D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[Mistwell]

Interesting tidbits from video #1

They learned from feedback that they didn't need an equal number of rules for each of the three pillars of the game.

For example, for Social Interaction, the audience feedback was that the audience didn't want a lot of game mechanics governing that pillar. They wanted to role play out their character, maybe talk in funny voices, maybe make a charisma check, but they didn't need a whole of [of mechanics] to feel satisfied with it. Character personality on your character sheet intentionally takes up about as much space as combat on your character sheet, and those personality traits are supposed to help serve as a reminder and support for social interactions, and to note it's an important concept to players.

For exploration, they presented material in a different way. They don't give players specific options like "You can make a perception check" but instead focus a lot more on you just telling the DM what you want to do and the DM adjudicates that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Interesting tidbits from video #1

They learned from feedback that they didn't need an equal number of rules for each of the three pillars of the game.

ugh I absolutely hate this cop out...

For example, for Social Interaction, the audience feedback was that the audience didn't want a lot of game mechanics governing that pillar. They wanted to role play out their character, maybe talk in funny voices, maybe make a charisma check, but they didn't need a whole of [of mechanics] to feel satisfied with it. Character personality on your character sheet intentionally takes up about as much space as combat on your character sheet, and those personality traits are supposed to help serve as a reminder and support for social interactions, and to note it's an important concept to players.

and yet we still get charm person and suggestion and geas and even friends right in the PHB...

For exploration, they presented material in a different way. They don't give players specific options like "You can make a perception check" but instead focus a lot more on you just telling the DM what you want to do and the DM adjudicates that.

unless you have detect spells, or augury spells, or scrying spells, or spiderclimb or teleport (starting at 2nd level with misty step)

they didn't follow what they say

that they didn't need an equal number of rules for each of the three pillars of the game.

they just hid all the options in the spell subsystems (even for ranger)

 

[Mistwell]

Video #2

Having a smaller design team was intentional, and a strength. [Some of this is my interpretation of what they're saying here] Too many people requires a lot more communication to get everyone on the same page for evolving design standards, and a lot of time was spent in prior design teams either communicating more or fixing stuff that hadn't been communicated well. Fewer internal people made for the vision to be a lot more consistent across the rules.

Making the books fun to read was an important idea.

D&D isn't as hard as people think it is to play.

 

[payn]

For example, for Social Interaction, the audience feedback was that the audience didn't want a lot of game mechanics governing that pillar. They wanted to role play out their character, maybe talk in funny voices, maybe make a charisma check, but they didn't need a whole of [of mechanics] to feel satisfied with it. Character personality on your character sheet intentionally takes up about as much space as combat on your character sheet, and those personality traits are supposed to help serve as a reminder and support for social interactions, and to note it's an important concept to players.

For exploration, they presented material in a different way. They don't give players specific options like "You can make a perception check" but instead focus a lot more on you just telling the DM what you want to do and the DM adjudicates that.

I dont recall how this was presented back in the surveys. Though, as noted by gmforpowergamers, spells get to just do things in social and exploration pillar and don't need DM adjudication. What a missed opportunity. Clearly, most folks don't seem to care though so what can you do?

 

[Retreater]

I think the Social Interaction pillar probably harkened back too much to 4e Skill Challenges and was met with the usual "it's a video game because even role-playing is given mechanics" parlance.
Thus 5e skills were made less interesting (IMO). Roll a die. We don't have specific DCs in mind. Maybe you don't even have to roll (Passive Checks). Only a few skills are useful.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the Social Interaction pillar probably harkened back too much to 4e Skill Challenges and was met with the usual "it's a video game because even role-playing is given mechanics" parlance.
Thus 5e skills were made less interesting (IMO). Roll a die. We don't have specific DCs in mind. Maybe you don't even have to roll (Passive Checks). Only a few skills are useful.

From what I recall, the sentiment was more that 5e was supposed to be a unifying edition, and letting the DM determine based on their own best judgment when to call for a roll would make it possible to resolve social interactions either primarily mechanically or primarily through talking in character, whereas a more involved social challenge system would close the door on the latter.

EDIT: Also don’t forget that a lot of us were operating under the belief that these kinds of systems could be developed later as modular add-ons. I know I often advocated for the most rules-lite versions of things because I thought they were building the common core onto which optional subsystems could be attached or left off as a given group saw fit, and I thought a simpler baseline would suit that goal better.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is why we have so many threads about how fighters need to be improved? Don't get me wrong, I think there are already plenty of options if the "basic" fighter doesn't work for you. Heck, I have a player in a game with a fighter that rarely even uses action surge, he just doesn't think to use it or is saving it for when it really matters. He enjoys his character but could probably use something even simpler.

But my real point is that you can't please everyone. There will always be compromises, there is no one size fits all and there is no such thing as a perfect game.

As I think about this video, the Mearls quote of "This one a pure elegance standpoint that is l.. is a better thing but we have to use the audiences standpoint "

The Fighter should have been split into 2 more classes. But the audience as an aggregate level wasnt ready for 2 pure martial warrior of skill and the policy of "no new class unless setting demands it" caused fighter to have a weird satisfaction level.

The fighter went through the most changes over the playtest. This is because they tried to get the WHOLE community behind ONE fighter instead of 2 "fighters".

 

[Oofta]

As I think about this video, the Mearls quote of "This one a pure elegance standpoint that is l.. is a better thing but we have to use the audiences standpoint "

The Fighter should have been split into 2 more classes. But the audience as an aggregate level wasnt ready for 2 pure martial warrior of skill and the policy of "no new class unless setting demands it" caused fighter to have a weird satisfaction level.

The fighter went through the most changes over the playtest. This is because they tried to get the WHOLE community behind ONE fighter instead of 2 "fighters".

I'm not going to get into this argument again. You want another class, I think there are plenty of options and don't see a big enough niche you could do that isn't already covered.

 

[Oofta]

ugh I absolutely hate this cop out...

and yet we still get charm person and suggestion and geas and even friends right in the PHB...

unless you have detect spells, or augury spells, or scrying spells, or spiderclimb or teleport (starting at 2nd level with misty step)

they didn't follow what they say

they just hid all the options in the spell subsystems (even for ranger)

Listening to what the majority wants and feedback from playtests is not a cop out. You may hate the way things were done, in general I like it and it seems to work well in all the games I've been involved with.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not going to get into this argument again. You want another class, I think there are plenty of options and don't see a big enough niche you could do that isn't already covered.

I wasn't trying to get into that discussion.

I am just saying that the designers put such a high level of wide satisfaction on possible new ideas that it hindered or even block many things that would or could have been beneficial to 5e.

The fact that we can add 5+ different official new kinds of elf but the designers could only get one new class concept and zero new nonMTG settings past their survey system kinda proves it.