D&D 5E Has 5E Restored or Diminished Your Faith in WotC?

[Banshee16]

Really? How is announcing an open playtest and actually demoing the prototype game at a con NOT reaching out to fans? I'm seeing the opposite of what you're describing.

I believe that part of the problem is when the game prototype demos are occuring primarily at a Con. For those of us who live across the continent (or on another continent), flying over to demo the game just isn't realistic.

With Paizo, it was easier to see what they were doing, because they kept releasing "snapshots"....not simply "we're bring prestige classes back", or "we're getting rid of elves" or whatever....but actual, functional sets of the rules as they stood at that moment of development, so that *everyone* who was interested could take a look and help them to identify problems....whether perceived or literal.

Instead, the prototypes are at conferences (so far), and everyone participating is bound by NDA, so all they can say is "trust us, it's great, it looks promising".......which, for some of us, just doesn't raise confidence.

To be fair, I think the paradigm has changed. Paizo did their thing in a very different environment than WotC when developing 3E, for instance. But I think the world has changed. And there appears to be enough bad blood on both sides of the edition divide that I'm not sure that being secretive about it will rally get them any points.

If my only chance at seeing the game, and what they're doing with it is to go to a conference, then likely I won't learn much until it's released. There's only one conference in my city in a year, it's a small one, and I don't think any official WotC staff actually attend. So I doubt there'll be a demo.

I'm *not* going to say one edition is better than the other. I will say I *prefer* one over the other. But the overall idea of this thread was to ask whether they've restored our faith with 5E.

To which all we can really say is "how"? They haven't given us much in the form of concrete facts. Aside from that select few, who are legally limited from telling us anyways.

Banshee

 

[Herschel]

That's only because people aren't paying attention. The playtest at D&DXP was *public* as in anyone was welcome, but not *open*. The open playtesting begins in the spring.

Very much so, but that doesn't change the way it makes some people feel about the whole process. Perception as reality and all that.

 

[Banshee16]

Lastly, for the serious fans of 4E, don't assume you're being abandoned yet. We know almost nothing about the more complex end of the 5E design. They've said very clearly that they want to build upon a simple core, and that getting that core right first is critical. I suspect that the first public playtests will involve that core, with more modules being added over time as they get the more basic stuff ironed out. So, right now, it seems like they're ignoring you, but by necessity they have to save the stuff you'll like for later.

This is a good point.

It's also why I'm a little leery. I feel there are different design parameters between 3E and 4E, and wonder if it's possible to combine both into 5E.

Maybe it is...I don't know. I guess, with the Book of Nine Swords, you had pieces of 4E working with 3E, but there were purported balance issues.

If they can find a way to get the manoeuvers for characters like fighters and rangers from 4E, and put them into an edition with spellcasters that work more like 3E spellcasters (in general) possibly with some component similar to what they introduced with reserve feats etc., they could be on to something.

I don't envy them the challenge. If they stray too far either way, they risk losing even more customers.......piss off the 4E fans who feel their edition was killed prematurely, or who don't want elements of 3E creeping into their game, or further anger the 2nd Ed and 3E fans who chose not to follow D&D into 4E.

Interesting challenge. Hopefully they can find some way to make both sides happy.

Banshee

 

[Consonant Dude]

With Paizo, it was easier to see what they were doing, because they kept releasing "snapshots"....not simply "we're bring prestige classes back", or "we're getting rid of elves" or whatever....but actual, functional sets of the rules as they stood at that moment of development, so that *everyone* who was interested could take a look and help them to identify problems....whether perceived or literal.

Instead, the prototypes are at conferences (so far), and everyone participating is bound by NDA, so all they can say is "trust us, it's great, it looks promising".......which, for some of us, just doesn't raise confidence.

To be fair, I think the paradigm has changed. Paizo did their thing in a very different environment than WotC when developing 3E, for instance. But I think the world has changed. And there appears to be enough bad blood on both sides of the edition divide that I'm not sure that being secretive about it will rally get them any points.

