Dungeons & Dragons 5e playtests

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My players are happy if they want say a +1 sword and I give them a masterwork hammer. Cause at least its a weapon.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

My players are happy if the notes for the campaigns I'm running say anything other than "Rocks fall, everyone dies".

[DarkDrgon]

Thats one of the things I don't like about 4th ed. I only did a couple of one shots with it, and hated how it felt like I had to cater everything to my players, as opposed to building a coherent world and throwing them into it

[Meister]

Like I said before, either here or elsewhere: 4E doesn't provide rules to create a world, 4E provides rules for a select group of individuals to interact with a world. If the worldbuilding is your thing, it's not surprising you didn't like it, it's just not meant to do it.

I've spotted an interesting incongruent argument about Next. According to some people:
When 4E gives a character a list of distinct combat options, you can't ever go beyond that list.
When Next gives a character a list of distinct combat options that is more limited than 4E's, it's actively asking you to come up with your own options beyond the list.
And I'm just wondering how this can be a thing one can earnestly believe.

[Ryong]

Originally Posted by Meister

I've spotted an interesting incongruent argument about Next. According to some people:
When 4E gives a character a list of distinct combat options, you can't ever go beyond that list.
When Next gives a character a list of distinct combat options that is more limited than 4E's, it's actively asking you to come up with your own options beyond the list.
And I'm just wondering how this can be a thing one can earnestly believe.

Oh fuck, I'm seeing that so much.

A friend of mine is arguing that the new fighter is better than 4E fighter because he has all these weapons to use and can, say, switch to a bow without trouble!

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Ryong

Oh fuck, I'm seeing that so much.

A friend of mine is arguing that the new fighter is better than 4E fighter because he has all these weapons to use and can, say, switch to a bow without trouble!

This... sounds exactly like the "new toy" syndrome: something is better than something else because it's new, and thus it must be better. The actual justifications vary widely, but often enough, that's what it seems to boil down to.

I've been more than guilty of this in the past (and am still susceptible to it on occasion): it's a really easy thing to do when you're excited about something new. Still, it's a fallacy, and it can be really grating to those who aren't as taken with something as you are.

Things that do give me hope, however (from a discussion on Nerdy Show forums; it should be noted that Max is a pretty big fan of 4E):

Originally Posted by Max from Nerdyshow Forums

I saw Mike Mearls just tweeted this evening that the best part of modular rules is that you can ramp up the parts you like but they aren’t forcing anything on anyone, which makes me think we haven’t seen all there will be to see from this edition yet.

and

Originally Posted by Max from Nerdyshow Forum

The first feedback submission is supposed to come out today. They’re also soliciting requests for at least what other kinds of characters people want to see come the next playtest. That gives me hope that what we’re seeing here isn’t necessarily going to be a “here’s our finished product, tell us how much you like it” type scenario (though the experiences of everyone who was around for the 4E playtest sounds like that’s how that one played out).

This could be good, but is iffy. The thing is, I really hope that they're going to release lots and lots of new varied Alpha-things, that showcase a lot of different possibilities. I'm still worried that Wizards is going to do something really weird with all this, though.

Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

[Meister]

Originally Posted by tacticslion

This... sounds exactly like the "new toy" syndrome: something is better than something else because it's new, and thus it must be better.

I think in this case "it's better because it's old" applies more.

I'm not at all sold on the whole module idea. Next, so far, is actively working against some of the design principles I liked most about 4E, and I doubt that rules modules can make changes on a level fundamental enough to turn that around. WotC have been hard at work for the past few years to reintroduce 3.5 design principles back into 4E, and the system as a whole suffers for it.

Modules also won't solve the problem Next is supposed to solve, which is the split in the playerbase. Instead of "4E/3.5/2E/Chainmail is the only true D&D, all the others are just imitatin'" we'll get "only the base rules plus module X and Y make the true D&D." Once there's a certain number of rules modules out, it's going to be hard to argue that any two groups are still playing the same game.

On a more general level I'm also not okay with deferring all complaints to "it'll be fixed in a module, just wait." If your basic system doesn't work, no module will fix it.

The first playtest feedback survey is also pretty terrible from a statistics/polling point of view.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Meister

I think in this case "it's better because it's old" applies more.

Fair enough. I'd say some are seeing it as a regression to old ways (to varying amounts of approval), those that are newer are seeing it as the "next big thing" (to various amounts of approval). Either way, really, it applies, and is the same sentiment.

Originally Posted by Meister

I'm not at all sold on the whole module idea. Next, so far, is actively working against some of the design principles I liked most about 4E, and I doubt that rules modules can make changes on a level fundamental enough to turn that around. WotC have been hard at work for the past few years to reintroduce 3.5 design principles back into 4E, and the system as a whole suffers for it.

Generally that's what happens when two systems that are made to be fundamentally different are introduced to each other. There are ways to break your own rules (PH2 and PH3 introduced some of those concepts rather nicely), but, unless you're attempting a genuine meld, with willingness to come up with an entirely different third system (and/or completely changing the way the rules work in general), adding 3.X stuff into 4E isn't really a good place for a game company to go. And I like adding 3.X-type stuff to 4E.

Originally Posted by Meister

Modules also won't solve the problem Next is supposed to solve, which is the split in the playerbase. Instead of "4E/3.5/2E/Chainmail is the only true D&D, all the others are just imitatin'" we'll get "only the base rules plus module X and Y make the true D&D." Once there's a certain number of rules modules out, it's going to be hard to argue that any two groups are still playing the same game.

To a point, I agree with this. Even the majority of it. Certainly with your ultimate statement: we won't be all playing the same game anymore. To a point, however, I'm going to have to disagree: it may well "reunite" the fanbase, and that would be a loss for all of us. I'm not sure it will, but it's distinctly possible that making a modular game like this could call back the "once-faithful", as it were, to the WotC umbrella.

I do suspect, however, that this will backfire. I suspect that too many fans of 3.X have been too badly burned and too many fans of 4E are being too badly burned, and I don't think this will turn out well for WotC.

I want WotC to succeed at making a great game. I really, really do. But I also want Paizo and all the other gaming companies to succeed, and for the hobby to grow in general to a broader audience. But if WotC manages to reclaim those who've gone away with this? It's not going to reach a broader audience. It's going to refocus on them and will, most likely, regrettably stagnate.

Originally Posted by Meister

On a more general level I'm also not okay with deferring all complaints to "it'll be fixed in a module, just wait." If your basic system doesn't work, no module will fix it.

I'm pretty much with you on this. That's why I've said that it's not a good way to do an alpha. I am, however, willing to give WotC a chance. I'm not seeing good things so far, but I'm really willing to try to give them a chance.

Originally Posted by Meister

The first playtest feedback survey is also pretty terrible from a statistics/polling point of view.

Ah, so, you know, basically the same problems Legend and Lore has, and that Wizards has had with getting and listening to feedback since, roughly, forever.

[Ryong]

Didn't they say something about each player being able to pick what rule module applies to them?

[Meister]

They did say things that suggest something like that but recently the marketing has subtly shifted more to "each DM can use modules to make the D&D they want" and anyway I could never see that working out at all.