D&D 5E (2024) Predictions for Playtest packet 7's arrival

[Remathilis]

When did they say they’re not doing surveys on those? What would be the point of doing UAs on them if they’re not going to have accompanying surveys?

My guess is there are going to be a few systems like Bastion /home base in the DMG they will want our feedback on, and we might get a few monsters to see if we feel specific changes (such as dragons or raksasha) fit. I don't imagine they will go more than 1-2 packets.

My guess is
7: packet 5 redux
8: limited packet 6 changes (bard, monk, maybe one more)
9: spells and feats
10: last minute tweaks from 7 and 8
11: Bastion system
12: specific monster feedback

 

[tetrasodium]

Oh wow so WotC have completely totally lost their minds or entirely given up on 2024 releases or both?

That's insane. I missed that. That's absolutely demented out-of-their-minds insane though.

They haven't got time for that. They're going to be hard-pressed to get anything about by Q4 2024 at the current rate. If they delay DMG and MM printing several months further, those are easily going to slip into 2025, it won't even be a question.

God, I thought WotC were kinda dumb, but I didn't think they were outright insane. This is actual active "fire people now" mismanagement.

Also real talk - what the hell can they even ask about the DMG and MM? MM-wise, they've clearly chosen the direction of monster design now, as seen in every book featuring monsters since MotM. It's a much more streamlined and well-considered approach, more reminiscent of 4E than initial 5E approach. It's not top tier but it's solid. Why would they need to ask questions about that? With the DMG, they've actually talked about what they felt was wrong with it, and they were right - they nailed the major points. So what on earth could they ask? To my mind, it seems like asking a bunch of ultra-hardcore grogs what they think should be in the DMG would explosively counterproductive.

The DMG stuff would generate discussion among GMs that would be extremely valuable & zero in on weaknesses/structural flaws early enough to do things about it. Take the patrons that we got with eberron & had reprinted in tashas as an example.. sure they are a great idea, but they are an idea that lacks a need for them to supply because the game was designed to not need magic item churn or even magic items long before we saw them. Then of course there is the "um.. ok... where is the rest of it?" like the packet6 flight changes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The DMG stuff would generate discussion among GMs that would be extremely valuable & zero in on weaknesses/structural flaws early enough to do things about it. Take the patrons that we got with eberron & had reprinted in tashas as an example.. sure they are a great idea, but they are an idea that lacks a need for them to supply because the game was designed to not need magic item churn or even magic items long before we saw them. Then of course there is the "um.. ok... where is the rest of it?" like the packet6 flight changes.

I don't think that's what would actually happen, because that's absolutely not how their surveys work.

You're imagining some much better approach where WotC ask for people to discuss something and they monitor that discussion.

That's not a UA.

That's not a survey.

That's proper research.

But a UA is a UA and we know how they work.

WotC will give us a PDF full of rules, with limited context and very little in the way of explanation/thinking presented to us, then they will ask us to rate all those rules on a really simple scale, with no apparent care for how vital a rule is, and with very limited ability for us to talk about the "whys" of our choices.

So no, man, I wish that's what would happen. But that's not what a UA is. That's not how WotC surveys.

 

[Dausuul]

Oh wow so WotC have completely totally lost their minds or entirely given up on 2024 releases or both?

That's insane. I missed that. That's absolutely demented out-of-their-minds insane though.

They haven't got time for that. They're going to be hard-pressed to get anything about by Q4 2024 at the current rate. If they delay DMG and MM printing several months further, those are easily going to slip into 2025, it won't even be a question.

God, I thought WotC were kinda dumb, but I didn't think they were outright insane. This is actual active "fire people now" mismanagement.

Also real talk - what the hell can they even ask about the DMG and MM? MM-wise, they've clearly chosen the direction of monster design now, as seen in every book featuring monsters since MotM. It's a much more streamlined and well-considered approach, more reminiscent of 4E than initial 5E approach. It's not top tier but it's solid. Why would they need to ask questions about that? With the DMG, they've actually talked about what they felt was wrong with it, and they were right - they nailed the major points. So what on earth could they ask? To my mind, it seems like asking a bunch of ultra-hardcore grogs what they think should be in the DMG would explosively counterproductive.

