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

[dave2008]

The 11th hour turn where a bunch of stuff is rushed into the new edition without consulting anyone. Just like last time.

I just want to point out that there is no need for them to consult with the fans on any of this. We act like we are owed some extensive public playtest. We are not. This is the first edition that got one at all and we already feel so entitled!

 

[dave2008]

Yeah I was thinking about getting that. I got a bit turned off on MCDM by the horrible decisions he seems to be making with his new RPG but his 5E stuff sounds excellent.

The book is just OK IMO. I have it, but I don't think any of the monsters will see use in my game. They are not better than my own and the PDF is not user friendly.

Now, if this book had come out 6 years ago it would be amazing, but for me it is to little to late. I've been their and done that. One caveat: I am speaking specifically about the monsters, there are other rules and systems in the book that I have not reviewed much.

 

[dave2008]

I found this part interesting and hopeful:

As for some of the other proposed changes that tested well, Crawford noted that there was still a chance that they might appear in a future book as optional rules. "Some of the other things that scored well but then had a mixed reception in terms of people's commentary on it, all of those things still have a chance to appear as optional rules in a future book." He also added that they could save some of those designs for a future edition "years from now."

 

[dave2008]

Also noted that they wanted to swing for the bleachers because they didn’t want 2024 to be more than just an errata update.

@darjr Did you mean"did?" Later in the article it states:

Crawford pushed back on the idea that the 2024 Rules Revisions were just glorified errata, because of the amount of new content that will be appearing in the 2024 rules revisions. "There are some significant changes that go way beyond what we would ever do in errata, in terms of new subsystems showing up," Crawford said.

 

[darjr]

@darjr Did you mean"did?" Later in the article it states:

Crawford pushed back on the idea that the 2024 Rules Revisions were just glorified errata, because of the amount of new content that will be appearing in the 2024 rules revisions. "There are some significant changes that go way beyond what we would ever do in errata, in terms of new subsystems showing up," Crawford said.

I meant to point out what he said in your quote. I need an editor.

 

[mamba]

I just want to point out that there is no need for them to consult with the fans on any of this. We act like are owed some extensive public playtest. We are not. This is the first edition that got one at all and we already feel so entitled!

They added one because the last edition where they did not have one ended up being 4e... Having one is to WotC's benefit more than ours, I just wish it were a better process all around

 

[Parmandur]

They added one because the last edition where they did not have one ended up being 4e... Having one is to WotC's benefit more than ours, I just wish it were a better process all around

The process you seem to desire, however, mirrors the sort of process that went into making 4E (designers going off on a tangent, trying to drag users along kicking and screaming rather than tailoring to user behaviors).

 

[mamba]

The process you seem to desire, however, mirrors the sort of process that went into making 4E (designers going off on a tangent, trying to drag users along kicking and screaming rather than tailoring to user behaviors).

No, quite the contrary. I want them to collect clear feedback, so they have a clear basis to operate from. Right now that is a jumble and as a result does not represent what the participants actually want.

 

[Azzy]

I’d think people talking about it is generally a good thing.

And they do seem to be listening. And seeing people on the far end of “must be all new” and “don’t change a thing” up in arms may be a general good sign for a decent middle road.

Oh, I think that airing our opinions about what's in the playtest packets is groovy. It's just the "discussion" over the methodology of the surveys has become utterly circular (essentially "nuh-uh"/"uh-huh" at this point) that it's not really a constructive conversation and it's spilt over across multiple threads. I sympathize with both sides, but at this point both sides are entrenched and nobody is convincing the other side that they're wrong. So it's all howling at the moon.

 

[Azzy]

I meant to point out what he said in your quote. I need an editor.

Don't we all.