Just make 5e and be done with it

Whatever the developers plans are, just go ahead and do what you're going to do. Asking for the opinions of all of us gamers is fine, but you know you're going to have to make a lot of tough choices that some will love and some will hate. It is an act of futility to try and make 5e into a game everyone can agree on. Why? Because it is an impossible task. You will never unite the D&D fanbase. 

We've gone through 4 editions of this game and it has changed drastically with some editions. The ages and attitudes of gamers have also changed drastically over the years and through the editions and most are inclined to favor the edition they first played or grew up playing. Just from reading these boards and seeing the widespread views of what should be in and what shouldn't be in 5e, is more than enough evidence to prove my point. I certainly have particular views on what should and shouldn't be in. For example, will I be happy if 5e looks anything like 4e? Nope and I wouldn't buy/play the game if it does. Others might hate a return toward the 'older school' editions of 1e and 2e. They won't buy/play 5e either.

With so many different RPGs out on the market today, the only thing 5e has going for it is the name. Dungeons and Dragons. D&D (specifically 2e) will always hold a place in my heart as the RPG I really 'broke my teeth' on and I'm sure many others will say the same regarding their favorite edition. You cannot (and will not) please all of the people all of the time. So please, just make 5e and be done with it.
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."
yeah I want this edition to be worse than it's potential, even though we have the oppurtunity to make it better!


You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Interestingly, I can't say I agree that "most are inclined to favor the edition they first played ".

It certainly isn't the case for me, pr  most of my current group, who prefer 4th edition despite having starting with 2nd or earlier.  Also, each of us have played all 4 editions, as well as a plethora of other systems, from WOD to GURPS to Shadowrun and .. well I could go on. 

Now, I know that's a small sample size, but I don't think we're alone (from reading these boards, even).
Just make it so they don't add another edition in 5 yrs

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a
mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in.


At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we don't work together we will never get anywhere!


If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:


company.wizards.com/conduct


Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun!


Thank you for your understanding!

Playtesting is good.  A lot of posters felt that the devs were being unresponsive immediatley after the first round -- mostly because we're in an age of instantaneous feedback and a location of internet backdraft, IMO. 

However, now we're beginning to see the fruits of the first round.  Fighter was too boring -- some of us 'knew' this a day after the packet was released, but the devs took their time, got their surveys back, and cooked up a way to address it before releasing anything back.

The result?  What we now know as Combat Superiority, the reaction to which even in this hotbed of edition wars and vitriol has seemed to be mostly positive from most sides -- at the very least, both a good number of 3rd and 4th posters voiced support for the mechanic as outlined.  Some, worry over the numbers, but it's a solid concept.  (We've also been informed of the existance of non-vancian classes, but that hasn't seem to have quelled the anti-vancian rage at their being a vancian wizard at all.  Maybe when we see the mechanics...)

I expect a lot more after GenCon.  This game is already better because of us, and our collective efforts can keep improving it.  It might be an impossible task to get all players of all editions of D&D, but I don't think it's beyond their reach to draw a large majority of both current and lapsed D&D players.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Whatever the developers plans are, just go ahead and do what you're going to do. Asking for the opinions of all of us gamers is fine, but you know you're going to have to make a lot of tough choices that some will love and some will hate. It is an act of futility to try and make 5e into a game everyone can agree on. Why? Because it is an impossible task. You will never unite the D&D fanbase. 

We've gone through 4 editions of this game and it has changed drastically with some editions. The ages and attitudes of gamers have also changed drastically over the years and through the editions and most are inclined to favor the edition they first played or grew up playing. Just from reading these boards and seeing the widespread views of what should be in and what shouldn't be in 5e, is more than enough evidence to prove my point. I certainly have particular views on what should and shouldn't be in. For example, will I be happy if 5e looks anything like 4e? Nope and I wouldn't buy/play the game if it does. Others might hate a return toward the 'older school' editions of 1e and 2e. They won't buy/play 5e either.

With so many different RPGs out on the market today, the only thing 5e has going for it is the name. Dungeons and Dragons. D&D (specifically 2e) will always hold a place in my heart as the RPG I really 'broke my teeth' on and I'm sure many others will say the same regarding their favorite edition. You cannot (and will not) please all of the people all of the time. So please, just make 5e and be done with it.





