Why I wouldn't recommend D&D Next to new players?

28 posts / 0 new
Last post

With D&D 3 we got streamlining, we tried to please veteran players, who tried to reduce the work involved with playing D&D / AD&D. Things changed. Instead of using Core Rules CD-Rom for 15 minutes for characte creation, we visit forums, research build options, and optimize characters, often for days. We tried to make combat faster by reducing the amound of math you do. Yet, currently a combat round takes more time than in 1E or 2E. Much more time. And you do more math to compare your options. And at the same time, creating background stories for PCs, creating maps, NPCs, their stories, stories for your adventure, etc. as DM is just as time consuming.


D&D failed to meet two of its goals for 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and Essentials. And often you can't just jump into the game when you want, so still assembling groups, finding more players is just as bad as before. If it isn't even worse due to the more work involved. The approach WOTC / Hasbro took with streamlining is risky. Why? Because all you tried to do is to streamline combat. And forgot about core value of D&D: Roleplaying. You designed the game to revolve about combat and maybe skill challenges. Forgot about the life of the adventurers. D&D doesn't speak about what our character would see, what our characters would feel, how would our character think?


We forgot about the flowers in the field, we forgot about the sweet mead they enjoy in the tavern. And D&D is streamlined so well, that while in AD&D 2, we spent about 15% of our time with preparation 20% with compbat, and 75% with experiencing the wonderful worlds described in setting books, and we roleplayed. Now if I visit some store where I can play D&D, I spend about 40% of my time reseacrhing builds, optimization options, new abilities, about 15% with actual characer design. 40% with combat / skill challenges, which are about using the system to our benefit.


5% with an empty and void point of light setting.


At this rate, I can compare D&D with Wargames, with PC based strategy games, etc. light story and set of tactical challenges. But I wouldn't compare it to PC based RPGs like Mass Effect 3, Skyrim, etc. because D&D offers less. Less story, less immersion, less roleplaying.


So if some newbie comes to me, and tells me, he wants to try tabletop RPGs because they offer more depth, immersion and story than video games, I would look elsewhere. Because the structure of D&D game is designed around series of challenges.


As experienced roleplayers we can **** the system and try to roleplay there. Hey, we can do that with or without a system, and a good DM can turn even chess into a roleplaying game, but it isn't a redeeming factor. If you go to a store to try D&D in an encounters group, you won't roleplay much.


And if and when some young student says, he / she wants to experience the stories he / she read in some novels firsthand, when a newbie wants to make his / her first life like character, D&D will be a huge disappointment. Not because of the preparation time. But because if a such newbie would want Dungeon Crawl, there is Diablo. Newbies aren't attached to D&D brand, so they could and should seek Dungeon Crawl elsewhere.


But they get a new rulebook in hand. 


Where nimble and graceful races get less dexterity than humans. Hey, a nible and graceful elf isn't much different in racial averages from a bulky dwarf in terms of dexterity. Yet, a human is 1.1666 point higher in dex average, so its likely that a human has higher dex modifier, and performs better. 

Come on, you create a graceful elf, as you imagine her based on novels, and try to be connected toyour character, etc. and try to roleplay. You go and try D&D.


Your first surprise will be that you will compete with the "clumsy dwarf" who just wanted some dex for AC. Ouch.


The next surprise will be that you will be considerably weaker in this aspect than the "average joe" human, so D&D doesn't represent your character. You look at what happened. Others choosen dex for AC, you choosen it because you are a graceful elf. Yet, you have no chance to ever catch up with the human who isn't even focused on dex.


You see that due to higher bonus of humans, and because people will value their dex for system reasons, in D&D you will never be able to create the elf, who "shines" in dex based task to reflect their natural grace. 


And as we see what would happen if we would run contested tests by the book: If your characters compete to impress a lady, who "ties" in a strenght check achieves nothing. Why? Because even if they are strong, the fact they are in a contest prevents them from doing the most basic things. If you try to get a ring, and you tie... You don't just arrive at same time. But nothing happened, you didn't even lose. - So we either forget this part of core mechanics, or we just laugh at how bad D&D is, and forget it.


