More People Test One D&D Origins Playtest Than D&D Next

WotC has announced that more people have playtested the first One D&D playtest than the number of people who playtested the entirety of the D&D Next playtest 10 years ago, which led to the release of D&D 5E. The number of people who playtested D&D Next, according to the credits in the 5E Player's Handbook, was over 175,000 people.

In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting! 🧙‍♂️🎉

Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons! 💥🐉

Screen Shot 2022-09-01 at 5.22.36 PM.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

JEB

Legend
Wizards of the Coast cannot design a game under the assumption that the majority of players are going to read the rule in the stupidest manner possible.

If people misinterpret a rule so badly that they miss the entire paragraph that explains the changes and how to use them, it's really not WotC's fault. People misreading the rules is inevitable, and trying to design a game under the assumption that the rules are going to be constantly misread and thus trying to future-proof that is near-impossible.
I agree in principle, but apparently folks sometimes need things to be spelled out very explicitly. As mentioned several times now, 5E's backgrounds are also customizable, and that's been missed. As another example, the 5E Monster Manual supported picking alternative alignments for monsters, well before they had to append "typically" in current stat blocks. I'm sure there are more...

Hence my support for some hand-holding here and walking folks very clearly through the process, and/or including some variants of the same background to show it's not just what they list or nothing. If you want to make sure people do it, you need to write to that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I agree in principle, but apparently folks sometimes need things to be spelled out very explicitly. As mentioned several times now, 5E's backgrounds are also customizable, and that's been missed. As another example, the 5E Monster Manual supported picking alternative alignments for monsters, well before they had to append "typically" in current stat blocks. I'm sure there are more...

Hence my support for some hand-holding here and walking folks very clearly through the process, and/or including some variants of the same background to show it's not just what they list or nothing. If you want to make sure people do it, you need to write to that.
The PHB is for the basics, after all, and helping new people ramp up as much as reference for veterans.
 

Gorck

Prince of Dorkness
Frankly, just remove stat adjustments from anything and let players put them anywhere. That's easy and removes any bias. So easy. Want a strong elven mage? Go for it.
I, for one, would hate this. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I didn't like this option in Tasha's and I was upset that they took the option and made it mandatory with subsequently released races. That's the reason I refuse to allow Owlin, Fairies, and Harengon in my campaigns.

I enjoy the puzzle of trying to find interesting Race/Class combos to play, and that pursuit has led me to try Races I might not have otherwise considered playing, but with this method people would probably just determine the single optimal race and use it to make all their characters.

I used to play with a guy who would only play a Dwarf, which is fine for him - "to each, his own" and all - but I would find that dreadfully boring.
 




I, for one, would hate this. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I didn't like this option in Tasha's and I was upset that they took the option and made it mandatory with subsequently released races. That's the reason I refuse to allow Owlin, Fairies, and Harengon in my campaigns.

I enjoy the puzzle of trying to find interesting Race/Class combos to play, and that pursuit has led me to try Races I might not have otherwise considered playing, but with this method people would probably just determine the single optimal race and use it to make all their characters.

I used to play with a guy who would only play a Dwarf, which is fine for him - "to each, his own" and all - but I would find that dreadfully boring.
I can respect that but do understand that guy who mains dwarves who you played with is closer to the common new dnd player than you are as puzzling is not what a lot want out of their fantasy escapism system.
 

This might derail the thread. If you search for my argumentation, you will find them.

In short:
I think a +2 bonus does not carry enough weight to distinguish one race from another, a +1 bonus even less so (we are not in ADnD anymore, where having a +1/-1 adjustment to stats change your character noticably, we are also not in 3.x anymore, where you would get bigger bonuses, which were often offset or enhanced by sie modifiers)
I like the giff trait, which gives advantage on strength checks and carrying capacity, which will always make you really strong, without changing combat balance.
 

Reynard

Legend
They are designing a game to be accessible to asany people as possible ,however, so making everything flow as smoothly as possible is important. Enough posters on these boards seem confused, sonI eonder what they will end up doijg in the end.
People on this board notoriously do not read the rules. Some of them take pride in it (especially as it relates to the DMG). The more I read peoples' responses to the playtest, the more I am convinced open and public playtests are a terrible idea and will result in a (mechanically) worse game.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
People on this board notoriously do not read the rules. Some of them take pride in it (especially as it relates to the DMG). The more I read peoples' responses to the playtest, the more I am convinced open and public playtests are a terrible idea and will result in a (mechanically) worse game.
Based on the past ten years of playtest iterations, the result will likely tend very conservative. But thst has helped the game so far.
 

Reynard

Legend
Based on the past ten years of playtest iterations, the result will likely tend very conservative. But thst has helped the game so far.
There is no doubt that whatever drove 5E's design was at least partially responsible for its popularity. However, just becasue a design is popular doesn't mean it is "good." Now, i am not saying 5E is bad, or badly designed, or any of that. What I am saying is that the public playtest doesn't necessarily improve the quality of the design and if anything serves more of a marketing purpose -- both to test how folks will react to changes, and as a way to preview design choices.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
There is no doubt that whatever drove 5E's design was at least partially responsible for its popularity. However, just becasue a design is popular doesn't mean it is "good." Now, i am not saying 5E is bad, or badly designed, or any of that. What I am saying is that the public playtest doesn't necessarily improve the quality of the design and if anything serves more of a marketing purpose -- both to test how folks will react to changes, and as a way to preview design choices.
I meant more the ongoing playtesting process that led to Xanathar's, then Tasha's, and now the 2024 Core. It's kept the game on an even keel.
 

Reynard

Legend
I meant more the ongoing playtesting process that led to Xanathar's, then Tasha's, and now the 2024 Core. It's kept the game on an even keel.
I am skeptical that the Xanathar's method is going to work for a core overhaul. There are too many moving, interconnected parts that have to be tested simultaneously. It's not just checking to see if a new subclass works or is overpowered. If you change a foundational element -- a race or class, for example-- the list of possible interactions and knock on effects is too big to discover in the 2 week survey window.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I am skeptical that the Xanathar's method is going to work for a core overhaul. There are too many moving, interconnected parts that have to be tested simultaneously. It's not just checking to see if a new subclass works or is overpowered. If you change a foundational element -- a race or class, for example-- the list of possible interactions and knock on effects is too big to discover in the 2 week survey window.
Neither any Race nor Class are are foundational elements in the system, those are modular plug and play elements. They have an internal, NDA bound system for that sort of thing, anyways, this playtest is, again, just a taste test to determine how far out they can push.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top