D&D 5E October Playtest: Yay or Nay?

[B.T.]

No, a finished game product has more polish. The game design goals should be clear from the get-go.

Unfortunately, it seems that the current design goals are "toss it against the wall and see what sticks."

 

[Li Shenron]

Mixed feelings.

I'll spare you all the details, I have other threads for those, and just say that my overall concern is that 5e is becoming a more and more complicated game to prepare (for players i.e. character generation) and play at every iteration, and for me this goes against the only reason why I would leave my current edition (3.0) behind.

I also start having concerns about the whole public playtest process... sounds great in principle to ask what you customers want. But not when you customers apparently don't have themselves a clue about what they want, and much less a vaguely uniform opinion on anything.

 

[delericho]

Time to get a poll up and running. First impressions only, are you heartened or disheartened, or have you no heart at all?

No heart at all. Sadly, my interest in 5e (or, indeed, any possible new version of D&D) has flatlined.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

No heart at all. Sadly, my interest in 5e (or, indeed, any possible new version of D&D) has flatlined.

Likewise. If they don't take an immediate turn back from this pile, I will consider it a waste of energy to even check on it anymore.

 

[GX.Sigma]

No, a finished game product has more polish. The game design goals should be clear from the get-go.

Unfortunately, it seems that the current design goals are "toss it against the wall and see what sticks."

Really? I thought the design goals were:

Goal #1: Reunification through Common Understanding

As part of the design process, the R&D team must boil down the RPG into its most basic component parts. Using those rules elements, the team must then build an easy to understand game system that incorporates the most iconic elements of D&D in prominent roles. Anyone who has ever played any version of D&D must recognize and understand its most important elements.

Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity

Traditionally, D&D editions have focused on specific play styles. This approach has fragmented the community over time. The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options. By looking at past editions and incorporating their elements as core or optional rules, we can allow players and groups to place the focus where they want it.

Goal #3: Reunification through Accessibility

D&D has traditionally required large amounts of time, a large play group, and a sustained commitment. The design process must focus on play time, group size, speed of play, and length of campaigns, with an eye toward reducing the minimum required from each area. Players who want a longer play time and so forth can easily scale up the game to meet their needs and opt into the various rules modules we'll provide or that they'll build themselves. However, our standard goal is to remove minimum group sizes, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play.

Game Design

The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one. Complexity and individual experiences rest in the players' hands. That experience is more important than the specifics of the math. In other words, if the math works but the game doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed. If the system is sound, but it can't replicate D&D's classic adventures or seamlessly support any of D&D's settings, it isn't the right system for D&D.

More importantly, we must look beyond the mechanics of the game to focus on the archetypes, literary tropes, and cultural elements that built D&D. We must build a fighter that resonates as a warrior, not one simply cobbled together with mechanics pilfered from D&D's past. The key game experience of D&D lies at the game table. Our work must start by focusing on the key elements of D&D and the unique traits of a tabletop RPG. The mechanics must support those two factors, not the other way around.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I haven't voted in the poll as I've lost all interest in the playtest. This isn't because I dislike it, I'm simply apathetic. I'm also lacking people to play it with.

 

[gyor]

No one is asking for over powered casters. The casters in the previous packet were not over powered and casters couldn't do everything, alot of spells were blunted and they got fewer then in 3.x

Non at will Orisons and Cantrips are a complete waste of time and are forgetable.

Look heres a compromise.

Give the Cleric the option to pick between Turn Undead and Channel divinity at first level and Let them choose between at will orisons or a bonus first level spell or two.

Wizards need more features from thier tradition as they level. The same atwill cantrips vs. bonus spell.

For both they need more rituals and cheaper ones.

Rogues need sneak attack fixed and some better manevuers. They also need at least D8 hps. Rogues should get skill expertise, sneak attack, and a manevuer that allows the Rogue to use a skill check and attack at first level automatically. That in addition to the ones it gets from thier scheme and schemes should use backgrounds again.

Fighters should get deadly strike, parry, and mighty exertion (which needs to work with both dexeterity and strength) automatically, plus the ones it gets from its fighting style.

Fighters and Rogues should get more EDs, at least one die for every two levels. And something unique for each class.

Rogues and Fighters should get access to Martial Practices, a 4e idea that was good, but never got enough support.

This should work for everyone.

And turn undead should work against additional blasphomies, like at level three you can pick it working against demons or devils or who knows what.

 

[delericho]

Likewise. If they don't take an immediate turn back from this pile, I will consider it a waste of energy to even check on it anymore.

In my case, it's nothing at all to do with the quality. I rather liked what I saw of the first playtest, but barely bothered to look at the second, and don't expect even to download the third. I just can't bring myself to care.

As things stand, I'll check it out when it's released, and I'll buy if and only if it looks to be significantly better than 3e (a test both 4e and Pathfinder failed, despite both having good points). But until then, I'm finding it hard to care.

 

[Consonant Dude]

A complete and finished game has clearer and more defined goals than one that is still being designed and is not even half way completed?

SHOCKER!!!

Your sarcasm is duly noted. I understand this is confusing to you but yes, at this point in time, DnD Next should have clear design goals. As a matter of fact, it should have had clear design goals from the moment it was announced. People who create great things usually have (shocker!) a good idea of what they are going for. WotC doesn't.

Having clear design goals is very different from having completed the actual finished implementation. Which is what playtests are for.

 

[Consonant Dude]

The common complaint about 4e was that well it might be a great game, it wasn't a game that the majority, or at least a large percentage of the players wanted. Now what they are in the slow iterative process, soliciting information on want the players want, requesting feedback, and they are being castigated for not having an overarching vision. Despite the fact that the release of the game is more than 18 months away. I like making disparaging comments on the Internet as much as the next man, but it seems that we are constructing a scenario that W OTC just can't win.

I understand what you are saying but that's focusing on the wrong things. People who lament the days of 3e and try to explain that 4e wasn't the game they wanted because it was the product of a unilateral vision are forgetting that 3e wasn't built by the community either. It was a unilateral vision.

The scenario you are talking about is not what WotC needs to win. It doesn't matter how they create the game. What matters is the actual game. At this point it doesn't look good to me. I'm sure others have a different opinion and I also respect that.