D&D 5E RPGNet Report: D&D 5TH EDITION AT GEN CON, PART 1

[RangerWickett]

Right now it's rocket tag. One hit kills most foes . . . and most PCs. But when intelligent humans in metal armor with magic go up against savage orcs with stone axes and leather armor, well . . . astronauts beat cave men.

If the monsters outnumber the PCs, though, the party goes down fast.

 

[B.T.]

A negative RPG.net review of the playtest gives me hope that 5e might end up pretty good.

 

[FireLance]

This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion, but I blame the lower hit points for the PCs.

When PCs had higher hit points, the monsters could be more accurate, hit the PCs once or twice per encounter, and do some damage to the PCs without killing them.

When the PCs are more fragile, in order to have the same level of challenge, the monsters have to hit less often (or deal laughably low damage, which would also make the monsters seem, well, laughable). This makes it more likely that a party of adventurers can go through several fights without getting hit.

The easy solution is to make the level of challenge tougher. However, the downside of this is higher PC mortality at low levels - acceptable to some players, but not to others who think that low-level play should be relatively easier than high-level play.

Give the PCs higher hit points without doing the same for the monsters, and you get complaints that the monsters don't follow the same rules as the PCs. Give the PCs and the monsters higher hit points and you increase the potential for grind.

I don't think there is a simple solution. I think it's a matter of going for a solution which minimizes the chance of the outcome that you like the least (invincible-seeming PCs, high PC mortality rates, grind, or disparity between PCs and monsters).

 

[WolfStar76]

GenCon D&D Next Playtest Notes

Hey guys.

I'm Dustin Snyder of Baldman Games, and I'm the guy who was running the HQ area for the D&D Next Playtest at GenCon.

I can't speak to individual playtest experiences, nor am I very good at number crunching and theory, so I can't really dive into the debate about what's good/bad (besides saying I really like D&D Next so far - but that's a personal evaluation, nothing more).

What I can, hopefully, shed some light on is how the playtest worked (or was supposed to work?) at GenCon.

Each ticketed session was an hour and a half in length - and the first 30 minutes was a semi-guided character creation run by several of our GMs/Judges.

From there, each group of players had one hour to run through six potential scenarios that are part of the "Reclaiming Blingdenstone" adventure we had at the show (an adventure that I'm told will be going out to playtesters in the near future - if it hasn't already, I'm a bit behind on e-mail).

So, my first concern is that the timing seems to be off. If the reviewer ran through two sessions, he would have had an hour of creation time, and two hours of playtest time - not the four hours he claims. Then again, time flies when you're having fun, so I'll count that as a win.

There has been some feedback - rightly so - that our judges weren't prepared to "go off the rail" (paraphrasing) and that there were few, if any, NPCs to interact with.

We would have LOVED to run everyone through four hours (heck, even TWO hours) of playtest time - but given the sheer volume of people (we seated over 2,400 seats in four days time), it couldn't be done - not without a hundred or so volunteers stepping up to run the playtest (and about four times the space we had to work with). At smaller shows (the upcoming Winter Fantasy (formerly D&D Experience) and Origins), we run longer playtests, to everyone's advantage. GenCon just wasn't gonna make it possible.

With that limited time comes limited playtest options, which is unfortunate, but we did our best to keep it fun.

With those paramaters in mind, if you have any feedback (positive OR negative) on your D&D experiences (For RPGA/4th Edition or for the Playtest, or Dungeon Command) at GenCon 2012 - we want to hear about it.

The two places to provide feedback are:

• Wizards of the Coast feedback - Gen Con 2012 Dungeons & Dragons Survey
• Baldman Games (we ran the assorted events for WotC) - e-mail: wolfstar76@gmail.com

The first link there sends feedback straight to WotC on the assorted events they offered.

My e-mail address, on the other hand, is more for any specific comments you may have about how we handled (or mishandled?) events. Have a GM you loved or hated? Tell me about it (names help, if you can recall). Was signage confusing? Lemme hear it. Were you one of the unlucky few who found your playtest slot was oversold on Sunday? Yeah, lemme know - I can't do much but offer you a personal apology, but I'm happy to do that.

I hope this sheds a little light on the way things ran at GenCon - but I'll keep an eye on the thread to answer any additional questions/concerns that crop up.

Thanks in advance for any feedback (good or bad) that you have.