Apples and oranges. Paizo copy-pasted humongous chunks of 3.5 and added clutter on top of it. Anyone can offer snapshots quickly doing that.

WotC is designing a new game. I really don't understand how they are secretive about it. We're getting info at a quicker pace than we ever did from the company when they were working on a new version. Presumably, in a few months everyone who has asked to join the open playtest will get to participate.

I think it's good that they gave the embryonic design a first spin for a more limited crowd. It allows them to make adjustments. Also, I think it adds value to an event such as DDXP. What's the point of attending this event if you don't get any premium content?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I haven't had much faith in WotC since the announcement of 3.5 - but, in spite of that, I think I can say that the announcement of 5e has /further/ diminished that faith, to the infinitessimal degree that may still be possible.

 

[Maliki67]

I don't know about restoring my faith, but they do seem to be moving in a direction with 5E that I like. 3E/3.5 had some things I thought improved D&D but in the end was not a system I enjoyed running/DMing, 4E was so far away from "my" idea of D&D that I totally quit following anything WotC did, but from the bits I've heard about 5E, I will at least follow along to see what they come up with.

 

[Mengu]

Please explain more. They've released the most rudimentary core, and no character creation details. How did you get the impression that 5e isn't going to allow wildly dynamic character concepts?

The seminars at DDXP, my playtest experience at DDXP, and conversations with the DM during the playtest, all felt like D&D next, is 1st/2nd edition AD&D with some house rules. Everything about the system, the game, the combat, felt rigid. I did not see an ounce of what I'm looking for in a modern game system that is moving forward from 4e. I didn't even see room for customization in the design. Maybe I'm narrow sighted, or maybe I was just in a bad mood with all the senseless hack and slash we did. I was hoping the "returning to the roots" stuff was PR BS, but sadly for me, it all seems for real. Sure, during the seminars, they alluded to some customization possibilities, but I'll believe it when I see it.

This could all be because playtest is at such an early stage that they haven't even thought about how to introduce the layers of customization they are speaking of, maybe they are just testing some math elements, I don't know. My opinions may change. My current state is just disappointed.

 

[francisca]

Well, except for a fistful of minis, I've not been very interested in pretty much anything WotC has put out for D&D since....uh.....2004. I played the 4e gameday demo, thumbed through some of the books at the gamestore, put them back on the shelf, and said, "Maybe 5e.", and haven't looked back until now.

As Umbran said, faith isn't an issue here. I'll give 5e a fair shot. If 5e is better, or can supplement what I already have on the shelf, I'll buy it. Otherwise, that's probably it for me for good, lest wotc continue with AD&D reprints.

 

[Mark CMG]

I have faith that the individuals designing and working on 5E are doing the best they can to put forth the greatest game they can make. However, I also am aware that as a company that is the branch of a corporation that requires certain financial goals be met, that there is pressure to extend the life of any game far beyond what mnight be called the "core" game. In 2E this lead to tons of settings which practically drove TSR into bankruptcy, in 3E this lead to rules bloat through race and class splat books, in 4E this lead to extending what was once a roughly 10 level game and had become a 20+ level game into a 30+ level game with tons of classes and add-ons all of which the company wishes the consumer to see as "core" elements of the game. The individuals designing and working on the game have some potential design decisions off the table right out of the gate. Even if the designers somehow determined that the way to go was in making a single core rulebook, perhaps one that would encapsulate a tight roleplaying experience that any individual consumer could then use and expand to their own playstyle either on their own or through some supplemental book expansions, there would be no way that would fly within the corporate world in which D&D exists. Now that is just one example, and I am sure all of us could come up with our own examples of what simply wouldn't fly in that environment, but the point is that we can have a great deal of faith in the individuals but in the end what they produce is constrained by what their environment will allow.

