I was going to add this text to another topic I created, but I thought maybe keeping things separated would be best. While I want to make a more detailed text about this subject in a blog or something, I've been having trouble finding time to so, and decided that I should make a more informal and perhaps more focused post here on the forums instead .
These are the things I'll try to focus on - briefly describe my playtest experience, my current situation, and my struggle to keep invested in the playtest.
---
Initial playtest experience
First, some background info. I've been introduced to Dungeons & Dragons almost 13-14 years ago, in AD&D. I briefly played that system, and then went on to play a long running D&D 3 campaign for many years. I migrated to 4e when it launched and have been playing that ever since. I have experience with other RPGs as well, but I don't think I need to extend into that.
I live in Brazil, and currenty, I'm not "home". I'm away from my home city for a while, and so, my two "main RPG groups" where I live have been on hold. I DM 4e campaigns for both these groups.
One of those groups is composed of longtime friends of mine. A group of five people, I have one with extensive experience with 3e, two others with less experience with it, and two whose first D&D was 4e. They all prefer 4th edition D&D. I'll call this the "newbie group", even though this doesn't accurately describe the experience of half of its players.
The other group is composed of veteran D&D players - "grognards", if you will. They all have extensive experiece with 2e and 3e, and some go back to 1e. They all currently play 4e and also have this as their preferred edition. I'll call this the "grognard group".
When the first packet arrived, only the "newbies" group were interested enough in playing it. The "grognards" have little time to play, and they decided Next wasn't interesting enough to warrant game time. After playing for a couple of sessions, they got severely disappointed with the game and did not want to play Next anymore. To them, the game was too "retro" for their tastes.
Shortly after that, I needed to move away from my city because of my studies. My campaigns went "on hold", and so did my playtest experience. I thought I would drop off the playtest, since I could no longer find people to play with.
---
A new group and further playtesting
However, contrary to my expectations, I found a new group to play here in my current location . After I provided some options about what systems I was willing to DM, the group chose to playtest D&D Next.
This group is also composed of five people. One is totally new to RPGs. One has extensive experience with White Wolf's World of Darkness. Two have experience with 3e and a bit of o 4e. One is an avid AD&D enthusiast who thought 3e "so, so" and shunned everything 4e. I'll call this the "foreign group".
After we settled on the system, I began using the second package to again DM the "Caves of Chaos". This group has a more mixed reaction to the system. The "newbie" is having a blast, and so is the White Wolf guy. The two "3e players" are somewhat "lukewarm" about the system itself. The AD&D is constantly upset by anything that differs from AD&D. At-will spells, maneuvers, hit points, everything aggravates his "sense of D&D".
However, despite the issues with the system, this group appears to be having a lot o fun with the game itself. We're usually mocking up design decisions made by the game, but in the end we're at least always laughing . The "demigod like" DC 25 for example effectively became a meme in this group. When any of them roll in the high teens and manage to beat the DC, we're often shouting "DEMIGOD!" with our best capcom videogame narrator voices .
I've recently converted the characters (and the adventure) to the latest package, and unless Wizards release something new, I guess this will be what we will be playing until december, when I go back to my home city.
---
Future playtesting and the DM's experience
Next month, I'll be coming home, to "newbie group" and "grognard group". From what I have gathered, none are interested in playing D&D Next, and the new packets didn't do anything to please them and lure them back.
My main concern is that I won't be able to DM this game anymore. DMing it has been very efficient in letting me better understand its weaknesses and strengths, and its sad that the system has not sparked any interest in my main groups. In fact, I have been thinking about leaving the playtest for a long while now.
As a DM, Next does not appeal to me as well. I've kept DMing it despite my dislike for its design mainly because I think experiencing the game is important to feedback. I've got to say that even though I disagree with mr. Mearls in more that once design stance, his frequent "thank you guys for playtesting this" have managed to help me keep invested in playtesting the game - even though its been such a chore to me, personally. :P
It hasn't been a "fun" process. Of course, I still get to enjoy the creativity of my players and being around friends, but this is in spite of the system, and not because of it. In fact, the most "depressing" moments in the game is when we realise something is not working or is against our "sense of D&D". The math, in general, is a great problem that can be often easily perceived in actual play. And personnaly, many design directions are against what I like in D&D.
