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

[innerdude]

I've noticed an awful lot of people concluded D&D Next (5e) is not the game for them, without ever playtesting the game.

I wanted to see if this was simply a few isolated instances, or a common thing.

I also wanted to see if there could be a correlation between those who play the game, and those who decide they like the game.

So, let me know how many times you've played 5e, and whether you know it's not for you, you're unsure if it's for you, or if you think it's likely for you!

And if you answer Lemon Playtesty, please do let us know what you're thinking.

Oh, and this is a public poll!

In the interest of full disclosure:

I read through the second or third playtest packet (I forget which) from end-to-end, and had prepped a short adventure to run with my group using the provided pre-gens. We ended up never playing it because as soon as the group found out the system was using 4e-style "healing surges," they wanted nothing to do with it.

However, that being said, in my opinion there's more than enough information available about the system to determine that D&D Next "isn't for you" without needing to play it.

1. It's D&D. It's "AC as defenses," "hitpoints as 'heroic stamina depletion,'" class-based advancement, d20 resolution mechanic, "iconic" races, etc. D&D is, if anything, a style of game with very specific expectations surrounding its basic makeup. If you've never liked a D&D-style game, you're probably not going to like it now. For me, it's the same concept as Mac OS X. I've never liked ANY of the core design decisions for the OS; throwing the name of another large, predatory feline at the front of it isn't going to change that for me.
2. Based on #1, if you prefer games based on the FATE engine, BRP/Runequest percentile, die step systems (Savage Worlds, Coretex+), then the simple fact that it's D&D may mean that it's not all that interesting to you.
3. Even you're a fan of the general D&D "play experience," you may prefer the intricate character building of 3e, the "tactical fantasy heroes" vibe of 4e. 5e just may not be your cup o' tea.

I've come to believe that WotC is primarily trying to accomplish two things with D&D Next.

1. Convert people who like D&D generally, but are tired of the massive "crunch" of 3e, and to a lesser extent, 4e, and want to enjoy a currently supported ruleset (supplements, active events, etc.).

2. Finally--FINALLY!--convince the 1e/2e/BX/BECMI grognards that it's okay to put their collections of massively-houseruled AD&D to bed, and embrace a "modern" game system that captures the essence of the older systems. As a corollary to this, I suspect they're also hoping to capture those that have become disenchanted with more modern D&D flavors, and are considering switching back to a retroclone.

Frankly, I'm just not within that target audience, and hence, D&D Next is largely not for me.

 

[innerdude]

For it to be the game for me it would have to be a game I'd want to run and a rules set I'd preferentially use. I can enjoy just about any game system in the hands of a good GM. That doesn't mean I want to run out and spend $100 on it.

Yup. It has to be a game I'm willing to dedicate the time and money to mastering, since as a GM I'd need to have a firm grip on the rules. I'd have to like it well enough to convert existing modules into it. I'd have to want to create worlds within its gameplay environs. I'd have to have a firm conviction that the system was going to facilitate and enhance the style of game I want to run, and help me tell the stories I want to tell.

D&D Next just isn't that game for me right now through no fault of its own; I've just moved on from the entire d20/D&D ecosphere.

 

[Mistwell]

In the interest of full disclosure:

I read through the second or third playtest packet (I forget which) from end-to-end, and had prepped a short adventure to run with my group using the provided pre-gens. We ended up never playing it because as soon as the group found out the system was using 4e-style "healing surges," they wanted nothing to do with it.

For what it is worth, only the fighter has that now, and only one of them. Anyone can heal (sort of) during resting time, but not during combat unless they have a cleric who can heal them.

However, that being said, in my opinion there's more than enough information available about the system to determine that D&D Next "isn't for you" without needing to play it.

My experience tells me this is not the case, but that people frequently think this is the case.

It reminds me of Sheldon from Big Bang Theory thinking that reading about the rules of driving was sufficient to learn how to drive, and then discovering that the actual experience of driving is so different from reading about it as to make the two almost entirely different things. But, because the character is such a smart guy, he thought reading about it would allow him to extrapolate into the actual driving. I find a lot of experience RPG players think like Sheldon - they can grok the experience just by reading about it.

The same goes for birth. I read about how women give birth extensively before my wife gave birth. The moment the actual experience hit, I realized most of what I read was useless, and the actual experience is quite different from reading about it.

Lots of things in life are that way, and I think many RPGs (including 5e) fit in that category of "thing that doesn't necessarily read the way it's experienced".

There are many games I've read that sound great on paper, and play poorly. For example, I found "Monsters and Other Childish Things" read great, but played poorly.
There are many games I've read that read poorly, but played great. For example, when I first read 4e D&D it read to me like all the powers and characters were the same. Playing it, I found that to be entirely not the case.

If you've never liked a D&D-style game, you're probably not going to like it now.

