D&D 5E L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown

[Jester David]

It feels like this is a justification. They don't want to give away almost finished rules out of a paranoid fear people won't buy if they can get it for free, so they're cancelling the playtest before we actually start playtesting.

Mearls says:
Our playtest emphasis is now changing to the repetitive grind of balancing out the math and finding and dispelling abusive combinations. We'll continue to work with a big list of testers, but our needs are such that we require focused, directed play to drive our results. Frankly, that kind of testing can be fairly boring. It also mandates a level of feedback that is more detailed and demands more work than the testing done so far.

It can be boring, but you can get a lot of feedback from people testing things and seeing abusive combos in regular play. Plus sometimes the obvious gets missed as well and outside eyes are needed. And there's SO much content, it's going to be hard to get everything tested in time.
And the Character Op boards demonstrate people are really willing to devote a large period of free time evaluating mechanics and doing the math.

On top of that, it requires that we know a good deal about each group. Is a group more story-based? Are they optimizers? That kind of knowledge on our end is key, and it's something that we can learn best by getting to know a group through their prior, detailed feedback.

I don't see that as particularly relevant. A broken mechanic is a broken mechanic, regarless of the play style of the group.

In terms of scope, this upcoming phase of the playtest is at least as large as the playtest for 3rd Edition, if not larger.

This doesn't fill me with confidence. 3e has some pretty terrible mistakes and was heavily revised two years after launch.


What should WotC do? I think they should switch from Surveys to Forms.
They don't need to rate happiness or satisfaction from 1-5 anymore. They just need to know what's broken. The simplest way is take a design page from playtesting video games and set-up bug reports.
You enter the name of the class, the name of the feature or spells, the page number, and then the reason it doesn't work. With a word limit to prevent long rants. And likely the type of error from a drop down list (mechanics, spelling, etc).

That way they can easily just pull up summaries of what powers and spells are attracting the most feedback. ("Hey, we have 500 people all complaining about X, let's take a closer look.")

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I don't find Mearls's five lessons learned to be vacuous at all. Is it just me? I'll attempt to illustrate the meaning I see in each lesson by giving an example of a similarly positive-sounding but contradictory lesson.

"You like simplicity." The designers' emphasis will be on simple character creation, not customizability. They are erring on the side of two first-level fighters being mechanically similar. In other words, not "You enjoy system mastery" or "You prioritize customizability."

"You like that every class can contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image." The designers will not bend over backwards to make very class mechanically balanced in every pillar of the game. They are erring on the side of allowing e.g. the bard to be less capable in combat but more capable in social situations. In other words, not "You want every class to have the same opportunities to shine in combat and out."

"You want rules to make it easy to build adventures and encounters." Okay, yeah, it's hard to argue with this one. But he continues: "You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math." The design will emphasize flexibility in adventure design, instead of telling you "spend an XP budget in this specific range to achieve interesting combat encounters". In other words, not "You want mathematical tools to create combat encounters with engaging gameplay."

"You value flexibility in rules." The designers will lean on DMs to apply some common sense, instead of trying to codify as much as possible. In other words, not "You value unambiguous rules that provide a precisely consistent game across tables."

"You aren't edition warriors." The game will be more of a jack-of-all-trades. In other words, not "You want us to support one style of game extremely well, instead of supporting many styles of game pretty well."

I honestly don't think that all readers will look at Mearls's five lessons and think, "Yeah, that sounds good to me." I think plenty would prefer the hypothetical alternatives I mentioned.

Sure, Mearls could have more clearly identified what features of previous editions he hopes to improve. But identifying "problems" in previous editions sure didn't work well for WotC last time, so I don't blame him for focusing on positive aspects of each goal.

 

[Li Shenron]

No, not really. It doesn't hurt to include some shortcuts for quick character generation, but if I'm making a character for anything more than a one-off game, what I value is having the options to build the concept I've envisioned. If that means it takes more time, that's not a major problem for me.

And for NPCs and monsters, again, some simple options are good, but not if they result in a bunch of generic opponents with predictable abilities. Yes, make it easy to build mooks, but when I want to fashion a uniquely challenging villain or monster, give me the tools with which to do so.

I think there are different aspects here, and not everybody is interested in simplicity in all, or complexity in all. There is PC character generation, PC levelling up, NPC design, monster design, adventure design, published adventure preparation, fantasy setting design, encounters design... and probably more.

I can only speak for myself, but for instance I too like complex PC character generation. I think quick PC character generation is useful for beginners, and for everyone playing in an old-school high-lethality game.

