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

[Li Shenron]

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?

It's not at all simple to answer

If I look back at the editions I know, there is always a reason that gives me problems:

- I like the old-school style of BECMI, but I hate the character rigidity and the combat mechanics (also for AD&D)
- I like the flexibility of 3ed, but I hate how heavy it is for the DM
- I like how easy 4ed is for the DM, but I hate everything else of it

As you can see, I'm not really concerned about small things (which are always the easiest to HR anyway) but about general and practical matters that can't be solved with a couple of HR but at least require some lengthy work.

In theory, 5e is supposed to work a bit more like a toolbox which makes you feel much safer when you take a module in or out of the game, compared to HRuling large areas of a previous editions.

So if 5e can let me have the style of BECMI + the character flexibility of 3ed + the ease of DM preparation of 4ed, then I can have just the edition I want right now, but the point is that if it can let me also have other combinations of stuff, then I'll also have more solutions for the future, since I am not always wanting to play the same thing!

I am not expecting perfect customizability, and anyway once you start customizing the details, that is where actually house rules become easier. I don't need 5e to tell me that I can make some changes to a class spells/maneuvers list for instance, or that I can change individual spells/feats/etc if I don't like them, because doing so is almost always very easy. But changing something major like spellcasting mechanics, multiclassing or skill mechanics, has larger consequences on the game, and thus would really benefit everyone if 5e supports changing those things, if not with modules then at least through good guidelines.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.



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?

We need both positive feedback and negative. Also, we need people to be honest about their feedback and not post positive feedback just because you want to look good during an internet discussion or your a fan that doesn't want to bad mouth the product.

Working on whats wrong is more productive than working on what went right.

 

[Obryn]

More like they are their own masters, not subject to pressures and goals set other corporations' priorities.

I'm still unsure how much this is a real thing. Paizo needs to make money to pay its staff and stay in business. WotC needs to make money to pay its staff and stay in business.

-O

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If I'm reading this correctly, what ForeverSlayer wants is for Wizards to release elements and have us bug test them, and when they're ready, layer the next set of elements on.

Instead, they're testing concepts and mechanics, not just to see how well they work, but how much we like them. Currently, it seems they're seeing if we like the level of damage scaling, or the new way of handling expertise dice.

As someone else pointed out, we're building the design specs.

A couple packets ago, there was concern that they were going to simply take what people found agreeable and not try anything else. I think the last two packets have assuaged those fears.

I suspect the feedback from this packet will be that damage at high levels is too high for most people's taste. This is the kind of feedback they're looking for. If I had to guess, I would say we're about three packets from seeing the game stabilize.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm still unsure how much this is a real thing. Paizo needs to make money to pay its staff and stay in business. WotC needs to make money to pay its staff and stay in business.

-O

Small companies may be more capable of designing products their own way, but when they do so, they ignore the market and suffer for it.
Big companies may be less capable of designing products their own way, being more influenced by the need to stay in business, make money and market pressures, but in doing so, they suffer less under market flux than smaller companies do.

Gamers are a notoriously fickle market, fair-weather consumers on our best days and on our worst we're some of the most vicious animals on the planet. I certainly wouldn't want gamers to be the target audience of my product.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm still unsure how much this is a real thing. Paizo needs to make money to pay its staff and stay in business. WotC needs to make money to pay its staff and stay in business.

I think it's a subtle, but real, change in scope.

WotC is part of a publicly traded company, Hasbro. This means that one of the stakeholders in anything they do is the investors, and investors are a particularly weird group of people to try and please because they are skittish and often irrational and their incentives are squarely on the stock price and have little to do with the actual product. An investor has no real desire to have the company produce something useful or high-quality, they just want the company to produce something insanely profitable at as high a profit as it can reasonably be produced.

It's likely that Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford don't really have to take that into account on a day-to-day basis, but I can be reasonably confident that it affects decisions along the chain. For instance, you may see the hand of the investors in how 4e dropped the OGL, fumbled the GSL, and perhaps focused too tightly on brand definition early on. That's kind of speculation on my part, but if the bottom line is your ultimate concern, it's easy to see how short-sighted things like this can happen. There's no obvious and intuitive benefit to giving away your product -- it's too "experimental."

Paizo absolutely has a bottom-line concern, but they're not a publicly traded company, so this gives them some flexibility. Most publicly traded companies (read: probably Hasrbo) get hosed, legally-speaking, if their shareholders find out they made any decision that was against the shareholders' interest. And they also have remarkably conservative legal teams, most often. Paizo, as an LLC, needs to keep everyone employed and happy, but they don't need to keep their stockholders in the black, too, so they're freer to do their own thing.

It's kind of an ownership/management dichotomy thing (Adam Smith has some words on the topic).

