They're just testing modules, not core rules. How those modules impact the core rules is part of the challenge and fun. Monster design is the last stage and one of the hardest if it needs to account for every module used. Take the same rogue versus dragon without the modules and see how it turns out.
D&D 5E Should D&D Next be having the obvious problems that it's having at this point in the playtest?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
An improved D&D what though. We have 5-someodd editions of D&D and a dozen variants. Which D&D are we trying to improve? If you're saying we should have an improved D&D as a concept, then yeah, that requires a new edition.
Tovec
Explorer
This is going to be long, I apologize in advance.
That is why it is likely to say that hasbro can say "make 5e of DnD" but they can't say "make all fighters have the Sweeping Strike power"
That second part has to come from smart and independent people. Luckily WotC hires smart and independent people. They have a tendency to hire, use them for a while, and fire, then repeat that process even. So those kinds of ideas WILL happen, but only if those creators are free (independent) to create and design new things.
The only thing that worries me here is that the past couple packets seem to reuse any decent idea and turn them into mediocre ideas, so I'm not sure what happened but they started out fresh enough.
Now, I disagree with this specific comment, but that was more or less what I was saying.
As far as this quote - how many people were urging for 1-20 (or more?) material right out of the gate? I think they probably should have gotten here more slowly or realized the kinds of changes people are expecting for that dramatic level increase but I don't think there is ANY problem with allowing people to playtest the same material at levels 1-20.
An ALPHA on the other hand would play around with numbers, ideas and in some cases even try to figure out what they want to achieve and how easy or hard it is to get there. This packet is in TERRIBLE shape for a BETA test. It is a fairly decent (probably a bit above average) for an ALPHA test however. It just isn't finished enough to be a BETA
Granted, all this is in my opinion.
I do agree with the "absolutely right" comments you were making though.
Ex. If you gave the fighter an extra feat that gave them +2 at level 1, that is HUGE for a level 1. By 20 they have other things that will affect that total. It might still be important but it won't be as important at later levels.
Obviously, with that said, if you changed Vancian for AEDU then it changes everything. But again that only something you can properly experience when you have levels 1-20 done. It is hard to see what impact something like that would have on the game if you only have 1-5 at the time. Similarly, if you are trying to scale spells down and reduce spell levels from 1-9 (by 20th) and instead have 1-7 then that changes a lot. How could you know what that would change or how it balances without having the full availability of levels?
I think your "solid foundation" will emerge as they finally decide where they want certain concepts to land. I don't think they know where that is yet. I agree with earlier posters that monster math is on the back burner. That might have an impact on PCs but it isn't something that will really affect the average PC. It PCs are drawn from monsters then it will have a much larger impact but that is something they will have to address.
However, I don't see how they would build PC math and monster math completely in tandem. One would overpower the other and you would have no baseline to compare when you release a new product. If a simple +2 to damage and attack solves the problem in the short term that is fine, do that. But if the monsters are completely different from one pack to another you would have no easy way of telling of a mechanic for the fighter/rogue/MUs got better or worse - or more situational.
Actually, if you are meant to live in the house - ie. Play the Playtest - then you need SOME furniture. It doesn't really matter what that furniture looks like but it should exist there in some form. That is how you can tell if the spacing in a room is good, or just so you can live and experience the house while building it. Also if there wasn't a minimum level of creation - no floor or roof - then you wouldn't have a house to put the furniture in to begin with.
I think this is a more than valid problem. I happen to agree with it immensely. That is part of the problem I see with several mechanics which are in the current package. It doesn't follow from the rest of your argument, but I do agree this is a concern - that is all.
I think the problem with this is it tries basically to tell WotC to give up making 5e because only small companies, the REAL guys can do it and they can't. I don't think that is valid. You probably need smart, and independently clever people to create something new - the next "monopoly" (meaning something new and very fun like it not the name itself) isn't going to be thought up by Hasbro. It will be bought by hasbro and sold by them but hasbro execs won't sit in a room somewhere making it up on the fly all by themselves. They will make the next monopoly (meaning the same game with a new format) will be thought up by hasbro execs in a room somewhere.
That is why it is likely to say that hasbro can say "make 5e of DnD" but they can't say "make all fighters have the Sweeping Strike power"
That second part has to come from smart and independent people. Luckily WotC hires smart and independent people. They have a tendency to hire, use them for a while, and fire, then repeat that process even. So those kinds of ideas WILL happen, but only if those creators are free (independent) to create and design new things.
The only thing that worries me here is that the past couple packets seem to reuse any decent idea and turn them into mediocre ideas, so I'm not sure what happened but they started out fresh enough.
I think part of the problem that ForeverSlayer is talking about is how WotC has committed to certain ideas like no concept of BAB, but expertise dice will be there. How they have locked in certain concepts already and are going forward without looking at other ideas, or without thoroughly testing those concepts to see if they work the best.