However, as a DM I don't like complex NPC character generation, unless I had some digital tool to make it quick anyway. Neither I would like encounter design to be complicated. I'd like to be able to apply class levels and templates to monsters quickly, but OTOH if I were designing monsters from scratch (I never do) I would probably do it to create entire monstrous races to feature in a campaign so I wouldn't mind this process to be more time-consuming.

I would definitely like to be able to pick up a published adventure, read the introduction/synopsis only (and eventually some highlighted points) and start running it without further preparations, reading through it at the same time I'm presenting it to the players. This has probably a lot more to do with how adventures are presented, rather than game rules themselves.

So there's stuff which I'd like quick and other stuff which I'd like complex, but other gamers may have opposite preferences.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

On top of that, it requires that we know a good deal about each group. Is a group more story-based? Are they optimizers? That kind of knowledge on our end is key, and it's something that we can learn best by getting to know a group through their prior, detailed feedback.

I don't see that as particularly relevant. A broken mechanic is a broken mechanic, regarless of the play style of the group.

The single aspect of 3E that killed the game for me (and my group) was Power Gap. Optimizers were able to abuse less obvious broken combinations using their greater system mastery to create characters that were so far above the story-oriented players characters that it made it difficult to challenge the party. Too low of a challange? The optimizers felt dissatisified with the resulting cakewalk. Too high a challenge? The story-oriented players were frustrated with their ineffectiveness leading to character death or thumb-twiddling. Try to split challengers, so some were tougher and others weaker? Opposition doesn't wear a big sign saying "Optimizers/Story Guys! Face Me!" And any way of trying to make it more obvious who should challenge who left us all dissatisfied. That's why it's important to know the group, because it will help you understand what type of feedback you are receiving.

 

[Klaus]

Blackbrrd, I'm not saying I want 3rd edition style skill differentiation (perish the thought...the skill bonus issue is the single worst thing about 3e, yes that includes fighter/wizard power disparity), just that there needs to be greater variation than between +0 and +5. Which you appear to agree with, since your variance in your example is between +0 and +10...a differentiation which seems about right to me, from a realism and game-ism standpoint.

WOTC's problem is that there is no way to get to the +0 to +10 variance without some kind of skill or proficiency system.

EDIT: and weight lifting is not something I want to accurately model...it's an example of something in game (like forcing open a door or holding a portcullis), where He Man should have a considerably more than 25% greater success rate than someone with only average strength.

If DC 15 is a "standard" test, for any task where someone with no special aptitude, but no special penalties either, (stat 10) has a 30% chance of success, then I think someone who is the greatest living exemplar of that particular attribute (stat 20) should have better than a 55% chance to succeed.

If the "greatest living exemplar" had a +10 (which is what I suggested in an earlier post) to his role, then the numbers come out right...80% success, leaving a small, but real chance of failure that keeps the game interesting, but leaves the character is actually good at the things he's designed to be good at.

One of the earlier playtests had the "Difficulty Threshold" (or whatever its name was), where if a character's attribute was X points higher than the DC, he succeeded automatically.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I read the article last night, but I was in a bad mood, so I waited to post about it. I read it again today, and I'm still left with a sour taste in my mouth. The "flexible rules" point just about killed it for me. Again, I'll have to wait and see how it turns out, but that statement (as I interpreted it) is just the exact opposite of what I want from their game. But we'll see, of course. As always, play what you like

 

[Warbringer]

One of the earlier playtests had the "Difficulty Threshold" (or whatever its name was), where if a character's attribute was X points higher than the DC, he succeeded automatically.

Many moons ago ... the old idea of skills as ranks

 

[Klaus]

Many moons ago ... the old idea of skills as ranks

No, not that (although I do remember that). I believe it was in the first or second packet.

 

[GX.Sigma]

No, not that (although I do remember that). I believe it was in the first or second packet.

The first packet had "ability thresholds," which says that the DM might decide a minimum ability score (rule of thumb: DC + 5) will automatically succeed, especially for tasks that don't usually rely on luck, such as lifting something heavy.

It's still in there, in the form of this advice that has appeared in every iteration of the DM Guidelines document:

Is the action being taken so easy, so free of stress or conflict, or so appropriate to the situation that there should be no chance of failure? “So easy” should take into account the ability score associated with the intended action. It’s easy for someone with a Strength score of 18 to flip over a table, though not easy for someone with a Strength score of 9.