Whats worse. When a newbie tries the encounters adventure ran somewhere, what more happens? Well, a newbie won't have an optimized character, so will be constantly outshined, will have a negative experience, and will hear how builds, etc. are important, and will criticized for character choice. And will see that there he / she should stick to builds more than in World of Warcraft or Neverwinter Nights, or Skyrim, or Mass Effect. So in addition to feeling "disconnected" from the character and setting due to D&D rules, our newbie will also see that "PC games offered more freedom in creating characters".


And most encounters sessions are short, but have a somewhat rigid but combat focused adventure, so our player will only see how a player in D&D has to use abilities designed in the book, so the endless freedom, and room for creativity wouldn't materialize. Yet, we will see grid based movements, instead freedom in movement PC games offer, so D&D would introduce itself with less freedom.


Less graphics. Less story. Less freedom in when to play, how to play. Less involvement. Less positive feedback.


D&D would be seen as an inferior product in each and every aspect.


It would mean: D&D would lose some old players due to both usual IRL reasons (No more party, no more time, etc), and to rapidly switching editions (high expenses, feeling next edition won't last forever), and fail to get most of the potential new players.


And as D&D would be a risky recommendation for a first game, many blogs, web sites, etc. would recommend Pathfinder, Vampire, Shadowrun 4, etc. for new gamers interested in roleplaying. And when new players start to focus on values presented by other setting, enjoy freedom, immersion, depth, etc. they wouldn't consider moving to D&D.


As for a veteran who got accustomed to many games, I see what D&D offers to me. A big brand name. A shrinking playerbase, which is already smaller than the playerbase of Pathfinder for example, so not even the biggest one. I see less immersion, less depth, less freedom, less fun, more issues. Why would I choose an inferior product?


You have many fans here, they have brand loyalty. They love some of your settings so much that they **** D&D system to roleplay in there. But you can't build a future on brand loyalty alone, and it is even harder if you erode that brand loyalty with inferior products.


You have a big, colorful website. Playtest dockets. Everything else. But you haven't even offered me a single selling point why should I choose D&D. And you don't have a selling point for your vision of tabletop RPGs either. You use the streamlining idea like a mantra, but most see how empty is that, and it isn't a selling point that would make people buy D&D.

If you don't have a selling point, you don't see the strength of RPGs, then I can speak about lack of vision and scope. And if I feel this, I have to ask: If you don't know what would turn a roleplaying game good, what would make me want to play it, how would you build an enjoyable game for me? After all: if you don't know what makes roleplaying games good, you can't focus on these values when designing rules. So your design decisions aren't backed up with solid reasoning, with a vision.


And this is a point where I see it pointless to even consider buying D&D products from the Next edition.


I see your Q&A. People ask about how skills are assigned to backgrounds. They feel this way they wouldn't be able to choose their skills freely from the skill list (considering their characters personality, class and cross class skills, training options) but would be limited to narrow categories. Ask about it.


And the leader of the development team posts a rant about how inventing your own skills shouldn't be core mechanic. A rant where he shows, he doesn't understand why people want to choose freely from the big skill list, what the issue is about. He shows he doesn't understand we want to create our imagined character. He shows that he is clueless about what roleplaying is.


D&D Next seems to be an inferior product developed by clueless folks at this point.

I don't like D&D 4. You can see why. But at this point I have to warn you: There are no reasons for players to choose D&D Next over D&D 4, and with this D&D Next will fail to draw in enough new players or veterans who avoided 4E. But due to a too early new edition it can lose a lot of current players.


So if you are clueless about how to make D&D better, stick with 4E. Your players will apreciate the years they can spend with using the edition they already enjoy, the value they can squeze out from purchases. And you can still sell plenty of material for D&D 4 / Essentials. 

this is a wall of text & largely opinion & speculation.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But this post should be in the general discussion not the DM Playtest Forum.  Also, I believe they are looking for constructive criticizm more than a scathing judgement.  It's fine if you don't like D&D Next; this really isn't the right thread for you to voice it or go Trolling...
"Why I Would Not Recommend This Post To Players"

I know it rarely helps to say this but what the hell...

Calm down.

You can taste the anger behind some of these statements. As for its content, sorry but I disagree with a lot of this and more importantly how your putting it forward. A lot of the complaints are based around different skill level players and their interactions (such as the new player being criticised for not being optimised) and this points to a breakdown with the players and their attitudes to the game, as a DM you need to discourage anything of the sort.

