WotC Jeremy Crawford Interview: Playtests from experimental to focused. By Christian Hoffer at GenCon.

[ART!]

Same. I think their overall approach is pretty terrible, but I'm not mad about it. I'm just not going to drop the money on the new books.

Yeah, with so many robust 5E-compatible options out there and on their way, I kind of doubt I'll buy any of these new core books. Granted, part of my thinking there is that people at my table will buy them, which makes it easier for me to not buy them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My source emotion on this is boredom. The books are boring. The mechanics are boring. The monster stats are boring. The art is boring.

Not every book. Despite popular opinion, I like Bisbys, Fizbans, and yes, even Van Richtens.

But the classes, some of the core mechanical assumptions, and most of the encounters are tired. Everything there needs a fresh dash of spice, some more interesting cinematic features, a bit more depth to the stat blocks.

Im not asking for just my taste. I loved Radiant Citadel just as I did Strahd. I enjoyed Witchlight in different but comparable ways to Tomb of Annihilation.

IM asking WotC to use a sliver of their 300 million in revenue from dnd alone to innovate and raise the bar higher. I want a better game. I want better classes. I want better adventures. Idgaf if its a product for kids, noobies, or old white men bored and tired -- quality is what WotC lacks, and audience is no excuse for mid work.

Well said. I've never experienced a boring edition of D&D before, even BECMI has style, but 5E. Farts, frankly. When you can't even muster interesting art when you have the sort of mad towers of cash WotC are making, that speaks to mismanagement and cash cow treatment and worse a lack of real enthusiasm for the product among management.

I don't think it's succeeding because it's boring or mid, either - historically almost everything people claim is succeeding that way turns out to be a mirage and some other factor is behind it - usually cultural - I think it's succeeding despite that.

Yeah, with so many robust 5E-compatible options out there and on their way, I kind of doubt I'll buy any of these new core books. Granted, part of my thinking there is that people at my table will buy them, which makes it easier for me to not buy them.

I really hope one of them decides to actually do something interesting because right now it seems like most of them are playing it almost as safe as 5E (safer, even, in one case).

 

[Shardstone]

Well said. I've never experienced a boring edition of D&D before, even BECMI has style, but 5E. Farts, frankly. When you can't even muster interesting art when you have the sort of mad towers of cash WotC are making, that speaks to mismanagement and cash cow treatment and worse a lack of real enthusiasm for the product among management.

I don't think it's succeeding because it's boring or mid, either - historically almost everything people claim is succeeding that way turns out to be a mirage and some other factor is behind it - usually cultural - I think it's succeeding despite that.

I really hope one of them decides to actually do something interesting because right now it seems like most of them are playing it almost as safe as 5E (safer, even, in one case).

If you havent, i highly suggest reading MCDM's Flee Mortals! monster book. It is, imo, the best designed monster book out there, is super innovative with mechanics, well playtested, and FUN. His solo boss monster reimaging of the Ankheg is a HIT.

 

[mamba]

I get that, but I think you and a few others have let your disappointment turn to bitterness. Like, even if the end result is no more than we would see in a Whoever’s Container of Everything book… Those books are still good. Just because it’s not as good as it could have been doesn’t mean it’s terrible.

I don't think the end result will more than that. That is a disappointment to me.

"Tashsa's middling book of Everything wrong with the playtest"...

Not what I was looking forward to

Plus, there’s still the monster manual and DMG material to be tested.

yes, the PHB playtest is done as far as I am concerned, no need to continue with that, it's unsalvageable.

 

[mamba]

Lukewarm, bland acquiescence to the inevitable is not the emotion designers try to elicit from users.

then they need to do better

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Certainly not to WotC loool

Clearly they do, in fact, concern themselves with evidence and reasonable arguments.

The thing people are getting mad about is evidence to that point, not against it. It would be irrational and shortsighted to only care about the math of survey responses, to not weigh qualitive feedback at least as much as quantitive. Foolish, even.

I'm thinking stuff like the weird interactions of "Hold Person" versus "Hold Monster" with newer Species options. That could use cleaning up, but doesn't necessarily need detailed feedback to plug the holes.

For sure. Why playtest wording patches that keep spells working as originally intended?

That is just them sabotaging their own process, I have no reason to like it, regardless of outcome.

I doubt anyone here was worried about whether you like it or not, or whether I like it, or anyone else here.

Youre defending a mid designer who is making even more mid changes to the book.

Only if you define “mid” as “not what shardstone likes”.

Even if your interpretation is true, which I contend its not

I mean if you think Crawford is just directly, intentionally, lying in the video I posted, that’s a take, I guess. Not one I’m interested in interacting with further, though.

, the earlier low level changes to the game is what Crawford thinks is swinging for the bleachers.

LOL the low level changes that had swathes of people raging about how they made the new material wholly incompatible with existing material and it wasn’t even 5.5 but a full on 6e? The stuff that was going to require a whole compatibility pass at the end of the process to meet thier goal of not making a new game?

The “bleachers” have a context. What the idiom means when designing a new game is not what it means when revising a game that you plan on being compatible with itself going forward and remain the same game.

Going for a totally new, “innovative”, “daring”, “other buzzwords”, design while repeatedly stating that it is a revision and the game is not getting a new edition, wouldn’t be swinging for the fences, it’d just be lying.

Hilarious. Now that I know what Crawford defines revolutionary to be, I have lost all hope in 5e truly improving. Even without a new edition, there is so much space to develop, and time and time again they fail to actually push the envelope. Im so bored of WotC 5e, and the community is so suspicious of 3rd party material that it never gets the attention it deserves.