Overall, D&D Next has been moving steadly away from what I think is the best Dungeons & Dragons experience. The latest packet improved in some ways over the last one, but got worse in many other areas as well (all in my opinion, of course). Right now, I have little hope of D&D Next ever achieving the playstyle I prefer - though I still have some hope left.
At least, there are many people who are apparently excited by the playtest - a good thing in my view. Even if D&D Next does not become the system I like, its success is vital to the continuation of the Dungeons & Dragons RPG.
I do not know if I'll be able to keep DMing after I go back home, but hopefully, D&D Next will eventually appeal to me and 4th edition players .
Well, time will tell. There are still a couple of weeks of D&D Next before I get back! :D
I am sad that it has been a chore for you. That's unfortunate. I love the DEMIGOD meme. That is hilarious. I might start stealing it for my group. But, I can see how it could be a drag to DM for people who aren't interested. Do you have any examples of the system being anti-d&d or anti-fun? Do you pass it on in the surveys?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Yeah. It is difficult to please everyone, but I am sure they are doing their best to try. Next/5E isn't very much like 4E, though there are certainly elements of 4E that have influenced Next that can be seen in this version.
It *is* important to give good feedback, though, in hopes that it might become more what you and yours enjoy. Saying not fun or not what you like in D&D isn't specific enough so give them best insights and see what happens. You might shine some light on something they haven't considered or add to the voices that call for changes that they are obviously heeding.
Ironically, as a DM, I find the experience to be quite the opposite. It's far from a chore for me... if anything, it's almost too easy in comparison to the process I go through running my regular 4E campaigns. I am curious to hear where you are finding it bogging you down or challenging your ability to narrate or adjudicate the rules.
At any rate, make sure you give a good report on what's bothering you and your players.... It all contributes to the future.
You're both absolutely certain about your hints . I tried to avoid giving specific feedback here because this isn't much about my opinions but more about describing how the process has been like for me and my players .
You can be certain that when I answer the surveys, I create lengthy texts about the points that I find more important. I always keep in mind that my opininions are also just my personal preferences, and not every preference of mine should be heeded in the most "basic version of D&D", which is what we're aiming right now in these initial playtests .
Since you've shown curiosity, I'll oblige with a more elaborate answer to some of your questions. Keep in mind these are personal preferences - and in some cases, not things I would wish to see universally applied to the entirety of the D&D game.
Do you have any examples of the system being anti-d&d or anti-fun? Do you pass it on in the surveys?
I sure pass it on in the surveys . I tend to create lenghty texts in the surveys as well - sometimes, the options provided are not enough to acurately describe my experience or my wishes.
I wouldn't call any of the examples of "bad experience" I had with the sytem "anti-D&D" or "anti-fun" - seems too strong a wording. I would rather state that sometimes, the system is not able to be the Dungeons & Dragons I like, or not fun for me. .
I can highlight some personal experiences with the system who rubbed me the wrong way:
*In the first fight my "newbie group" had rolled badly, while I rolled good. After the fight, they had spent most of their resources, and the cleric was down. Since they had no meaning to "heal" him, they had to wait for him to "wake up" naturally to begin a "Long Rest". In game, they've waited for 17 hours before continuing with the adventure. In D&D 4th, this wouldn't have happened.
*The DCs are too low, and disbelief can easily set in when the 20 Dexterity elf is constantly achieving "demigod-like" skill checks...
*The fights are a too boring to my tastes. Fighters are often using the same maneuvers over and over (and they have few of them to begin with), while low-level spellcasters are often trying to save their spells and resorting to the same tactics over and over. Combats in 4e tend to have more variety of tactical choices.
*Monsters are just as "boring", in may cases. Some are even too overpowered to my tastes. Goblins that can make stealth checks after they move in a system where spotting such goblins takes an entire turn are simply too good. On the other hand, monster attacks are so low that hitting the PCs can be a rare thing. In one recent fight against five orcs, they've mostly spent their turns missing the PCs . As I have said, the math is too wonky, and this makes things bad across the board.
And of course, these are personal experiences with the game - which may not represent other playtesters at all. There are also personal preferences at play. I dislike the comeback of vancian magic, dislike classes not sharing the same "management system", dislike the design idea of balancing the encounters in a "daily" unit rather than in an "encounter" unit, etc, etc.
As I have said, these are my personal preferences. I know many people have entirely opposite view in some of these things . In many ways, I think that my personal preferences should not be contemplated if this makes the game worse for the majority of D&D players out there - the "basic" version of D&D Next should appeal to most of the Dungeons & Dragons playerbase, and if I happen to be in the minority, then so be it - Next must be the best version of D&D if this brand is to survive and thrive.