Ill avoid spending too much time on this, just finishing up with saying that this much bile should be kept off the forums until WotC release a final version of the game you hate. 
Funny, but in comparison to 3.5 and 4E, I have seen a lot more roleplay, character development, and "slowing down to enjoy the flowers" in Next already.

And this is for playtest sessions with characters they know they aren't keeping.

I was hoping to read some well thought out, unbiased thoughts of someone who's given these playtest packets a real shot, not the angry rumblings of someone clearly with an axe to grind.
Funny, but in comparison to 3.5 and 4E, I have seen a lot more roleplay, character development, and "slowing down to enjoy the flowers" in Next already.



When the streamlineing problem started? Exactly with 3E. So it isn't surprising that the game is similar to 4E.


You speak about character development, when character speciality makes advancement linear and removes ability to react to unforeseen circumstances.


But lets see more: You speak about playtest characters they don't keep...

Playtest characters they will "discard in a week" anyways. If you beta tested online games, you know that in a beta test people always take time to help each other out, often even roleplay, enjoy the game. The problem is past release they will compete, and then things change.


If D&D Next wants to be successful, or even acceptable, it needs to offer more than this difference. 


Current Open Playtest is good for marketing, but not for anything else. Months ago, I said: If the structure of the game is already decided, then they won't be able to attract people who find this structure repulsive. If they want feedback, don't start with a single solid adventure, but present different options about how the game can work.


It didn't happen.


The structure of game is similar to 4E. And a lot of players who didn't like 4E said 4E isn't really D&D nor RPG anymore. Come on, saying that when Next isn't bloated with product yet, it is faster and when you don't need to optimize as you don't keep your characters some players might even roleplay a bit more than in 4E won't change that image. 


The feedback they get here is mixed and probably won't change significant things, so it is pointless if we see about influencing the game design.


Guess why you have playtest? Why you have "last weekends" betas in most MMOs?


Because:


1st: this way you feel you worked on the game, and gets you attached to brand - pure marketing


2nd: in beta, when people don't lose anything by helping you out, by roleplaying, etc. as they have nothing they can keep, the game shows in a more favorable light, and it influences oppinions and early player reviews


They teach this in the school, and you celebrate that when less than 5% of the "options" you will be use in game at its peak, it gives you time, because you don't even try to imagine the game with the options Wizards will constantly try to sell. And this false image makes you buy the game. 


And as they "offer new options" to "counter some balance issues" you will buy fix after fix seeing how "good" they are to the game, and you get the same bloatware as ever.


In this state they can't get people who stoped buying D&D because dungeon focused streamling back. They won't get the players who actually want to roleplay.


But with this beta they can trick you into buying the game. 



@Aehrlon68: When they said playtest and its feedback system including this forum will be the place to criticize even general direction they took with system, they made it clear it is the place. Sadly when their core approach is the issue, it isn't possible to suggest small fixes. The current playtest system fails to support playing styles they plan to support and fails to bring back old players together. 


Why? Because they simply fail to understand what such players want.


And when they said that such concerns shouldn't come before playtest, they risked getting the feedback they get: Scrap the current project, replace developers, start thinking about what people will want from D&D, how to get there, build on that information, as this junk won't work. They took their risk, and now they are free to enjoy it. 


@OrwellianHaggis: Sadly when someone wants to try a game, they seek some group they can join for the first time. Why? Because he doesn't have a party, a DM, etc. yet. Because they want to try the game before they decide if it worths investing money and time in it. And it would be hard for a group of newbies, with their newbie DM to start adjusting rules to support the way they want to play based on experience. So with a group of newbies it is even worse. 

Ill be kind and take out the one point I agree on...

The support not just for a new player, but for new groups who form to try out the game is laughable and huge problems arise in that. I have said in other posts, my entry to D&D was painful as I have no established groups near and finally it ended up with me and a friend dragging our partners into the game. However our opinion match ends there.

Your heavy bias against WotC is just causing you to pop out tenuous reasons at best as to why 5e wont work. I find that the media coverage of 5e (and in the business world this playtest is a VERY big thing) is drawing a lot of attention of new players and while the playtest itself will be a bit complex for new players it has the sort of "light fluff" that is very enticing. I personally loved the simple race descriptions far more in 5e than previous. As for how it will be marketed, it can be nothing but speculation for now.

... so ....

What do you like about the playtest packet? 
You speak about character development, when character speciality makes advancement linear and removes ability to react to unforeseen circumstances.

