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!

 

[JEB]

Wizards of the Coast cannot design a game under the assumption that the majority of players are going to read the rule in the stupidest manner possible.

If people misinterpret a rule so badly that they miss the entire paragraph that explains the changes and how to use them, it's really not WotC's fault. People misreading the rules is inevitable, and trying to design a game under the assumption that the rules are going to be constantly misread and thus trying to future-proof that is near-impossible.

I agree in principle, but apparently folks sometimes need things to be spelled out very explicitly. As mentioned several times now, 5E's backgrounds are also customizable, and that's been missed. As another example, the 5E Monster Manual supported picking alternative alignments for monsters, well before they had to append "typically" in current stat blocks. I'm sure there are more...

Hence my support for some hand-holding here and walking folks very clearly through the process, and/or including some variants of the same background to show it's not just what they list or nothing. If you want to make sure people do it, you need to write to that.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree in principle, but apparently folks sometimes need things to be spelled out very explicitly. As mentioned several times now, 5E's backgrounds are also customizable, and that's been missed. As another example, the 5E Monster Manual supported picking alternative alignments for monsters, well before they had to append "typically" in current stat blocks. I'm sure there are more...

Hence my support for some hand-holding here and walking folks very clearly through the process, and/or including some variants of the same background to show it's not just what they list or nothing. If you want to make sure people do it, you need to write to that.

The PHB is for the basics, after all, and helping new people ramp up as much as reference for veterans.

 

[Gorck]

Frankly, just remove stat adjustments from anything and let players put them anywhere. That's easy and removes any bias. So easy. Want a strong elven mage? Go for it.

I, for one, would hate this. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I didn't like this option in Tasha's and I was upset that they took the option and made it mandatory with subsequently released races. That's the reason I refuse to allow Owlin, Fairies, and Harengon in my campaigns.

I enjoy the puzzle of trying to find interesting Race/Class combos to play, and that pursuit has led me to try Races I might not have otherwise considered playing, but with this method people would probably just determine the single optimal race and use it to make all their characters.

I used to play with a guy who would only play a Dwarf, which is fine for him - "to each, his own" and all - but I would find that dreadfully boring.

 

[Xohar17]

Have to "claim" it on D&D Beyond to get access to the page with the download link.

Thats for one dnd, they meant dnd next, and there was in fact some regustration process involved there too.

 

[Xohar17]

That's exactly what I wrote in the box in that part of the survey...

Me too, i told em i didnt use any background as written, we all eother made a new one or modified at least some asoect of the background we chose.

 

[Xohar17]

Nope. I don't want them on race anymore.

Why?

 

[Mind of tempest]

I, for one, would hate this. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I didn't like this option in Tasha's and I was upset that they took the option and made it mandatory with subsequently released races. That's the reason I refuse to allow Owlin, Fairies, and Harengon in my campaigns.

I enjoy the puzzle of trying to find interesting Race/Class combos to play, and that pursuit has led me to try Races I might not have otherwise considered playing, but with this method people would probably just determine the single optimal race and use it to make all their characters.

I used to play with a guy who would only play a Dwarf, which is fine for him - "to each, his own" and all - but I would find that dreadfully boring.

I can respect that but do understand that guy who mains dwarves who you played with is closer to the common new dnd player than you are as puzzling is not what a lot want out of their fantasy escapism system.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why?

This might derail the thread. If you search for my argumentation, you will find them.

In short:
I think a +2 bonus does not carry enough weight to distinguish one race from another, a +1 bonus even less so (we are not in ADnD anymore, where having a +1/-1 adjustment to stats change your character noticably, we are also not in 3.x anymore, where you would get bigger bonuses, which were often offset or enhanced by sie modifiers)
I like the giff trait, which gives advantage on strength checks and carrying capacity, which will always make you really strong, without changing combat balance.

 

[Reynard]

They are designing a game to be accessible to asany people as possible ,however, so making everything flow as smoothly as possible is important. Enough posters on these boards seem confused, sonI eonder what they will end up doijg in the end.

People on this board notoriously do not read the rules. Some of them take pride in it (especially as it relates to the DMG). The more I read peoples' responses to the playtest, the more I am convinced open and public playtests are a terrible idea and will result in a (mechanically) worse game.

 

[Parmandur]

People on this board notoriously do not read the rules. Some of them take pride in it (especially as it relates to the DMG). The more I read peoples' responses to the playtest, the more I am convinced open and public playtests are a terrible idea and will result in a (mechanically) worse game.

Based on the past ten years of playtest iterations, the result will likely tend very conservative. But thst has helped the game so far.