Arbanax
First Post
DnDNext playtest report 28th May 2012
Ok so here is my playtest report on our first DnDNext game.
I played and DM'd AD&D, came back with 4E and my players started with 3.0 and came up through.
I have tried to be fair and even handed, as I like what I see so far in DnDNext but at the same time I realised playing a game and reading it are two different things.
So in terms of context, we got straight into the game, with a hook I'd created, the players went to the Goblin caves in the south, then through the Ogre cave and through the lower complex until they got to room 23 the Hobgoblins. We had 6 battles (one battle was really in two parts with the first wave of goblins at the entrance followed by a second wave which I mistakenly placed after the first had been slaughtered).
Also we played without a battle map or minis, I wanted to try TOTM and also we had only four of my normal five players. Since I didn't know how to scale the combats (I realise that you don't have to, but I didn't want my players to get killed too easily and vow off every playing again).
What we liked
Speaking for myself as DM, combat was fast and easy, I found it surprising easy to run even without a grid.
- Combat was clear* the Advantage/Disadvantage rules worked and I liked the way things flowed around combat and out of it as well. (*though there were some situations that did make us scratch our heads, the nature of more free flowing did mean we had to do a lot of interpretation).
- Magic felt magical, great to hear the wizard saying, "I cast detect magic etc"
- Exploration was great, it was wonderful to have a large connected dungeon to explore, with all sorts of tunnels and different locations.
- XP I got them to track their own XP, as combat took less time there was six instances where I gave out XP in the game, this wasn't the case previously so it was great to have someone say, "did we get XP for that last fight?"
- Fun, when whacky things did happen, (the mage cast Continual light on a goblin skull and threw it into rooms to spook the goblins) it was clear that it was because the way things work allow for more interaction, improvisation and fun.
What we didn't like
- Players seemed to think that lack of choices equalled a lack of options. Improvisation was unfamiliar and many of the group didn't seem comfortable or sure how to try new things. I think this is a reflection of the more free form rules and would change with more play tests and the realisation that improvisation doesn't have to equal suboptimal choice!
- Healing I think it was a real shock how weakened they were as compared to what they were used to. Not so much because they took hits or were hurt more easily, but more because healing was so much more limited and less reliable. Rolling a 1 when you're only on 2 HP isn't great, esp if you're a wizard.
- Combat could be repetitive - I think I realise this is more a reflection on me as a DM, whilst it was fast and quick, I found it harder to think at the table as to how to be creative, with monsters having only one form of attack and therefore how they work together beyond the obvious to use those attacks.
Other things or queries
- Passive perception, because the party seldom called for checks (They never seemed to ask and I was keen to make a good impression) so I allowed them to take wisdom checks from time to time.
- Disadvantage/Advantage dice, these were a little problematic in places, firstly we didn't always know when to apply them, second even when they got to roll these sometimes they ended up with a worst result. Some people said they preferred static bonuses - again I think we need to keep playing with this to see how problematic this is or if its just a shift in expectations.
- Vancian Spells as horded dailies, this isn't a complaint, but if in 4e Dailies tended to get horded in this playtest so did Vancian spells - which mean that the following…
- Spamming, Not sure if this is a bad thing but I noticed an audible groan when the Cleric of Pelor just kept using his Radiant Lance every round. He was happier sitting further back and doing this. I am not sure if he just felt this was safest or he was being lazy, but with such good Orison and Cantrip powers you can see how these made good basic attacks.
- Monsters Organisation we needed all their relevant stats in one place, switching between the Bestiary and then the module to get Initiative or speed or to know what their wisdom Mod, would be better in one place.
- Magic spells effects, related to this the Magic/divine users did find it problematic to look up spells and their effects. In this they'd prefer this summarized as per 4e powers on their character sheet, as its easier to make comparisons and choices without trying to hold all these different options in your head and not feel you're holding everyone up whilst trying to do it.
- Clarity on some issues, Spiritual Hammer for instance isn't very clear as to how it can be used when sustained beyond its first round as it indicates (without quoting) that it can be moved and used as 'part' of an action. The word 'part' there threw us as it seems to suggested that an action could be broken into parts something else could also be done in that one action. We interpreted it to mean within one action it can both move and an attack as part of that one action, but this is just an example.
Conclusion and final thoughts
Did this feel like D&D yes and no, yes as all the tropes were there, magic, XP, dungeon etc. But on the other hand, a lot felt like it was missing - why a table or time it takes to get armour off and on but nothing on Opportunity Attacks etc. My players really do seem to like what they can do in 4e so its an inevitable conclusion that anything less than that is a trade off to them seem like a lesser option and a poorer choice. But having said that more play testing may reveal there attitudes are less fixed than a single play test shows.
One thing I'd like to add is that we can normally only get together every two weeks and therefore playtesting cuts into our existing campaign. Being able to play online would expedite matters for us and I suspect many others. I realise that this might be out of your hands, but I just wanted to lodge my own vote for a more open play test so we can play test more frequently.
I'll update this if I get anything else from my players but wanted to put this up whilst it was still fresh.