But such personal preferences are what makes the Next edition so far off the mark the D&D I and most of my players enjoy. I'll be happy if Next is a sucessful edition, but evidently, I won't play it if it is not good enough for me. I hope my feedback can help the game become better, but playing these packages who are so distant from what I think is the best Dungeons & Dragons experience is much more akin to work than fun for me .
Ironically, as a DM, I find the experience to be quite the opposite. It's far from a chore for me... if anything, it's almost too easy in comparison to the process I go through running my regular 4E campaigns. I am curious to hear where you are finding it bogging you down or challenging your ability to narrate or adjudicate the rules.
Hey, more power to you! ^^ I'm glad you're enjoying the experience .
As I said to YouKnowTheOneGuy, many of my experiences are perceived as negative because of my preferences. Some like a more "chaotic" take in combat. I don't. Some like vancian magic. I don't. Some like simple fighters. I don't. And so on... Overall then, its pretty easy to see why I do not like the experiences provided by Next so far .
I would also say that the game is not exactly hard to DM - in many aspects, its is probably as easy as 4th (or even easier). But to my mind, it simply does not work in the way I like D&D to work .
For example, battle tend to see very tactically "bland". Fighters have a couple of maneuvers, and keep using them round after round. Spellcasters save their spells, and keep using the same at-will spells or attacks over and over in most combats... Monsters are run mostly in the same way, and there's little variety in each given "species". That's different from the D&D combat I like, with many possible tactical options.
While I have been using the Caves of Chaos modules, the "difficulty guidelines" suggested don't seem to work as well... Recently, my players mowed through a pack of hobgoblins. I didn't give much thought to the encounter's suggested difficulty, but was curious enought that I decided to check later what "difficulty" value the system would suggest for that particular encounter with 12 hobgoblins. After reading the guidelines, the number of creatures involved would suggest a "tough" encounter - but the encounter in fact was pretty easy and straightforward :P.
These mathematical problems appear in many other areas as well: DCs are too low for the heroic PCs. The HP too low in the first level. Etc, etc.
To top it off, my battles in D&D Next have not been significantly faster than in 4th :P. This may be a consequence of the Caves of Chaos module, where the PCs can often face a high number of creatures as the dungeon is designed to "move in" on the PCs, but even some of the more even battles (with five creatures) sometimes become a festival of misses and near kills. Overall, my battles have been taking nearly as much time as my 4th edition battles (around 45, 50 minutes to one hour), but have been portraying a much lesser variety of tactical options :P.
So, as a DM, my experience has not been so great. While the ability to adjucate and narrate the game is not necessarily impaired (though I did find some difficulty in adjucating DCs on the fly in D&D Next), many of its design choices or mathematical problems interfere with my ability to enjoy the game itself.
Again, this is merely me. I'm sure a lot of people are having a blast . In fact, I do find some degree of fun DMing the game, otherwise, I wouldn't be capable of DMing it. However, as I said, whatever degree of fun I manage to find is not derived from the system itself, and more often, can be actually in spite of it. For example, the aforementioned "DEMIGOD" meme is a result of bad math in the DCs, but has been a reliable source of humor to me. We often laugh very hard whenever one of the PCs manage to attain a "DEMIGOD" check! As a DM, one of the most enjoyable things I like about RPGs is watching the players concot their plans and strategies, and interact with one another. The "foreign group" is a very diverse and easygoing bunch, and while I can be very aggravated by the AD&D grognard when he goes in one of his "hate 4e rampages", it is still loads of fun to see them play.
I find myself craving for my D&D 4 campaigns though, where I can enjoy the system as much as I enjoy the players .
At any rate, I haven't given up on Next yet. I don't think my "newbie" and "grognard" groups will want to play it, but at least I'll keep reading and providing feedback in what aspects we would like to see in the game. There are a lot of "promises" by the designers which I'm putting a little faith - the "tactical module", a truly "modular spell system", these are things that could appeal to me. Maybe Next will become a system I can like! Who knows?
I for one really wish you would stick around. My experiences are the opposite of yours but I appreciate that you are posting well reasoned non-vitrolic feedback. The General Discussion forum is so toxic and so dense with non-playtested opinions at times it makes me sad. We need more dissenting voices like yours, ie honest, straightforward and not bitter.
