Sure, but how will declaring "the playtest is cooked" help that in any way?
It won't. I'm just thoroughly upset at the slack. Given that I am not rioting and demanding hundreds of people lose their livelihoods and never be permitted to earn their keep again, nor demanding that the entire game be burned down out of sheer spite, but instead simply demanding that they GET ON WITH IT? I feel like I'm permitted to express my frustration at the deplorable state of the One playtest and Wizards' seeming callous disregard for their shiny overhaul initiative. I believe there's a lot in 5e that could use fixing, and every month we don't get new material is a month of fixes to 5e we don't get.
Maybe - remote off chance here, but maybe - stating that concern in a clear and unmistakable manner, without the screeching vitriol of the OGL Debacle, will let someone in Community Management see it and pass along the advice that the playtest folks should hit the freaking gas.
But fine. Let's instead allow them to lollygag freely and not bother releasing any more playtest material at all, whatsoever. Surely that won't lead to any quality loss in the final release material at all.
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.
I mean, I can’t give hard objective numbers for this threshold, but we do need to keep in mind that there are other factors in play aside from how “ready” we perceive the product to be. Honestly, I’m still not convinced I wouldn’t rather just see a handful of the features adapted to the current 5e instead of playing the new iteration. Spellcasting in particular has been getting a lot of overhauls I’m not a fan of.
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.
I mean, I can’t give hard objective numbers for this threshold, but we do need to keep in mind that there are other factors in play aside from how “ready” we perceive the product to be. Honestly, I’m still not convinced I wouldn’t rather just see a handful of the features adapted to the current 5e instead of playing the new iteration. Spellcasting in particular has been getting a lot of overhauls I’m not a fan of.
Even more reason to have the playtest material so that we can give feedback. Without it, we just get the changes without the opportunity to tell them how we feel about it.
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.
I’ll be dipped in spit if I’ma spend $50 on a half-revised PHB, just to have to do it again in ‘26/‘27 for the other half.
Sure, but how will declaring "the playtest is cooked" help that in any way?
It won't. I'm just thoroughly upset at the slack. Given that I am not rioting and demanding hundreds of people lose their livelihoods and never be permitted to earn their keep again, nor demanding that the entire game be burned down out of sheer spite, but instead simply demanding that they GET ON WITH IT? I feel like I'm permitted to express my frustration at the deplorable state of the One playtest and Wizards' seeming callous disregard for their shiny overhaul initiative. I believe there's a lot in 5e that could use fixing, and every month we don't get new material is a month of fixes to 5e we don't get.
Maybe - remote off chance here, but maybe - stating that concern in a clear and unmistakable manner, without the screeching vitriol of the OGL Debacle, will let someone in Community Management see it and pass along the advice that the playtest folks should hit the freaking gas.
But fine. Let's instead allow them to lollygag freely and not bother releasing any more playtest material at all, whatsoever. Surely that won't lead to any quality loss in the final release material at all.
You're allowed to express your frustration, and other people are allowed to respond by thinking you're blowing the delay out of proportion.
And oblique insults at the design team (like the belief that they're "lollygagging freely" just because *you* aren't privy to what they're doing) are still insults.
Sure, but how will declaring "the playtest is cooked" help that in any way?
It won't. I'm just thoroughly upset at the slack. Given that I am not rioting and demanding hundreds of people lose their livelihoods and never be permitted to earn their keep again, nor demanding that the entire game be burned down out of sheer spite, but instead simply demanding that they GET ON WITH IT? I feel like I'm permitted to express my frustration at the deplorable state of the One playtest and Wizards' seeming callous disregard for their shiny overhaul initiative. I believe there's a lot in 5e that could use fixing, and every month we don't get new material is a month of fixes to 5e we don't get.
Maybe - remote off chance here, but maybe - stating that concern in a clear and unmistakable manner, without the screeching vitriol of the OGL Debacle, will let someone in Community Management see it and pass along the advice that the playtest folks should hit the freaking gas.
But fine. Let's instead allow them to lollygag freely and not bother releasing any more playtest material at all, whatsoever. Surely that won't lead to any quality loss in the final release material at all.