Dustin Snyder
Baldman Games

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

As to the general power level of the 1st level PCs and the monsters, I find myself getting a little frustrated by the report, because he doesn't seem to explain why every fight was so trivially easy to win, and what could've been done to fix it. Why did no one ever take damage? Did the PCs happen to win initiative every time? Did some particular ability or spell win every fight? What happened once the spellcasters ran out of spells for the day? Were the encounters supposed to be balanced (4e-style, in terms of XP budget) for four 1st level adventurers, or were they poorly designed to be too easy?

It definitely should not be possible for fighters to use their expertise dice to increase an attack roll from a miss to a hit. Talk about too powerful.

The wight is a good example. It stood in the back of a cave and shot two arrows in two rounds for 1d8+1 points of damage each. Our wizard, the archer, and my sorcerer moved up and blasted it with burning hands, arrows, and a magic missile or two before it died.

The ogre was blinded by kobolds and just missed several times. I felt bad killing it, but my suggestion to work with it got shouted down by my fellow bloodthirsty PCs.

Also, our group took damage. But my character didn't take any damage in two different adventures.

I politely disagree with you about the fighter. Everytime my sorcerer uses magic to attack I always do damage (magic missile or burning hands for half damage at least). I don't see in any way that having a fighter add a couple of points to a d20 roll is going to be overpowered. Heck, DCC RPG already does this. I ran two games of that at Gen Con and had no trouble with a fighter being overpowered at all.

Charlie

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Right now it's rocket tag. One hit kills most foes . . . and most PCs. But when intelligent humans in metal armor with magic go up against savage orcs with stone axes and leather armor, well . . . astronauts beat cave men.

If the monsters outnumber the PCs, though, the party goes down fast.

Which is exactly what happened at D&D Experience this year. But at Gen Con, each battle was a set-piece. Even noise in the kobold caves didn't bring hordes down on us. DMs need to encouraged to look at the dungeon as a whole and see how the whole place reacts to an incursion of invaders.

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

A negative RPG.net review of the playtest gives me hope that 5e might end up pretty good.

Heh. What are you implying?

Charlie

 

[Charles Dunwoody]

Hey guys.

I'm Dustin Snyder of Baldman Games, and I'm the guy who was running the HQ area for the D&D Next Playtest at GenCon.

I can't speak to individual playtest experiences, nor am I very good at number crunching and theory, so I can't really dive into the debate about what's good/bad (besides saying I really like D&D Next so far - but that's a personal evaluation, nothing more).

What I can, hopefully, shed some light on is how the playtest worked (or was supposed to work?) at GenCon.

Each ticketed session was an hour and a half in length - and the first 30 minutes was a semi-guided character creation run by several of our GMs/Judges.

From there, each group of players had one hour to run through six potential scenarios that are part of the "Reclaiming Blingdenstone" adventure we had at the show (an adventure that I'm told will be going out to playtesters in the near future - if it hasn't already, I'm a bit behind on e-mail).

So, my first concern is that the timing seems to be off. If the reviewer ran through two sessions, he would have had an hour of creation time, and two hours of playtest time - not the four hours he claims. Then again, time flies when you're having fun, so I'll count that as a win.

There has been some feedback - rightly so - that our judges weren't prepared to "go off the rail" (paraphrasing) and that there were few, if any, NPCs to interact with.

We would have LOVED to run everyone through four hours (heck, even TWO hours) of playtest time - but given the sheer volume of people (we seated over 2,400 seats in four days time), it couldn't be done - not without a hundred or so volunteers stepping up to run the playtest (and about four times the space we had to work with). At smaller shows (the upcoming Winter Fantasy (formerly D&D Experience) and Origins), we run longer playtests, to everyone's advantage. GenCon just wasn't gonna make it possible.

With that limited time comes limited playtest options, which is unfortunate, but we did our best to keep it fun.

With those paramaters in mind, if you have any feedback (positive OR negative) on your D&D experiences (For RPGA/4th Edition or for the Playtest, or Dungeon Command) at GenCon 2012 - we want to hear about it.

The two places to provide feedback are:

• Wizards of the Coast feedback - Gen Con 2012 Dungeons & Dragons Survey
• Baldman Games (we ran the assorted events for WotC) - e-mail: wolfstar76@gmail.com

The first link there sends feedback straight to WotC on the assorted events they offered.

My e-mail address, on the other hand, is more for any specific comments you may have about how we handled (or mishandled?) events. Have a GM you loved or hated? Tell me about it (names help, if you can recall). Was signage confusing? Lemme hear it. Were you one of the unlucky few who found your playtest slot was oversold on Sunday? Yeah, lemme know - I can't do much but offer you a personal apology, but I'm happy to do that.

I hope this sheds a little light on the way things ran at GenCon - but I'll keep an eye on the thread to answer any additional questions/concerns that crop up.

