D&D 5E Should D&D Next be having the obvious problems that it's having at this point in the playtest?

[Tovec]

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...

I think the problem here for you then is you assume the foundation, the frame, the plumbing, electrics, the walls and the insulation aren't already there. They are. If they weren't then there would be nothing to test. The house isn't decorated yet and there are some holes in the walls, leaky pipes, abysmal heating (you forgot heating), or inadequate soundproofing/insulation but there is SOME level already there. You seem to imply there isn't.

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.

Again, WotC is not paizo so they don't have a frame... that doesn't really work as an argument to me. But it is possible I'm vastly missing your point here.

What I was also saying is it seems like you are saying WotC needs to be less WotC (as they are now - part of hasbro) and more paizo in order to do 5e well. I disagree. I don't see how those things really relate as far as the 2 year process of development and playtesting goes. If anything paizo wouldn't have the resources WotC does to do this kind of job. They would fail in a 5e type idea because 80% of the work wasn't already done for them. Or they wouldn't be able to spend 2+ years without actually making money on that product - not to mention killing their current PF (or relating it back to WotC - 4e) brand in the mean time.
Like it or not small companies don't reboot and release 52 new comics all at once. You can question how good those 52 new comics are, but the fact that there are 52 of them means there is a higher chance of liking at least one and for the company to make money, as opposed to the smaller company that releases 1-5 and having a higher chance of NOT liking any.

Now is that to say smaller companies don't have their merits? Absolutely not, but I don't see the argument that WotC is too WotC to do this job. Again, if I missed something here let me know, your current view (as I understand it) baffles me.

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.

First question, have you been the DEV too?
Second question, what does "their first Alpha' mean exactly?

Alpha tests don't need to be singular, they just have to be first. I agree wholeheartedly at posts made after you but before this one about how this is more of a Alpha and how WotC needs to communicate that better.

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.

That is basically what I said. But that doesn't mean you should NOT introduce those higher levels as soon as possible. As someone else said, if you have to redesign things later then you have to redesign them later. It beats the following 2 things that happen when you don't have higher levels -
1: People demand higher levels, get annoyed that you aren't giving them and moves on (the last part of this didn't happen but the first did)
2: You have no effin idea what happens at higher levels, so when you DO release that material then it doesn't match is disjoined from lower levels - I'd argue this is more than a little true of the pumps that happen in 4e (between paragon and epic) or between regular and epic in 3e. You need to test everything to do them all well.

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 agree that they need to work on monsters sooner rather than later. I also think that as it is NOW that monsters remaining fairly static allow you to test how things work for other classes. I recall someone saying that you can't test things in a vacuum. You need to have an ogre that remains fairly consistent (along with some goblins or a dragon or whatever) to see what happens when a full party encounters it, what happens when a fighter goes in solo, how much stronger/weaker the wizard is when fighting alone, and so on.

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.

Actually, it isn't really like that. There is no blueprint on creativity on this scale. It is like having two dozen people make an abstract painting without having a target. Eventually they'll get there but they almost certainly have no idea what it will look like when they start. And even if they did the final product would almost certainly not resemble the original intent.

Actually, its even closer to giving a dozen kids a room full of legos. Then telling them to build ANYTHING they want, but it has to have certain criterias. If you give them a blueprint they can probably follow it and give you exactly as you envisioned in the blueprint. That doesn't allow for any creativity, but it will be followed out.
OR you could let them go hog-wild. Some kids will value the structure, the walls and doors and floor. The simple things, and build that. Others will want to work on the little people that live inside, giving them cool facial expressions - reasoning why that one lego person has a blue hand and why another carries around a katana. Another kid might work on laser turrets that sit on top of the walls. Another kid may be able to make a beautiful sculpture. That is the essence of creativity. They absolutely NEED that kind of creativity (maybe not on that scale or quite so free form - they need some rules or "feedback" if you will) but if they set out blueprints and just follow those until something is made then they absolutely will miss out on the minor details that creativity could have gave them. They may still make 300 little lego people to live in the building but there won't be that one with the blue hand anymore. They may still have a guy who thought to put laser turrets on but there wasn't room anymore. If they want to put in cool secret passages AFTER they have followed the blueprints it is much harder.

Almost no one works truly creatively if they are forced to follow a blueprint or go step by step. Especially when the outcome isn't known, it is something that has to be developed - molded and shaped into the right form.

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.

Agreed, on both points.

 

[Raith5]

And I think this may be a mistake, if that's what they're doing. We don't need a "new" D&D - we just need an improved D&D.

But which D&D?

I have mixed feeling whether DDN is an improvement. From my perspective of having a preference for 4th ed; the classes of DDN look really elegant compared to 4th ed and therefore look to be an improvement. But the actual game play has a rather one dimensional feel great for dungeon crawls but not for anything else. It certainly lacks the cinematic feel of 4th ed.

Digging a little deeper, the whole point of DDN is have a chassis for different play styles and preferences by individual players (ie a basic fighter and a 4th ed fighter at the same table). This strikes me as a new goal for the game. At this point I am still not sure how this is going to work and I think they have show how this is going to be possible.

