D&D (2024) More People Test One D&D Origins Playtest Than D&D Next

WotC has announced that more people have playtested the first One D&D playtest than the number of people who playtested the entirety of the D&D Next playtest 10 years ago, which led to the release of D&D 5E. The number of people who playtested D&D Next, according to the credits in the 5E Player's Handbook, was over 175,000 people.

In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting!

Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons!

 

[MNblockhead]

Maybe the solution is to have a list of backgrounds that are pretty bare-bones (just provides a feat and skill proficiencies and tells you to pick the rest yourself), followed by a list that's slightly more detailed (also includes tool proficiencies), and finally a list with everything filled in.

Except many players like the flavor text. A lot of players are make their selections based on the flavor text and the art work.

 

[MNblockhead]

It honestly makes the most sense in Class, seeing as where your top stats go is near entirely dependent on Class, and not on anything else.

Yeah, this is where it gets fiddly.

For myself, I like backgrounds having ASI and feats. It just makes sense to me, adds versimitude, and promotes the zero-to-hero style of play I like (I actually have begun campaigns with zero-level character funnels - they don't select a class until they select from their surviving zero-level characters and choose a class). But that isn't really how most people play. From my observations most games start with the characters already fairly heroic (just having a class does that IMHO). Many groups start their campaigns at level 5. So for the way most people play, it probably does make sense to have ASIs tied to class.

On the other hand, I like having ASIs come from multiple places: race, backgrounds, and class. Weither selected or based on templates. It just gives a bit more customization. Even if it mechanically the result is the same, is feels different to me. If I'm playing an origin where my "people" are huge, hardy, barbarians. I like having ASIs reflect that. That could come from a goliath template or ASIs that I chose to apply (my halfling tribe are not your typical halflings, they are roided up spartan halfings...) For me the game would be losing something if ASIs can't come from race. And it would add something to also have the option of having them come from backgrounds. I suppose I could accept them coming from background instead of race, but only from class? That just isn't as satisfying to me.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Maybe the background section should have a disclaimer:

These sample Backgrounds are just examples! All of the components thereof are completely fungible. Feel free to change anything that would better reflect your individual character concept.

 

[Haplo781]

There should be an entire page dedicated to how to build a background, and that page should be on the right side, so you have to see it before you get to the sample backgrounds.

 

[CrashFiend82]

After spending years writing SOPs for multiple departments at a major corporation, I can guarantee some percent of people will not read a sidebar, heading, or any other demarcation of Build Your Own background. If WOTC can find a perfect solution, I will steal that in a heartbeat. To be honest they should follow the KISS method, players that grab and go probably won't care if their PC is suboptimal.

 

[Zaukrie]

You're overthinking things. I'm not saying this as a dig and it really isn't that you are "over" thinking things but you likely enjoy character creation as a major part of your enjoyment of the game.

For many players that just isn't the case. I met quite a few players, especially new players, where character creation is a splash of cold water on their enthusiasm to play.

And this isn't just with backgrounds. I would prefer that for each race that for players who don't want to roll, point buy, or apply standard array, they should have the option for "here are some default/example stats for a dwarf, just use these if you don't want to fiddle." Like they already do with character classes.

I don't like character creation. All I'm saying is if their goal is to separate race and culture / skills, that they still aren't good at it.

I agree, they should make it as simple, or complex, as people want. Frankly, I think premade dwarf fighters or whatever, would be great to have in the book. If not the book, DNDbeyond, for free

 

[MNblockhead]

After spending years writing SOPs for multiple departments at a major corporation, I can guarantee some percent of people will not read a sidebar, heading, or any other demarcation of Build Your Own background. If WOTC can find a perfect solution, I will steal that in a heartbeat. To be honest they should follow the KISS method, players that grab and go probably won't care if their PC is suboptimal.

^ Yeah, this. 100%

Kinda like security instructions, SOPs, and training are important but it is dangerous to expect they'll be read, remembered, and followed. You need to design your systems to make compliance easy. Which is why I think there are limits with what you can do in print. Put the DIY instructions for those of us who like to read the manual, but keep the easy grab-and-go options for what is likely the majority of players. In a chargen program like DDB you can step people through the process and selections, which will encourage more people to roll their own because it is easy.

 

[MNblockhead]

I don't like character creation. All I'm saying is if their goal is to separate race and culture / skills, that they still aren't good at it.

They are walking a tight-rope. They want to update to a more flexible, less essentialist char gen system, while keeping the flavor of D&D.

Personally, I would like to see rules for making your own races, classes, and background. Each followed by examples drawn from the traditional races and classes. I think that could be done and still be backward compatible. Most people would just select from existing race, class, and background templates. Cool. But give tools to roll your own.

I agree, they should make it as simple, or complex, as people want. Frankly, I think premade dwarf fighters or whatever, would be great to have in the book. If not the book, DNDbeyond, for free

I agree, but the problem will be page count. Which is why releasing a book (or boxed set with loose sheets) with pregens would be nice. I know that the basic sets do this, but I'm talking about having a large number of options to choose from. Don't know how well a separate book/box of just pre-gens would sell. They could also be useful for GMs to for NPCs, but NPC rules likely would use monster-type stat blocks and need to have different levels, etc. I think they will leave the "pre gens" for DDB.

DDB already has the ability to make pregens. You can just one-click create one completely at random, or you can select a small number of options like race, class, and level and have one generated. Not sure that I can see them making this avaialble for free though. Perhaps my pre-gen book ideal could be released as a PDF that is made available for free as a download like the basic rules.

 

[Reynard]

Maybe the background section should have a disclaimer:

These sample Backgrounds are just examples! All of the components thereof are completely fungible. Feel free to change anything that would better reflect your individual character concept.

View attachment 260076

Probably more useful to put the word "suggested" in front of all the predefined options. In my experience people just don't read instructions. They dive right into the choices. So there's at least a slight chance that when they see "Suggested Language" instead of just "Language" that they will clue in. But probably not. They would much rather complain online about how terrible the design is rather than actually read.

 

[darjr]

I’ve mulled this over and I agree they should have a quick build option that will probably be seen as “defaults” and for groups, unless they really emphasize that they are individuals or something more careful.

Seeing it that way I think language should be taken out of said “defaults”