D&D 5E Why the D&D Next playtest won't resemble the final product

[Hussar]

Let's not forget how the Dungeon submission process works too. You don't submit a completed adventure, you submit an outline of the adventure. Then they nail down all the flavour and whatnot. Then, they add the crunch. Since all the nuts and bolts of the mechanics come last, you can write most of the adventure, certainly getting the adventure most of the way done, and then add the mechanics at the end.

The problem with this process is that in 4e, combat runs very differently than 3e. I think that's why you saw such abysmal early modules for 4e. Not enough attention paid to the differences in the system. Hopefully, they won't make that same mistake.

 

[Stormonu]

The second point to keep in mind is that it's counterintuitive for a free playtest to closely resemble the final material, since too much similarity eats into sales. While there will obviously be early adopters, WotC does not want the people who are anticipating Next to hear that it's 99% the same as the final playtest packet, causing them to think "oh, well I can just use the rules I've got, maybe make some changes myself to approximate what little the official rules did change, and that's good enough."

I believe that's a completely unfounded fear if WotC is working under that assumption. No one would have bought Pathfinder had that been true due to the pfsrd. Instead, people even bought copies of the printed playtest - even though it was issued for completely free.

Heck, look at the folks who bought the 4E previews (Worlds & Monsters, and I forget the other), even though they had no rules!

 

[Evenglare]

If none of the stuff we are playtesting is going to resemble the final game why playtest it then? I believe that what we are play testing will most certainly be in the final game, it makes no sense that it wouldn't. Sure some of it might change, but we can clearly see where the play test is going. I can't imagine that ANYONE will believe that what we see in the playtest packets wont be in the final game.

 

[Li Shenron]

So where's the thing in 5e that would grab me the way skills did? (Or any number of other things)? Where's the basic mechanics that tie D&D together and make every playstyle possible? I haven't seen them. Again, don't care about which classes they include or how feats are selected or that kind of thing. I don't see the one big thing that makes the rest of the game worth buying.

From my perspective (some of these might have been there already in 4e but I don't know), there are these:

- built-in modularity
- coexistent basic & standard characters
- largely simplified combat rules
- general focus on ability checks
- bounded accuracy, and the implications on using low-level monsters longer
- skill dice
- subclass groups (but they are missing some for Barbarians, Rangers and Fighters)
- largely simplified wildshape rules
- no assumption on wealth level and magic items
- many new rules for spellcasting (preparation, rituals, cantrips, concentration)
- saving throws as ability checks (if only they would have more Str/Int/Cha ST...)
- backgrounds
- short rests
- exploration rules

The second point to keep in mind is that it's counterintuitive for a free playtest to closely resemble the final material, since too much similarity eats into sales. While there will obviously be early adopters, WotC does not want the people who are anticipating Next to hear that it's 99% the same as the final playtest packet, causing them to think "oh, well I can just use the rules I've got, maybe make some changes myself to approximate what little the official rules did change, and that's good enough."

I don't know how likely this will be, but if they go with a public SRD like 3e, effectively this is no problem because it means the playtest rules really are the draft SRD. The final product is a physical book (can't beat that) with full artwork and plenty of guidelines, examples of play, additional tables/sidebars, and fluff.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

People who want a free online copy get a free online copy... lets not fool ourself...
Giving a legal possibility to get a rough version of the rules should rather reduce pirating and increase sales. People who just want a preview can look at the rules online. For free. Legally. Usually the next thing is wanting a physical or at least full pdf. People who have pirated the full rules now have a perfect copy. No need for buying pdfs. People who got a free look legally most probably won´t pirate. They may wait a while until they buy a book, but in the end they may get a bought copy for convenience.

 

[Raith5]

How much do we need to see?

I mean, with the 2e-3e transition, the basic innovations were really apparent right off the bat. Numbers that scale up instead of down? Yes please. All checks with d20's, scaled the same way? Why weren't we doing this already. Skills instead of NWP's? Exactly what I always wanted them to be. Multiclassing level by level? Genius. The list goes on. What exactly the classes were, how the skills worked, those kinds of things, hardly matter by comparison.

