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

[Blackbrrd]

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.

The thing is it that you are looking at it as a PR-campaign, while in reality, it's a game development phase. Instead of involving maybe 20-30 people in their development, they are involving thousands and get waaaay more input than they would otherwise. PR-wise it does look as you say as completely off.

Who would buy this jumble of random rules that are changing all the time? Not you, not me - maybe a small minority? I agree completely when you say that it: "feels 'off' for me, lacking oomph". At the same time I am quite certain that the ideas they are working with are good and that the finished product will have dumped all the ideas that didn't work and hopefully we are left with a lean, polished game with lots of oomph.

I am guessing they will begin the real PR-phase when they have a 99% finished product. I am hoping they put some real work into making an adventure that highlights the new rules system and shows how they think it should be played, instead of the encounter-slugfests of the first 4e modules.

 

[RevTurkey]

Very impressed with the quality of responses I got from my silly rant. Interesting and enlightening. Thanks everyone. I expected a lot a critisism but actually got a lot of helpful insight into what is going on and into my own short-sighted opinion. I really enjoyed everyone's comments.

 

[zoroaster100]

I am hoping they put some real work into making an adventure that highlights the new rules system and shows how they think it should be played, instead of the encounter-slugfests of the first 4e modules.

THIS! Hopefully. And mind you, I really like Fourth Edition rules. But most of the 4E adventures were awful. I don't think that was inherent to the 4E rules, just badly designed and badly written adventures with very little effort on the story hooks and plot, and very little to help foster fun role playing encounters. I hope Wizards puts a lot more effort into adventure design, or else opens the door for third party adventure designers. Because many DMs don't have the time to create adventures from scratch and many groups will only use the new rules if there are good quality adventures available from the start.

 

[Dausuul]

THIS! Hopefully. And mind you, I really like Fourth Edition rules. But most of the 4E adventures were awful. I don't think that was inherent to the 4E rules, just badly designed and badly written adventures with very little effort on the story hooks and plot, and very little to help foster fun role playing encounters. I hope Wizards puts a lot more effort into adventure design, or else opens the door for third party adventure designers. Because many DMs don't have the time to create adventures from scratch and many groups will only use the new rules if there are good quality adventures available from the start.

The 4E adventures, while not inspired by any means, would have been passable efforts under 3E rules. The problem was that the designers were trying to apply pre-4E adventure design techniques to 4E adventures: Lots of small, quick encounters to wear down the party's resources. In 3E that's an accepted, albeit combat-heavy, approach. In 4E, it's a recipe for grind, because 4E puts much greater significance on each encounter. The way to do a combat-heavy adventure in 4E is to have a smaller number of elaborate set-piece battles.

For 5E intro adventures to be successful, they need to know what kind of adventure design paradigms work in 5E. I hope they devote some of their open-playtest time to figuring that out. The call for 5E adventure designers is a hopeful sign in that regard.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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

I hear this "they have no idea what they're doing!" quite a lot, especially on rpg.net. The thing is, no inventor knows exactly what he's doing. Invention would be easy otherwise. Creating a new thing involves a lot of experimentation and going through a lot of bad ideas until you finally get it right.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I hear this "they have no idea what they're doing!" quite a lot, especially on rpg.net. The thing is, no inventor knows exactly what he's doing. Invention would be easy otherwise. Creating a new thing involves a lot of experimentation and going through a lot of bad ideas until you finally get it right.

That's true, but it also involves being able to assess the merits of one's own ideas, recognizing when they're bad, and being willing to change them. Which has been a problem for WotC.

 

[Raith5]

Who would buy this jumble of random rules that are changing all the time? Not you, not me - maybe a small minority? I agree completely when you say that it: "feels 'off' for me, lacking oomph". At the same time I am quite certain that the ideas they are working with are good and that the finished product will have dumped all the ideas that didn't work and hopefully we are left with a lean, polished game with lots of oomph.

The lack of oomph is a good way to put it. I guess the thing I am feeling is that while I like much of the traditional feeling of D&D in DDN, I am finding that 4th ed changed my expectations of what makes a good RPG. Things like action points, utility abilities, encounter style powers and pacing, attacks that target defenses other than AC, wizard rolling all attacks etc are not optional add ones for me anymore. They (plus interesting monsters) are that oomph - for me. But I cant help recognize the tensions between these and the lean quick nature of pre 3rd ed D&D.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Last time people were complaining that they couldn't give input into the design process. Now you can!

 

[El Mahdi]

That's true, but it also involves being able to assess the merits of one's own ideas, recognizing when they're bad, and being willing to change them. Which has been a problem for WotC.

Do you mean a problem for WotC in general history, or a problem for WotC as concerns 5E?

If you're saying this in regards to 5E, then you're so far off base that such a statement can be viewed as nothing but absurd. If there's been any one constant with the 5E playtest so far, then that constant has been change itself. Changes have been significant and easy to see from package to package, let alone the incredibly obvious level of change when comparing the current package to the first package. Sure, there are core elements that seem to be locked down, but a very large precentage of the game keeps changing from package to package. Healing has been all over the place, as have starting Hit Points, Maneuvers and Expertise, and now even Feats are likely going to have a major change, just to name a few.

Being unwilling to change has most definitely NOT been an aspect of the 5E playtest!

As for recognizing when something is bad, the problem here is it's too subjective; and I believe that what a lot of people are saying on these boards is that WotC isn't recognizing ideas that are bad according to some fans. Unfortunately, one's idea of "bad" may not be WotC's or the majority of fans idea of bad.

Sorry mate, but it might be time to accept you may just be in the minority...

 

[El Mahdi]

Last time people were complaining that they couldn't give input into the design process. Now you can!

Absolutely! I think far too many people that are complaining here (in this thread and on the boards in general), are not providing feedback.

I also think that too many people are simply complaining rather than providing input.

Feedback is only useful if it's constructive. Complaining, whining, and making fallacious and prejudicial assumptions and statements are not constructive feedback.

That's where the "mess" as concerns 5E is coming from.