Actually, Paizo did an alpha and a beta, then released the "final" product for pathfinder. So comparing an alpha to an alpha of a different type. I'll give you it is an unequal comparison, as they ARE working on very different things. But they ARE (or were) both doing Alpha Playtests as well.
And again here I think ForeverSlayer is arguing that even if they are set they aren't done. They aren't where they should be before moving onto random powers for fighters, or new spells or more levels. I disagree with many things ForeverSlayer is saying, but I do agree partially with the "finish one thing" aspect he was trying to bring across.
For shidaku: See.
Now, I disagree with this specific comment, but that was more or less what I was saying.
As far as this quote - how many people were urging for 1-20 (or more?) material right out of the gate? I think they probably should have gotten here more slowly or realized the kinds of changes people are expecting for that dramatic level increase but I don't think there is ANY problem with allowing people to playtest the same material at levels 1-20.
Actually, for a BETA you might expect a more complete product to test. A BETA should normally have figures and concepts in place and they shouldn't really be altered so long as things work.
An ALPHA on the other hand would play around with numbers, ideas and in some cases even try to figure out what they want to achieve and how easy or hard it is to get there. This packet is in TERRIBLE shape for a BETA test. It is a fairly decent (probably a bit above average) for an ALPHA test however. It just isn't finished enough to be a BETA
Granted, all this is in my opinion.
I do agree with the "absolutely right" comments you were making though.
Again, I disagree with the use of BETA here, but as far as ALPHAs go I don't see any problem with devs being ahead of us. It helps reduce those simple bugs that plague game design. That is why many games have public (or private) playtests before releasing something a final product to everyone. It is a smart play. It bugs me that WotC seems to only give us material from older playtests though, instead of sprinkling in the new stuff they've been testing as well. If they know when releasing test 1 that they are test 5 and that certain pieces from 1 will no longer exist in 4 versions they should probably release things that will be (at least closer to) what they have in 5 or maybe 4. There is no reason to be THAT far or different when doing multiple tests.
After doing a bunch of designing and testing myself. I know it doesn't usually work that way. It CAN if something is REALLY different but 9/10 changes you make at levels 1-5 wouldn't really change levels 15-20.
Ex. If you gave the fighter an extra feat that gave them +2 at level 1, that is HUGE for a level 1. By 20 they have other things that will affect that total. It might still be important but it won't be as important at later levels.
Obviously, with that said, if you changed Vancian for AEDU then it changes everything. But again that only something you can properly experience when you have levels 1-20 done. It is hard to see what impact something like that would have on the game if you only have 1-5 at the time. Similarly, if you are trying to scale spells down and reduce spell levels from 1-9 (by 20th) and instead have 1-7 then that changes a lot. How could you know what that would change or how it balances without having the full availability of levels?
I think your "solid foundation" will emerge as they finally decide where they want certain concepts to land. I don't think they know where that is yet. I agree with earlier posters that monster math is on the back burner. That might have an impact on PCs but it isn't something that will really affect the average PC. It PCs are drawn from monsters then it will have a much larger impact but that is something they will have to address.
However, I don't see how they would build PC math and monster math completely in tandem. One would overpower the other and you would have no baseline to compare when you release a new product. If a simple +2 to damage and attack solves the problem in the short term that is fine, do that. But if the monsters are completely different from one pack to another you would have no easy way of telling of a mechanic for the fighter/rogue/MUs got better or worse - or more situational.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I'll tell you, when I was designing my RPG, if I had access to thousands of playtesters, you can be very sure that I'd spread them all over the level range. But I'd also assign them, as much as I could, without making people play things they don't like. They'd be here to test my game, and I'd want them to do test all the areas simultaneously, so I could get it done faster.
Does that mean that if as I refine low level stuff, I'll have to do it at high level? Yep. That's just how it works. Because, I'll tell you from my experience, you're going to refine your low level stuff anyways. You'll get it solid, and then you'll improve it. And then you'll be happy with it -but then you'll improve it. And then you'll be really happy with it -but then you'll improve it. And every time you do, you need to adjust high levels, too.
It's just how revision works. And that's okay. It just gets done faster if you can test all the areas at once. As always, play what you like
1: Furniture Analogy: I own my home and I had it built so I can tell you from personal experience that you don't pick out your furniture before you've finalized the blueprints nor do you start buying any furniture until you've got your walls and roof up. If you are a builder then what furniture to have in the house is the last thing on your mind, you are more worried about the foundation, the frame, the plumbing, the electrics, the walls, the insulation, etc etc etc...