 

[MortalPlague]

Should D&D Next be having the obvious problems that it's having at this point in the playtest?

Yes.

Emphatically yes. They're testing the boundaries of what works in the framework of the rules. On this push, they've flattened the math as far as it will flatten, to see how it works. This is exactly what we want to see for a playtest. I expect they'll bring things back a little from this flat math, and find a middle ground instead.

Furthermore, the monsters are going to receive serious attention once the characters are nailed down. The monsters just got a big, much-needed boost, but things still swing in the PCs' favor. That's fine. Things have time to change.

Finally, I'm about to run the sixth session of a campaign using the D&D Next playtest rules, and my players love it. They were really enjoying the last packet, they're enjoying this packet even more. We're having no problems running a full campaign, so there are certainly no holes in the rules that make things unplayable. Are there things to fix? Sure. But there's nothing about it that's broken to the point where it cannot be played.

 

[Stormonu]

But which D&D?

Exactly. No one wants to be left out in the cold, and I don't blame them. But the designers stance seems to be to build a new D&D rather than pick an existing chassis (or multiple chassis) and build up. When I signed up to the playtests, I was hoping for something that would give me a game that works with as much of my previous stuff as possible. I dropped out of actual playtesting because I didn't feel like that was what was being done, that instead this was further breaking from what had come before - and it's not what I wanted or was interested in.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yes.

Emphatically yes. They're testing the boundaries of what works in the framework of the rules. On this push, they've flattened the math as far as it will flatten, to see how it works. This is exactly what we want to see for a playtest. I expect they'll bring things back a little from this flat math, and find a middle ground instead.

Furthermore, the monsters are going to receive serious attention once the characters are nailed down. The monsters just got a big, much-needed boost, but things still swing in the PCs' favor. That's fine. Things have time to change.

Finally, I'm about to run the sixth session of a campaign using the D&D Next playtest rules, and my players love it. They were really enjoying the last packet, they're enjoying this packet even more. We're having no problems running a full campaign, so there are certainly no holes in the rules that make things unplayable. Are there things to fix? Sure. But there's nothing about it that's broken to the point where it cannot be played.

How are you accurately playtesting classes when you put them up against monsters that obviously aren't solid? That would be like trying to test out a new race car on a track with potholes and cracked pavement.

 

[MortalPlague]

How are you accurately playtesting classes when you put them up against monsters that obviously aren't solid? That would be like trying to test out a new race car on a track with potholes and cracked pavement.

Sure, if they're asking me to test that racecar with that particular track. That's what I'll test.

We're playtesting what WotC wants us to be playtesting.

They handed us these rules, that's what we're going to give feedback on. I'm planning to tell them that the monsters need a boost again. They're a lot closer, but they're not quite there. I'm also planning to suggest that the math maybe shouldn't be quite so flat as it is right now.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. I've had players make an effort to let me know how much they're enjoying the game. They're telling me how excited they are with 5th Edition. The speed of combat, the new options, they love it. They're having fun, and so am I.

 

[delericho]

I'm just wondering if D&D Next should be having the obvious problems they are having.

Yes. The purpose of a test is to find problems. That they are indeed finding problems is a sign that the test is working as it should.

I don't think my expectations are set too high for a company like Wizards or has their ability decreased and my expectations are in fact set too high?

Probably.

 

[Dice4Hire]

You do like metaphors and similies don't you? You take to them like a duck to water.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Sure, if they're asking me to test that racecar with that particular track. That's what I'll test.

We're playtesting what WotC wants us to be playtesting.

They handed us these rules, that's what we're going to give feedback on. I'm planning to tell them that the monsters need a boost again. They're a lot closer, but they're not quite there. I'm also planning to suggest that the math maybe shouldn't be quite so flat as it is right now.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. I've had players make an effort to let me know how much they're enjoying the game. They're telling me how excited they are with 5th Edition. The speed of combat, the new options, they love it. They're having fun, and so am I.

I'm happy for you but we are talking about Wizards letting obvious mistakes slip through their fingers. People find kicking a can down the street is fun but I wouldn't rely on that as a future seller.

Unfortunately my group and I have not been having fun and we are worries that D&D is going to fall flat on its face but could be avoided with a bit more focus on their end of the playtest. If they find something wrong then I expect them to fix it, I don't want them to show me what they made an error on. Obvious mistakes take up space in th playtest which can prolong the whole process.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm about to run the sixth session of a campaign using the D&D Next playtest rules, and my players love it. They were really enjoying the last packet, they're enjoying this packet even more. We're having no problems running a full campaign,

This is what the game needs from us. Real playtesting followed by real feedback. Good for you. I hope you post a list of what you discover on these boards. It will be much more valuable than much of the guesswork.

Unfortunately my group and I have not been having fun and we are worries that D&D is going to fall flat on its face

The same is true here. The tone of your posts does not suggest you are worried about anything. It's clear you don't like the process, but it is encouraging to know that you and your group are trying to make it work. Maybe you could describe your sessions, your combats, and give specifics about what happened in play? Even if you haven't been having fun, what have you discovered in play?