Hah, I'll do my best Hollbk01. I try to keep level-headed, but we have good days and bad days, hahaha. I agree with you though - if people were more intent in providing feedback rather than complaining, these forums would be much easier to read.
Yeah. I don't think this initial set, core rules, to 5E will be much like 4E at all. The complexity, tactical dynamics, and attention to a structured balance that comes with 4E isn't there. I rather expect there to be supplements after release that'll offer options that might also include a more 4E-like uniform class format, but we won't know for sure until the time comes.
It rather shocks me at the length of your battles, though. I honestly can't imagine how you get to so long a time span unless there's simple confusion on the rules with breaks to look up various features. A 15 minute battle is a long one for us. By far, most of our time is spent roleplaying with NPCs, exploring the world, and in-group discussions (not counting the OOC time sinks which are part of the fun). It's been a huge departure for us where we went from about 80% of our 4E time spent in encounters to literally the opposite with Next.
It might be insightful to hear what's causing the snags in your groups as I believe more fluid, less time consuming combat is one of the goals of 5E.
Thanks for the feedback; hearing from all sides is very important. I have to agree with ShadeRaven on the length of combats. Despite how the Expertise dice have made the rolling and the math a little bit more complicated, my players thought combat went more quickly than 4E or 3.5E. Of course, there are less options and for those used to having cool special abilities to use in combat (ala 4E) well, there's less of that available. I ran a group of 4 LV3 characters using the tried and true Caves of Chaos. We had used the LV1 characters on the first play-test packet so wanted to explore higher level characters. We also opted to use a grid and miniature (because we like them) and I have a digital projector which I use to project a to-scale map down onto the table. It's pretty cool; I highly recommend it to any who like miniatures. You can also project images of monsters, locations, world maps, etc, etc. Very handly if you can afford it. In any event the point I'm trying to make is that our combats went pretty quickly. The Expertise dice added in a little more math and slowed it down a little bit but overall, I'd say that it made combat only take about 10% more time. The players tend to try to play smart, using reconnaissance & the layout of halls, doorways & such to get a tactical advantage whenever possible. Of course, things don't always go as they plan. They got surrounded at one point in the Hobgoblin lair and took a few good hits, especially from the Hobgoblin leader.
All that being said, I'm not a fan of the Expertise Dice. It seems to be a mechanic copied from other games such as old World of Darkness (where you used multiple d10s) or Marvel Superheroes where you build a dice pool and tally the results. This is dice pool is different as you have a base d20 and add to that. But I'm not a fan: I'd prefer either a static bonus, throw in Advantage at points, grant a situational bonus, etc. The Expertise Dice just seen to be an unnecessary complication that can be handled better in other ways.... such as set bonuses that are incorporated into Fighter and Rogue builds rather than making it random dice additions.
There are no confusion about the rules at all ShadeRaven, or at least, we haven't been breaking things too look up the rules very often.
I think a significant factor in the duration of these battles is still player response time. Although there are less strategic options available, there are many decision points that remain the same - should I heal? Should I defend? Should I advance and attack? Should I try to help the cleric? Should I try to help the wizard? Both "newbie" and "foreign" groups lean towards taking some time making their decisions.
"Newbie" group, which has been playing campaings with me for most of their lives know that I'm not particularly fond o the time they take between their turns. I've tried to accelerate battle (using timers, forced delay, etc, etc), but eventually come to the conclusion that they enjoy having time to make their decisions. I'm the one who wants faster combats - they, not so much. So, while I try to keep their turns as fast as possible (2, 3 minutes per player tops), I no longer force speedy response from them.
The "single action" design didn't help much either. Players are still spending their time weighing different options - where should they move to, whether they should spent resource X or Y, etc, etc. Overall, they're taking a similar time to resolve their turns as they did in 4th.
However, I must point out that a factor that weighs more heavily in the duration of the battles are the size and abilities of the opposing force. Encounters in the Caves of Chaos can easily turn into battles of 10+ adversaries, as patrolling forces and reinforcements join the initial group. Its no wonder such fights take a little more time. And when adversaries have abilites such as the goblins "stealth", or the orcs "endurance" (don't remember what the orc special ability is actually called :P), fights can drag on... In "foreign" group, one of the fights was a mere "5 orcs vs 5 PCs", but it took most of our session just to resolve that single fight, because the orcs didn't die when they reached 0 hit points and the PCs were often weighing their different tactical options the battle conditions and the terrain provided.
