I guess I don’t really fault them for adjusting their timetable. That kind of thing happens frequently in a large project. It’s more the lack of communication. It would be nice to get some details about what’s happening going forward. Maybe in the video with the next packet, we’ll get more information.
I don't fault them either, but it isn't fair to act like Yurei pulled that monthly idea out of thin air either.
Nobody said that she pulled it out of thin air. It's just that some people hadn't seen the comment, and she didn't 100% accurately represent the statement originally (probably by accident, but that can still confuse people).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I guess I don’t really fault them for adjusting their timetable. That kind of thing happens frequently in a large project. It’s more the lack of communication. It would be nice to get some details about what’s happening going forward. Maybe in the video with the next packet, we’ll get more information.
I don't fault them either, but it isn't fair to act like Yurei pulled that monthly idea out of thin air either.
Sorry if it came across like I was accusing Yurei of something. In post 14 I said I didn’t recall monthly and I thought it was Todd who said monthly then caught himself and changed it to “or so”. I don’t think we blame Yurei for anything, I know I don’t, but just wanted to get to as accurate information as possible. And I think we all agree that they are behind with releases.
It was something J-Craw said during the whole One D&D announcement back in August - they wanted to hold themselves to monthly or close-to-monthly release cycles so they had time to release multiple versions of content and iterate on it. A thing they have manifestly failed to do.
Link? That sounds at best like an aspiration, not a solemn vow. If you really think they're 4 months behind, I think it's your expectations that need adjusting moreso than the release schedule so far. I'd rather them get things right than fast.
It seems very likely that One D&D will be released with less playtesting than would be ideal, but that's kind of the reality of having production schedules. They have more than sufficient time to get through at least the main classes and significant changes to rules as they apply to players. I expect the next monster manual to be like MotM, so probably no major playtesting there, the core decisions are already made. I do wonder if we're going to get presented any updated DMG rules, such as new rules for encounter design, as the existing rules manage to be both hard to use and failures at producing good balanced encounters.
As others have said, "every month or so" is hardly a definitive content roadmap. Certainly it's not one deserving of gloom and doom pronouncements like "we're four months behind, the playtest is cooked."
Here's the thing. You want them to get it done "right, not fast", ne? That was the call?
For playtesting cycles and UA content, fast is right.
They need to get content in front of people and get feedback on it on the tightest timetable they can manage, because that gives them the most chances to iterate on things like, say, Ardlings i.e. "Content They Keep Getting Not Right." Having one new playtest document every one hundred years does not accomplish jack monkey squat. The testing cycles need to come thick and heavy for maximum effect, every delay is iteration time we're losing. It actively detracts from the final product.
That's why I say we're months behind. Because we are. It's not okay, especially when Brink's confirmed they're on a strict deadline and there will be no schedule slippage. Whatever they have ready by end of 2024 will be what we get. Therefore and ergo, it behooves us to get as much testing done in the intervening months as possible.
Which means they need to make with the frickin' documents. OGLGate is done with; get back on the horse and give it the spurs.
For playtesting cycles and UA content, fast is right.
They need to get content in front of people and get feedback on it on the tightest timetable they can manage, because that gives them the most chances to iterate on things like, say, Ardlings i.e. "Content They Keep Getting Not Right." Having one new playtest document every one hundred years does not accomplish jack monkey squat. The testing cycles need to come thick and heavy for maximum effect, every delay is iteration time we're losing. It actively detracts from the final product.
Look, I want more playtest content too. I just don't see how the doomsaying is helping anything. We'll get another packet when we get it, and "the end is nigh" signs aren't going to speed that up.
Plus, given that it's so compatible with 5e, any problem areas can just be patched with the old rules in the meantime. Like the Bard spell list, for example.
Here's the thing. You want them to get it done "right, not fast", ne? That was the call?
Eh, the current announced strategy for One D&D is iterative; the 2024 PHB is not supposed to be the Final Perfect Version.
So then WTF is the point?!? Just to bilk more $$$ out of people?!?
So if it's not perfect you won't have gotten your money's worth?
My point is that we should take a deep breath and chill. Kyle says they're still on pace for a 2024 release, I don't have a reason to think he's lying.
Here's the thing. You want them to get it done "right, not fast", ne? That was the call?
Eh, the current announced strategy for One D&D is iterative; the 2024 PHB is not supposed to be the Final Perfect Version.
So then WTF is the point?!? Just to bilk more $$$ out of people?!?
