The playtest reports really demonstrate ...

[Harlekin]

D&D next is clearly designed to make old(er) school players Wotc customers again. Including Caves of Chaos is an obvious marketing move towards those players, regardless of the quality of the module.

As can be seen from this thread, Caves of Chaos has a hallowed status among old school gamers. Moreover, many gamers playtesting now, already have played B2 at some point in the past, so they have some experience to build up a good game from the skeleton provided, regardless of the quality of the actual module. Finally, gamers may connect their experience playing D&D next to old memories of playing B2 before. This will make the play experience more "magical" regardless of the quality of the rules system. And D&D next needs positive buzz from the first play-test release.

 

[KesselZero]

So why does the adventure start with a list of rooms instead of listing the plot hooks? Why doesn't it provide a village for the PCs to start in and collect rumors?

Well, the actual module does exactly that-- it provides a village for the PCs to start in and collect rumors. It details the entire village. It provides a handy chart of juicy rumors that the DM can pick from or roll on randomly (including a few untrue rumors). It sets the caves away from the village so finding them and getting there is part of the action and the village is a blessed safe haven-- if you can make it back.

And that's why the module is called B2: Keep on the Borderlands, not B2: The Caves of Chaos.

Cutting out the Keep is the playtest's doing. I'd assume it's because they're only really interested in testing the combat rules at this point.

 

[Mercule]

Except, without plot or backstory of some description, how is there going to be any serious testing of the interaction mechanics? Or of those parts of the exploration mechanics that go beyond looking for secret doors and disarming traps?

There weren't a ton of interaction mechanics in the "How to Play" book, that I recall. I'd say the goal of this play test is to test the combat and dungeon crawl mechanics. I don't see a problem with that. Actually, I think it'd be fairly foolish for them to create too broad of an initial play test, and dungeons/combat are pretty much the centerpiece of the rules. Coming from a software environment, ambiguous testing is bad. Of course, the counter to that is that WotC probably could have been explicit in the scope/purpose of this test packet.

Remember, WotC isn't asking us what we want to test. They are providing us materials to test for them. That doesn't mean they're doing a bad thing, not holding up their end of things, etc. If you want to run your own game, with your own style, wait for the books to come out and buy them. This isn't the OGL. It's not even a complete game. I don't know why you'd look for a complete adventure.

 

[Klaus]

Anyone wanting more info on the Keep of the Borderlands that serves as a base of the PCs, there's this nice, system-neutral version Mearls did for the Keep of the Borderlands season of D&D Encounters: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Keep on the Chaos Scar)

 

[pemerton]

I'd say the goal of this play test is to test the combat and dungeon crawl mechanics. I don't see a problem with that.

I don't have any problem in the abstract.

But after months of reading posts and news items about how D&Dnext will be based around 3 pillars, and how classes can be designed to be balanced across the 3 pillars, and how in D&Dnext rogues will get passed guarded doors not by fighting but by poisoning the guards' lunches, it's a little surprising to see a playtest that in fact doesn't speak to any of that stuff, but rather is more like an intermixing of 4e design standards with Basic D&D play and tropes.

 

[Mercule]

But after months of reading posts and news items about how D&Dnext will be based around 3 pillars, and how classes can be designed to be balanced across the 3 pillars, and how in D&Dnext rogues will get passed guarded doors not by fighting but by poisoning the guards' lunches, it's a little surprising to see a playtest that in fact doesn't speak to any of that stuff, but rather is more like an intermixing of 4e design standards with Basic D&D play and tropes.

I expect we'll see tests of other rules subsystems as the play test goes on. Quite honestly, if all we get by next GenCon is something that resembles the Basic player's book in size and complexity, I won't be buying in. I'm just not bothered by a fairly focused, limited play test, at this point in time. To the contrary, I totally support it and appreciate it. I also think that we're going to have to get used to constraints as the play test progresses. When they finally do add in tests for the skill rules, don't expect to have a broad canvas with which to work. Instead, you'll have the goals preset with an adventure that tries to keep you on track and bounded.

Eventually, they'll have to open things up a bit. If nothing else, they will need some feedback on character construction and breadth of options. By that time, though, I would bet that a significant segment of the testers will have dropped out because of some variant of "it's not complete enough for me to run my own game".

The question isn't what you want to test. It's what they want you to test or what is valuable to them, at this point. Again, coming from a software background, people testing random stuff that you aren't ready for them to test isn't helpful. It isn't even neutral. It's actively disruptive to the development effort because it introduces white noise, which makes it more difficult to get the information you need; tells you nothing new, because you are already aware that piece doesn't work; and slows down development by making you split your focus.

 

[Hussar]

I'd also point out that while there is definitely a need for the other two pillars of the game, combat is generally one area where most players are going to immediately latch onto. I'd hazard a guess that very few people have actually participated in a play test before, so, you want to grab their attention right off the bat. Nothing grabs attention like kicking the crap out of kobolds. Or, conversely, getting the crap kicked out of you by kobolds.

 

[jeffh]

So why does the adventure start with a list of rooms instead of listing the plot hooks? Why doesn't it provide a village for the PCs to start in and collect rumors?

Er... have you actually read it?

This specific version does exactly what you're asking why it doesn't do in the first sentence, and the original version does, in effect, exactly what you say it should be doing in the second (hint: it's even in the title).

 

[TerraDave]

T1 Village of Hommlet remains my gold standard for intro adventures...


...but I like the caves (and keep for that matter) in providing the essence of the D&D experience.


That and the fact that people, many people, have had fun with it. As they are right now.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't consider that great design, but rather shoddy and lazy.

It works all the time and turns out differently for every group, because there isn't much to begin with. No arguing about this: 1st Edition Adventures are not made for people like me.
But all I see when reading any of the old adventures is random rooms with random encounters. The way they appear to me is that I could draw rooms on post-its, put them together at random, spend an hour rolling on random encounter tables, and I have an adventure that is just as good. Maybe pour over it for a while to see if some ideas pop up what the monsters are doing in those rooms, switch a few around because I think it would lead to interesting interactions, and I am done.

I'm not sure why I can't just xp you, but I would if I could.

One of my biggest gripes about "Old School" Adventuring was that so little of it made sense. I don't mind so much in this case, because we're just giving the core rules a dry run. Throwing all the "kitchen" sink options into the bag makes a bit of metagame sense in this case.