D&D 5E Playing the Game vs. Reading the Rules of the Game

[Argyle King]

I was looking at the playtest packet, and, if I had to guess, I think the barbarian I mentioned upthread was duel-wielding finesse weapons, had gone into the Totem of The Hawk (which gives advantage on all dex-based attack rolls.)

This combo seemed pretty broken in play; blatantly so. With one stat (Dex,) he can attack, deal damage, gain a bonus to AC, and gain a bonus to initiative? Meanwhile, you get to roll twice on every attack while raging (taking the better of the two results,) and add the extra rage damage to two separate attacks.

Keep in mind, I noticed all of this after one night of playtesting; the first night I've playtested since the second packet. So it's not as though these issues were deeply buried. They were easily noticeable by anyone who cared to even pay attention to the game.

I don't fault the player for that build; it was very effective. It simply seems to me that the fighter I played was the least effective when it came to every aspect of doing things (being tough to hit, dealing damage, fighting in melee, etc) I would associate with being a fighter. To me, that's a problem; especially if it's cropping up at 3rd level already. Looking over the multiclass rules, it seems to me that there are potentially worse combinations available; choices which widen the gap between characters even further.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not unwilling to give Next a go under the right circumstances, but I'm not part of a captive audience. Being an edition of Dungeons and Dragons does not bear any particular draw for me. Honestly if I had a group available to try new games it would be pretty far down the list. I still have not yet had a chance to play Edge of the Empire (using the full rules), Numenera, Fate Core, 13th Age, Shadowrun 5e, the beta of Dark Heresy 2nd Edition or Dungeon World. Not to mention that in the next year Exalted 3e, Demon: The Descent, and new editions of Vampire and Werewolf are coming down the pipeline.

I'm also not a particular fan of the game's tone or design principles. The following passage is fairly troublesome to me:

Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the ability check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here.

A number below 10 is never going to make it unless the task is trivially simple. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task.
A number in the high teens will succeed at a moderate task.
And when a player rolls a 20 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.

The emphasis is my own. I generally do not like this cavalier attitude to mechanical resolution. The rather explicit shift to illusionism does the game a disservice in my opinion.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have run one session of the first packet and decided that it was an OK game. Each subsequent packet has made me less and less excited to run the game. I suspect that the end product will be yet another version of D&D that I will play if a friend wants to run it, but that I probably won't run myself.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not unwilling to give Next a go under the right circumstances, but I'm not part of a captive audience. Being an edition of Dungeons and Dragons does not bear any particular draw for me. Honestly if I had a group available to try new games it would be pretty far down the list. I still have not yet had a chance to play Edge of the Empire (using the full rules), Numenera, Fate Core, 13th Age, Shadowrun 5e, the beta of Dark Heresy 2nd Edition or Dungeon World. Not to mention that in the next year Exalted 3e, Demon: The Descent, and new editions of Vampire and Werewolf are coming down the pipeline.

I think your case is quite common: you own a lot of systems already, so another edition of D&D doesn't necessarily make for a significant addition to the array of games you can play. But I do think that this makes you part of the captive audience nevertheless!

By contrast, the only RPG books I own are D&D 3e. If I buy 5e, it will definitely be much more for me than just another option

I'm also not a particular fan of the game's tone or design principles. The following passage is fairly troublesome to me:

...

The emphasis is my own. I generally do not like this cavalier attitude to mechanical resolution. The rather explicit shift to illusionism does the game a disservice in my opinion.

I had the same feeling about that passage... I used to do similar things when I was a beginner DM, but in time I learned that I prefer to rely on written DCs and other numbers, especially for physical challenges. Of course when it comes to non-physical challenges, or more precisely to challenges that are impossible to compare with each other in absolute terms, such as convincing a guard to let you pass "because I am an old friend of the Duke", or to recall the meaning of the 247th arcane symbol you see in a dungeon, the DC are pretty much made up all the time... the range can be told by the rules, but how does the exact DC vary between bluffing Joe the guard or bluffing Jack the other guard, are pretty much random.

 

[Salamandyr]

Just as a commentary on "liking it before you play it" or the reverse... 5e plays pretty much like any other D&D style game. It's faster than some, and simpler, so it doesn't reward the non table "play" (ie, hours poring over rulebooks looking up comboes) that some people find rewarding and that some editions cater to so well.