Same with 4e, in reverse. Power system? Standard modifiers? Roles? Tiers? No thanks. Again, doesn't matter that much what the classes are or how the powers work. Nothing good could ever have come from those basic precepts.

So where's the thing in 5e that would grab me the way skills did? (Or any number of other things)? Where's the basic mechanics that tie D&D together and make every playstyle possible? I haven't seen them. Again, don't care about which classes they include or how feats are selected or that kind of thing. I don't see the one big thing that makes the rest of the game worth buying.

I enjoyed both 3rd and 4th eds but I think the question is how the game mechanics come together, rather than take a disaggregated view of these systems. My sense is that 4th ed worked for me not because of powers, tiers or roles in isolation but because these mechanics came together and privileged a certain high fantasy style which was pretty gonzo even at low levels. I have enjoyed it, it was not perfect and I also understand how it could annoy people. 3rd ed elements also came together to support a certain style which had a more gritty feel at low levels which changed quite dramtically around 7th level or so.

I agree that DDN does not have any one big thing and that the mechanics dont not seem to have a style. These seem to be locked in the basic, standard , advanced modules. Until we see and maybe playtest DDN within its modules, it is going to be hard to see whether DDN is going to be worth buying.

 

[Alphastream]

It does make sense for them to at some point close down the playtest and do the final work themselves. How much they change this is really going to be based on their assessment of what it takes to incorporate the final bits learned into the product. As we have seen, there can be dramatic shifts. It should not surprise us if the entire magic item document were to change.

Where I have a problem with that logic is that WotC have started accepting submissions for 5e adventures for Dungeon. It seems frankly bizarre that they would do that if the rules didn't look at least significantly like those we've already seen.

I would expect these to be similar to Encounters, where there is a "conversion document" or simply a reference to use monster of name X from the current playtest document. That allows any adventure to be relatively stable (an individual monster probably won't change dramatically). I can share that in co-writing some of the things that have been announced (something for Gen Con, Vault of the Dracolich), we've avoided using complex rules since those can change. For example, it wouldn't make sense in an adventure to very specifically reference the brand new exploration rules, since the rules will likely be adjusted. But, the set of rules as a whole could be suggested for a specific part of the adventure.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I made this point in my playtester interview.

Playtest is not the same thing as Preview. It has a different agenda. The goal here is to expose rules to the fires of the audience, and see what happens, what survives, what is interesting, what fails. The goal is not to show you what 5e is going to look like, the goal is to stress-test ideas.

 

[Alphastream]

The problem with this process is that in 4e, combat runs very differently than 3e. I think that's why you saw such abysmal early modules for 4e. Not enough attention paid to the differences in the system. Hopefully, they won't make that same mistake.

I think that 4E was really new ground. Next resembles older play styles in various ways, so it isn't such a vast difference (though it might be for someone that started with 4E).

That said, it has been a very different authoring experience for me. I've had to run playtests to get a feel for the pace, length, and right balance of three pillars with everything I've written. From all I can tell, Wizards seems to be aware of this (everything I've written has seen internal and closed external playtests).

 

[Derulbaskul]

Where I have a problem with that logic is that WotC have started accepting submissions for 5e adventures for Dungeon. It seems frankly bizarre that they would do that if the rules didn't look at least significantly like those we've already seen.

This worries me for the same reason as others have alluded to.

Keep on the Shadowfell.

And not to forget the other early 4E adventure - coincidentally by Mike Mearls - Pyramid of Shadows.

Notwithstanding that the accepted wisdom is that adventures don't sell, all it takes is for one or two really crappy adventures early in the life of an edition that don't grok the system and you end up with 4E-like split in your customer base.

Keep the adventures in the playtests and not clogging up DDi until 1. the rules are more or less stable and 2. you find an author or authors who really gets next.

Honestly, Mike's team should have as one of their design or brand goals never to release anything like KotS or PoS (what an accurate acronym!) ever again on pain of death. Heck, if the Next team manages to produce another KotS make Paizo pay for it out of their marketing budget.