The structure of game is similar to 4E. And a lot of players who didn't like 4E said 4E isn't really D&D nor RPG anymore. Come on, saying that when Next isn't bloated with product yet, it is faster and when you don't need to optimize as you don't keep your characters some players might even roleplay a bit more than in 4E won't change that image. 



Gosh darn it, I am totally getting trolled here, aren't I?  Anyway....

Advancement isn't linear, as I meantioned in the other thread.  You can learn new skills and there certainly seems to be indications of multiclassing already in what is the early stages of development.

Sounds like you want to be able to "respec" at will.  Faction change?  Race change?  Probably want that, too.  Yes, it's great when you have a system that allows you to reinvent yourself every level or even at any time.

For me, though, I kind of like D&D being about making choices and living with them.  Adapting and going forward with what you can change in the future, but not reinventing the past.

"The structure of the game is similar to 4E":  !!!  Seriously, dude.... what are you smoking?  I still play 4E to this day and Next/5E barely resembles 4E at all.  I has *much more* an old school AD&D feel to it than anything else.  I mean, wow... you will lose all credibility with that assertion alone.  Really.  You are just trolling here, aren't you?

Finally, yes, maybe they are "tricking us into buying this game" by pretending to listen to feedback. I don't believe it.  I've already seen some tweaks and changes, not to mention the certainty that they are listening to feedback on things such as starting hit points, etc.  Believe what you want.  Not saying you are wrong, but simply that I don't agree with you and I won't until I see real evidence that we are just "playtesting a finished product" as you suggest.  No.  I suspect we are seeing 5E truly in the developmental stages into refinement.
I think the "structure" he's referring to is the lack of skill points, Standard Array characters instead of Point Buy, and the general lack of "you take this feat to be able to RP this way" requirements.

In some ways, 3.x and Star Wars Saga Edition hurt roleplaying because you had a Feat for almost everything and as a result needed a Feat to do anything at all. 4e tried to unburden it; there were no roleplaying feats, and thus you didn't need a feat to be able to do anything. The mechanical parts of the rules focused on combat so people wouldn't force roleplay into a tiny box.

Case in point, the first 4e game I DMed was almost all roleplay. They were in town for a big festival, which was designed to introduce the local factions. The Lord Mayor of the next town dropped in looking for her favorite beer, one of the cultists from the mountains above town got drunk under the table, and someone got tired of the NPC bard playing emo music and accidentally wired his amp to explode (rolled a 1 on Arcana) when he took a restroom break. You wouldn't have that in a system designed completely for combat.
Ah.

I never really saw Skills as necessary for roleplaying.  Some augment some roleplaying situations, and others reflect a characters experiences in life that helped mold them.... but as pure RP tools, I just don't like them as a crutch.

Still not totally sure what he's asking for?  He wants feats and skills to determine how you roleplay?  I wouldn't like that myself.
Hey folks,

I agree that this is a better fit for D&D Next General Discussion so I'll be moving it over there.

Thanks,

Monica

Monica

Wizards of the Coast Online Community Coordinator

A friendly dragon.

Funny, but in comparison to 3.5 and 4E, I have seen a lot more roleplay, character development, and "slowing down to enjoy the flowers" in Next already.

And this is for playtest sessions with characters they know they aren't keeping.

I was hoping to read some well thought out, unbiased thoughts of someone who's given these playtest packets a real shot, not the angry rumblings of someone clearly with an axe to grind.




Same here
The time you spend enjoying the world mostly belongs in the lap of your GM. If he/she is just running combat encounters and not fleshing out the experience no system will fix that.

I however, do agree with having to spend a lot of time researching min/Max builds in 4e. I don't feel the same way in next with less hit points and a lower baseline I really don't feel I have to min/max anymore.
Huh, I played every edition of D&D and AD&D, and the assumptions you make of older editions are not very accurate at all.  You talk of how 3rd ed was suppossed to be streamlined version from 2nd ed.  You do realize you are way, way, way, off.  3rd ed, was to get rid of the 200 + books that was making up 2nd ed.  That was what they meant by streamlined. 