You're allowed to express your frustration, and other people are allowed to respond by thinking you're blowing the delay out of proportion.
And oblique insults at the design team (like the belief that they're "lollygagging freely" just because *you* aren't privy to what they're doing) are still insults.
So basically anytime we decide to complain about the pace of the UA release cycle, we can expect you to complain about our complaining. I think that is fair, but then we get to complain about your complaining about us complaining.
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.
I'm not saying they shouldn't improve further. However, I consider One D&D to be the equivalent of a software release, and the usual way that works is that you have a 'must have' list and a 'nice to have' list, and the release contains all the must haves (delayed if necessary) and as many nice to haves as will fit the time budget.
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.
I'm not saying they shouldn't improve further. However, I consider One D&D to be the equivalent of a software release, and the usual way that works is that you have a 'must have' list and a 'nice to have' list, and the release contains all the must haves (delayed if necessary) and as many nice to haves as will fit the time budget.
I feel the same way, but we still have a ways to go before we cover the "must haves".
So basically anytime we decide to complain about the pace of the UA release cycle, we can expect you to complain about our complaining. I think that is fair, but then we get to complain about your complaining about us complaining.
I think there is a tangible difference between "I wish the release schedule was faster" and "the playtest is cooked and the design team is lollygagging." Words matter.
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.
I'm not saying they shouldn't improve further. However, I consider One D&D to be the equivalent of a software release, and the usual way that works is that you have a 'must have' list and a 'nice to have' list, and the release contains all the must haves (delayed if necessary) and as many nice to haves as will fit the time budget.
I feel the same way, but we still have a ways to go before we cover the "must haves".
While true, we do still have a large part of a year (what part depends on what their target release date within 2024 is, plus of course layout, printing, and so on).
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.
I'm not saying they shouldn't improve further. However, I consider One D&D to be the equivalent of a software release, and the usual way that works is that you have a 'must have' list and a 'nice to have' list, and the release contains all the must haves (delayed if necessary) and as many nice to haves as will fit the time budget.
I feel the same way, but we still have a ways to go before we cover the "must haves".
While true, we do still have a large part of a year (what part depends on what their target release date within 2024 is, plus of course layout, printing, and so on).
At 4 classes every 6 months we will be pushing it pretty close.
So basically anytime we decide to complain about the pace of the UA release cycle, we can expect you to complain about our complaining. I think that is fair, but then we get to complain about your complaining about us complaining.
I think there is a tangible difference between "I wish the release schedule was faster" and "the playtest is cooked and the design team is lollygagging." Words matter.
She may be a bit overly dramatic but she has the right to express how she feels about it. Feel free to continue to harass her about though. It has added a lot to the overall conversation at hand.
Here's the thing. You want them to get it done "right, not fast", ne? That was the call?
Sort of. What we want is for them to be fast, but still to be done well enough to be actual functioning playtest material. People will get soured on an idea if it is presented in a way that makes it impossible to understand, or use, whether or not it is due to bad readability or terrible implementation.
The 1DD playtest surveys aren't about getting the fans to design new ways to insert rules: It's about rating the ways rules are currently designed. As such, we should see both a balance of decent implementation and lots of ideas, because quickly putting out a bunch of content that no one likes gets everything way further off schedule than releasing things slower than usual does.
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.
Given that the Keys from the Golden Vault is about to be released, and they have the film coming out soonish, I suspect late this week or early next week there will be another packet. With the stated goal being to make DDB the "home of D&D on the web" per that one interview, I think that the balancing between the advertising aspect of the home page and the release of the packets is going to fall out that way, then be followed up by a web campaign to push the movie and add more tie in to the new book.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So basically anytime we decide to complain about the pace of the UA release cycle, we can expect you to complain about our complaining. I think that is fair, but then we get to complain about your complaining about us complaining.
I think there is a tangible difference between "I wish the release schedule was faster" and "the playtest is cooked and the design team is lollygagging." Words matter.
She may be a bit overly dramatic but she has the right to express how she feels about it. Feel free to continue to harass her about though. It has added a lot to the overall conversation at hand.
And I have the right to respond as stated, which I have done, so I'm happy to drop it now. Hopefully we all do the same.