While you are correct in saying they will never please everyone, I for one am glad they are taking feedback and shaping the game. A good year or two of feedback will produce an amazing game and I appreciate the ability to have a say in my Hobbys next iteration.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
yeah, one thing that the playtest has taught me is that I don't do well with the process. It frustrates me because I can't see the whole picture. I make comments on the forums, but the discussion here is often wild and wooly. It's hard to know if I'm being heard. I have dowloaded the playtest packets, and read the articles and blog entries here on the site. I've answered the surveys; I try to grasp what's going on, the direction things are taking--but alot of it is based on trust in the designers. I know that Mike Mearls is a good designer, and that the process works--4e is proof of that. My brother is much more optimistic about it all, and tells me not to get worked up about the confusion that sometimes results from trying to get the idea of where 5e is headed. 

But I know, theoretically, the process of playtesting is a good idea. And I'd rather see the process, try to participate in it than just have to wait for a year or two until the new edition is released. But I do sympathize. I would say that when the process gets too tiring or frustrating as it does sometimes for me, go and play the version you like for while and come back when your interest piques again. It will all work out in the end.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
yeah, one thing that the playtest has taught me is that I don't do well with the process. It frustrates me because I can't see the whole picture. I make comments on the forums, but the discussion here is often wild and wooly. It's hard to know if I'm being heard. I have dowloaded the playtest packets, and read the articles and blog entries here on the site. I've answered the surveys; I try to grasp what's going on, the direction things are taking--but alot of it is based on trust in the designers. I know that Mike Mearls is a good designer, and that the process works--4e is proof of that. My brother is much more optimistic about it all, and tells me not to get worked up about the confusion that sometimes results from trying to get the idea of where 5e is headed. 

But I know, theoretically, the process of playtesting is a good idea. And I'd rather see the process, try to participate in it than just have to wait for a year or two until the new edition is released. But I do sympathize. I would say that when the process gets too tiring or frustrating as it does sometimes for me, go and play the version you like for while and come back when your interest piques again. It will all work out in the end.




While your post is genuine nad positive, i must point this out. 4e (nor any other edition) was not playtested by the playerbase, at least not publicly, if it had im sure many of things would have never seen the light of the PHB. on that note though again im glad to be able to input this time.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please


But I know, theoretically, the process of playtesting is a good idea. And I'd rather see the process, try to participate in it than just have to wait for a year or two until the new edition is released. But I do sympathize. I would say that when the process gets too tiring or frustrating as it does sometimes for me, go and play the version you like for while and come back when your interest piques again. It will all work out in the end.


This is very very true.  It helps to identify posters who really upset you and make sure NOT to put them on ignore.

...that way, you have to go and play more!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I guess by process, I meant the development process. Not necessarily the public playtest process. But I've noticed that the public playtest is fairly controlled, though it may not seem like it on the forums. The systematic collection of data via the surveys, and the careful release of actual playtest material. It has seemed that the playtest is sort of a controlled extension of the normal development process. But like I said I'm still adjusting to it all. I probably wouldn't make a good designer  Undecided

And from what I heard, 3e had a public playtest--maybe not like 4e, but a definite input period. But then, that was just hearsay on my part, as I jumped from 1e to 3.5.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
Interestingly, I can't say I agree that "most are inclined to favor the edition they first played ".

It certainly isn't the case for me, pr  most of my current group, who prefer 4th edition despite having starting with 2nd or earlier.  Also, each of us have played all 4 editions, as well as a plethora of other systems, from WOD to GURPS to Shadowrun and .. well I could go on. 

Now, I know that's a small sample size, but I don't think we're alone (from reading these boards, even).



Yeah thats solidly where I am also.

Started with 1e (mostly although i did  officially starrt with basic), liked how they cleaned up some of the wonkiness in 2e, originally liked 3e but grew to hate it, and like 4e most of all.
Interestingly, I can't say I agree that "most are inclined to favor the edition they first played ".



While a generalization and an oversimplification, I think this statement actually has some merit to it. Of course it's not true for everybody (that's the nature of generalizations), and I doubt anybody who's played multiple editions thinks any one edition is completely perfect as-is. In fact, I don't even think people necessarily want the actual mechanics of the first edition they played, but I do think that a lot of people want the feel of the first edition they played. Having played everything from OD&D up to 4Ed, I recognize there have been many improvements to the game mechanics over the years. But while there have been improvements, there has also been a steady increased in complexity and the game has become harder for new players to learn. Heck, I can remember trying to roll up my first 4ed character and spending an inordinate amount of time thumbing through the pages of the Players Handbook trying to find out how to calculate all the various stats on the character sheet. I mean, we've gone from a starting character that would comfortably fit on a single sheet of notebook paper with plenty of room to spare, to a starting character that is five pages when printed out from the official D&DI character generator.