Example in 2ed, you wanted to play a melee charcter type.  Ok, you start with the PHB or Oriental Adventures to get a general calss, say a melee class.  Then you went to one of the varied Class handbooks.  Lets see, fighter handbook, ranger handbook, bard handbook, paladin handbook, druid handbook, or thief handbook.  Oh wait, you also had the complete gladiator handbook, Barbarian's handbook, and Ninja handbook.  Now, add in that every race had a handbook that contained some melee classes.  So complete book of Dwarves, Elves, gnomes and halflings, and humanoids to name a few. 

If that wasnt enough choices for your melee type, there was also certain realm books that contained choices as well.  The Forgotten Realms had one that was made up entirely of Holy Warriors for each of their gods.  

Now, once you finally picked one type of melee you wanted to play from a handbook, lets say we are playing close to the end of 2nd edition. So add in player combat and tactics book and player skill option book, just to add a little flair and way more rules to use. 

Those are just for melee class types to pick from.  Want to play a magic user?  I have 4 different wizard spell compendium books with small print to leaf through to pick spells, or 3 Preist compendium books. 

We still havent even touched magic items for your character yet either if jumping in at higher levels.  So flip through all 4 Encyclopedia of magic books, Arms and Equipment guide, Tome of magic, book of artifacts (if high level), and begin to pick a few items.  Again, consult certain realm books and class handbooks, as they contained items as well specific for a class or a realm.   

All the different books by the end was too much for anyone new to jump right in and play.  And keep in mind, I left out quite a few complete books, the stupid complete wizard and cleric spell card sets, and barely mentioned all the different realms stuff, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, GrayHawk, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Lankmar, and that be a dragon box set realm.  Which, each box set had extra classes, magic items, and rules in them. Let alone magic items from adventures and adventure box sets like Undermountain, Undermountain II, the rod of seven parts, return to tomb of horrors, temple of elemental evil, and such.  

You talk about how you now spend a few hours looking through forums for builds and character designs?  If you had a gaming group with all the books from 2nd ed, it could take days of researching books to come up with a character.  Heaven forbid you died at a higher level and had to create a new character at lvl 17.   3rd edition did streamline the game, but not the way you are trying to portray it.  It wasnt created to make combat and only combat streamlined.  It was created to get rid of the how many books made up 2nd ed.
So we combine an unnecessarily strident opinion with an unnecessarily combatative tone. Super helpful.

Is it really that hard to grasp that maybe some people prefer more combat? Or don't see combat/roleplaying as mutually exclusive? Why does it always have to be the case that the balance of factors you like just happens to be the perfect mix for everyone if only the peons would just see your enlightened ways?

More deeply, what is the point of this post? It's content/tone/length ensure that it will convince exactly no one of your opinion. At best it'll be written off as another bitter person, regardless of any validity in your point. At worst it'll just start arguments. Why even bother?
I stopped reading the OP at the point playing a game in which you pretend to be an elf was compared to ****.
Ahh... Yes. Let us all pretend to sit around a table and sip sweet mead, and then pretend that we thought that was a lot of fun, because everyone else is pretending to have fun too!
Let us dress in styrofoam armor bedeckered with garlands of duct tape and beat one another with live RPG weapons!
If you want to sip sweet mead, I suggest you go out to a real bar in your town. Not bearing your persona of a limber elf with high dexterity. Leave your lute and your robin hood hat at home. Please.
You seem to be longing for the D&D sessions of your childhood. But they will never come back. *sniff* never...  
At this point I wouldn't recomment dnd next either, not because I don't like it, but because its a massively incomplete playtest.  You wouldn't throw a newbie at something that is the the first 5 levels of 1/3 of a system.  While I think it is fine to say "I don't like this particular take on this rule" or "I think this is favoring a particular playstyle" etc, trying to judge Next at this point is like trying to judge a meal having only eaten the salad and the bread.

 
Because it's not worth getting into? WotC will just be planning 6E two months after the release of 5E.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Because it's not worth getting into? WotC will just be planning 6E two months after the release of 5E.


Because it's not worth getting into? WotC will just be planning 6E two months after the release of 5E.




I don't think that is really fair.   4th ed has been out for years now, there is a huge amount of material published for it, it is still being supported, and we are probably 1.5 to 2 years away from a finished new ruleset in hand.  I don't think that you can make a reasonable arguement that this is a money grab.

 
Because it's not worth getting into? WotC will just be planning 6E two months after the release of 5E.



