D&D 5E Status Check: Still playtesting?

[Piratecat]

Wacky. I'm finding the reverse; right now, this is a game I can run without ever having to open a DM-based rulebook. I don't have the quickly-changing-rules-iteration problem, though.

 

[howandwhy99]

I admit I really liked the very first public playtest packet. That's a light and quick game. They simply took it in a completely different direction than I would have. It feels very heavy now, if not 3rd or 4th edition heavy. Plus, the added complexity appears to be about adding a mass quantity of character powers and not actual game design structures. Per the last L&L (2nd to last?) they don't even think groups need exploration mechanics - which happens to be how I treat almost every game mechanic. It's clear they are working hard, I'm just getting only a game or two in between reiterations of the rules. That makes it difficult to do anything but 1-shots with learn-as-you-go rules. So another factor may be my group isn't looking to playtest. I'll have to check, as the few remaining have voiced they want to go back to the campaign-style we started with last Spring.

 

[Grydan]

I've been wanting to playtest ever since the playtest was announced. However, the past year has been a scheduling nightmare for all of my regular groups. A group that used to meet every week like clockwork managed a total of four sessions over the course of a year, for example.

Thus, finding a group of people who both wanted to playtest, and could find a mutually agreeable time to do so, has proved difficult. The limited time we are able to get together tends to get spent on the game we're already familiar with and the campaigns that are already in progress, rather than getting people up to speed on a new system.

However, I've kept up (for the most part, I admit to not having looked at the Barbarian yet) with what's going on.

I responded neutral in terms of my perspective... there are things that I've liked, things I've disliked, and there are elements that have been in place (or absent) since the first package that I still find questionable.

I think that the eventually result will be a game that I think is at least worth looking at, but that given my current gaming situation it is quite unlikely to be a game that any of my groups automatically switch over to, even if I end up preferring it personally.

 

[Piratecat]

My preferred play style for playtesting is episodic. Take a dungeon or adventure and expect 3-4 good games out of it. Then things shift in time and/or location, and characters drop in and out. I may run the same dungeon years later for new lower level PCs, who have to deal with the monsters who have moved in in the interim. My goal is casual attendance (I have about 15 people on the list, first 4-5 to respond get to play), engaging but low continuity story, and a range of different monsters and challenges.

There a brainstorming thread elsewhere on this forum for the current adventure I'm working up.

 

[mattcolville]

I was testing right up to the Sorcerer and Warlock, which I liked. But then they aced them, added the monk, gave the Monk the Fighter's expertise dice, and I checked out. Went back to D&D4.

I feel like I have no idea what they're trying to do. The game feels a mish-mash, haphazard, and my players weren't willing to put up with the mercurial development. The two of us who GM were severely disincentivised to continue testing when all the monster data broke like twice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmmm, I do play now and then with some other people that are playtesting, so I can't say I am not following, but I really can't say I'm that interested either.

 

[Obryn]

Really interesting so far. Things I've noticed so far...

(1) More people are Positive than Negative who've answered the poll so far. That's great - it shows WotC's finding an audience!

(2) "Following" is by far the biggest group. So I'm wondering... I've refrained from filling out surveys, because I believe most RPGs have emergent properties that are not immediately apparent from reading the game. So I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and not providing feedback on the packets, because I feel I am not qualified to provide feedback without ... well, playtesting. If you're not playtesting, are you still filling out surveys?

-O

 

[mattcolville]

I believe they specifically asked for people to fill in the surveys even if they've only read the packet.

Their reasoning, which seems good to me, is that the game cannot merely BE fun to play it has to seem like it WOULD BE fun to play when read.

I knew a lot of people who read 4E and found the powers and classes dull and colorless. The game only came alive when you played it. I think WotC would like a game that you enjoy playing, but also read and think "I want to play this!"

If you're not having that reaction, they want to know why.

 

[fjw70]

I am very positive about and interested in 5e but have lost the desire to playtest. The process is moving way to slow for me. I am ready to be playtesting the advanced tactical rules and stuff like that by now. I am done with the basic stuff and want to see the advanced stuff.

I fill out most of the surveys, but skip things that I don’t think I can answer without playing the game.

 

[Ebon Shar]

I've been playing regularly with the same group since the playtest was released. In fact, we have a game tonight. I've allowed the players to be pretty fluid with their characters, adapting and changing them to suit their desires as the rules have been updated. This approach has allowed the players to be more interested and more invested in the rules as they have been released. They were skeptical, at first, of 5E, but have grown to love it. For perspective, they hated 4E and we scrapped that game after about 6 months and switched to Pathfinder. As the levels increased in Pathfinder and the rules began to bog down in complexity, we switched to 5E and the game has been a breath of fresh air. We are old school gamers (mostly) and 5E has us all giddy with nostalgia.