Complexity is not a virtue. Anything that slows down the flow of the game detracts from the experience, unless you're only doing munchkin-approved dungeon crawls.

Although the OD&D/AD&D rules were a jumbled mess in a lot of ways, rolling up a character was simple and basic play was simple. You could learn how to play the game quickly, usually taking far less than a single gaming session to get comfortable.  There were tons of additional, optional rules you could use or that might come into play in unusual circumstances, but the basics were fast and easy to grasp, and that has been lost in the evolution of the game.

So, yeah, for me? I definitely do want a game that feels like my first edition (which is also the first edition that existed). I also want it to also be informed by the almost 40 years of RPG evolution, though not be a slave to it.

Which goes back to the original point of this thread. While I think it's great that we're getting early access to the next edition and they're letting us give input as the design progresses, the fact is, they're never going to make all of us happy. If they make the game reminiscent of AD&D, a lot of people who favor 4Ed will dislike it, and vice versa. 

(Of course, I think there's an unwritten rule that people who started on 4Ed have to hate this edition Laughing)

Right now, I'm cautiously optimistic. I like where they seem to be going from the first playtest packet and the various articles the D&D Next team have been writing. I think the goal they've got is very much in line with what I want to see.

My fear, however, is that too much compromise… too much appeasement… and we'll end up with a wishy-washy game that makes none of us happy. I'd honestly rather they make an "opinionated" game that's not to my taste than one that tries to make everybody happy. I play, but am not particularly a fan of 4Ed. Many people are, however. Our perspectives are both valid and completely at odds. I read a lot of feedback and opinion here that are 180° from what I feel about the new rules (there's also an awful lot I agree with wholeheartedly). Whether I continue to like DDN will depend on how the designers respond to and use the conflicting feedback they're getting.

I don't envy the designers on this, to be honest.
I guess by process, I meant the development process. Not necessarily the public playtest process. But I've noticed that the public playtest is fairly controlled, though it may not seem like it on the forums. The systematic collection of data via the surveys, and the careful release of actual playtest material. It has seemed that the playtest is sort of a controlled extension of the normal development process. But like I said I'm still adjusting to it all. I probably wouldn't make a good designer  Undecided

And from what I heard, 3e had a public playtest--maybe not like 4e, but a definite input period. But then, that was just hearsay on my part, as I jumped from 1e to 3.5.



To be honest they may have, but the world was much larger then, the internet was something most people realy didnt have yet. All I know is one day there was 3e and we played it. Ah the days of pagers and AOL.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
Amen to the OP.

Look, for all of you that think "public" playtesting makes a game better, you may find it disconcerting that in reality, it has just as good of a chance at making it worse.  The feedback they gathered was probably only 10% of the playtesters.  And when you have a small core group of people that really care about something, in general, they are heavily biased. 

Odds are, they're not collecting much feedback from average gamers that play at a shop or a friend's house once a week.  And since they don't have that person's opinion, then all you get is an extremely concentrated view.  I mean, look at these forums.  There are 1400 pages on people that like or dislike vancian magic.  Probably a total of 200 people.  You know what?  The average gamer doesn't care, but their points of view may be even better or clearer than ours.

So I agree with the OP.  Stop the public playtest.  Do your job and playtest it yourself, and then sell us the product.

And please, no one compare MMO playtesting to this.  Two different worlds, each entirely unrelated.  (Although now that I said that someone out there is going to try and connect the two.    )
I would say they're actually quite similar...as far as playtesting -results- go (having been now in both kinds, I've seen the exact same thing in both types.  Some of these posts you could almost lift word for word, which makes it quite interesting. )  Both have the same chance of being skewed by the heavily-invested (SWTOR is a good example of this).  Likewise, both have the same chance of being molded to fit broader expectations provided the data collected is both broad and interpreted correctly.  Unfortunately, that's the weak link in modern data processing.  COLLECTION of data has reached an all-time high.  INTERPRETATION of data is conversely at an all-time low as a generic trend.