Thanks
Ab
Ok so here is my playtest report on our first DnDNext game.
I played and DM'd AD&D, came back with 4E and my players started with 3.0 and came up through.
I have tried to be fair and even handed, as I like what I see so far in DnDNext but at the same time I realised playing a game and reading it are two different things.
So in terms of context, we got straight into the game, with a hook I'd created, the players went to the Goblin caves in the south, then through the Ogre cave and through the lower complex until they got to room 23 the Hobgoblins. We had 6 battles (one battle was really in two parts with the first wave of goblins at the entrance followed by a second wave which I mistakenly placed after the first had been slaughtered).
Also we played without a battle map or minis, I wanted to try TOTM and also we had only four of my normal five players. Since I didn't know how to scale the combats (I realise that you don't have to, but I didn't want my players to get killed too easily and vow off every playing again).
What we liked
Speaking for myself as DM, combat was fast and easy, I found it surprising easy to run even without a grid.
- Combat was clear* the Advantage/Disadvantage rules worked and I liked the way things flowed around combat and out of it as well. (*though there were some situations that did make us scratch our heads, the nature of more free flowing did mean we had to do a lot of interpretation).
- Magic felt magical, great to hear the wizard saying, "I cast detect magic etc"
- Exploration was great, it was wonderful to have a large connected dungeon to explore, with all sorts of tunnels and different locations.
- XP I got them to track their own XP, as combat took less time there was six instances where I gave out XP in the game, this wasn't the case previously so it was great to have someone say, "did we get XP for that last fight?"
- Fun, when whacky things did happen, (the mage cast Continual light on a goblin skull and threw it into rooms to spook the goblins) it was clear that it was because the way things work allow for more interaction, improvisation and fun.
What we didn't like
- Players seemed to think that lack of choices equalled a lack of options. Improvisation was unfamiliar and many of the group didn't seem comfortable or sure how to try new things. I think this is a reflection of the more free form rules and would change with more play tests and the realisation that improvisation doesn't have to equal suboptimal choice!
- Healing I think it was a real shock how weakened they were as compared to what they were used to. Not so much because they took hits or were hurt more easily, but more because healing was so much more limited and less reliable. Rolling a 1 when you're only on 2 HP isn't great, esp if you're a wizard.
- Combat could be repetitive - I think I realise this is more a reflection on me as a DM, whilst it was fast and quick, I found it harder to think at the table as to how to be creative, with monsters having only one form of attack and therefore how they work together beyond the obvious to use those attacks.
Other things or queries
- Passive perception, because the party seldom called for checks (They never seemed to ask and I was keen to make a good impression) so I allowed them to take wisdom checks from time to time.
- Disadvantage/Advantage dice, these were a little problematic in places, firstly we didn't always know when to apply them, second even when they got to roll these sometimes they ended up with a worst result. Some people said they preferred static bonuses - again I think we need to keep playing with this to see how problematic this is or if its just a shift in expectations.
- Vancian Spells as horded dailies, this isn't a complaint, but if in 4e Dailies tended to get horded in this playtest so did Vancian spells - which mean that the following…
- Spamming, Not sure if this is a bad thing but I noticed an audible groan when the Cleric of Pelor just kept using his Radiant Lance every round. He was happier sitting further back and doing this. I am not sure if he just felt this was safest or he was being lazy, but with such good Orison and Cantrip powers you can see how these made good basic attacks.
- Monsters Organisation we needed all their relevant stats in one place, switching between the Bestiary and then the module to get Initiative or speed or to know what their wisdom Mod, would be better in one place.
- Magic spells effects, related to this the Magic/divine users did find it problematic to look up spells and their effects. In this they'd prefer this summarized as per 4e powers on their character sheet, as its easier to make comparisons and choices without trying to hold all these different options in your head and not feel you're holding everyone up whilst trying to do it.
- Clarity on some issues, Spiritual Hammer for instance isn't very clear as to how it can be used when sustained beyond its first round as it indicates (without quoting) that it can be moved and used as 'part' of an action. The word 'part' there threw us as it seems to suggested that an action could be broken into parts something else could also be done in that one action. We interpreted it to mean within one action it can both move and an attack as part of that one action, but this is just an example.
Conclusion and final thoughts
Did this feel like D&D yes and no, yes as all the tropes were there, magic, XP, dungeon etc. But on the other hand, a lot felt like it was missing - why a table or time it takes to get armour off and on but nothing on Opportunity Attacks etc. My players really do seem to like what they can do in 4e so its an inevitable conclusion that anything less than that is a trade off to them seem like a lesser option and a poorer choice. But having said that more play testing may reveal there attitudes are less fixed than a single play test shows.
One thing I'd like to add is that we can normally only get together every two weeks and therefore playtesting cuts into our existing campaign. Being able to play online would expedite matters for us and I suspect many others. I realise that this might be out of your hands, but I just wanted to lodge my own vote for a more open play test so we can play test more frequently.
I'll update this if I get anything else from my players but wanted to put this up whilst it was still fresh.
Thanks
Ab
