Focus People...

I've been hanging out on the forums all day, and one thing seems fairly constant - people seem to be forgetting what it is they're looking at.

There are no character creation bits yet, so why try and reverse engineer it, give up on the entire thing, or debate if the fighter is boring or not?  Is it a complete ruleset? No.  Of course not.  More will come.  The real debate should be "Can this system, as lain out, form the skeleton for a greater whole?"  I think so.

An easy example of the "modularity" that WotC has talked about: Want a grid?  Divide the movement rates by 5, and there's the movement on a grid.

The point is, whether you play on a grid with minis or on the back of the bus with a pencil, both groups are playing the *SAME* game, but with different styles.

The point of this playtest (IMO) is not to debate what should have been included in the packet, or how best to fix a character class, but rather the focus should be: Can this game be played by everyone in the fashion which they enjoy the most?

From what I have seen to date, the answer is YES.  Add a module packet down the road to include flanking and OAs if you want - or not.  The base ruleset remains the same regardless of you choice.  And that (again IMO) is the entire point of this exercise.

Just my two cents.

 
Something I've noticed is that very few of the people posting seem to have actually done any testing as of yet. There's a lot of knee-jerk type reactions and edition warring going on, including a surprisingly large contingent of 4e supporters (which I didn't know existed).

I am reserving judgement myself until I actually get a chance to play it this weekend, and I wish others would do the same.
The DM and player playtest boards have some actual play reports.
I've been hanging out on the forums all day, and one thing seems fairly constant - people seem to be forgetting what it is they're looking at.

There are no character creation bits yet, so why try and reverse engineer it, give up on the entire thing, or debate if the fighter is boring or not?  Is it a complete ruleset? No.  Of course not.  More will come.  The real debate should be "Can this system, as lain out, form the skeleton for a greater whole?"  I think so.

An easy example of the "modularity" that WotC has talked about: Want a grid?  Divide the movement rates by 5, and there's the movement on a grid.

The point is, whether you play on a grid with minis or on the back of the bus with a pencil, both groups are playing the *SAME* game, but with different styles.

The point of this playtest (IMO) is not to debate what should have been included in the packet, or how best to fix a character class, but rather the focus should be: Can this game be played by everyone in the fashion which they enjoy the most?

From what I have seen to date, the answer is YES.  Add a module packet down the road to include flanking and OAs if you want - or not.  The base ruleset remains the same regardless of you choice.  And that (again IMO) is the entire point of this exercise.

Just my two cents.

 



Er... I think you're actually saying "Can this game be played by me in the fashion which I enjoy the most" and the answer is yes.  If the game can't be played in the fashion that other people enjoy because the necessary "modules" don't exist yet, then it's not serving its intended purpose.  I could write a game that was one page long and just said "Everyone roleplays.  More modules will be coming in the future!" and it would be theoretically the best game ever, but until those actual modules surface, we have to judge based on what we're given, not what we assume might be written later.
I think the discourse that has gone on is exactly what needs to happen.  How will the developers know our thoughts on what they've shared with us unless we actually give it to them.  Sure some of it may be moot since options that solve exactly what certain people are complaining about might already be on the way, in that case the developer can just ignore it.  The point being that the developers are the only ones who know how to filter our feedback, you don't, and I don't know so I say people keep on doing what they're doing personally.  It shows they care about the outcome of 5e.
I am glad discussion is taking place and that people are passionate about the D&D line. I started playing D&D around 1974. I remember how it inspired Me in so many ways, I hope 5e does the same for a a new generation of players. I think it will.
I've been hanging out on the forums all day, and one thing seems fairly constant - people seem to be forgetting what it is they're looking at.

There are no character creation bits yet, so why try and reverse engineer it, give up on the entire thing, or debate if the fighter is boring or not?  Is it a complete ruleset? No.  Of course not.  More will come.  The real debate should be "Can this system, as lain out, form the skeleton for a greater whole?"  I think so.

An easy example of the "modularity" that WotC has talked about: Want a grid?  Divide the movement rates by 5, and there's the movement on a grid.

The point is, whether you play on a grid with minis or on the back of the bus with a pencil, both groups are playing the *SAME* game, but with different styles.

The point of this playtest (IMO) is not to debate what should have been included in the packet, or how best to fix a character class, but rather the focus should be: Can this game be played by everyone in the fashion which they enjoy the most?

From what I have seen to date, the answer is YES.  Add a module packet down the road to include flanking and OAs if you want - or not.  The base ruleset remains the same regardless of you choice.  And that (again IMO) is the entire point of this exercise.

Just my two cents.

 



Er... I think you're actually saying "Can this game be played by me in the fashion which I enjoy the most" and the answer is yes.  If the game can't be played in the fashion that other people enjoy because the necessary "modules" don't exist yet, then it's not serving its intended purpose.  I could write a game that was one page long and just said "Everyone roleplays.  More modules will be coming in the future!" and it would be theoretically the best game ever, but until those actual modules surface, we have to judge based on what we're given, not what we assume might be written later.

Somehow I am reminded of a Scott Adams quote (he's the creator of Dilbert).

"If at all possible, try and sell a non-existent product. You will find that non-existent products are almost always perfect. if you end up selling a product, and it doesn't work, say that you are going to create a patch that fixes everything. Patches are also almost always perfect."

I mean no disrespect to the current rules as presented. What I mean is that the rules, as presented, have flaws. and I think the best thing to do is to work together to tackle those flaws. Otherwise, they may be present in the next phase of playtesting. Making fixes NOW tells the development team what we, the community, want, and may change what they present in the next phase of testing. Simply waiting for rules to be given to us is not constructive.

For example, I would like the Spell Point system introduced, even if only as a Modular change. If we fleshed that out together as a community, it might be placed in the actual game. You never know.
While I agree with the theory behind what you are all saying, this playtest packet (at the moment) is a rudimentary internal combustion engine, and we are all arguing over what colour the car should be.

 
While I agree with the theory behind what you are all saying, this playtest packet (at the moment) is a rudimentary internal combustion engine, and we are all arguing over what colour the car should be.

 



Well, I'm arguing over whether I even want a combustion engine to begin with. And that I can handle a V12 and am worried I'm going to be handed a V6 in a pretty body that really lacks the oomph I'm hoping for.
HAHAHA!!  I like it!  Well said Bohrdumb.  Still, this old Model T isn't even out of the showroom yet.  Let's look under the hood before we see if it will do 100 mph in 0-5 hey?
Look, I don't mind a few changes, but as it currently stands the Wizard/Cleric gets a Corvette with a Hemi and the Fighter/Rogue gets a Bumper car.
Sign In to post comments