Given that the Keys from the Golden Vault is about to be released, and they have the film coming out soonish, I suspect late this week or early next week there will be another packet. With the stated goal being to make DDB the "home of D&D on the web" per that one interview, I think that the balancing between the advertising aspect of the home page and the release of the packets is going to fall out that way, then be followed up by a web campaign to push the movie and add more tie in to the new book.
I do hope you're right about it being this week.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It won't. I'm just thoroughly upset at the slack. Given that I am not rioting and demanding hundreds of people lose their livelihoods and never be permitted to earn their keep again, nor demanding that the entire game be burned down out of sheer spite, but instead simply demanding that they GET ON WITH IT? I feel like I'm permitted to express my frustration at the deplorable state of the One playtest and Wizards' seeming callous disregard for their shiny overhaul initiative. I believe there's a lot in 5e that could use fixing, and every month we don't get new material is a month of fixes to 5e we don't get.
Maybe - remote off chance here, but maybe - stating that concern in a clear and unmistakable manner, without the screeching vitriol of the OGL Debacle, will let someone in Community Management see it and pass along the advice that the playtest folks should hit the freaking gas.
But fine. Let's instead allow them to lollygag freely and not bother releasing any more playtest material at all, whatsoever. Surely that won't lead to any quality loss in the final release material at all.
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean, I can’t give hard objective numbers for this threshold, but we do need to keep in mind that there are other factors in play aside from how “ready” we perceive the product to be. Honestly, I’m still not convinced I wouldn’t rather just see a handful of the features adapted to the current 5e instead of playing the new iteration. Spellcasting in particular has been getting a lot of overhauls I’m not a fan of.
Even more reason to have the playtest material so that we can give feedback. Without it, we just get the changes without the opportunity to tell them how we feel about it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I’ll be dipped in spit if I’ma spend $50 on a half-revised PHB, just to have to do it again in ‘26/‘27 for the other half.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You're allowed to express your frustration, and other people are allowed to respond by thinking you're blowing the delay out of proportion.
And oblique insults at the design team (like the belief that they're "lollygagging freely" just because *you* aren't privy to what they're doing) are still insults.
So basically anytime we decide to complain about the pace of the UA release cycle, we can expect you to complain about our complaining. I think that is fair, but then we get to complain about your complaining about us complaining.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not saying they shouldn't improve further. However, I consider One D&D to be the equivalent of a software release, and the usual way that works is that you have a 'must have' list and a 'nice to have' list, and the release contains all the must haves (delayed if necessary) and as many nice to haves as will fit the time budget.
I feel the same way, but we still have a ways to go before we cover the "must haves".
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think there is a tangible difference between "I wish the release schedule was faster" and "the playtest is cooked and the design team is lollygagging." Words matter.
While true, we do still have a large part of a year (what part depends on what their target release date within 2024 is, plus of course layout, printing, and so on).
At 4 classes every 6 months we will be pushing it pretty close.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
She may be a bit overly dramatic but she has the right to express how she feels about it. Feel free to continue to harass her about though. It has added a lot to the overall conversation at hand.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Sort of. What we want is for them to be fast, but still to be done well enough to be actual functioning playtest material. People will get soured on an idea if it is presented in a way that makes it impossible to understand, or use, whether or not it is due to bad readability or terrible implementation.
The 1DD playtest surveys aren't about getting the fans to design new ways to insert rules: It's about rating the ways rules are currently designed. As such, we should see both a balance of decent implementation and lots of ideas, because quickly putting out a bunch of content that no one likes gets everything way further off schedule than releasing things slower than usual does.
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.Given that the Keys from the Golden Vault is about to be released, and they have the film coming out soonish, I suspect late this week or early next week there will be another packet. With the stated goal being to make DDB the "home of D&D on the web" per that one interview, I think that the balancing between the advertising aspect of the home page and the release of the packets is going to fall out that way, then be followed up by a web campaign to push the movie and add more tie in to the new book.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
And I have the right to respond as stated, which I have done, so I'm happy to drop it now. Hopefully we all do the same.
I do hope you're right about it being this week.