Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New D&D Next Packet Is Available
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="VinylTap" data-source="post: 6106003" data-attributes="member: 6697217"><p>I think you're coming into the play-test with incorrect assumptions as to how the Next design team is using these alphas and how they fit into the grand scheme of their overall ongoing play-testing practices. Their internal rules most likely look very different from the public play-tests. But the benefit of the internal playtests is you don't need to present them in the same semi-polished format, for several obvious reasons. You believe that the playtest should be doing something that it was never even attempting to do, which is most likely where your frustrations stem from.</p><p></p><p> Its a quick way for them to throw out a bunch of 'out of the box' ideas and get a ton of feedback on them. But you have to put those ideas into a sort of semi-playable frame of a game, so people can actually get real 'in-game' feedback on it. Now to keep their life sane, the designers throw a lot of 'placeholders' in there, both in names, and spells, because its not worth putting a ton of polish into these things, because you might be throwing them out the window in 2 weeks (because they generated a ton of bad feedback). But if you don't get the idea out there for people to play with (remember theory-gaming on forums isn't the best way to look at these things, from a research stand-point) you don't get the solid feedback you need. </p><p></p><p>Now, I have no problem with people going 'OK, this probably won't work for this this and/or this reason' or 'I think the game would be better if they presented the information in such-and-such form'. But what seems to be happening is people are using these play tests (and i'm not trying to single out you, or be confrontational) as an excuse to derail these threads into talking about how 'NEXT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE '. Now, people have the right to express those feelings, I just don't think these threads are the place for it. Ultimately, posts like this are very far off topic, but people don't always see it like that. There are a few 'NEXT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE" threads already thriving in this forum, I wish people would keep that topic where it belongs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="VinylTap, post: 6106003, member: 6697217"] I think you're coming into the play-test with incorrect assumptions as to how the Next design team is using these alphas and how they fit into the grand scheme of their overall ongoing play-testing practices. Their internal rules most likely look very different from the public play-tests. But the benefit of the internal playtests is you don't need to present them in the same semi-polished format, for several obvious reasons. You believe that the playtest should be doing something that it was never even attempting to do, which is most likely where your frustrations stem from. Its a quick way for them to throw out a bunch of 'out of the box' ideas and get a ton of feedback on them. But you have to put those ideas into a sort of semi-playable frame of a game, so people can actually get real 'in-game' feedback on it. Now to keep their life sane, the designers throw a lot of 'placeholders' in there, both in names, and spells, because its not worth putting a ton of polish into these things, because you might be throwing them out the window in 2 weeks (because they generated a ton of bad feedback). But if you don't get the idea out there for people to play with (remember theory-gaming on forums isn't the best way to look at these things, from a research stand-point) you don't get the solid feedback you need. Now, I have no problem with people going 'OK, this probably won't work for this this and/or this reason' or 'I think the game would be better if they presented the information in such-and-such form'. But what seems to be happening is people are using these play tests (and i'm not trying to single out you, or be confrontational) as an excuse to derail these threads into talking about how 'NEXT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE '. Now, people have the right to express those feelings, I just don't think these threads are the place for it. Ultimately, posts like this are very far off topic, but people don't always see it like that. There are a few 'NEXT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE" threads already thriving in this forum, I wish people would keep that topic where it belongs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New D&D Next Packet Is Available
Top