The crunchy crowd seems to have the loudest voices. I feel like they're just going to add more and more.
In their defense and I say their with a grain of salt because I don't think this is a cohesive group or community, but in a word, this is one of the branches modern RPG design is going.
You really have kind of a fork in the road. Either you go the PF2e round, aka, full commitment to a mechanized architecture on which the game is based in which every conceivable action has a rule, every imaginable fantasy thing, has a class, ancestry, archetype etc.. with essentially unlimited ways things can be combined where character building is a serious business.
Or you go the old-school route.. Class, HP, AC.. some gear and go.
While I think there is a middle ground, games that fall in the middle generally do extremely poorly in the market as they are not enough for one part of the market and too much for the other.
I don't see modern D&D going the old-school route, so yeah.. it's going to be crunch city which I think is, quite ok. I mean, its a big part of the market, its very representative of modern gaming so probably that is what they are doing. They are already starting with the feat architecture, which is kind of the core of these crunch systems.
Well currently using PF2 and if you have tons of options for customizing characters (which I like as it fits with a suggestion for D&D I already made), you just can do the character you want to be, as said by someone in that game thread, a good thing is that the main maths are attached to the class itself and the character level, giving you room for customization not falling too behind the known optimizers, maintaining the balance and avoiding making you feel useless at their side.
People that feels so disgusted should give it a try (or any other). The games are not excluding, I am converting D&D adventures and playing at Forgotten Realms set for them, so need the manuals for conversion (Monsters) and also the set ones (Sword Coast, Ravenloft, etc.).
I see different levels of games, those hard-RPG (Rolemaster, D&D 3.5, PF1), mid-point (PF2), and easy ones (D&D 5E). The merit of D&D 5E is a system that gives you good options for role-playing that can be easily played even for newers. Then what we need are options, and extra DMGs (Xanathar) and Player (Tasha) manuals give options to make the game some more complex for those who want it (healing, flanking, crafting, tasks out of combat, etc) but under the same easy principles.
The main issue I saw at it (D&D 5E) was the problems with the huge difference between character creation and optimization, not allowing to enjoy YOUR (not the optimal) character, the tier concept, some cuts to magic (like having only 1 slot for level 6-9, there are other ways to balance). I got saturated of that specially about the looking for exploits in character creation.
Well currently using PF2 and if you have tons of options for customizing characters (which I like as it fits with a suggestion for D&D I already made), you just can do the character you want to be, as said by someone in that game thread, a good thing is that the main maths are attached to the class itself and the character level, giving you room for customization not falling too behind the known optimizers, maintaining the balance and avoiding making you feel useless at their side.
People that feels so disgusted should give it a try (or any other). The games are not excluding, I am converting D&D adventures and playing at Forgotten Realms set for them, so need the manuals for conversion (Monsters) and also the set ones (Sword Coast, Ravenloft, etc.).
I see different levels of games, those hard-RPG (Rolemaster, D&D 3.5, PF1), mid-point (PF2), and easy ones (D&D 5E). The merit of D&D 5E is a system that gives you good options for role-playing that can be easily played even for newers. Then what we need are options, and extra DMGs (Xanathar) and Player (Tasha) manuals give options to make the game some more complex for those who want it (healing, flanking, crafting, tasks out of combat, etc) but under the same easy principles.
The main issue I saw at it (D&D 5E) was the problems with the huge difference between character creation and optimization, not allowing to enjoy YOUR (not the optimal) character, the tier concept, some cuts to magic (like having only 1 slot for level 6-9, there are other ways to balance). I got saturated of that specially about the looking for exploits in character creation.
I have been in an ongoing PF2 campaign as a player for almost 3 years at this point and while I do enjoy it, I think the issue with it is that by the time you are about 5th level, you have so many feats and abilities, it starts to become really difficult to even remember what you can do, let alone anyone else. Once you reach 10th level, forget about, the game is impossible to play RAW, you are going to forget to implement half the rules every session. Especially if you use stuff beyond the core rulebook where you have passive abilities that the DM has to remember to implement on your behalf. The countless modifiers too, I mean its crazy how many different effects can end up in a single combat.
Its a really well-designed game in principle and mathematically but you have to have some really attentive players who really understand every level and moving gear in the game.
The combat is also ultra-slow to the point of stop. Its tactical and interesting, so it does make-up for the slowness but if you can finish a typical 4-5 player combat in under 2 hours your playing the game at a neck-breaking pace. For us, rarely does a combat end in under 3 hours and big boss fights take up entire sessions.
I don't know that as a role-playing game this is a good approach, I mean, its kind of OK for me as a player but I wouldn't want to run it.
As far as "options for role-playing", I don't think that is a real thing. Like people say that, but mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with role-playing, role-playing is EXACTLY the same no matter what system you're using. Wether you have a mechanical background that says "Soldier" or its something you write into your character's backstory, it's the same difference so far as role-playing goes.
I think at the end of the day the question is, how much mechanics do you need to have a good role-playing game, the answer is, very little. Combat mechanics and the various bells and whistles of feats and all that stuff... its just there to sell you books, it has nothing to do wtih a roleplaying game.
The crunchy crowd seems to have the loudest voices. I feel like they're just going to add more and more.
In their defense and I say their with a grain of salt because I don't think this is a cohesive group or community, but in a word, this is one of the branches modern RPG design is going.