Well, you already know as well as I do the remedy for feeling this way. Not much worth saying on it.

Im in a bizzaro backwards world where everyone is ultra tolerant of WotCs every failing while all other ideas are interrogated under microscope. How droll. God please free me from the boredon of Crawfords narrow and simple vision

The best response this is shocked and incredulous emojis in a series, ending with sad and resigned emojis, but around here folks take emojis the worst way possible as a rule, so…eh.

I am incredulous, shocked, a bit sad, but ultimately resigned and just tired, reading the above.

Bizarro world indeed.

 

[Shardstone]

Clearly they do, in fact, concern themselves with evidence and reasonable arguments.

The thing people are getting mad about is evidence to that point, not against it. It would be irrational and shortsighted to only care about the math of survey responses, to not weigh qualitive feedback at least as much as quantitive. Foolish, even.

For sure. Why playtest wording patches that keep spells working as originally intended?

I doubt anyone here was worried about whether you like it or not, or whether I like it, or anyone else here.

Only if you define “mid” as “not what shardstone likes”.

I mean if you think Crawford is just directly, intentionally, lying in the video I posted, that’s a take, I guess. Not one I’m interested in interacting with further, though.

LOL the low level changes that had swathes of people raging about how they made the new material wholly incompatible with existing material and it wasn’t even 5.5 but a full on 6e? The stuff that was going to require a whole compatibility pass at the end of the process to meet thier goal of not making a new game?

The “bleachers” have a context. What the idiom means when designing a new game is not what it means when revising a game that you plan on being compatible with itself going forward and remain the same game.

Going for a totally new, “innovative”, “daring”, “other buzzwords”, design while repeatedly stating that it is a revision and the game is not getting a new edition, wouldn’t be swinging for the fences, it’d just be lying.

Well, you already know as well as I do the remedy for feeling this way. Not much worth saying on it.

The best response this is shocked and incredulous emojis in a series, ending with sad and resigned emojis, but around here folks take emojis the worst way possible as a rule, so…eh.

I am incredulous, shocked, a bit sad, but ultimately resigned and just tired, reading the above.

Bizarro world indeed.

You are emotionally charged right now, and my brash tone isnt making things better. Take a step back and read my last post to Char. The emotions, anger, and overall meaning of my message is not what you think it is, and Im not interested in defending points I never made.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You are emotionally charged right now, and my brash tone isnt making things better. Take a step back and read my last post to Char. The emotions, anger, and overall meaning of my message is not what you think it is, and Im not interested in defending points I never made.

You’re either reading emotionality into a post that has very little, or trying to push buttons (bc so many incorrectly think that emotions are character flaws, or at least less valuable than logic, and get offended by such implications).

I am always coming from a place of believing that emotion is more valuable than pure logic, but that both are necessary to fully understand anything, but I’m not especially emotional here. Especially in the post you’re quoting.

Just in case, you can see the parts where I’m replying to Parmandur and mamba, yes? If not due to someone’s use of the ignore function I will point them out so you know what was actually in reply to you and what wasn’t.

Either way, if I have to guess, you are reading emotion into the last part? I would have thought that part was pretty obviously not particularly serious, what with the references to emojis and the general silliness of the whole thing, but maybe not.

If you’re instead referring to the beginning, I said “the thing people are getting mad about” instead of “the thing you’re mad about” for a reason. Mostly, to avoid calling out someone I knew I was very close to putting on ignore.

Your posts are more derisive than angry, which I also don’t really understand and find to be a bit much, but they are rather different things.

If I’m still missing what you mean when you reference points you never made, feel free to point it out, and if I can see what you mean I’ll apologize or at least explain why I inferred something you apperently didn’t intend from your statements.

 

[Shardstone]

You’re either reading emotionality into a post that has very little, or trying to push buttons (bc so many incorrectly think that emotions are character flaws, or at least less valuable than logic, and get offended by such implications).

I am always coming from a place of believing that emotion is more valuable than pure logic, but that both are necessary to fully understand anything, but I’m not especially emotional here. Especially in the post you’re quoting.

Just in case, you can see the parts where I’m replying to Parmandur and mamba, yes? If not due to someone’s use of the ignore function I will point them out so you know what was actually in reply to you and what wasn’t.

Either way, if I have to guess, you are reading emotion into the last part? I would have thought that part was pretty obviously not particularly serious, what with the references to emojis and the general silliness of the whole thing, but maybe not.

If you’re instead referring to the beginning, I said “the thing people are getting mad about” instead of “the thing you’re mad about” for a reason. Mostly, to avoid calling out someone I knew I was very close to putting on ignore.

Your posts are more derisive than angry, which I also don’t really understand and find to be a bit much, but they are rather different things.

If I’m still missing what you mean when you reference points you never made, feel free to point it out, and if I can see what you mean I’ll apologize or at least explain why I inferred something you apperently didn’t intend from your statements.

All is good man, Im just trying to complain about WotC for their mid vision for a few more pages tbh

 

[MockingBird]

LOL the low level changes that had swathes of people raging about how they made the new material wholly incompatible with existing material and it wasn’t even 5.5 but a full on 6e? The stuff that was going to require a whole compatibility pass at the end of the process to meet thier goal of not making a new game?

Yeah there seems to be a tonal shift in outrage. I remember at the start of the play test people swore up and down it was an edition change and how catastrophic that would be. Now it's not enough, and they should have just did an edition change and catastrophic it's going to be because it's not an edition change.