2: Giving Up: I'm not trying to tell Wotc to give up on anything but from the looks of things, I would tell them work more on the core mechanics first, establish if you want your monsters to work off this same core and then go from there. You cannot complete a house and expect it to remain standing if you don't have the frame up.
3: Alpha and Beta: I too have done some playtesting and I can tell you that I agree with the Beta part but I disagree on the Alpha unless this was their first Alpha but unfortunately it's not.
4: High Levels: Having actually worked on an RPG in the past I can tell you that high levels and low levels play differently even if you have an established core rules set. Pathfinder at low levels plays a lot differently than Pathfinder at high levels and they use the same d20 core system. The more options are introduced and the more your action economy grows, the more complex and different the system can become.
5: Final Thoughts: Like I mentioned earlier, Wizards will have to decide if both monsters and PC's will work off the same core mechanics or will they be different and what's important here is the fact that you can't playtest classes without monsters when it comes to RPGs. If both sides don't have a solid foundation then your data will be skewed for both sides because needing to change one side can really alter the outcome of the other side so you may end up needing to actually start over. It's not simple by any means but I expected Wizards to be a bit better along than this.
I'll tell you, when I was designing my RPG, if I had access to thousands of playtesters, you can be very sure that I'd spread them all over the level range. But I'd also assign them, as much as I could, without making people play things they don't like. They'd be here to test my game, and I'd want them to do test all the areas simultaneously, so I could get it done faster.
Does that mean that if as I refine low level stuff, I'll have to do it at high level? Yep. That's just how it works. Because, I'll tell you from my experience, you're going to refine your low level stuff anyways. You'll get it solid, and then you'll improve it. And then you'll be happy with it -but then you'll improve it. And then you'll be really happy with it -but then you'll improve it. And every time you do, you need to adjust high levels, too.
It's just how revision works. And that's okay. It just gets done faster if you can test all the areas at once. As always, play what you like
Playtesting all areas is a waste of time and not very practical. It's like building blocks, you start at the bottom and you work your way up, or even a Family Tree. Having several people work on something different isn't always the way to go because when you all bring your sections together you find that there were ideas that conflicted to you are left with pieces of a puzzle that don't fit together. On the other hand, if you have a clear and defined set of blueprints to work off of then it makes it easier for other people to go and do their own thing because everyone will be literally on the same page.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Conversely, leaving different areas up to different people means a dramatic increase in creativity, while having a very structured set of blueprints can leave the results dry.
I don't really think the home-building analogy fits to be honest.
Nellisir
Hero
Being a builder with ADD, I can tell you that people do like to make sure their furniture will fit, and while we don't usually move the real furniture in, it's not at all unusual to use chalklines to mark out rooms and have people measuring for beds, dressers, tvs, sofas, and the like. Making sure the furniture will fit is pretty important - it's a lot easier to move a wall or change a doorway before it's built than it is afterwards. Is your washer/dryer closet 60" wide? Big problem. Washers & dryers are usually 30" wide each, plus 1" for sheetrock, plus 1.5" for baseboard....
Looking at this whole playtest process, I see something that WotC didn't do for 3e because no one had ever tried it, and didn't do for 4e and got flak for it, and now they're doing it, and they're doing it slowly and taking their time.
Nellisir
Hero
I also own a home, and while I didn't build this one, I've built many, many others. It was my job for 12 years, before I went back to grad school. I was project manager/site manager/jack-of-all-trades/point-of-contact between the GC and the subs and owners, in a company that does high-end custom homes in New England (including post-and-beam, passive solar, and green building).
Actually, that may be the point of difference. Doing custom homes, what the customer wants is our priority. They need to fit their stuff in (and it's a rare person that comes to a home without any furniture or expectations), and make it work is what's important. Foundation, framing, plumbing, electrical, insulation, sheetrock, trim, paint, counters, tile, hardwood, linoleum...that's not a question. It's the same on every house. We do it, and we do it right.
What makes a house custom is how those things fit together. In a tract home, or a subdivision, or a kit home, in something mass-produced and chosen from a book, you often don't get to choose.
In a good home, you do get to choose. If you come in and say "we need an in-wall fishtank in the entry", then we frame and build for an in-wall fish tank (looked awesome, btw). If you want glass corners without framing in the second floor bedrooms, then you get glass corner windows (expensive as hell, and very vulnerable to settling. Do not recommend. Also, framing is a bugger-and-a-half). If you want a 48" opening for the fridge, you get a 48" opening for the fridge...and I will find out what kind of fridge, and double check the specs, to make sure 48" is enough. If you want a 5' by 5' stained glass window in the master bathroom, then you get a 5' x 5' stained glass window with a custom-built casing (putting it in got me a trip to the hospital and 11 stitches in my scalp).
It's your house. If your furniture is the priority, then that should be the builder's priority as well.
Similar Threads
