|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 3:17PM
#51
|
|
|
My responce to this is....duh.
This is how game design works. The designers build it we work out the bugs through testing. High level design in a public setting doesn't work. We're there to tell them the layout of the character sheet could be better or this rule isn't clearly worded. Not to decide whether or not to bring back vancian spell casting or to drop the use of NAD's and healing surges.
That's not the stated goals from the get go: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
Now I'm not so naive to think that was going to work, but they said that was their intention to get feedback from the D&D community - not just "a few playtesters and bloggers"
Whatever the case, I think they could at least share the information that went out during the playtest at DDXP.
I have never worked as a game designer, but I have as a graphic designer. Although part of your job is to get the client want he wants, the other part is to convince him that what he wants is one of the designs you presented to him. I remember when a restaurant was opening in the area a design firm, that I never worked for, was hired to help establish an identity for the restaurant. Basically they changed everything, the name, the menus, the dinner plates and silverware, everything. They came in with their own vision; their job was to convince the owners that their vision was the only correct one. In some ways this is one of the main reasons 4e wasn’t as successful as it could have been, the design and publicity (mainly publicity) crew simply failed to show that 4e’s vision was the only correct choice. It’s imperative that 5e doesn’t make that mistake, if there is anyway that a reasonable person, can prefer 4e over 5e, then they need to keep working on it until they get to the play-test phase. As for unreasonable fans of any addition in this so-called war, well nothing would really convince them anyways. Even if 5e was a fantastic game that also washed your car, and made sandwiches, they would find some minor fault with it. By the way, so far I believe everyone here is being cautious not unreasonable for now, but that may change in the spring.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 02, 2012 - 3:53PM
#52
|
|
|
That's not the stated goals from the get go: www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
Now I'm not so naive to think that was going to work, but they said that was their intention to get feedback from the D&D community - not just "a few playtesters and bloggers"
Whatever the case, I think they could at least share the information that went out during the playtest at DDXP.
And they're sticking to their stated goals. Those bloggers and playtesters are also not deciding high level design they're giving feedback on the systems they saw, they're not going to scrap those systems based on feedback at most they'll number tweek. The general D&D playing public will get their chance to contribute their opinions and feedback later in the process when we're closer to a finished product. About the only thing the devs took from players into their initial design meetings would have been the poll results from the L&L blog posts so they could figure out what people from each edition really wanted in their games and to design something for them. We aren't going to be given a choice as to whats designed towards our playstyle in a high level concept phase of design. We're going to give them feedback on the designs they present to us.
Like Monte wrote in his most recent L&L article they seem to have a grasp on whats important to players of each edition and they're going to deisgn modules for those people. We're going to give feeback on those modules as they are presented to us not decide what those modules should be.
TLDR: Playtesters polish designs not create them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 1:38PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2002
|
Yes, drop the NDA nonsense already. I'm also quite tired of the very vague teaser articles that don't tell us a damn thing. Let's get the "open" playtest going.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 11:20PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2012
|
Yes, drop the NDA nonsense already. I'm also quite tired of the very vague teaser articles that don't tell us a damn thing. Let's get the "open" playtest going.
This. I'd check these fora more often, but so far there's been nothing substantial and I don't see much point in over speculation. Could you guys hurry it up? 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 7:39AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2004
|
I mentioned this idea elsewhere and got blasted for wanting to "violate" my NDA. Which is silly; if my word meant nothing I could violate my NDA. What I want is to be able to share without violating my NDA.
But I digress. I think Wizards would do well to drop the NDA and post the character sheets because I believe the goodwill it would create would outweight the frenzied fearful posting it might create.
Wizards might be seen as a big faceless corp doling out drips and dripples of the new game to hype it. If they surprised everyone by lifting the lid on the NDA I think they would create a positive shock almost as big as when they revealed they were working on the next edition (not that people didn't expect them to be working on it, but that they admitted they were working on it).
Still seems like opening up D&D Experience would be a great PR move.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 10:05AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2001
|
Meh. I tried.
If all you folks want is cynicism and paranoia, then suit yourself.
After the last several years of seeing how DND has been handled, I call it realism myself.
-Polaris
Yeah, I'm in this boat. More and more this "open playtest" just feels like they are blowing smoke. I coming to the conclusion that we the players are really only going to be helping them reduce some of the initial errata, and that we really had no input from the start into any of the high level requirements for the game.
I agree with both you and Polaris. WotC has history od having playtests but not fixing the problems due to publishing due dates. They need to open the NDAs and move playtesting forward to actually make 5th playable. However I don't see it happening.
Sergent at arms of the house of trolls.
Est Solarus oth Mithas
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 10:10AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2010
|
April will be here soon enough. Then we all get to see it/play it. We're talking 10 weeks of keeping it under wraps. That seems reasonable.
I think NDA is good so we as a community can focus on looking back and saying what we want to see rather than quibbling about new mechanics which might be gone from design in a month.
Count the Classes Thread
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/28900673/?sdb=1&post_num=1#516010531
|
|
|