So, overall, combat hasn't been particularly fast. They tend to be a bit faster than the ones in 4e, and some can end very rapidly, if the dice gods are feeling happy in that day, but neither me and my players are noticing a significant boost of speed in this aspect of the game. We do miss more tactical options however, to a lesser or greater degree depending on the group.
In the greater scheme of things, I don't think combat length in these groups ("newbie" and "foreign") has much to do with the rules themselves, but more to do with the players and their pacing. In "foreign" group, we have little dice to spare, and this certainly helps add lag to the battle. As I have said, although battles have been taking as long as D&D 4, most of the times, they are involve a much larger force. I would also say that the "single action" design didn't help both of these groups make their decisions faster than they already making.
---
To sum it up, these are what I think are the cause of the long durations in my games:
*Players still take as much time as they did making their decisions. Even though there are less tactical options available (compared to 3e or 4e), terrain tactics and battle conditions remain important factors in the decision making process.
*In the adventure I'm DMing, the opposing force tends to get reinforced, often leading to encounters with a large number of foes.
*Some monster abilites help combat lag. Goblin "stealth" and orc "endurance" are some examples. Overall, whenever a creature has easy access to "advantage", the number of rolls per creature can easily double...
*Math is wonky. Monsters often spend various turns missing PCs. PCs can have a bad streak and miss monsters. Damage may not be enough to down monsters in one hit. A combination of bad rolls can easily add a couple of turn to a battle.
Evidently, YMMV... Since people have been often praising D&D Next's speed of combat, I take this to be a local problem with either me or my players and leave it at that. I cannot state however that these battles have been generally "fast" on my games :P.
You're both absolutely certain about your hints . I tried to avoid giving specific feedback here because this isn't much about my opinions but more about describing how the process has been like for me and my players .
You can be certain that when I answer the surveys, I create lengthy texts about the points that I find more important. I always keep in mind that my opininions are also just my personal preferences, and not every preference of mine should be heeded in the most "basic version of D&D", which is what we're aiming right now in these initial playtests .
Since you've shown curiosity, I'll oblige with a more elaborate answer to some of your questions. Keep in mind these are personal preferences - and in some cases, not things I would wish to see universally applied to the entirety of the D&D game.
Do you have any examples of the system being anti-d&d or anti-fun? Do you pass it on in the surveys?
I sure pass it on in the surveys . I tend to create lenghty texts in the surveys as well - sometimes, the options provided are not enough to acurately describe my experience or my wishes.
I wouldn't call any of the examples of "bad experience" I had with the sytem "anti-D&D" or "anti-fun" - seems too strong a wording. I would rather state that sometimes, the system is not able to be the Dungeons & Dragons I like, or not fun for me. .
I can highlight some personal experiences with the system who rubbed me the wrong way:
*In the first fight my "newbie group" had rolled badly, while I rolled good. After the fight, they had spent most of their resources, and the cleric was down. Since they had no meaning to "heal" him, they had to wait for him to "wake up" naturally to begin a "Long Rest". In game, they've waited for 17 hours before continuing with the adventure. In D&D 4th, this wouldn't have happened.
*The DCs are too low, and disbelief can easily set in when the 20 Dexterity elf is constantly achieving "demigod-like" skill checks...
*The fights are a too boring to my tastes. Fighters are often using the same maneuvers over and over (and they have few of them to begin with), while low-level spellcasters are often trying to save their spells and resorting to the same tactics over and over. Combats in 4e tend to have more variety of tactical choices.
*Monsters are just as "boring", in may cases. Some are even too overpowered to my tastes. Goblins that can make stealth checks after they move in a system where spotting such goblins takes an entire turn are simply too good. On the other hand, monster attacks are so low that hitting the PCs can be a rare thing. In one recent fight against five orcs, they've mostly spent their turns missing the PCs . As I have said, the math is too wonky, and this makes things bad across the board.
And of course, these are personal experiences with the game - which may not represent other playtesters at all. There are also personal preferences at play. I dislike the comeback of vancian magic, dislike classes not sharing the same "management system", dislike the design idea of balancing the encounters in a "daily" unit rather than in an "encounter" unit, etc, etc.