Thanks in advance for any feedback (good or bad) that you have.

Dustin Snyder
Baldman Games

You are correct. I counted character creation time as part of the adventure. I may have rounded up on the time but I sat waiting for a table to open so I may been there longer than 1.5 hours.

My first bit of feedback to you is thanks for stopping in here to chat. Looks like rpg.net doesn't get any love, but this place is nice too.

My second bit of feeback is that a ticket for a 1.5 hour game shouldn't cost $4. Nitpicky? Yes. But everyone will remember that playtesting 5E cost twice as much as playing in another rpg. Usually, $4 gets a player a 4-hour session.

My third bit of feedback is that we didn't know we were going to be making characters. Having pre-gens ready for some people would have really helped.

Thanks,
Charlie

 

[FireLance]

I politely disagree with you about the fighter. Everytime my sorcerer uses magic to attack I always do damage (magic missile or burning hands for half damage at least). I don't see in any way that having a fighter add a couple of points to a d20 roll is going to be overpowered. Heck, DCC RPG already does this. I ran two games of that at Gen Con and had no trouble with a fighter being overpowered at all.

Actually, I think that would be a great way to fix Glancing Blow, which hardly ever comes into play the way it is currently worded:

When the fighter misses with an attack roll, he may spend a single expertise die to increase his attack roll. Roll the expertise die and add the result to the attack roll. If the fighter now hits, he deals damage equal to the amount rolled on the expertise die.

 

[WolfStar76]

You are correct. I counted character creation time as part of the adventure. I may have rounded up on the time but I sat waiting for a table to open so I may been there longer than 1.5 hours.

My first bit of feedback to you is thanks for stopping in here to chat. Looks like rpg.net doesn't get any love, but this place is nice too.

I'm happy to stop by any forums (and a couple blogs) that I know are talking about the events we ran, and/or how we ran them - finding them (knowing how/where to look) is the harder part. I'm here because I was referred by @mudbunny , but if you have a link to the rpg.net thread, I'll poke my head in over there too.

My second bit of feeback is that a ticket for a 1.5 hour game shouldn't cost $4. Nitpicky? Yes. But everyone will remember that playtesting 5E cost twice as much as playing in another rpg. Usually, $4 gets a player a 4-hour session.

Pricing events is above my "pay grade", but I've heard a number of factors go into ticket costs for our events. This includes everything from what WotC is asking of us, the fact that since we are a company (and bill our events uder Wizards of the Coast branding) we don't get hotel room reimbursement from GenCon and instead buy our rooms out-of-pocket, the cost of supplies (I believe the bossman printed something like 25,000 pages before we even got to the show - and we burn through reams of paper on-site as well) and other factors all get counted into ticket count.

Of course, none of that matters to the people paying the ticket cost, I'm sure, but it's a peek behind the scenes into the whys and wherefores. In the ~long~ run, we hope people will agree that $2 here or there on ticket costs, compared to the rest of the costs involved with getting to/being at GenCon is no big deal.

I personally speculate that the "generic ticket" cost bumping to $2 (though I forget if that started this year or last) was a factor. I can certainly see where we'd have preferred to charge $3 instead of $4, but I think we have to match our pricing to generic ticket costs. That's my personal speculation, however. The bossman would know more.

My third bit of feedback is that we didn't know we were going to be making characters. Having pre-gens ready for some people would have really helped.

While we're the ones who listed the event in the catalog (and I'm surprised we didn't includ creation there), Wizards wanted the event to include character creation and not pre-gens (and in fact didn't supply us with a pre-gen option for the current rules). What Wizards wants, we supply.

We'll take that feedback to Wizards (or if you fill in the bit.ly survey you can tell them yourselves), for planning future offerings - but in this case it was simply what we agreed to do, and how they wanted things run.

That doesn't mean you had to like it, but we weren't in a position to offer things differently this time around.

Thanks,
Charlie

My pleasure!
Dustin Snyder
Baldman Games

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't think there is a simple solution. I think it's a matter of going for a solution which minimizes the chance of the outcome that you like the least (invincible-seeming PCs, high PC mortality rates, grind, or disparity between PCs and monsters).

Higher hp and guaranteed damage ends up devolving into an HP roller coaster. And like a real roller coaster, riding one isn't likely to kill you. When the players start figuring that out, then the grind starts in.

What I would like to see (at least for a trial period), is a return of the condition track (in a fashion) and have manipulation of "the tide of battle" to be the stress between the rocket tags.

 

[B.T.]

