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

[RevTurkey]

Interesting replies, thanks everyone.

Cheers Jack 99 included

I was derogatory towards Mike Mearls. I am 'asking' for it lol. I don't understand his choices and in that respect, if you are a fan of what they are doing...then yep..I have not got a clue what I am talking about. (Despite playing D&D for 30 years plus).

I don't understand a test process that makes changes before even releasing the version they want testing. Strange...unless, it is more a marketing exercise than beta test. hmmmm?

I very much hope he and his team are allowed to and able to prove me completely wrong and produce the best version ever. Let's face it, every version is riddled with issues...but they all have good points too.

However, at this moment...the moment when I was irritated by reading Mr.Mearls column I can only judge off the material they are showing and I am increasingly unimpressed.

It strikes me that they can't say no to people's wishes because that might turn away a revenue stream. So everything gets jumbled up together.

I would prefer a game NOT beta tested to this degree. I don't like things done by focus groups, surveys and committees...in my experience they tend to weaken creative direction, freedom and quality of a final product.

Some amount of testing would be okay but more like...hey this is what we have come up with...it's nearly ready...any thoughts? Then after soaking up that feedback...go away and tweak it taking on board what you liked and found interesting about the feedback.

Blah blah blah...do you get where I am coming from.

I don't think the process is producing the best D&D Next for us. Unless they take all this testing on board then go away and brutally ignore some ideas and really run with others, I think we will end up with a weak watery mess of a game.

I then think D&D Next will get abandoned and go belly up by all those except the most die hard fans.

Am I alone in my thinking? I feel like I am certainly in a minority here.

Anyway, thanks again for your interesting points.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually the opening poster is right: right now, feats are down to 3.5 or 4e power. But the last few legends and lore articles hint at the possibility, that the will go back to packet 1 power levels.
Right now, feats are so lowpowered, because it is assumed you can play without them with no compensation at all, and that your ability bonuses raise to 20 eventually. Now everything can be balanced around feats that are great OR stat bumps.

Also apprentice tier helps choice paralysis at low levels. Really, i am digging the new direction of the L&L articles, while I agree, the last packet is quite a mess, as too much of a burden is placed on OPTIONAL LOW POWERED feats. (A few of which I really like)

 

[fjw70]

I don't get the comments about DDN being a tweal version of 3e. 3e/3.5/PF are very different than DDN. There are some similarities but I can see the influence of all edition in DDN.

I personally think they are taking way too long to go through thios process and as I have said before a ream of dedicated designers should be much further along than it appears they are. But it is what it is. Maybe there is a bunch of stuff done that they just aren't sharing with us. I don't know.

I know some people prefer very tight balance in D&D and others don't really care. I think it is important for them to create a game with the best balance they can since it is easier to modify towards imbalance then it is to modify towards balance.

I know some people think that the promised modularity of DDN has been discarded but I think they are focusing on showing us the individual peices and not so much on showing us how the modulariy will work. I think they have a pretty solid idea how he modularity will work.

I like a lot of what I have seen in DDN but I don't think any of us will see the whole picture until it is released and it is hard to make judgements on the final game until we see the final game.

 

[Dausuul]

3E went through this sort of extensive testing process, and it was a big hit, even if I don't like some of the directions they ended up taking it.

 

[Maese Mateo]

I didn't liked the first playtests, then around the 5th or 6th (the one that came over right after the one with the Warlock/Sorcerer) I was hooked since I thought the game had several things I enjoyed... then I hated it when they implemented the Skill Die mechanic. =S

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't understand a test process that makes changes before even releasing the version they want testing. Strange...unless, it is more a marketing exercise than beta test. hmmmm?

It's neither, really. You use the term beta test, but it's far from that. The packets are part of an agile development process. They work on a small set of features, integrating them into the game in such a way that it remains playable. That build then goes to internal testing. Occasionally, a minor build gets polished up a bit and released to us as a playtest packet so the can get survey data on what they've been working on.

The point is, they aren't working on the game as a whole between packets. That's why it seems piecemeal. They also regularly take the time to try out new ideas. Some, like advantage, make it. Others, like maneuvers as a universal martial mechanic, don't work in practice.

Eventually the game will stabilize. That's when it's time for a beta test.

 

[RevTurkey]

Good points folks and well made. I am done thinking about it. I am not making very much sense even to myself. I will just wait until the new game arrives, go have a look in my local shop and if I like it buy it. If I don't I won't

Good luck Mr.Mearls, please have strength of purpose and vision and make a good interesting game with distinction and direction.

I still think the process and what they have presented is a mess so far even if I can't put my finger on what it is I don't quite like. Just feels 'off' for me, lacking oomph.

 

[jrowland]

Honestly, if people STOPPED reading Mike Mearls LL columns, there would be a lot less angst. He's speaking from a point of view that none of us see, and it jumbled into this sort of amalgam of past packets (we know), Future ideas (he knows), and secrets (he knows but wont tell) thats maddeningly frustrating.

Read the Packets. In order. That is about all we can say about D&D next, perhaps with some speculation in direction its heading.

What we expect LL column to do is something more organized like this:

"Playtest Packet 5: We are interested in the Mechanics behind Paladin and Druid. Play those characters. We changed skill dice and martial dice somewhat, so further feedback on those changes is needed. Caveats: Some things may be purposefully underpowered/overpowered. We are testing if the perception matches the math.

Internal testing: We are considering making feat progression different across classes, making them more powerful, but have fewer. For example, instead of Ambidexterity, two-weapon-fighting, improved two-weapon fighting there would be one feat called two-weapon fighting that does the same as all three in previous editions. Fighters, for example, would be able to pick up more of these martial feats than say a wizard. So far its ugly (thats why its still in internal testing) but if we can manage something decent we'll push it out to a playtest pack. If it remains ugly, we may drop the idea.

Musings: We aren't sure if its worth moving into internal testing, but Chris Perkins thinks (link) we should make Laser Guns core. What do you think?"

That would give us direction on the current playtest release, let us know what to expect in an upcoming playtest pack, and what sorts of things they are kicking around.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Beta

This is so not a beta.

 

[sheadunne]

If you look at some of the various items that have changed over the playtest packets, you can see some of the testing process going on.

Take feats for example

Let's test feats built into classes and specialties
Now let's remove the feats from classes and specialties and test them separate as "feats"
What works, what doesn't work. Will they work together. Are people outside the intended class taking those feats and using them? Etc.

I look at the playtest packets not as a linear process of game development (each packet building upon the last), but rather as testing different game elements. In other words, something you liked in a previous packet may well indeed be the direction they are heading, they just want to test out some other things as well. Sometimes you have to remove/add something to get a clear idea how something else works.

I don't know. I find it interesting.