D&D 5E Status Check: Still playtesting?

[MortalPlague]

I still have a campaign running in D&D Next, and it's been a ton of fun. We've missed a few sessions over the last few weeks due to RL, but we're still having fun with the game.

Furthermore, one of my buddies has agreed to run a game over the summer, so that I'll get a chance to play in an extended game (I've only had a chance to play one-shots so far). I'm torn with indecision on what to play, though I'll probably change my mind when new material comes out.

So count me as 'still playtesting and positive'.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Well I don't have a group (in this country lacking roleplayers), but I was playtesting online until schedules stopped working out. Would like to do so again if anyone's looking..

 

[Connorsrpg]

Playing a Rise of the Runelords conversion/campaign playtest (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?328907-Campaign-Playtest-Rise-of-the-Runelords#post6009424).

Of course there are oddities in PCs as packets change. being the DM I have also struggled with the monster attacks. (Going from nothing to well-surpassing the PCs in one jump). But overall I feel very positive of the direction. I can see why they want to try two versions/arrays and then maybe meet in the middle (or realise something completely better).

We played some one-shots, are now invested in a campaign and also intend on mixing in some higher level one-shots. Our group was so positive about the campaign they wanted to stick with it rather than just one-shots.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm wishing I could playtest but my group decided it hated the first package and won't let me try any of the later ones. So I just get to read 'em.

This is basically where I'm at, as well. I'm not terribly interested as I'm likely to only want the Basic game with a few tweaks from the Standard set, so all the current tweak-testing doesn't really float my boat.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am running a game on Yahoogroups, and it is going ok, but not much better or worse than any of my other games there.

 

[Li Shenron]

To some extent, the "in flux" quality of the playtest, while expected, has me a little off-balance: my Rogue lost his Scimitar proficiency between one packet and the next, so I had to dump that; but he gained longbow proficiency, and I didn't notice that for a week or so. (Had to go buy one.)

The "Arcane Dabbler" feat has been hilarious: Choose two Wizard cantrips; [new packet] Oh No! the list is different now! [new packet] Oh No! you can only use one of them once a day. [new packet] Oh Wait! you can use them at-will now, but you only get to choose from these four, out of the whole list. It has caused a bit of confusion in my alleged mind, because my Rogue had originally taken that feat. (Almost as if I'm being jerked around.)

This is a good remark.

Trying to play a "5e campaign" is probably just going to cause frustration and unfair judgement against 5e. Those who regularly switch to the next packet and try to keep the same PCs should be very aware of what they are doing. Playtesting already is just not the same as playing the game, in general, but because of the continuous updates we really need to make sure our players understand what they are doing. (In my case it was simpler because I didn't get enough players until the last packet...)

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

When we were testing, we wouldn't switch to a new packet immediately. I'd wait until there was an appropriate break point - completing a sidequest or reaching a new level, and then the party would find a mysterious one-way door to another, slightly different universe. This made changes more amusing than annoying, and they could switch stuff if it had disappeared or changed too much from the previous packet.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

My group sadly isn't flexible enough insert a few playtest games in our running 4e campaign, so I'm only following. My interest leads me to give new packages a cursory read, but not to analyse and dissect them.

I find the L&L articles to be of more interest to me, as they focus on a single point of discussion. Before I pass judgment on 5e/Next, I'm waiting for several answers:

- How will it be structured (complete games vs. toolbox approach)?

- Will it provide a discernable and fun alternative to other editions?

- Will it allow for easy DMing by virtue of a simple structure and/or available tools for preparation and running?

 

[Piratecat]

The flux is one major reason I haven't already switched to a D&D Next campaign. There are too many changes, too quickly for that, which is fine. Stability is the antithesis of a playtest's goals.

I find that making a character for each class, at different levels, quickly helps me understand how the various systems interact. It's good fun, too. I haven't enjoyed character creation so much in a very long time.

 

[howandwhy99]

We started playtesting once a month or more, but since the new year it's declined significantly. Originally we campaigned through Castle Zagyg converted to each packet's rules, but back in November we tried something different with Isle of Dread. No matter the adventure however, during all those sessions we were constantly learning and re-learning the game as well as it seems fighting it just to keep play enjoyable. I've been optimistic, but the overall turn of the game design over the past year has turned me to negative judgment of it. Save the magic item design they are simply not creating a game I want to run or play in. I originally thought I could turn the whole inside out - which definitely needs to be done, in game design and philosophy - but the current design has made it almost impossible. They appear to be solidly entrenched in game design mechanics that inhibit enjoyable gameplay for me. The last few months we tried upping the game to 14th level and tomb-robbing from the Mud Sorcerer, but that early 2E module still maintains some serious adventure design flaws. That actually blew up after two sessions. I can't blame the players, but that hasn't happened in a game I've run for many years. It's simply too much struggle to learn, too much cross-checking with the previous playtest packet, as well as too confusing of similar previous rules, coupled with a design that ultimately doesn't feel improved all too often. Add in that the adventures are not being designed with the playtests in mind, that they aren't even thinking that adventure design has anything to do with game mechanics, and it's quickly becoming an evening where I bend over backwards to put on a game most the group no longer show up for and the others aren't thrilled by. Next up is quitting the focused playtesting and going back to the Castle Zagyg campaign as that was mostly fun. We'll see how the new rules continue to affect play, but if the next playtest packet is simply more of the same I suspect I'm just about done with trying to make it into a functional game.