 

[Tovec]

[sblock]

• You like simplicity. You want to jump into the game quickly, create characters, monsters, NPCs, and adventures with a minimum of fuss, and get down to the business of playing D&D.
• You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image. You see balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale.
• You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.
• You value flexibility in rules. You prefer an ability or a rule that's easy to adapt or that leaves space for creative applications, rather than rigidly defined abilities.
• You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

[/sblock]
Mike could have saved some time. He could have gone back to the first two 5e L+L articles (early January of last year I believe) to garner these tidbits of "insight" into the playtest community. Personally, I'm seeing a lot of repeats with similar wording in this recent article compared to the earliest ones about 5e. Is that just me?

(Bold emphasis is mine..)

[sblock]

As you may have read in the New York Times, it’s an exciting time for Dungeons & Dragons. We are happy to announce today that we are developing the next iteration of D&D, and will be looking to the legions of D&D fans to help shape the future of the game along with us. Our mission is to ensure that D&D enters its next 40 years as a vibrant, growing, and exciting game. By listening to the needs of the D&D community, we can meet this goal. As part of our increased efforts to engage with the player-base, we launched a series of weekly articles in early 2011, including Rule of Three and Legends & Lore, to give you a voice in our work. We’ve listened to both praise and criticism from all D&D fans, regardless of their edition of choice, and we’ll continue to do so.
That is why we are excited to share with you that starting in Spring 2012, we will be taking this process one step further and conducting ongoing open playtests with the gaming community to gather feedback on the new iteration of the game as we develop it. With your feedback and involvement, we can make D&D better than ever. We seek to build a foundation for the long-term health and growth of D&D, one rooted in the vital traits that make D&D unique and special. We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.
D&D is more than just a set of rules for fantasy gaming. It launched an entire gaming genre and played a pivotal role in creating the entirety of the gaming industry, both analog and digital. The game has lived and thrived because it has awoken a spark of creation, visions of daring adventure, wondrous vistas, and untold horrors that pull us all together as a community of RPG fans. It is the countless players and DMs who have brought it to life over the years. The game is at its best when it is yours.
For that reason, we want your participation. The goals we have set for ourselves are by no means trivial or easy. By involving you in this process, we can build a set of D&D rules that incorporate the wants and desires of D&D gamers around the world. We want to create a flexible game, rich with options for players and DMs to embrace or reject as they see fit, a game that brings D&D fans together rather than serves as one more category to splinter us apart.
We have begun obtaining feedback from a limited Friends & Family playtest consisting of internal employees and their gaming groups and soon we will be expanding that group to consist of members from our existing body of playtesters. Then at the D&D Experience convention in late January, Wizards of the Coast will conduct a special playtest of ideas currently in development. The D&D Experience will be moving to Gen Con in 2013, so as a convention special this year, we will be offering show attendees a first-look at a draft of the new set of rules. Then beginning sometime in the spring, we will begin open playtesting. Through our web site, we will release a growing set of rules, classes, monsters and other materials for your study and feedback. We seek to reach as many people as possible, from the gamer who just started with D&D last week to the gaming group that has been together since the early-1970s. For this process to work, we want to give a voice to all D&D fans and players of all previous editions of the game. The next year is going to be an exciting one. There is a lot of work to be done, and I’m hoping you have the time, energy, and inclination to pitch in. We sure hope you do, as we seek to make gaming history by shaping the future of D&D, together. If you would like to sign up today to be notified when the playtest is beginning and how you can participate, click here:

[/sblock]

[sblock]