WotC said right from the start that they don't look at "1D&D" as a new edition, set apart from 5E, but as an evolution of 5E and of D&D in general. And it will keep evolving over time. I think that's what Pantagruel666 was saying. The changes to D&D won't stop with the publishing of the 2024 PHB.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Will they keep putting out new PHB's to get people's money? Or will they update the PHB, as needed, and those with digital copies automatically updated or "legacy" versions kept intact?
Here's the thing. You want them to get it done "right, not fast", ne? That was the call?
Eh, the current announced strategy for One D&D is iterative; the 2024 PHB is not supposed to be the Final Perfect Version.
So then WTF is the point?!? Just to bilk more $$$ out of people?!?
WotC said right from the start that they don't look at "1D&D" as a new edition, set apart from 5E, but as an evolution of 5E and of D&D in general. And it will keep evolving over time. I think that's what Pantagruel666 was saying. The changes to D&D won't stop with the publishing of the 2024 PHB.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Will they keep putting out new PHB's to get people's money? Or will they update the PHB, as needed, and those with digital copies automatically updated or "legacy" versions kept intact?
That is my understanding. 1D&D is 5E but with errata so that it is backwards compatible to work with the campaigns already released. Which is essentially what Project Black Flag is. 5e w Errata.
That is my understanding. 1D&D is 5E but with errata so that it is backwards compatible to work with the campaigns already released. Which is essentially what Project Black Flag is. 5e w Errata.
Black Flag is the Great Value brand of D&D Errata.
Kyle Brink did a final interview with Nerd Immersion this week (at least I hope it's the final one) and NI specifically asked him about the OneD&D playtest's resumption (27:17). Kyle responded that the team has "lost a few feedback cycles" due to the both the need to resolve the OGL and the design team's own mental/emotional health, but Kyle is expecting that the upcoming packets will be "denser, with more content per drop so we can make up ground" - but he reiterated that they're still confident about their 2024 release.
So if it's not perfect you won't have gotten your money's worth?
My point is that we should take a deep breath and chill. Kyle says they're still on pace for a 2024 release, I don't have a reason to think he's lying.
That's the concern. One releases in 2024, regardless of the state it's in. The more playtesting cycles we can get through, the better the final product will be. Every last single delay costs us quality from the final product, and I'd rather have the best books my however-many dollars will buy.
So if it's not perfect you won't have gotten your money's worth?
My point is that we should take a deep breath and chill. Kyle says they're still on pace for a 2024 release, I don't have a reason to think he's lying.
That's the concern. One releases in 2024, regardless of the state it's in. The more playtesting cycles we can get through, the better the final product will be. Every last single delay costs us quality from the final product, and I'd rather have the best books my however-many dollars will buy.
Shouldn't we all want that?
Sure, but how will declaring "the playtest is cooked" help that in any way?
So if it's not perfect you won't have gotten your money's worth?
My point is that we should take a deep breath and chill. Kyle says they're still on pace for a 2024 release, I don't have a reason to think he's lying.
That's the concern. One releases in 2024, regardless of the state it's in. The more playtesting cycles we can get through, the better the final product will be. Every last single delay costs us quality from the final product, and I'd rather have the best books my however-many dollars will buy.
Shouldn't we all want that?
In a perfect world, sure, but from a business perspective “perfect” is rarely profitable, relative to the cost of the time invested. Sooner or later, additional development crosses a threshold where you’re spending more working on an improvement than you will make in additional returns, even if you are improving the product. Now, by the same token, if the material really isn’t ready as they approach the deadline it might be better to delay, but chasing “the best product possible” is not and has never been a sound practice, particularly in the context of a disposable income product like this.
So if it's not perfect you won't have gotten your money's worth?
My point is that we should take a deep breath and chill. Kyle says they're still on pace for a 2024 release, I don't have a reason to think he's lying.
That's the concern. One releases in 2024, regardless of the state it's in. The more playtesting cycles we can get through, the better the final product will be. Every last single delay costs us quality from the final product, and I'd rather have the best books my however-many dollars will buy.
Shouldn't we all want that?
In a perfect world, sure, but from a business perspective “perfect” is rarely profitable, relative to the cost of the time invested. Sooner or later, additional development crosses a threshold where you’re spending more working on an improvement than you will make in additional returns, even if you are improving the product. Now, by the same token, if the material really isn’t ready as they approach the deadline it might be better to delay, but chasing “the best product possible” is not and has never been a sound practice, particularly in the context of a disposable income product like this.