Again, that doesn't necessarily affect everyone's day-to-day jobs, and in WotC's case it might not even be an actual concern (I've got no insights into their management policies), but being publicly traded can hammer your flexibility due to the fact that a bunch of people who are only really interested in your profit margins and who skitter away like frightened kobolds at the first sign of trouble need to be convinced that it's not so scary when you're doing new or different or even just unusual things like opening your mouth to communicate with fans on message boards. Which is...tough.

On the bright side, if they like you, you are like unto a god. And it helps distribute risk. The Hasbro investors might not be paying a lot of attention to what WotC is over there doing in Redmond (even if it's awkward) as long as GI Joe and the Transformers are going strong. If a Paizo release bombs, they are much more directly affected by the fallout. Which probably plays into why Pathfinder Online has a Kickstarter. N'stuff.

 

[Raunalyn]

I, for one, am extremely happy with what WoTC is doing. I can't recall that many pen-and-paper RPG's that made the playtesting of the system open to the public, so we can get a glimpse of what's going on behind the scenes and see the portions of the development process. Not only that, but they are allowing us to PARTICIPATE, taking the suggestions we give them and incorporating them into the game, then seeing how those suggestions pan out.

I understand the point that ForeverSlayer is making...for him, it's too fiddly right now, and that's understandable. I disagree with his point about it being a gimmick from WoTC to blame it on the players if the system fails; that seems to be a bit too cynical of a view, in my opinion. I think they WANT a successful game, and that they WANT to make money from it. Which is why they are involving us in the development process. It's both to help them develop a game that people want to play, as well as drum up interest and discussion (hey, like we're having here!) on the game they're creating. Honestly, I commend them on their clever marketing.

But, I also understand that not everyone is going to be happy; it's impossible to please everyone. Which is another reason why they are releasing these packets and taking our feedback. They want to please as many people as they can.

So, for those of us who like what we're seeing (like me), please let WoTC know! This lets them know that some of the rules and mechanics are playing out right. For those who are having problems, let WoTC know! That way they can try to fix them. It's clear they are tweaking and taking our suggestions to heart.

 

[Obryn]

KM - I know the common armchair gamer theories.

I am still unconvinced it's in anything more than theory.

-O

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think it's a subtle, but real, change in scope.

WotC is part of a publicly traded company, Hasbro. This means that one of the stakeholders in anything they do is the investors, and investors are a particularly weird group of people to try and please because they are skittish and often irrational and their incentives are squarely on the stock price and have little to do with the actual product. An investor has no real desire to have the company produce something useful or high-quality, they just want the company to produce something insanely profitable at as high a profit as it can reasonably be produced.

It's likely that Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford don't really have to take that into account on a day-to-day basis, but I can be reasonably confident that it affects decisions along the chain. For instance, you may see the hand of the investors in how 4e dropped the OGL, fumbled the GSL, and perhaps focused too tightly on brand definition early on. That's kind of speculation on my part, but if the bottom line is your ultimate concern, it's easy to see how short-sighted things like this can happen. There's no obvious and intuitive benefit to giving away your product -- it's too "experimental."

Paizo absolutely has a bottom-line concern, but they're not a publicly traded company, so this gives them some flexibility. Most publicly traded companies (read: probably Hasrbo) get hosed, legally-speaking, if their shareholders find out they made any decision that was against the shareholders' interest. And they also have remarkably conservative legal teams, most often. Paizo, as an LLC, needs to keep everyone employed and happy, but they don't need to keep their stockholders in the black, too, so they're freer to do their own thing.

It's kind of an ownership/management dichotomy thing (Adam Smith has some words on the topic).

Again, that doesn't necessarily affect everyone's day-to-day jobs, and in WotC's case it might not even be an actual concern (I've got no insights into their management policies), but being publicly traded can hammer your flexibility due to the fact that a bunch of people who are only really interested in your profit margins and who skitter away like frightened kobolds at the first sign of trouble need to be convinced that it's not so scary when you're doing new or different or even just unusual things like opening your mouth to communicate with fans on message boards. Which is...tough.

On the bright side, if they like you, you are like unto a god. And it helps distribute risk. The Hasbro investors might not be paying a lot of attention to what WotC is over there doing in Redmond (even if it's awkward) as long as GI Joe and the Transformers are going strong. If a Paizo release bombs, they are much more directly affected by the fallout. Which probably plays into why Pathfinder Online has a Kickstarter. N'stuff.

I would like to also add that Shareholders don't care how long you have been with the company nor do they care how much you contributed in the past, they are only interested in the here and now and if you don't bring in the numbers then you will be sacked no matter if it's Christmas or after you found out you got cancer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am still unconvinced it's in anything more than theory.

Sure. I find myself a bit X-files on the issue, personally. Mulder WANTS to believe there's something nefarious at work, and Scully WANTS to believe it's all just hokum, and it turns out they're both wrong most of the time, because it's a little of both. So I go with, "well, we can't say it is what's happening, but at the same time it's not a totally un-supported hypothesis." But that's just me.