No no. They will be planning D&D Next+ or D&D Next Basic/Advanced/Cake/Whatever. This will definitely not be a .5 edition, and definitely wont be essentials, nor will it 'change anything' nor coincidentally result in the downward spiral of the edition.
Because it's not worth getting into? WotC will just be planning 6E two months after the release of 5E.




I don't think that is really fair.   4th ed has been out for years now, there is a huge amount of material published for it, it is still being supported, and we are probably 1.5 to 2 years away from a finished new ruleset in hand.  I don't think that you can make a reasonable arguement that this is a money grab.

 



It's a very big stretch to say that 4E is still getting support. Any quality material stopped being published almost as soon as 5E was announced. This isn't the first time in the last decade that an edition or proto edition has been launched shortly after the most recent edition and it's pretty reasonable to assume that WotC has no intention of stopping.


I'll eat my words if 5E lasts more than four years after launch, but at this point I don't have a lot of faith in WotC anymore.    
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Because it's not worth getting into? WotC will just be planning 6E two months after the release of 5E.




I don't think that is really fair.   4th ed has been out for years now, there is a huge amount of material published for it, it is still being supported, and we are probably 1.5 to 2 years away from a finished new ruleset in hand.  I don't think that you can make a reasonable arguement that this is a money grab.

 



It's a very big stretch to say that 4E is still getting support. Any quality material stopped being published almost as soon as 5E was announced. This isn't the first time in the last decade that an edition or proto edition has been launched shortly after the most recent edition and it's pretty reasonable to assume that WotC has no intention of stopping.


I'll eat my words if 5E lasts more than four years after launch, but at this point I don't have a lot of faith in WotC anymore.    



I think they're putting a lot into this edition that will make it last.  They're really working hard at trying to create a game that increases player base; making sure everyone's happy.  I do not see a repeat of 4.0 then directly afterwards Essentials, and then them saying they're compatable, yet insisting no Encounter characters can be 4.0.  I don't see a repeat of 3.0 and 3.5 either.  They're putting too much thought and have too much feedback for huge broken mechanics like that.  Maybe a beginners and advanced, but that's fine.  Two different games.

So (and I'm hoping here) that they release this, do not work on fixing what players say are broken, but rather work on world building. 
Yeah sorry they won't come out with 6E first it'll be Next Plus and people will hail it as a new edition that's not actually a new edition.


Same old story. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Dragonette: I see you moved the thread. So there was a moderator. Good, I am not interested in fine tidbits of moderation. I am interested in why I see that this playtest is a scam. Because you are closed to oppinions that criticize drastic changes. You are the first who handled this part. So I think you are here as representative of the company who develops D&D who influences by your actions about how such feedback will be handled.

Lets see the original stated goal of the D&D Next. You wanted to get old players back to D&D. Players who had harsh enough oppinions about D&D 4 to call it "not D&D anymore", not RPG. When your company stated that I came here, told you how you should focus more on immersion. Got attacked, told them to stop such attacks, etc. you and your staff said it isn't allowed to ask people to stop being rude, or accusing them with being rude. And told me, that while the tone of that forum is there, I will have plenty of room to express the same idea on D&D Next playtest forum. So here I was.

I see that when someone were rude to me, and I asked them to stop, you said such things aren't allowed. How come others can accuse me of trolling, put things into my mouth, and insult me again? You do nothing. In fact you move the thread to the area where according to you and other such staff the same behavior is normal. Told you, I don't interested in your action as moderator. I treat you as I would treat any other Wizards employee. If you wouldn't have left any insults in here, if you wouldn't moved the thread here, the same questions would be asked. 

How does Hasbro want to get feedback from players who are clearly unhappy with your products to win them back if you let insults go, move their feedback from the place where the devs can actually answer the issues, etc. you won't get more feedback. Last time your response explained that on playtest forum it is safe to start with same points. Now you moved the thread from there, to another place, where it was known to result in insults and end up in flame war.

I ask this, as your past behaviour is one of the reasons why I feel your already decided on which way you go with 5th edition. You said that criticising these values ends up like this on general discussion and named the playtest forum, etc. as good place to discuss. 

Now ask yourself the question. If...

1st: We can't discuss it here, as it is natural to end up in flame war
2nd: If we say with the current core values we won't return we can't discuss in playtest area because you move the thread
3rd: It is pretty visible that core values of the system are set

How would we believe that Wizards intends to listen to our oppinions about core values, and intends to understand what we want from an RPG?