So the real question becomes: Is WotC collecting the correct amount of data from a broad, diverse range of people -and- interpreting it correctly.  If yes, then the public playtest could be the best thing since sliced bread.  If no...it'll end up a catastrophe to rival the burning of the Library of Alexandria. 

Take your pick!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

And please, no one compare MMO playtesting to this.  Two different worlds, each entirely unrelated.  (Although now that I said that someone out there is going to try and connect the two.    )


But we should make this comparison. Because it would show that what we have right now for Next is more "opinion testing" than "play testing" - more time is spent, by designers and players, on "testing" if the game will sell and how it should be designed for maximum sales, than on actually testing the rule set to make it better by correcting mistakes and bugs, helping with the balancing and so on.
Even though I enjoy the "crowd sourcing" aspect of this forum, and appreciate that our ideas and remarks are considered as useful by the designers, we are not testing a game, but pre-designing a product.
That's why there is so much in-fighting : we are putting our dreams and desires concerning D&D and what it should be on the table, not testing an actual set of rules. We did, the play test was made available - many made remarks, on the validity/correctness of the mechanics, or the interest of the chosen concepts, or about if we would or not pay for it. But as we haven't had anything new to test, something real we can comment about, dreams, expectations and fears are now our topic.
And it is an important one for WotC : they didn't make as much money as they wanted/wished with 4E, and their goal with next is to "gain back their market" (as if 4E had not been a best seller for years). They don't want to give us a product we won't buy, so they are ready to "design by consultation", for better and for worse.

INTERPRETATION of data is conversely at an all-time low as a generic trend.


Completely right. Data analysis, especially in business, is often (read : always) conducted with such an ignorance of the process of validating or correctly "balancing" datas that the results are often irrelevant. Works for politics, too - too bad businessmen and politicians don't have a scientific's formation to methodology and espistemology

Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
yeah, one thing that the playtest has taught me is that I don't do well with the process. It frustrates me because I can't see the whole picture. I make comments on the forums, but the discussion here is often wild and wooly. It's hard to know if I'm being heard. I have dowloaded the playtest packets, and read the articles and blog entries here on the site. I've answered the surveys; I try to grasp what's going on, the direction things are taking--but alot of it is based on trust in the designers. I know that Mike Mearls is a good designer, and that the process works--4e is proof of that. My brother is much more optimistic about it all, and tells me not to get worked up about the confusion that sometimes results from trying to get the idea of where 5e is headed. 

But I know, theoretically, the process of playtesting is a good idea. And I'd rather see the process, try to participate in it than just have to wait for a year or two until the new edition is released. But I do sympathize. I would say that when the process gets too tiring or frustrating as it does sometimes for me, go and play the version you like for while and come back when your interest piques again. It will all work out in the end.




While your post is genuine nad positive, i must point this out. 4e (nor any other edition) was not playtested by the playerbase, at least not publicly, if it had im sure many of things would have never seen the light of the PHB. on that note though again im glad to be able to input this time.


They actually did have some CharOppers at the time go through 4e's rules and go nuts with it. The CharOpers found some broken abilities and math problems that needed fixing. Wizards took all that info and promptly ignored it.
For the love of Mike - do not listen to the OP!

Actually use your time to play test the bejeezus out of 5e so that we are not stuck with monthly errata until it has a semblance of polish on it.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
 
Actually use your time to play test the bejeezus out of 5e so that we are not stuck with monthly errata until it has a semblance of polish on it.



Quit being all sensible.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

And please, no one compare MMO playtesting to this.  Two different worlds, each entirely unrelated.  (Although now that I said that someone out there is going to try and connect the two.    )


But we should make this comparison. Because it would show that what we have right now for Next is more "opinion testing" than "play testing" - more time is spent, by designers and players, on "testing" if the game will sell and how it should be designed for maximum sales, than on actually testing the rule set to make it better by correcting mistakes and bugs, helping with the balancing and so on.
Even though I enjoy the "crowd sourcing" aspect of this forum, and appreciate that our ideas and remarks are considered as useful by the designers, we are not testing a game, but pre-designing a product.
That's why there is so much in-fighting : we are putting our dreams and desires concerning D&D and what it should be on the table, not testing an actual set of rules. We did, the play test was made available - many made remarks, on the validity/correctness of the mechanics, or the interest of the chosen concepts, or about if we would or not pay for it. But as we haven't had anything new to test, something real we can comment about, dreams, expectations and fears are now our topic.
And it is an important one for WotC : they didn't make as much money as they wanted/wished with 4E, and their goal with next is to "gain back their market" (as if 4E had not been a best seller for years). They don't want to give us a product we won't buy, so they are ready to "design by consultation", for better and for worse.