 

[Consonant Dude]

The seminars at DDXP, my playtest experience at DDXP, and conversations with the DM during the playtest, all felt like D&D next, is 1st/2nd edition AD&D with some house rules. Everything about the system, the game, the combat, felt rigid. I did not see an ounce of what I'm looking for in a modern game system that is moving forward from 4e.

Did you post a playtest report anywhere that I can read? I have read several reports and none sounded like yours. It would add value to read another perspective like yours, IMO.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

A restoration or destruction of faith?

No.

I will admit to a certain level of vindictive satisfaction, was glad to see word of an open playtest....

But my faith in WotC has already been pretty much destroyed, and I will not put much credence in the open Beta until I see it - I remember the flat statement that 4e was going to be OGL.... That the reference documents were going to be released before the game, that they weren't working on 4e (or at least a 4e that was based around miniatures)....

Doing better than 4e, so far, but I do not have much faith.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mengu]

Did you post a playtest report anywhere that I can read? I have read several reports and none sounded like yours. It would add value to read another perspective like yours, IMO.

I had a longish post about it here.

When I read other people's reviews, it seems they mostly had awesome DM's and somewhere between great to decent experience with their playtest. I was bored and disappointed. I think we need more DM-agnostic reviews of just the system, rather than, how much fun a table had.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Hmm... never lost faith in wotc. They have put out a very solid product with 4e. And Paizo did the same with rereleasing 3.5 with a slight polish.
While 4e initially did enough wrong to annoy me due to the amount of errata needed to fix those clearly rushed out products, the last 2 years offered great stuff. So 4e already regained faith with most 4e products and DDI content in the last year.
Announcing a fifth edition did not change that. It was a logical consequence of the last years developments.
They could lose faith however when they don´t continue 4e character builder etc, and actually i blélieve it would be the most stupod move to cut a revenue stream, even if it is lower as expected. Blizzard never needed to end battlenet service for older products, and they even released patches more than 10 years after a game´s release.
So until now, not worried at all.

I instead wonder, why such a thread is opened? Has 4e not been bashed enough by people who most probably didn´t really play it? Has wotc not been bashed enough despite their efforts to continue delivering new content?
I really don´t get it. Judge them by the products they put out. And maybe ask yourself how much you pay them and how much can be reasonably expected.
6$ per month is not much for the content they deliver... really not a lot. Sometimes I believe some gamers lost their connection to reality...

 

[Dausuul]

I have faith that the individuals designing and working on 5E are doing the best they can to put forth the greatest game they can make. However, I also am aware that as a company that is the branch of a corporation that requires certain financial goals be met, that there is pressure to extend the life of any game far beyond what mnight be called the "core" game.

Sure. I have no doubt that we will see a great heaping pile of 5E splatbooks accumulate as the years go by, just like other editions. (4E has been relatively restrained, likely due to budget and headcount restrictions. 3E was immensely bloated by the end, and 2E became ludicrous as TSR raged against the dying of the light.)

However, I view that as a very minor concern; all it costs me is the effort to tell players, "No, we're not using that in this campaign." Furthermore, while I may not use most of the splatbooks, there will be some that appeal to me, even quite late in the edition's lifespan (e.g., the Book of Nine Swords). If WotC is making some books that I like, why should I care if they make other books I don't?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I was bored and disappointed.

After reading your post I can understand. It sounds like you got a bad GM.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sure. I have no doubt that we will see a great heaping pile of 5E splatbooks accumulate as the years go by, just like other editions. (4E has been relatively restrained, likely due to budget and headcount restrictions. 3E was immensely bloated by the end, and 2E became ludicrous as TSR raged against the dying of the light.)

However, I view that as a very minor concern; all it costs me is the effort to tell players, "No, we're not using that in this campaign." Furthermore, while I may not use most of the splatbooks, there will be some that appeal to me, even quite late in the edition's lifespan (e.g., the Book of Nine Swords). If WotC is making some books that I like, why should I care if they make other books I don't?