As I have said, these are my personal preferences. I know many people have entirely opposite view in some of these things . In many ways, I think that my personal preferences should not be contemplated if this makes the game worse for the majority of D&D players out there - the "basic" version of D&D Next should appeal to most of the Dungeons & Dragons playerbase, and if I happen to be in the minority, then so be it - Next must be the best version of D&D if this brand is to survive and thrive.
But such personal preferences are what makes the Next edition so far off the mark the D&D I and most of my players enjoy. I'll be happy if Next is a sucessful edition, but evidently, I won't play it if it is not good enough for me. I hope my feedback can help the game become better, but playing these packages who are so distant from what I think is the best Dungeons & Dragons experience is much more akin to work than fun for me .
Ironically, as a DM, I find the experience to be quite the opposite. It's far from a chore for me... if anything, it's almost too easy in comparison to the process I go through running my regular 4E campaigns. I am curious to hear where you are finding it bogging you down or challenging your ability to narrate or adjudicate the rules.
Hey, more power to you! ^^ I'm glad you're enjoying the experience .
As I said to YouKnowTheOneGuy, many of my experiences are perceived as negative because of my preferences. Some like a more "chaotic" take in combat. I don't. Some like vancian magic. I don't. Some like simple fighters. I don't. And so on... Overall then, its pretty easy to see why I do not like the experiences provided by Next so far .
I would also say that the game is not exactly hard to DM - in many aspects, its is probably as easy as 4th (or even easier). But to my mind, it simply does not work in the way I like D&D to work .
For example, battle tend to see very tactically "bland". Fighters have a couple of maneuvers, and keep using them round after round. Spellcasters save their spells, and keep using the same at-will spells or attacks over and over in most combats... Monsters are run mostly in the same way, and there's little variety in each given "species". That's different from the D&D combat I like, with many possible tactical options.
While I have been using the Caves of Chaos modules, the "difficulty guidelines" suggested don't seem to work as well... Recently, my players mowed through a pack of hobgoblins. I didn't give much thought to the encounter's suggested difficulty, but was curious enought that I decided to check later what "difficulty" value the system would suggest for that particular encounter with 12 hobgoblins. After reading the guidelines, the number of creatures involved would suggest a "tough" encounter - but the encounter in fact was pretty easy and straightforward :P.
These mathematical problems appear in many other areas as well: DCs are too low for the heroic PCs. The HP too low in the first level. Etc, etc.
To top it off, my battles in D&D Next have not been significantly faster than in 4th :P. This may be a consequence of the Caves of Chaos module, where the PCs can often face a high number of creatures as the dungeon is designed to "move in" on the PCs, but even some of the more even battles (with five creatures) sometimes become a festival of misses and near kills. Overall, my battles have been taking nearly as much time as my 4th edition battles (around 45, 50 minutes to one hour), but have been portraying a much lesser variety of tactical options :P.
So, as a DM, my experience has not been so great. While the ability to adjucate and narrate the game is not necessarily impaired (though I did find some difficulty in adjucating DCs on the fly in D&D Next), many of its design choices or mathematical problems interfere with my ability to enjoy the game itself.
Again, this is merely me. I'm sure a lot of people are having a blast . In fact, I do find some degree of fun DMing the game, otherwise, I wouldn't be capable of DMing it. However, as I said, whatever degree of fun I manage to find is not derived from the system itself, and more often, can be actually in spite of it. For example, the aforementioned "DEMIGOD" meme is a result of bad math in the DCs, but has been a reliable source of humor to me. We often laugh very hard whenever one of the PCs manage to attain a "DEMIGOD" check! As a DM, one of the most enjoyable things I like about RPGs is watching the players concot their plans and strategies, and interact with one another. The "foreign group" is a very diverse and easygoing bunch, and while I can be very aggravated by the AD&D grognard when he goes in one of his "hate 4e rampages", it is still loads of fun to see them play.
I find myself craving for my D&D 4 campaigns though, where I can enjoy the system as much as I enjoy the players .
At any rate, I haven't given up on Next yet. I don't think my "newbie" and "grognard" groups will want to play it, but at least I'll keep reading and providing feedback in what aspects we would like to see in the game. There are a lot of "promises" by the designers which I'm putting a little faith - the "tactical module", a truly "modular spell system", these are things that could appeal to me. Maybe Next will become a system I can like! Who knows?
I really wish that you choose to carry on playesting and giving feedback! Mostly because your review has given voice to my thought on D&D next...and your english is much better than mine!
If we want to hold some hope of progress we'll nedd you!
.