But if you like D&D, you'll probably like this. And if you're a GURPS, FATE, or Vampire player, it may not be your speed. There may be versions of D&D you like better, but it's not like this won't scratch your itch, unless you come to it with an axe to grind (which admittedly I do with some other editions).

Perhaps its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness...it's so simple that there really isn't much reason to think about it except when you're playing it. So it's less likely to reward the obsessive gamer who really loves to tinker and play with his ruleset.

ADDENDUM: If time pressures really are an issue for you, then this game may be the best version of the system yet. It's the only version of the game I could imagine actually having a 2 hour session that was both rewarding and felt like progress.

 

[Aldeon]

I ran a regular game for the D&D Next Playtest using the august(?) rules, then switched to the september packet when it came out. We ran it with one or two sessions a week until some players had to permanently drop out, which led to the dissolution of the group pretty much. They enjoyed it a lot and a few are trying to get a new game started; it was largely their first foray into D&D (all have been playing Savage Worlds, one played 4e for a little bit). I'm not sure if it would be their favorite edition of D&D, mostly because they haven't played earlier editions except the one who played 4e and hated its combat.

As a dungeon master, I really like the Next rules because it gives me a lot more freedom to run it my way. I like being able to run it with less magicky items and the flatter math makes it easier to find monsters to use without changing stat blocks. My players and I also like the ability to desegregate class from weapon choices; we had a paladin who had no problem being an archer with high dex and sneaking. When I was playing in the Murder in Baldur's Gate encounters thing, I was able to make a dex-based barbarian with little mechanical problems-- pretty much a fancy-pants noble who had anger issues, fought with a rapier, and would go into a rage if he thought an injury would scar his skin.

 

[n00bdragon]

This poll is flawed. I bet no one in this topic has played FATAL but I would be willing to bet none of you feel that's necessary to decide if the game is for you or not. There's also a severe selection bias here (to the point where we are no longer talking "statistically relevant" but "statistically bonkers"). This forum is overwhelmingly biased towards 5e and overwhelming biased towards die-hard players who've been keeping up with the playtest.

That said, I've read this game a lot and played this game a lot. In my opinion it reads like a subpar retroclone and it plays exactly like it reads. People who love retroclones tend to like it more than those who don't. People who've never played D&D before can't tell the difference. They rolled dice and killed an orc. Bless their little hearts. It's not for me though.

 

[Mistwell]

This poll is flawed. I bet no one in this topic has played FATAL but I would be willing to bet none of you feel that's necessary to decide if the game is for you or not.

What specifically is flawed, and how would you prefer the language be worded. I have the option to say whether you have read the rules, and then the option to say whether you've played it or not, and the option to say if it is for you or not. Seemed to cover all the bases, what's the bias there, and what change would you make to it?

There's also a severe selection bias here (to the point where we are no longer talking "statistically relevant" but "statistically bonkers"). This forum is overwhelmingly biased towards 5e and overwhelming biased towards die-hard players who've been keeping up with the playtest.

Well nothing I can do with that. I work with the audience I have. How would you have done it differently to poll people not here? And what's your evidence that the selection here is "bonkers" and the forum is "biased towards 5e"? Seems like there are lots and lots of people here, who like different flavors of D&D.

 

[Weather Report]

This poll is flawed. I bet no one in this topic has played FATAL but I would be willing to bet none of you feel that's necessary to decide if the game is for you or not. There's also a severe selection bias here (to the point where we are no longer talking "statistically relevant" but "statistically bonkers"). This forum is overwhelmingly biased towards 5e and overwhelming biased towards die-hard players who've been keeping up with the playtest.

That said, I've read this game a lot and played this game a lot. In my opinion it reads like a subpar retroclone and it plays exactly like it reads. People who love retroclones tend to like it more than those who don't. People who've never played D&D before can't tell the difference. They rolled dice and killed an orc. Bless their little hearts. It's not for me though.

The only one coming off as biased is you, and I do not believe at all that you have played 5th Ed "a lot", if at all.

Just another passive-aggressive 5th Ed bashing post.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I played D&D Next many times and concluded it was likely for me.