INTERPRETATION of data is conversely at an all-time low as a generic trend.


Completely right. Data analysis, especially in business, is often (read : always) conducted with such an ignorance of the process of validating or correctly "balancing" datas that the results are often irrelevant. Works for politics, too - too bad businessmen and politicians don't have a scientific's formation to methodology and espistemology




Kal,

I have, for the majority of my posts always agreed with your logic.  You seem like a smart person, with a great passion for RPG's.  However, you're wrong on this.  Maybe it's th passionate side of you that wants it to be true.  But, as I explained earlier, the feedback they get is not a large enough group nor is it unbiased.  Therefore it only causes trouble.

Wizards would be better off playtesting themselves and with friends and gaming groups they have.  Playtest over and over, and then release the product.

As for gaining their market share back, D&D has a core group.  Most Pathfinder players I know of will occassionally play D&D or simply play both games.  If they wanted to gain people they should look at marketing strategies; how the game is presented to the general public, who buys what, what's needed in this new age to play and keep bringing in new players, etc.

And when people playtest an MMO, they find bugs.  That's all they do.  They do not design levels, change mechanical ratios, etc.  They say, this dude's quest is broken or I went through this door and fell and died.  Two completely different things.
For what it's worth...

This is the third major edition change I've seen.  When AD&D 2e was being phased out in favor of 3e, I paid attention.  I picked up one of the campaign-ender modules - never ran it, but 'plague of rabid kender' still amuses me.  I picked up the transition-guide - a neat little pamphlet, released in advance of the 3rd edition core rulebooks, that told you how to convert your 2e character to a 3e one.  It was a peek at the upcoming edition, and was tantalizing enough that I saved up and got the 3e CR.  And my brothers and I played many a game with them, and had fun.

After hearing about some of the changes coming - the at-wills, primarily - I decided to buy the 4e core rulebooks when they came out.  Tried playing in a game.  Tried running a game.  Finally shelved them and started playing other systems entirely - I skipped splatbooks, skipped Essentials, and didn't bother with DDI.  Part of this was my being away from my brothers and unable to find another group, but I started gaming over the internet to make up for that.  I don't know why 4e didn't settle well with me, but I wound up drifting away from D&D after a few more 3e games.  I don't want to start any edition wars - I'm just saying the sudden shift to 4e was part of my drifting away from Dungeons and Dragons.

When I heard about D&D Next, my reaction was 'oh, another edition.  Yay for money grab.'  I was cynical.  I didn't bother looking into any preview articles - I just stuck to those other systems I'd found over the last few years.

Then I found out about the Open Playtest, that people were getting not just a sneak peek at the next edition.  But more than just a peek, they were getting a say.  I was still cynical, much like the original poster of this thread.  Still, I grabbed the playtest packet to take a look.  I liked some of what I saw, had my doubts about other things - like the Fighter's lack of options.  I wavered on doing anything - filled out the surveys when they came up, but still wasn't convinced.

I was curious enough to keep an eye on the updates - and then I saw the article mentioning a big change for the Fighters, something that had bugged me.  The playtesters were heard, there.  They could be heard again.  I was intrigued - interested enough to give the materials a second look, and a third, and actually pay attention.  I dove into the article archive, looking at the comments on philosophy of system design.

My interest in D&D came back, after a four-year hiatus.

I still haven't run a session.  But now I'm planning to.  And whatever we find good/bad/weird about the system, I intend to tell the devteam about.  I'm actually interested again.

If nothing else - the odds of my buying the new core rulebooks has gone up considerably.  So - well played, WotC.
Interestingly, I can't say I agree that "most are inclined to favor the edition they first played ".

It certainly isn't the case for me, pr  most of my current group, who prefer 4th edition despite having starting with 2nd or earlier.  Also, each of us have played all 4 editions, as well as a plethora of other systems, from WOD to GURPS to Shadowrun and .. well I could go on. 

While I find the idea that people gravitate towards liking the edition they started with to be very creadible, I have to admit that I, too, am a counter-example to that theory, having started with 1e (technically with the Basic Set), and prefering pre-Essentials 4e to other editions.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!