Probably true. But, if you do like D&D-style games as a general style, you might like this version of the game specifically even if it reads poorly to you. Or, you might not. But, I think for this version of D&D it plays different than you expect it to play, if your most recent experiences are a 3e or 4e style game.

[*]Based on #1, if you prefer games based on the FATE engine, BRP/Runequest percentile, die step systems (Savage Worlds, Coretex+), then the simple fact that it's D&D may mean that it's not all that interesting to you.

We won't know the answer to that until the Story module is released for 5e. Apparently the guys drafting that module are also fans of those games (at least some of them).

[*]Even you're a fan of the general D&D "play experience," you may prefer the intricate character building of 3e, the "tactical fantasy heroes" vibe of 4e. 5e just may not be your cup o' tea.

Maybe, but that's something you won't really know until you play it. Plus, the tactical module and the customization module will likely change that equation as well, once they come out.

I've come to believe that WotC is primarily trying to accomplish to things with D&D Next.

1. Convert people who like D&D generally, but are tired of the massive "crunch" of 3e, and to a lesser extent, 4e, and want to enjoy a currently supported ruleset (supplements, active events, etc.).

Yes I think the core is somewhat about that, but the add-on customization and tactical modules add those things back in.

2. Finally--FINALLY!--convince the 1e/2e/BX/BECMI grognards that it's okay to put their collections of massively-houseruled AD&D to bed, and embrace a "modern" game system that captures the essence of the older systems.

Frankly, I'm just not within that target audience, and hence, D&D Next is largely not for me.

Sounds like you might well be in the target audience for the game with some or several of the planned modules.

 

[Stormonu]

I ran the first playtest with my family (and thought it was great), but when we got the rules for making characters and they turned out to be more than my family wanted to deal with so I migrated to just an observer and then finally lost all interest since I wasn't actually playing.

I'm in wait-and-see mode, but going by WotC's articles, things aren't heading where I'm interested following. But that's been the case since 3.5's PHB 2.

 

[Kinak]

I'm not really ready to pass judgement on whether 5e is for me. The current packet isn't to my tastes... previous packets were. Once it's reached a static version, I'll be able to say something about 5e rather than an amorphous blob of rules.

And even then, who knows, it might be not-my-game at launch and they they release 5Essentials and it starts getting tempting. Or they finally get around to the "everything Kinak likes" module. It could happen!

Or I could really like it and they could totally trash it with some later development. Or just let it die on the vine. Liking a game doesn't mean it's my one true love.

But I agree with everyone who's saying that people generally won't play a game they read and aren't interested in. Sometimes we change our minds, but first impression counts for a lot and I think feedback on that first impression is every bit as valuable as that first impression is important.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[KiloGex]

I've noticed an awful lot of people concluded D&D Next (5e) is not the game for them, without ever playtesting the game.

I wanted to see if this was simply a few isolated instances, or a common thing.

I sincerely hope that this is not a common occurrence, as I'd like to think that people wouldn't pre-judge an entire system simply by reading a handful of unfinished beta rulebooks. However, it appears as though at least a few people have done so, unfortunately.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I sincerely hope that this is not a common occurrence, as I'd like to think that people wouldn't pre-judge an entire system simply by reading a handful of unfinished beta rulebooks. However, it appears as though at least a few people have done so, unfortunately.

I suspect there are many people that wished they had done exactly that with the last version. Sometimes trusting your instincts is not only not a bad thing, but actually a good thing.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Haven't read the play test lately, but what I read at the start was ho hum. I don't have the time to play test yet another edition of D&D that doesn't jump out and shout PLAY ME!, and I don't have the money to buy a game that I probably won't like better than what I already have.

If someone were to tell me "Hey, 5e has X, Y, and Z great stuff!" I'd at least give the last play test packet a closer look. That said, I've seen three whole editions now, so I pretty much know whether I'm going to enjoy X, Y, and Z before I play. It's not like playing a Storyteller game or GURPs, where I really can't pre-judge stuff because everything is so different from what I've known for 20 years. This is D&D, the Everything You Already Know Packaged in a Slightly Different Ruleset Edition.

 

[Raith5]

I have had a very brief fiddle of the game but my D&D friends are not interested so it is unlikely that I will be able to play it more.

I have to confess that I have long felt that DDN was not for me despite limited experience (and despite liking some things). When I read 4th ed I did not really understand it but enjoyed when I got around to playing it. There are things I dont like about 4th but it enabled me as player to do new things. When I looked at DDN I felt that I did understand it, it is familiar and ticks all the D&D boxes I have been used to over the course of playing the last 30 years, but it is too familiar and too similar to really grab my attention. I really want something new. So I am at odds with the underlying purpose of DDN.

 

[Warbringer]

I suspect there are many people that wished they had done exactly that with the last version. Sometimes trusting your instincts is not only not a bad thing, but actually a good thing.

What is your point here? Not following