D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Greyhawk Grognard]

I can't help but wonder if this means that they're gearing up to get prototype rules out to third-party vendors. I know they haven't announced what, if any, open license agreement will accompany the rules, but if they want any sort of robust third-party support, those folks need to start planning and writing sooner rather than later.

 

[DMSamuel]

Do they actually want robust 3rd party support? They sure as heck didn't for 4e, will 5e be any different?

 

[heptat]

Concept testing is very different than playtesting.
Concept Testing versus playtesting.

By definition, playtesting involves finding bugs and improving mechanics, not revising and rebuilding the game. Problematic's haven't been resolved by fixing bugs but completely rebuilding the mechanic.

We're not participating in a playtest, we're market research. We're part of a mass focus group.

Couldn't agree more <thumbs up>.

By the way, I'm neither "mad or sad" about this fact. In fact I've been enjoying playing with the rules they've been giving us and I'm a lot more likely to put money down for 5E that 4E (of which WotC got zero $ from me). I'm just aware that despite what they say, this really isn't a true playtest. Enjoy it for what it is.

 

[Greyhawk Grognard]

I get the impression that they learned their lesson from the 4E license fiasco. One of the reasons 4E fell flat was that nobody was writing anything for it but WotC. If they had half the companies writing product for 4E that ended up writing for Pathfinder, I think it could be argued that 4E would be in a much better position now.

 

[Obryn]

Hey Obryn. Can you explain what that usage is. Are Encounter DMs (i) amateur DMs that don't have enough seasoning to run a session off the cuff/on the fly, (ii) DMs that are expecting to have encounter-specific props/tokens/maps and blurbs of text to advance a session, (iii) both, (iv) something else? I really don't know. I've seen that used in multiple cases and I've got an extrapolated understanding of the Encounters Program but I'm not entirely sure what Encounters DMs is meant to entail and what it does not.

4e is such an easy system to run, with such clear/explicit math and combat encounter advice that its hard for me to imagine not being able to create engaging, diverse, dynamic combat encounters off the cuff. Use large battlefield, mix in equal parts hazards, terrain powers, hindering, blocking, and difficult terrain...budget encounter...forced movement + mobility + p42 + monster math on a business card = win. Doing that off the cuff is dreadfully easy.

I don't honestly know, but in context I think he meant (i) more than anything?

Yeah, the system's super easy to run, especially at low levels. But it is a different matter of presentation than previous seasons, so maybe that means something?

I dunno.

-O

 

[Warunsun]

Do they actually want robust 3rd party support? They sure as heck didn't for 4e, will 5e be any different?

Support for 5E from companies other than Wizards of the Coast is already happening. (http://gf9-dnd.com/)
I highly doubt this will be done through an OGL or GSL. More like more ordinary business agreements.

 

[DMSamuel]

Support for 5E from companies other than Wizards of the Coast is already happening. (http://gf9-dnd.com/)
I highly doubt this will be done through an OGL or GSL. More like more ordinary business agreements.

Yes, but Gale Force 9 was one of the few (the only?) 3rd party producers for 4e, so that may not really count as a good example of a 'new' open-ness in 5e.

I do agree that it will probably be more of a business licensing contract and less like an Open License that allows any old schmo to create something and slap teh D&D logo onto it a la 3rd edition OGL.

 

[Warunsun]

Yes, but Gale Force 9 was one of the few (the only?) 3rd party producers for 4e, so that may not really count as a good example of a 'new' open-ness in 5e.

Lots of companies produced stuff for 4E. Goodman Games is/was also a famous one. You haven't seen much lately because even Wizards isn't producing for 4E anymore.

 

[DMSamuel]

Lots of companies produced stuff for 4E. Goodman Games is/was also a famous one. You haven't seen much lately because even Wizards isn't producing for 4E anymore.

Good point. GF9 has a more business style relationship with WotC, it seems. e.g. Goodman Games (and Expeditious Retreat Press) just produced supplements and adventures and used the GSL without much oversight from WotC. GF9, in contrast seems to have a much beefier contract, what with the DM token set, the vinyl maps, and the underdark terrain kit. Not modules but actual gaming products.

I hope that there is some support for 3rd party publishers of content (adventures and supplements) that is heartier than the 4e GSL, which hasn't been updated since 2009 IIRC. If 5e comes with a GSL that gets updated with product identity and proprietary IP info when new books come out, I will be happy with that.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm of mixed opinions on OGL. It definitely helped 3.x D&D, and probably helped a lot of other companies. But from a creative direction I feel like it discouraged innovation in game design for many years. It took the fracturing that accompanied the arrival of 4e to artistically revive the hobby. And I'm a lot more interested in the artistry of game design than the amount of new blood that is brought to the player base. That seems to be an uncommon position but it makes sense to me.