D&D 5E Playtest Fatigue?

[Trickster Spirit]

I used to run playtest games in the beginning, but I stopped several months ago.

At the beginning, it seemed that WotC is aiming for a light ruleset, with fast combat and more narrative focus (today, I'd call it Dungeon World style). I was really interested in it. While the early packets had their weaknesses, they presented a game I wanted to play.

Then, it started to go downhill. Packages introduced more "numbers game", more mechanics-focused (as opposed to fiction-focused) options and in general moved the game further and further towards 3.x style. If I want to play this kind of game, I already have Pathfinder - and nothing I saw in the playtest suggested that Next may correct Pathfinder's problems.

I'm still tracking the changes they make in the playtest and if I see Next moving back to what I liked, I'll be back on board. But I don't expect it to happen.

Actually, I don't think you need to worry so much about this. What we saw in the first few packets was the designers trying to iron out the Basic rules and decide where they were going to go with the game. Mearls has mentioned assigning mechanics "green", "yellow" and "red" ratings depending on the level of acceptance from the playtesters; once the core Basic rules were mostly green, they needed to start work on the Standard and Advanced rules, which are supposed to be much more in line with a 3.5 / 4e level of complexity for players who are interested in that kind of ruleset.

I'm pretty sure that's why each subsequent packet is becoming more complex; the added layers of rules aren't transparent to us yet, so it looks like the "Basic" game has disappeared, but we've just got Standard and maybe Advanced mechanics bolted on to it Frankenstein style while the designers work out how the final product is going to look. When Next comes out, Basic will be available from day one and provide a much cleaner, less-fiddly alternative to PF-level play, and ideally we'll be able to bolt on subsystems from the Standard or Advanced tiers to make our ideal D&D.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

At the beginning, it seemed that WotC is aiming for a light ruleset, with fast combat and more narrative focus (today, I'd call it Dungeon World style). I was really interested in it. While the early packets had their weaknesses, they presented a game I wanted to play.

Then, it started to go downhill. Packages introduced more "numbers game", more mechanics-focused (as opposed to fiction-focused) options and in general moved the game further and further towards 3.x style. .

I 100% agree with this statement.

Contrary to what it sounds like, it really pains me to be critical about D+D, as I've been playing since 1E.

But, from being originally positive about D+D Next, my opinion has started to go downhill over the months into ambivalence, where it feels like we're almost all, as playtesters, become part of the Wizards R+D team.

They waited until 6+ months in to have a meaningful discussion about Hit POints? And healing? WOulsdn't that be the first thing you would think to didcuss, rahter than about methods to categorize your down-time? Or adding a new breed of monsters in?

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm just waiting to the next packet, we haven't played the last two due to lack of time.

Warder

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I think another big obstacle for this drawn-out kind of public playtesting is simply time. Most players I know have trouble starting and maintaining one ongoing campaign. Assuming that's important to your group, how easy is it to start up a second group for "playtesting" (just calling it that devalues it in comparison to a "real" campaign I suspect) and how many would put a regular campaign on hold to test for a year or two or three? So I suspect there's a lot of reading, some playing of one-shots and short runs, and very little long term play to see how things fit together over more than about 3 sessions or one adventure.

If a group does manage to get together regularly I suspect there is an incentive to drop the playtesting and start a "real" campaign, likely of a completely different game.

If there was a more fixed time, some stated milestones, or as mentioned above, some publicly announced focus to the thing (hey we want to see how wizards do vs. fighters in this particular scenario) then I think there would be more coming from it. Right now it's all very fuzzy and it's also not helped by the "oh the packet you're testing is a few iterations behind what we're doing in-house" type comments. If they've already moved on why waste my limited gaming time fooling around with outdated rules?

The whole thing seemed like a good idea at the start, and I am completely against the approach taken by FFG where they're charging people for "beta" rules for their games, but it seems to have lost momentum over the last few months.

 

[am181d]

I've run Next sporadically over the last year. I'm currently running some players through the "Mines of Madness" adventure. But if you had asked me a couple weeks ago, I would have said we'd stopped!

Where's the option for "we have short attention spans?"

 

[Ahnehnois]

Notice I received after finally unsubscribing from playtest emails, presented without further comment:

Goodbye
You have been unsubscribed from "the D&D Next Playtest".
We are sad to see you go, but we completely understand.

 

[JeffB]

Notice I received after finally unsubscribing from playtest emails, presented without further comment:

I LOLed.

 

[Raith5]

Notice I received after finally unsubscribing from playtest emails, presented without further comment:

Ha. That is an unfortunate choice of words!

 

[Jester David]

I am amused by the timing if the new package

 

[jadrax]

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION]; I think this is a huge issue for me. Interactivity of the playtest is lacking. I understand that the full document is behind the bleeding edge testing.

This is what killed my playtest. The players just did not feel that it was contributing anything and the long gap waiting for new material just killed meant people slowly dropped out.