Cutting corners on the core of the brand, in order to hit an arbitrary release date, is what would be insane.

It looks to me like a sensible strategy to maximize the total amount of development time. Get the PHB stuff squared away first, so you can release that at the tail end of 2024 and still call it the anniversary edition. Then allow the DMG and MM to slip into 2025 if necessary.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Cutting corners on the core of the brand, in order to hit an arbitrary release date, is what would be insane.

It looks to me like a sensible strategy to maximize the total amount of development time. Get the PHB stuff squared away first, so you can release that at the tail end of 2024 and still call it the anniversary edition. Then allow the DMG and MM to slip into 2025 if necessary.

Dude, they're still going to have to cut corners - that's exactly why this is insane. Unless they slip really far into 2025, which I don't believe they will - and I'm not sure you believe it either - they will be absolutely cutting corners.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't think that's what would actually happen, because that's absolutely not how their surveys work.

You're imagining some much better approach where WotC ask for people to discuss something and they monitor that discussion.

That's not a UA.

That's not a survey.

That's proper research.

But a UA is a UA and we know how they work.

WotC will give us a PDF full of rules, then they will ask us to rate all those rules on a really simple scale, with no apparent care for how vital a rule is, and with very limited ability for us to talk about the "whys" of our choices.

So no, man, I wish that's what would happen. But that's not what a UA is. That's not how WotC surveys.

I'm talking about the discussion & analysis you get on places like enworld reddit youtube & so on not the surveys. Any surveys for it would almost certainly be tainted by an excessof players outvoting the 20% of wotc's customers responsible for the lion' share of revenue.

 

[Gorck]

They need to focus 100% on PHB if they want to hit that christmas 2024 mark.
MM and DMG can wait for 2025.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "after they're finished with the PHB UAs."

The PHB UAs need extensive playtesting before we can fill out the surveys. But the DMG doesn't really need it. We can read the changes and form conclusions without any "playtesting" involved. The MM might need some playtesting, but it would basically be stand alone combats rather than a full-on campaign.

 

[Remathilis]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "after they're finished with the PHB UAs."

The PHB UAs need extensive playtesting before we can fill out the surveys. But the DMG doesn't really need it. We can read the changes and form conclusions without any "playtesting" involved. The MM might need some playtesting, but it would basically be stand alone combats rather than a full-on campaign.

It's also worth noting that the bulk of the work being done on the DMG and MM does not require our input. They rarely test magic items, they don't need to playtest DM advice or the lore catalogue, and I can't imagine the bulk of the monsters that are getting minor tweaks need us. Unlike the PHB, where the bulk of the book is based around getting classes exactly right, the other books need far less of our number crunching and playtest.

 

[Parmandur]

It's also worth noting that the bulk of the work being done on the DMG and MM does not require our input. They rarely test magic items, they don't need to playtest DM advice or the lore catalogue, and I can't imagine the bulk of the monsters that are getting minor tweaks need us. Unlike the PHB, where the bulk of the book is based around getting classes exactly right, the other books need far less of our number crunching and playtest.

My prediction is thst theybwill do some Monsters to test out new presentation styles more than the stat blocks, and the Bastion system from the DMG that theybkeep mentioning. Maybe not much else.

 

[Nikosandros]

It's also worth noting that the bulk of the work being done on the DMG and MM does not require our input. They rarely test magic items, they don't need to playtest DM advice or the lore catalogue, and I can't imagine the bulk of the monsters that are getting minor tweaks need us. Unlike the PHB, where the bulk of the book is based around getting classes exactly right, the other books need far less of our number crunching and playtest.

Monsters require number crunching, but done seriously in "controlled" playtest groups, so I agree that the public part of that will be minimal, if done at all.