If we leave Wizards boards, huge amount of posts discuss how bad Wizards is, yet here it isn't visible. But whenever anyone comes here: Here it is natural to get flamed. If the oppinion is brought up elsewhere you move it here. Essentialy silence such oppinions. 

Before you say we can't discuss moderation here and go to tickets. Too bad that some tickets you don't answer. Too bad the issue isn't about moderation. Moderation is enforcing rules. When saying the others are offensive / trolling is either allowed or disallowed but you enforce the rule equally that is moderation.

When you lie about when and how things will be handled, let others flamed, move stuff to places where there will be more personal attacks to silence oppinions that are known everywhere else, to manipulate the appaerance of player oppinion... That is another job. Sorry for the strong word, but whoever makes sure that others are jumped on and gets more insults is best called an ****, because her job is to hurt others. No nice, kind word for this. I don't care about this move. You do your job as wizards forum team, probably as your superiors state, and that is why you would have to tell me: "Go to tickets where you will be ignored", so no way to change your mind, reverse your decisions. And even if you would do I already seen offensive comments.

My question is: As a Wizards representetaive, as part of their team that manages playtest and everything how do you think to get feedback from people who seemingly have even more negative oppinion than me, when they see negative oppinion end up like this? 

Because no way remains. Polls don't scratch the issue. You don't reply to tickets. You move stuff out from playtest area. And you stated forums outside of players area will get to this state and not intented for the devs to react to them?

Can I hear your next corporate lie about it?

Or care to explain how do you expect to listen to such negative oppinions about core values with D&D if you handle them? 

Sorry girl, but to make people decide to leave a game complettely, with their characters, campaigns, plans, goals, etc. you need more than disagreement on "how many hps do I have" for that kind of mass exodus you need fundamental differences in what we see as key to fun, and so far you failed to react to discussing such differences. 

And yes: You know well, why it depends on you more than on Mike Mearls. How D&D Next will work depend a lot on if Wizards manages to understand where the drastic big differences that made people leave. If you silence people who voice their problems nothing the dev team can do about it. While I had serious doubts if they plan to do it, now you made sure they won't. So here you aren't a moderator. You aren't the girl who moves threads to make sure people who don't like Wizards way to go has to deal with more insults. You are the part of the development process that makes game bad.  
I agree with the very core statement of the original poster. I wouldn't recommend D&DNext, at this time, to a new player.

My reasoning is entirely different. D&DNext isn't a finished game, designed for your enjoyment. Instead, it's a playtest, in a raw alpha/beta format, designed to provoke thoughtful comment from gamers about what works and what doesn't. I'm not saying that you, the new player, can't or shouldn't contribute to the discussion. But that's what it is - grounds for a discussion, not a game in and of itself.

If you're just looking to discover gaming and have a great time, you might want to look into one of the 5 editions of D&D that have been fully completed (inclucing BECMI in that count), Gamma World, GURPS, Dresden Files, Fate, Marvel, Mutants and Masterminds, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Serenity, World of Darkness, Mouseguard, Pathfinder, Fiasco...you get the idea.
To the Op.,
I am very sorry that you feel so negatively about the prospect of the future of the D&D Next game. I actually can feel the disappointment in your post. But I also detect a large ammount of what we body builders call "Bro science" which means- opinions your fellows believe are true that go unproven and are not worth putting down the weights to learn. This interupts your experience and steers you away from tried and true methods that build rock hard muscle. I.E. (play testing the game) Then you end up tired and frustrated with a negative mindset toward your chosen hobby, and the person you listened to in the first place (That's you pal) You finally end up raging up and smashing the gym mirror and walking out (rage quiting)wanting to choke your buddy who led you into the negative thinking and ruined your experience with something that you love. (The game) Then the guy that's witnessing all this blames your behavior on Steroids ( You are being part of the problem and inforcing negative thinking about the game and the playtesting process). I'm sorry for the non game related terms in my post but I think you get the picture.
  I would advise you to get to play testing and spend your energy developing the game rather than ranting.You can help change the course of the game rather than become fodder for others by attracting negative attention.
  To the others who are reading the post and getting hot under the collar Id say, don't expend your energy on trying to change this persons mind. Just leave the thread unanswered. Lets go play D&D!
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed by the Community leads to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.