing at my playtest table, but, even when they had definite opinions, they wouldn't bother with the surveys.

But, ultimately, 5e /did/ deliver modularity. The basic pdf has the same 4 basic classes as 0D&D w/Greyhawk. The class designs are more prolific than 2e, but very much in the 2e model. 3.x MCing/feats are optional. All the classes in the classic game, and in the 3e PH1 are represented. You can pick & choose what you want, to a degree, even as a player. The DMG has modules that edge the game in other directions.

 

[mellored]

I liked the playtest fighter better then the current one. You got dice each turn and could spend them on maneuvers or just extra damage.

 

[Valetudo]

I remember when i called mearls out about warlords on the wizards forums. That the first time they ever threatened me with a banning.

 

[thalmin]

I feel the same way. They ignored almost ALL of the Old school comments in the surveys in lieu of listening to PF, 3e and 4e players, and it shows in the final document.

Admittedly, the majority of the crowds they were expecting to attract were from those groups, so it makes sense for them to listen more closely to them, and they were probably larger in size than those still from the older editions, which gave their choices more weight.

However, there were some items that were particularly LOUDLY discussed online, which had people wanting things done with 5e, but instead of those showing up, the exact opposite happened at times.
(snip)

The fact that they were discussed LOUDLY online suggests they were controversial in the frist place, so not matter how they decided on such rules, those that argued for the opposite decision would say the same thing.