What they need to do is decide how the low-level game should feel. Do they want it to be a lethal game where there is death in every d20 roll? Then make it that way, damnit. Low HP, high damage, decent chances of hitting. Do they want to be a game in which characters are expected to survive over a lengthy campaign? Then write the game that way. Right now, they're trying to balance the game somewhere between 3e and 4e, and it's not working. WotC are terrified that the grognards are going to throw a fit if a character has too many HP, but they're also afraid that the 4e players are going to whine if their characters die. They're attempting to balance this approach by giving monsters really low chances of hitting, which is a fool's errand.

Hint: The grognards are going to grumble about ascending AC and fighters who can do things beyond rolling a d20. The diehard 4e players are going to complain if their fighters don't have daily powerz. It's just the way it is, and WotC need to realize that pandering to both will create a game that satisfies neither.

Heh. What are you implying?

Charlie

Nothing untoward, I assure you.

 

[Jupp]

I respect the reviewers opinion though I have to put the question whether his verdict so far did not result from a "not so good" DM paired with the wrong expectations towards 5e. Aside from this I have to agree with the reviewer that at some of the classes look overpowered. Can't comment more because I was not able to discern more from the review.

 

[Scribble]

It sounds like (power levels aside) rather then a "bad" DM it was a DM that didn't have time to really let things get too far away from the "set pieces," and that style of play didn't sit well with the reviewer.

Also considering we're in playtest mode and not just "Come Play 5e!" mode... It doesn't surprise me that it would mainly stick to set pieces.

As for power level... I hear others claiming the opposite... Are things really that out of whack?

 

[D'karr]

As for power level... I hear others claiming the opposite... Are things really that out of whack?

Yep, that's why it's a playtest.

 

[Scribble]

Yep, that's why it's a playtest.

Wait... It's a playtest because things are out of whack?

I thought it was a playtest because they wanted to test the system.

 

[D'karr]

Wait... It's a playtest because things are out of whack?

I thought it was a playtest because they wanted to test the system.

It's out of whack, therefore it needs to be playtested. Or whacktested if you will.

 

[Rhenny]

I ran a game this weekend and here's what we found:

The squishies (anyone AC 14 and under - the rogue, the wizard and the cleric) were challenged over a 6 encounter, 3 hour adventure. The fighters (AC 15 archer and the AC 17 defender/protector) were not really challenged.

We had fun, but the monsters were just too pathetic to really hurt the fighters consistently.

Next session, I'm going to add at least +2 to monster attack scores across the board.

The monsters have to be able to hit the AC 17 defender/protector a little more.

 

[Retreater]

I played in two playtest sessions at GenCon and one in my home group. These are all based on the same adventure that came with the playtest packet #2 .

Some minor spoilers...

The first mission we played dealed with the kobolds. It was a cakewalk ... but, hey, they're kobolds.

The second mission we played dealed with orcs. It was a cakewalk until the final fight with the orcs and their leader. That was a scary fight. We had no deaths, but several characters had been reduced to dying throughout the battle. The DM later said we were one of the only groups to make it through without a death at GenCon.

The third mission (home group) was against the elemental. It was nearly a TPK. If not for some DM fudging and bringing in NPC helpers we would've all perished.

The report does not reflect my experience with the playtest at GenCon or with my homegroup. Sorry, Charlie, if you had a bad time.

 

[Mark CMG]

Which is exactly what happened at D&D Experience this year. But at Gen Con, each battle was a set-piece.

Thanks to you and your brother for joining in the thread. Can you more clearly define what you mean by "set-piece," please? In fact, I'd like to hear what everyone specifically means by "set-piece" as it seems to be used by people to cover different ideas, even if only subtly different in some cases.


RPGNet Report: D&D 5TH EDITION AT GEN CON, PART 1 by Charles Dunwoody


Also, when will part two be posted?

I'm Dustin Snyder of Baldman Games, and I'm the guy who was running the HQ area for the D&D Next Playtest at GenCon.

(. . .)

Dustin Snyder
Baldman Games

Thanks for joining in the thread. I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions. I may have missed it above but, does WotC have NDAs for play at the conventions now? Also, the "About Us" page on Baldman Games seems to have been written by someone else and you are mentioned toward the end, but I can't seem to find the name of the person who wrote it. Who is that? Has Organized Play always been something you have also done or did you join in more recently? Did you run a lot of Organized Play events for Living Campaigns also? And, sorry just one more question, does the other fella from Baldman Games have an EN World screen name? Thanks for your answers in advance.

Baldman Games - About Us

Interested in perhaps attending, running games, or exhibiting at a D&D XP? Head over to contacts and let Dustin or myself know or check the invidual shows below for more information.