If you haven't already done so, please read this announcement from Mike Mearls. So, now you have a little better idea what I've been working on. For many of you, what you already suspected has simply been confirmed. In any event, I can't tell you how exciting and challenging it’s been getting this project off the ground—and how thrilling it will continue to be as we move forward.
Of course, I'm not doing this alone. While I am working with a lot of great people at Wizards of the Coast in this endeavor, at this point in the process, I spend most of my time with two excellent designers, Bruce Cordell and Rob Schwalb. It's a team effort to be sure, and we’ll be including more talented designers, developers, and editors as things progress.
In the weeks and months ahead, I want to elaborate on some of the goals that Mike put forth in his announcement. This week, however, I just want to hit the highlights of what I think is particularly exciting about the development of the next iteration of the game.
First and foremost, as Mike said, this isn't another salvo in the so-called edition wars. This isn't an attempt to get you to play Dungeons & Dragons in a new way. This is the game you've already been playing, no matter what edition or version you prefer. The goal here is to embrace all forms of the D&D experience and to not exclude anyone. Imagine a game where the core essence of D&D has been distilled down to a very simple but entirely playable-in-its-right game. Now imagine that the game offered you modular, optional add-ons that allow you to create the character you want to play while letting the Dungeon Master create the game he or she wants to run. Like simple rules for your story-driven game? You're good to go. Like tactical combats and complex encounters? You can have that too. Like ultra-customized character creation? It's all there.
In this game, you play what you want to play. It’s our goal to give you the tools to do so.
This new approach comes out of a single idea. At its heart, D&D isn't about rules. It's about participating in an exciting fantasy adventure. The rules are just the means to enable that to happen. They're not an end unto themselves. The reason most of us play is for the story that arises out of our games. We talk about the green devil mouth in the Tomb of Horrors. The diabolical plans of Strahd in Ravenloft. The cowardly kobold Meepo in Sunless Citadel. These stories bring us together. As D&D players, we shouldn't allow rule preferences to separate us. In the end, we have a lot more in common than we have differences, even if some of us prefer the simple-yet-wahoo style of old school Basic D&D and others the carefully balanced elegance of 4th Edition—or anything in between.
So if this new endeavor is just like your favorite prior version of the game, why play this one? First, we hope you're going to enjoy the distillation of the things that make D&D the game we all love into a single, unified package, with the ability to pick and choose other options as you desire.
Second—and this sounds so crazy that you probably won't believe it right now—we're designing the game so that not every player has to choose from the same set of options. Again, imagine a game where one player has a simple character sheet that has just a few things noted on it, and the player next to him has all sorts of skills, feats, and special abilities. And yet they can still play the game together and everything remains relatively balanced. Your 1E-loving friend can play in your 3E-style game and not have to deal with all the options he or she doesn't want or need. Or vice versa. It's all up to you to decide.
Finally, we're seeking your feedback to help guide us as we move ahead. You can play a part in shaping the direction of D&D. I can't stress this enough. We're going to be doing extensive playtesting and engaging in open discussion about our ideas for this iteration of D&D. We want real feedback from our players, because if the goal is to make a game that all D&D players want to play, it's not going to work unless we actually hear from a wide variety of D&D players. So tell your friends. Tell the guy down the street who still plays OD&D. Tell the girl at the game store who left D&D to play other systems. We want to hear from them too. Spread the word!

[/sblock]

I mean there are things that have fallen by the wayside. Apparently we didn't like the "ultra-customized character creation," (Jan 16, 2012 Article) as much as we liked "to jump into the game quickly" (Aug 19, 2013 article). Although I certainly do. The "You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image." wasn't explicitly stated in the first two articles, but that has long been a goal and was in other articles so I'm counting it.

All I'm saying is that Mike doesn't seem to be giving us anything NEW here. His revelations might be just that - to WotC - but they shouldn't be. They aren't to the rest of us. I'm just disappointed that this is how it ends.

I'm more disappointed because, as of the latest packet, they haven't nailed down OR given real options for the most basic tweaks. The fighter is in constant flux, but I don't know that the "choice points" have been settled on. HP, rest, and recovery are all still a mess from where I'm sitting. All of this would be fine as long as WotC would be aware of these issues. But no, they've captured the "feeling of DnD" and now they just have to do the minor step of ironing out math. Because that is the easiest step really.[/sarcasm] If they want to go with a certain feeling or think they've found it that is fine, but I don't know that they have. I'm certainly not part of it, haven't been yet and I'm just getting shut out further with each successive packet.

Beyond that, I agree with @Jester Canuck that "as many playtesters as 3e" isn't a good sign as 3.0 had holes large enough to drive a car through - necessitating 3.5's "fixes". 4e had terrible, nearly immediate and very necessary errata too. It seems like they should go back and talk to Jan 9, 2012's Mike Mearls as he seemed to think "There is a lot of work to be done, and I’m hoping you have the time, energy, and inclination to pitch in. We sure hope you do, as we seek to make gaming history by shaping the future of D&D, together." I notice "together" was patched onto the end there. I guess what he really meant was "for a while, until we get the feel right" instead of "help us make an edition of the game." Worst still when you think that the public playtest is over because they don't want us to see what a more finished product might look like, 'cus money. I guess our work is over. I wonder if Mike and the rest really feel as though the tough stuff is done, as he correctly predicted "there is a lot of work to be done." and now they're saying goodbye to a group who can (with the right asking) find and eliminate big problems quickly and efficiently.

But for now, I guess I'll just have to re-affirm that I'm done, at least until it gets decent or until they want my input. *Throws hands up in despair and apathy.*