The playtest characters

[Andor]

There has been a lot of back and forth about the D&DXP demo games and the characters in them. One camp complains that the characters seemed shallow and that there was not much roleplaying, another counters that this was a playtest to show off the combat system and how much depth do you expect?

But... I remember playing one of the pre-release 3ed games 8 years ago. We were members of a tribe of barbarians (although only one was an actual barbarian.) I recall those characters to this day, we all had roleplaying notes about our characters, and what they thought of the other members of the party. We fought, yes (I recall particularly the saber-toothed salmon) but we also made survival checks as we trooped and camped through a snowy unatural winter in our furs. We has an absolute blast, and a 'lack of role-playing' was the last complaint on anyone's mind.

So what was different this time, and why?

 

[Nagol]

Probably the main difference is the focus of the playtest.

3e was showing off its brand new expansive skill system as well as its BAB vs. THAC0 change.

4e is showing off its egalitarian power choice system and streamlined combat.

 

[lexoanvil]

i think we can look to gencon for some role playing and maybe different Lv play tests

 

[Transit]

Has WOTC officially said that the playtest characters were written to showcase combat rules only, or is that just what people are saying in response to the "lack of roleplaying" complaint?

 

[lexoanvil]

Has WOTC officially said that the playtest characters were written to showcase combat rules only, or is that just what people are saying in response to the "lack of roleplaying" complaint?

good question but to be fair the only role playing from a 1 time event ive been in was a first lv ebberon quest from a game day a few years ago. i think the players were more of the reason for that though, we had a very cool group. also happened to be my first time trying out the psionic rules so very cool game.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

Has WOTC officially said that the playtest characters were written to showcase combat rules only, or is that just what people are saying in response to the "lack of roleplaying" complaint?

Considering that the new edition has specifically been described as including social encounter rules more complex than the "save-or-die" approach of Diplomacy, I'd say that the odds favor the "this is showing you how combat works" explanation. It would be bizarre marketing to repeatedly mention a roleplaying feature that they had absolutely no intention of including in the game.

Furthermore, the encounter was specifically designed as a combat-only encounter. As such, although it's not evidence that 'role-playing rules' are present simply because the encounter WAS just a big slugfest, it's also not evidence that roleplaying is absent.

You could have just as easily made a combat-only encounter with those 3rd edition barbarians. However, at that time, they were showing off the new skill system, which was a major break from 2nd edition's nonweapon proficiencies, while the 4th edition skill system is just a streamlining of the 3rd edition's.

In short, my opinion is that they are showing off what they think will create the most excitement this time around.

 

[Insight]

Has WOTC officially said that the playtest characters were written to showcase combat rules only, or is that just what people are saying in response to the "lack of roleplaying" complaint?

Yes. I don't have a link or anything, but I remember reading a quote from a WoTC staffer to the effect that the D&DXP characters were created for the show only, and are not intended to demonstrate every possible aspect of 1st level play.

The preview adventures did have some potential for RP, but were pretty combat heavy. Most of the new rules are combat-related, so I don't have a problem with this approach. There was at least one encounter in one of the previews intended specifically for RP.

As for the delves, if you wasted time trying to RP, you didn't finish in 30 minutes.