D&D 5E D&D Next is a mess.

[RevTurkey]

I don't think Mr.Mearls and his team has a clue how to produce a good version of D&D.

Every update of the Beta makes me less inclined to buy what may follow.

They will go round and round with this publicity exercise until eventually they release a version of D&D that is pretty much 3.5 with tweaks...why? Because Pathfinder's success is what sparked the new edition anyway so that is the competitor.

They have decided to keep the old school fans happy, not by releasing a version they might enjoy more, with less feat bloat and more class distinction but by rereleasing the reprints and pdfs of old material. Fair enough but I thought you wanted those people to get into your new edition too?

I have a foot in both camps of old school and new school sensibility. I like both styles of gaming. I was pleasantly pleased with the first playtest packet but less so with each new version.

I don't like advantage dice or expertise dice (especially when it seems everybody gets them now) DCC does this better and more elegantly. I will play that if I want such things or just add them to any version of D&D i want. They keep going on about game balance but I would like to see some conceptual balance too. Fighters SHOULD be better at fighting for example. It will make the game bland if every class basically effects the game in the same mathematical way but with a different skin. This is a weakness of 4e. I understand this might be to allow for even standing in tournament games but I think it makes things more boring.

Anyway, I expect I might get abuse for posting this but just wanted to share my thoughts as that is what a forum is for right?

thanks.

 

[MortalPlague]

Some of your criticisms are fair, but I'm finding the playtest to be a breath of fresh air. I like the advantage / disadvantage mechanic, and the speed of play (compared to both 3rd and 4th edition) is a wonderful thing.

Your mileage may vary. But I don't think it's fair to say Mike Mearls has no clue.

 

[delericho]

I can understand where you're coming from - most weeks it seems that the L&L column makes me less interested in 5e.

However, one thing to bear in mind is that all we're seeing at the moment is a lot of work in progress. It's by no means certain that anything we've seen so far will make it into the published game, and even less certain what will be in the 'basic', 'core' and 'advanced' games. So while the signs don't appear too good (for me, at least), I'm trying hard to keep an open mind - I'll check it out when it's published and make a decision then.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I love how they start out with something that's obviously work in progress. This means that they are much more likely to use the feedback they get to scrap bad ideas and make necessary adjustments before release.

Another company that did a good job of this was Blizzard with the release of the Starcraft2 HotS expansion. They had the game in public testing for about a year before release and changed a lot of things around. The multiplayer is, as of now extremely well balanced for a really complicated real time strategy game like SC2. They actually got the endgame Terran vs Zerg and Protoss vs Zerg interesting, instead of slow turtlefests.

I don't get the criticism about 5e looking too much like 3e, the bounded accuracy is more than enough to make the game quite unique. At the same time, all DnD games have more or less the same vibe and 5e looks to capture a lot of what went missing with both 3e and 4e.

 

[zoroaster100]

I love Fourth Edition and my preference is to keep running my game in Fourth Edition. Having said that I have some players that prefer a simpler, faster paced game, and I'm hoping DNDNext will provide that so we can have that option. So far I like what I see in the latest playtest packet in terms of design intent in terms of simplicity and balance, though we have not yet run a game with the playtest (we are going to try this weekend).

 

[Raith5]

I can understand where you're coming from - most weeks it seems that the L&L column makes me less interested in 5e.

However, one thing to bear in mind is that all we're seeing at the moment is a lot of work in progress. It's by no means certain that anything we've seen so far will make it into the published game, and even less certain what will be in the 'basic', 'core' and 'advanced' games. So while the signs don't appear too good (for me, at least), I'm trying hard to keep an open mind - I'll check it out when it's published and make a decision then.

My perception is that the process is very messy and I agree that the primary reason is the fluid nature of the process. In particular things dont seem to come clearly together: the relationship between the 'basic', 'core' and 'advanced' games and the apprentice tier comes to mind. Surely the modular nature of the game modes should address the problem of starting point without including tiers?

I cant help but feel that there are way too many variables in place - even if some of mess comes from a lag between what mearls says and whats in the play tests. While I am pessmimistic that DDN will be of interest to me, I do see real potential in the character creation process - it is so broad, interesting and new (to me) but it contrasts with the actual game mechanics which seem so narrow and old fashioned. I find this contrast jarring.

 

[Ahnehnois]

They will go round and round with this publicity exercise until eventually they release a version of D&D that is pretty much 3.5 with tweaks...why? Because Pathfinder's success is what sparked the new edition anyway so that is the competitor.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except that. At the moment, they're well behind even where the original 3.0 was, and, as you pointed out, moving backwards with each new release. I think you're flattering them too much; there are several "tweaked" 3.X systems (PF, TB, FC, etc.) that are already out there and already better.

 

[Jack99]

I don't think Mr.Mearls and his team has a clue how to produce a good version of D&D.

I think you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Empirate]

I think you have no clue what you are talking about.

Yes! Let's start the ragefest already! This thread was just asking for it anyway!


On topic: I think [MENTION=63962]Blackbrrd[/MENTION]'s Starcraft 2 comparison is rather enlightening. Blizzard added some new units during the Beta which they later scrapped completely, or took into completely different directions. Other units got abilities which were tweaked and tweaked again and again until they no longer resembled the original in any meaningful way. Overall, so many big and small changes have gone down before the finished product that HotS was a completely different game during several phases of its development. So there was a lot of confusion and talk about whether the release version would (could?) be any good. Many people decided to hate the expansion early on, due to stuff that's no longer in it anyway. And the release version? It's good, and nicely balanced, and shakes up the original game in many much-needed places.

So what does that tell us about DDN? It might just come out surprisingly good yet! Sure, Mearls isn't the person I'd have trusted with the project, but then, who is? So long as nothing's written in stone, just give those guys at WotC the benefit of the doubt. They can still change around a lot of things. Some mechanics may still be taken out, even if they've been in several subsequent playtest packs. It's a playtest, after all.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Jester David]

They will go round and round with this publicity exercise until eventually they release a version of D&D that is pretty much 3.5 with tweaks...why? Because Pathfinder's success is what sparked the new edition anyway so that is the competitor.

I don't see the constant comparisons to 3e.

There are similarities, but mostly in things that are shared with earlier editions. It really feels more like 1e/2e to me but with the consistent mechanics of 3e. And it's very different from Pathfinder.

I dunno... Maybe I'm too close to see it.
This must have been what it felt like to be a 4e player when everyone was saying 4e = WoW.
Still, it's nice to have complaints that are "#e = <older edition>" rather than "#e = <topical video game>"