Intentions for the new beta rules

[UngeheuerLich]

Seems reasonable to start with pregens.

If you have no clue about what the play should play like, you really can´t playtest.

First it has to be made sure, that the core assumptions of the system are set right. Not too many variables at once.
If the first ten levels work with the pregens, you can nail the basics down and have different groups test their own characters.
But if every group gives feedback, why their own "optimized" character does not work without knowing what "working" and "optimized" means and demanding rules changes for that seems unproductive.

So I will start with one shots with groups that are not experienced with D&D. I guess they will know best, if the game is fun or not.
Then, when the rules are ready and if they are good enough, I maybe will incorporate them in my 4e campaign.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Test them on my home group of mini-me's for that unbiased feedback.

The kids have tried 4e but I think it's too much for the 10 & under crowd.

Maybe try my main group but I think they'd rather keep grinding through HPE in 4e (with house rules monster math).

 

[pauljathome]

While character creation is an important factor of D&D, allowing it in the playtest might have way too many variables when all you want to see is whether or not people like the way the game flows and feels.

To a very limited extent you're right. But it means that we will only be able to determine how the game feels and flows with a very small set of characters, presumably reasonably carefully crafted characters that show how balanced characters are and how each has their own clear niche and achieves the goals set out

To extrapolate that this means that the game would flow and feel well with a much larger range of characters would be a mistake.

I have no real issue with them providing pre-gens only for the first round of playtests so long as that first round is reasonably brief. But its a stop gap measure and should be seen as such

 

[Blackwarder]

I asked Mike Mearls via tweeter about advantures in the playtest:
Mike Mearls ([MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls)
01/05/12 00:10
[MENTION=6688285]Blackwarder[/MENTION] We'll have adventures for you, but when it's time to test the adventure creation guidelines we'll shift to that.

Warder

 

[Ahnehnois]

Would I like to take a hack at running it? Yes, if it reads well.

Will my life realistically allow me to? No, so I'll probably just read it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I will play/run it as much as I physically can.

 

[howandwhy99]

Really it's up to the players, but I plan to stop the current campaign and start a new one.

Right now I'm thinking Castle Zagyg: Upper Works, but I think we may only be served up a small series of encounters and little else for quite a while.

 

[Yora]

I have to say I mostly want to read the rules to make a descision if the campaign setting I am working on will be written primarily for 5th Ed. or AGE. If I like it, I can stat out NPCs as "race gender class/class, background, theme" and make first drafts of spell lists, which will affect some elements of the world. If I see that I really don't like it at all, then I just write it all based on AGE rules. ^^

 

[underfoot007ct]

I will download an read the rules first. If I feel a quick game can be made from, I will do so. I will run just the barebones beta rules, and houserule as things happen that I find unappealing. I will track these house rules and then likely send them back to Wizards in an e-mail. I don't really care if they act on anything I find, but submitting feedback is important even if my only response is "everything works great" or "this is terrible!"

I think that everyone's feedback is the whole point, if enough people have similar feedback, that can adjust. Although I hope every one feedback is made after actual playtesting & not just after reading the rules. See how the games plays out.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think that everyone's feedback is the whole point, if enough people have similar feedback, that can adjust. Although I hope every one feedback is made after actual playtesting & not just after reading the rules. See how the games plays out.

Yeah, I certainly hope we don't just get "oh I don't like this rule and don't want to look at the context it's just wrong, fix it wizards" type feedback.