Sure, any inidivdual group or DM can restrict what they use in a home game situation but there are other considerations, as in organized play gamers and those who run games at conventions and gamedays. So, too, in situations where elements are purposefully left out of the early "core" books because there will be additional "core" books that will include such elements (and I am talking about elements that are traditionally "core" from edition to edition since early versions of the game). Those are reasons why, while you might not care for your own personal game, it might be worth being concerned for the sake of the game itself since, in the long run, it might be a factor in the length of the edition cycle, thus having some bearing on how long the game you personally come to love might be supported and have a healthy player pool from which you might need to draw players for your personal game.

 

[Dice4Hire]

The seminars at DDXP, my playtest experience at DDXP, and conversations with the DM during the playtest, all felt like D&D next, is 1st/2nd edition AD&D with some house rules. Everything about the system, the game, the combat, felt rigid. I did not see an ounce of what I'm looking for in a modern game system that is moving forward from 4e. I didn't even see room for customization in the design. Maybe I'm narrow sighted, or maybe I was just in a bad mood with all the senseless hack and slash we did. I was hoping the "returning to the roots" stuff was PR BS, but sadly for me, it all seems for real. Sure, during the seminars, they alluded to some customization possibilities, but I'll believe it when I see it.

This could all be because playtest is at such an early stage that they haven't even thought about how to introduce the layers of customization they are speaking of, maybe they are just testing some math elements, I don't know. My opinions may change. My current state is just disappointed.

Well, you were playing in a fixed-time con slot. That is far different from playing at home week after week. Also, they are trying to show the system. I can roleplay with only an empty table surrounded by friends. I think you are looking for something they were not even trying to offer.

 

[mhensley]

 

[Mokona]

I was a huge 4e advocate and now I'm even more positive about 5e than that. D&D 4th edition had a lot of good ideas in it but lately I've soured on the quality of the execution of 4e. I'm very happy to see that 5e has a much better opportunity, because of public playtesting, than 4e ever had to be more awesome than all previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons.

It takes guts to admit you made a mistake which Wizards R&D is saying with the completely opposite approach with regards to fans when promoting and developing 5e.

I wish complete success and strong sales for 5e because I want a vibrant community of D&D players to hang out with here on EN World and elsewhere.

Who knows, it might be that I'll houserule 4e and prefer that to 5e but I can't know that until 5e releases. Until then I'm going to do my best to make sure 5e is perfect for me and as many other people as humanly possible.

 

[trancejeremy]

Even though I liked 3.0, I really only bought maybe half a dozen WOTC products besides the core books.

The quality was largely terrible outside the rulebooks. Poorly edited, horribly printed (all the art was shades of purple), and often not that great rules wise (at least their early splatbooks). And their adventures kind of stunk.

They need to show they can deliver quality products, on par with what Paizo puts out. WOTC put out products that basically were slightly better than Mongoose (which isn't a compliment).

I have faith that the individuals designing and working on 5E are doing the best they can to put forth the greatest game they can make. However, I also am aware that as a company that is the branch of a corporation that requires certain financial goals be met, that there is pressure to extend the life of any game far beyond what mnight be called the "core" game. In 2E this lead to tons of settings which practically drove TSR into bankruptcy,

The thing is, there were other problems at TSR at the time which seem to be had more problems relating to the bankruptcy.

For instance, the money thrown at competing systems - Buck Rogers, Amazing Engine, and Alternity, the whole dungeon dice thing (an attempt to cash in on the CCG craze, only with dice, which was a big failure), all the book returns.

While I definitely think there was setting bloat, and some of the settings were poorly run (The Birthright setting probably could have been set in an existing setting with some tweaks, and the Player's domain guides were probably a money sink since there were so many low priced SKUs) 2e did last a good 10 years.

And the quality issue also raised its head - the sourcebooks they put out where really awful in terms of production values and playtesting.

I'm not saying that model would have worked forever, but it did last longer than 3.0 or 3.5 or 4.0...