Concerns for the Playtest.

[Dellamon]

No, I meant an accelerated release date for the finished product. Basically, cutting the public playtest short in order to get the product out the door and money flowing into the coffers.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

No, I meant an accelerated release date for the finished product. Basically, cutting the public playtest short in order to get the product out the door and money flowing into the coffers.

Didn't mike m just tell us atleast 11 playtests (10 pregens level 1-10, and 1 with char gen rules)

 

[Dellamon]

I'm not sure, I did not see anything concerning that. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, and I truly do hope the playtest is as good and thorough as they are publicly stating. WoTC just does not have a good record for public disclosure or incorporating player feedback from what I have read. And 1.5 years with no significant new product launches (other than board games) seems like an awful long time when you have quality competitors producing new and exciting products (or continuing to refine existing). But maybe WoTC has a very understanding management team and Hasbro has agreed not to bring the hammer down while they make the new release?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, I meant an accelerated release date for the finished product. Basically, cutting the public playtest short in order to get the product out the door and money flowing into the coffers.

Yeah, I'm concerned this will happened too. My guess is they announced too early.

This year is filled with almost no product releases. Nothing beyond Aug has been announced or even hinted at. Even if they WERE to announce new products, I'm guessing most of them won't sell well after the playtest is on its 3rd iteration and everyone already has a decent feeling as to how 5e plays.

I'm guessing someone at Hasbro noticed this and said "Hey, we can't go too many months without selling new products. If our last 4e product comes out in Aug, then you need to release 5e no more than 3 months later. And it'll come out for the Christmas season...perfect."

When I'm guessing the designers(Monte in particular) were planning not to have the game ready until at least Aug next year. You can tell from the timeline that they appear to WANT to move at.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Didn't mike m just tell us atleast 11 playtests (10 pregens level 1-10, and 1 with char gen rules)

I'd have to find the exact quote, but that's not the impression I got. It seemed to be more of a "We'll have playtests with pregens that cover the 1-10 range". In another words, maybe 1 playtest at 1st level, 1 playtest at 5th, and 1 and 10th.

Even then, we don't know the exact timeline for how often they'll come out. They might come out weekly, for all we know(though I severely doubt it).

I suspect they'll want to reach a major milestone in the testing for Gen Con in August so they have something major to show off. I wouldn't be surprised if the version of the playtest with the character creation comes out right before so they can encourage people to show up with their own 5e characters and play in a Special Event of some sort.

 

[underfoot007ct]

People have asked Wizards for a playtest to be done and now they have their chance. Nothing is saying that Wizards has to use everything that is proposed to them but giving a playtest just to say they gave a playtest is not what I want.

I don't like 4th edition but a lot of errors could have been avoided if a playtest had been done. Now there is no proof that they would have listen even then but Wizards does have a track record of not actually listening to what their customers want and they have a track record of not delivering on what they say they will.

Paizo has proven over and over again how to actually run a gaming company and hiding behind the D&D logo isn't enough for me. "Trust us, it's D&D after all" doesn't hold the weight that it used to, in my opinion.

A lot of us aren't game designers but that doesn't mean we know less than an actual game designer. Thousands of people looking at something are more likely to find something that's wrong than just a few.

Untue about 4e, there WAS 4e playtest, please refer to 4e PHB page 316. This was a closed playtest not an open PT. I think that maybe the 4e PT group was too small, but I know for a fact, the final 4e game was much changed from the early 4e PT. So WOTC did / does indeed listen.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Untue about 4e, there WAS 4e playtest, please refer to 4e PHB page 316. This was a closed playtest not an open PT. I think that maybe the 4e PT group was too small, but I know for a fact, the final 4e game was much changed from the early 4e PT. So WOTC did / does indeed listen.

They did listen a little. But they admitted in an interview recently that they didn't really read all of the feedback and that a lot of feedback that came in they had already decided not to go in that direction so they ignored. They admitted this in the same sentence as they said they didn't plan on doing the same thing again for 5e.

It did change, but the impression I got is that most of the change from from the in house designers input, not from the playtest.

 

[Gadget]

They did listen a little. But they admitted in an interview recently that they didn't really read all of the feedback and that a lot of feedback that came in they had already decided not to go in that direction so they ignored. They admitted this in the same sentence as they said they didn't plan on doing the same thing again for 5e.

It did change, but the impression I got is that most of the change from from the in house designers input, not from the playtest.

This is a little out of context. They admitted they did not read playtester's unsolicited 40 page essay on the subject, and that most of the playtests were more focused on very specific scenarios (i.e. how balanced was this power in this encounter? how did the rogue feel compared to the wizard in this adventure?) It is likely true that they had decided on an overall direction and were not going to change that based on play test feed back, though.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Doesn't matter what Wikipedia says. Calling someone a troll is a form of harassment.

I will repeat, calling someone a troll is not a form of disagreement. Even implying that someone is trolling is not a form of disagreement.

If someone is breaking the CoC then report them, if you don't agree with them then post why, if you feel like you need to name call then skip the thread.

PS: If you actually read my opening thread then you wouldn't even need to ask my reasons why.

You can repeat that I am harassing you a hundred times, but doesn't make it any more true. In no way was I or am I, meaning to harass you.

I have indeed read your OP, yet all it states you have concerns, yet you still refuse to explain why. Being concerned is not a reason for being concerned. I guess you do not have any valid reasons, just some irrational fear of WOTC.

 

[Savage Wombat]

No, see, we've already discussed that. We're all being friends here now.

Don't be concerned about how concerned he is. It's concerning.