Considering that we have had 3 playtests and haven't even made it through half of the classes, I think we are still a long ways off from the point we should stop chasing improvements.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nobody said that she pulled it out of thin air. It's just that some people hadn't seen the comment, and she didn't 100% accurately represent the statement originally (probably by accident, but that can still confuse people).
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Sorry if it came across like I was accusing Yurei of something. In post 14 I said I didn’t recall monthly and I thought it was Todd who said monthly then caught himself and changed it to “or so”. I don’t think we blame Yurei for anything, I know I don’t, but just wanted to get to as accurate information as possible. And I think we all agree that they are behind with releases.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I was referring to this
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It seems very likely that One D&D will be released with less playtesting than would be ideal, but that's kind of the reality of having production schedules. They have more than sufficient time to get through at least the main classes and significant changes to rules as they apply to players. I expect the next monster manual to be like MotM, so probably no major playtesting there, the core decisions are already made. I do wonder if we're going to get presented any updated DMG rules, such as new rules for encounter design, as the existing rules manage to be both hard to use and failures at producing good balanced encounters.
Here's the thing. You want them to get it done "right, not fast", ne? That was the call?
For playtesting cycles and UA content, fast is right.
They need to get content in front of people and get feedback on it on the tightest timetable they can manage, because that gives them the most chances to iterate on things like, say, Ardlings i.e. "Content They Keep Getting Not Right." Having one new playtest document every one hundred years does not accomplish jack monkey squat. The testing cycles need to come thick and heavy for maximum effect, every delay is iteration time we're losing. It actively detracts from the final product.
That's why I say we're months behind. Because we are. It's not okay, especially when Brink's confirmed they're on a strict deadline and there will be no schedule slippage. Whatever they have ready by end of 2024 will be what we get. Therefore and ergo, it behooves us to get as much testing done in the intervening months as possible.
Which means they need to make with the frickin' documents. OGLGate is done with; get back on the horse and give it the spurs.
Please do not contact or message me.
There’s a saying in advertising, “you can get it right, fast, or cheap, pick two.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Look, I want more playtest content too. I just don't see how the doomsaying is helping anything. We'll get another packet when we get it, and "the end is nigh" signs aren't going to speed that up.
Eh, the current announced strategy for One D&D is iterative; the 2024 PHB is not supposed to be the Final Perfect Version.
Plus, given that it's so compatible with 5e, any problem areas can just be patched with the old rules in the meantime. Like the Bard spell list, for example.
So then WTF is the point?!? Just to bilk more $$$ out of people?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So if it's not perfect you won't have gotten your money's worth?
My point is that we should take a deep breath and chill. Kyle says they're still on pace for a 2024 release, I don't have a reason to think he's lying.
WotC said right from the start that they don't look at "1D&D" as a new edition, set apart from 5E, but as an evolution of 5E and of D&D in general. And it will keep evolving over time. I think that's what Pantagruel666 was saying. The changes to D&D won't stop with the publishing of the 2024 PHB.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Will they keep putting out new PHB's to get people's money? Or will they update the PHB, as needed, and those with digital copies automatically updated or "legacy" versions kept intact?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That is my understanding. 1D&D is 5E but with errata so that it is backwards compatible to work with the campaigns already released. Which is essentially what Project Black Flag is. 5e w Errata.
Black Flag is the Great Value brand of D&D Errata.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Kyle Brink did a final interview with Nerd Immersion this week (at least I hope it's the final one) and NI specifically asked him about the OneD&D playtest's resumption (27:17). Kyle responded that the team has "lost a few feedback cycles" due to the both the need to resolve the OGL and the design team's own mental/emotional health, but Kyle is expecting that the upcoming packets will be "denser, with more content per drop so we can make up ground" - but he reiterated that they're still confident about their 2024 release.
That's the concern. One releases in 2024, regardless of the state it's in. The more playtesting cycles we can get through, the better the final product will be. Every last single delay costs us quality from the final product, and I'd rather have the best books my however-many dollars will buy.
Shouldn't we all want that?
Please do not contact or message me.
Sure, but how will declaring "the playtest is cooked" help that in any way?
In a perfect world, sure, but from a business perspective “perfect” is rarely profitable, relative to the cost of the time invested. Sooner or later, additional development crosses a threshold where you’re spending more working on an improvement than you will make in additional returns, even if you are improving the product. Now, by the same token, if the material really isn’t ready as they approach the deadline it might be better to delay, but chasing “the best product possible” is not and has never been a sound practice, particularly in the context of a disposable income product like this.
Considering that we have had 3 playtests and haven't even made it through half of the classes, I think we are still a long ways off from the point we should stop chasing improvements.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master