D&D (2024) What is positive?

[broghammerj]

Perhaps they'll actually try to figure out what turned off people like me. I doubt it with the current mindset, but you could always hope. Eventually though, they'll still publish D&D in some form, even if it means they have to go back to the drawing board.

I expect that they have some iota of what they are doing though and it will either sell really well and bring in more money than 5e did when it was first released, or at least sell decently enough to justify them to keep going.

Name your top 3 things that turned you off and top 3 things you would like them to do? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In the long run, I'm inconsequential. I've already checked out in that way. The differences are going to be too vast and they are changing what I think I like and keeping some things I don't. I could be the only one that feels that way. I don't think my voice would be heeded, even if I answered the surveys...so I haven't.

This was exactly my feeling of pathfinder 1st edition. At that time 4e was the way better alternative for me.
There was that little game Trailblazer, that actually did fix 3e in a way I really liked (but it did not get a chance, because when I was ready to try it, the next playtest started).

 

[delericho]

There are things that were solidly nixed on the original playtest that the creators of the game feel SO STRONGLY NEED TO BE INCLUDED that they have basically reintroduced those ideas over the past 3 years.

They REALLY WANT those ideas in the next iteration.

...

I would not be surprised if it means they are twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring what they want to have it answered as.

Why would they do that? If they're so determined that something has to be in the books, surely they wouldn't even put it up for discussion? After all, the playtest isn't going to cover every aspect of the game (and the surveys are unlikely to cover every aspect of the playtest), so it would be easily simply to omit the golden mechanic.

 

[CleverNickName]

Why would they do that? If they're so determined that something has to be in the books, surely they wouldn't even put it up for discussion? After all, the playtest isn't going to cover every aspect of the game (and the surveys are unlikely to cover every aspect of the playtest), so it would be easily simply to omit the golden mechanic.

I think the books are already written for the most part, and internal tests are already underway. If that's true, they're probably not looking for sweeping changes: they're looking for the parts that need more/better buzz. It feels to me like the playtests are for marketing, not design.

 

[Horwath]

I think the books are already written for the most part, and internal tests are already underway. If that's true, they're probably not looking for sweeping changes: they're looking for the parts that need more/better buzz. It feels to me like the playtests are for marketing, not design.

maybe so, but it would not surprise me that they will adjust and try to "balance" things right up to 5mins before "save&print" click.

 

[GreyLord]

Why would they do that? If they're so determined that something has to be in the books, surely they wouldn't even put it up for discussion? After all, the playtest isn't going to cover every aspect of the game (and the surveys are unlikely to cover every aspect of the playtest), so it would be easily simply to omit the golden mechanic.

Playtesting isn't just to playtest these days.

It's for advertising...and in some cases that's the primary focus.

I think the books are already written for the most part, and internal tests are already underway. If that's true, they're probably not looking for sweeping changes: they're looking for the parts that need more/better buzz. It feels to me like the playtests are for marketing, not design.

I should have read a little further down first. You beat me to it.

Sure, there are some things they aren't positive about and that is malleable according to responses, but there are somethings they are absolutely dedicated to making sure that they are in. Those things aren't going to change regardless of what surveys say (well, overall, if 99% of the people said they hated it...well...then they MIGHT consider it).

 

[GreyLord]

Name your top 3 things that turned you off and top 3 things you would like them to do? I'm genuinely curious.

I probably can name one that encompasses a LOT of stuff.

The big thing I do not like...

1. Added complexity - An example of this is making feats something that are mandatory at first level, or the default now. Simple is good. Simple helps people get into the game better. Making it more complex is not always better. It's a problem they learned from AD&D to 3e (20 million to 5 million players...granted...many had stopped playing already, but WotC failed to garner back those lost players) and from 3e to 4e (4e was a simpler system at it's core, but the powers made it a LOT more complex so went from 5 million to 2-3 million players).

5e went simpler again. Did away with mandatory feats (not that there weren't some designers that REALLY WANTED them in there). The more complex the bigger obstacle for new players. It can also be seen as unbalancing in regards to backwards compatibility.

And that's just talking about feats...

Things I like

2. That's been added to it thus far? I haven't actually seen anything that they've ADDED to the game that I would prefer over what was already there thus far. That's thus far....of course.

3. If we are talking about what I'd see added, I haven't really thought about that. It's supposed to be the same edition and backwards compatible. Why would I think about what I would like added?

Thinking on it NOW...perhaps an even easier start up version (aka...basic) with even easier character creation for those trying to pick it up for themselves via the free online basic rules. That probably could encompass far more than 3 things though if one thought about it more deeply.

 

[delericho]

Playtesting isn't just to playtest these days.

It's for advertising...and in some cases that's the primary focus.

Sure, I get that. I was asking specifically about the suggestion they'd go to the trouble of "twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring" for a mechanic they're determined to include. Why not simply leave that one element out of the playtests?

 

[GreyLord]

Sure, I get that. I was asking specifically about the suggestion they'd go to the trouble of "twisting data or creating questions that will be psychologically favoring" for a mechanic they're determined to include. Why not simply leave that one element out of the playtests?

Advertising, once again. How will people know about this wonderful new feature unless they get a taste?

And, interestingly enough, they don't release the entire packet or the entirety of the rules for free.

Other marketing ideas that tell you that it's more for marketing than playtesting to see if it actually works...they sell you the rules (only the most dedicated are going to buy the rules which will sway your playtest already). WotC isn't doing that, but there are many other ways.

Playtests these days are one of the most popular marketing and PR stunts available for RPGs it seems. It is a VERY POPULAR thing to do to promote your product these days, or at least that's how it looks to me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

maybe so, but it would not surprise me that they will adjust and try to "balance" things right up to 5mins before "save&print" click.

Really? Seems kinda dumb.