You really have kind of a fork in the road. Either you go the PF2e round, aka, full commitment to a mechanized architecture on which the game is based in which every conceivable action has a rule, every imaginable fantasy thing, has a class, ancestry, archetype etc.. with essentially unlimited ways things can be combined where character building is a serious business.
Or you go the old-school route.. Class, HP, AC.. some gear and go.
While I think there is a middle ground, games that fall in the middle generally do extremely poorly in the market as they are not enough for one part of the market and too much for the other.
I don't see modern D&D going the old-school route, so yeah.. it's going to be crunch city which I think is, quite ok. I mean, its a big part of the market, its very representative of modern gaming so probably that is what they are doing. They are already starting with the feat architecture, which is kind of the core of these crunch systems.
The thing is... both forks are old school and tread well. I was watching a few videos recently on 4, which is one of the ones I missed out on, and it sounds like dependencies stacked on dependencies to being "crunchy in a different way" which is..yeah.. them and pathfinder are the crunchy fork.
I was in my local game store though, and while I don't care for crunch the owner was really intent on selling me one of a new RPG where "you don't even need dice." And that's... equally not for me... but a valid alternate path. If pathfinder and 3e are the calculator combatant, I would call it the drama club.
And I find the TTRPG world is kind of exploding with variations on how to have an aspect role play with an aspect of dice determined chance these days.
Overall I think 5e is in a somewhat a sweet spot between crunch and drama club, and I although you and I would like to see more integration of 1e and 2e principles, I have a feeling the d&d community wants more of a retread on crunch. Look at the forums and the YouTube videos. A lot more time is being devoted to "builds" and the desire to maximize damage. (And old farts saying 5e is too easy). The drama kids are kinda moving on...
Truthfully I want an innovative new take on the game. Something far far more modular than it is now.
Well currently using PF2 and if you have tons of options for customizing characters (which I like as it fits with a suggestion for D&D I already made), you just can do the character you want to be, as said by someone in that game thread, a good thing is that the main maths are attached to the class itself and the character level, giving you room for customization not falling too behind the known optimizers, maintaining the balance and avoiding making you feel useless at their side.
People that feels so disgusted should give it a try (or any other). The games are not excluding, I am converting D&D adventures and playing at Forgotten Realms set for them, so need the manuals for conversion (Monsters) and also the set ones (Sword Coast, Ravenloft, etc.).
I see different levels of games, those hard-RPG (Rolemaster, D&D 3.5, PF1), mid-point (PF2), and easy ones (D&D 5E). The merit of D&D 5E is a system that gives you good options for role-playing that can be easily played even for newers. Then what we need are options, and extra DMGs (Xanathar) and Player (Tasha) manuals give options to make the game some more complex for those who want it (healing, flanking, crafting, tasks out of combat, etc) but under the same easy principles.
The main issue I saw at it (D&D 5E) was the problems with the huge difference between character creation and optimization, not allowing to enjoy YOUR (not the optimal) character, the tier concept, some cuts to magic (like having only 1 slot for level 6-9, there are other ways to balance). I got saturated of that specially about the looking for exploits in character creation.
I have been in an ongoing PF2 campaign as a player for almost 3 years at this point and while I do enjoy it, I think the issue with it is that by the time you are about 5th level, you have so many feats and abilities, it starts to become really difficult to even remember what you can do, let alone anyone else. Once you reach 10th level, forget about, the game is impossible to play RAW, you are going to forget to implement half the rules every session. Especially if you use stuff beyond the core rulebook where you have passive abilities that the DM has to remember to implement on your behalf. The countless modifiers too, I mean its crazy how many different effects can end up in a single combat.
Its a really well-designed game in principle and mathematically but you have to have some really attentive players who really understand every level and moving gear in the game.
The combat is also ultra-slow to the point of stop. Its tactical and interesting, so it does make-up for the slowness but if you can finish a typical 4-5 player combat in under 2 hours your playing the game at a neck-breaking pace. For us, rarely does a combat end in under 3 hours and big boss fights take up entire sessions.
I don't know that as a role-playing game this is a good approach, I mean, its kind of OK for me as a player but I wouldn't want to run it.
As far as "options for role-playing", I don't think that is a real thing. Like people say that, but mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with role-playing, role-playing is EXACTLY the same no matter what system you're using. Wether you have a mechanical background that says "Soldier" or its something you write into your character's backstory, it's the same difference so far as role-playing goes.
I think at the end of the day the question is, how much mechanics do you need to have a good role-playing game, the answer is, very little. Combat mechanics and the various bells and whistles of feats and all that stuff... its just there to sell you books, it has nothing to do wtih a roleplaying game.
For role-playing you use the skills, that’s why we need a good set of rules of skill development, bonuses, and usage. It matters a lot, is not the same a system based on OK talk what you think and the GM imagines and executes how it thinks it could be, compared to a system giving the character the abilities to accomplish what the players want to do. The best for that are the skill development systems (like Rolemaster), PF2 has a lot for about skills, PF1 and D&D 3.5 too, and 5E combining the different extra supplements can be good enough too with the multi-proficiency, tools usage, and etc.
Well currently using PF2 and if you have tons of options for customizing characters (which I like as it fits with a suggestion for D&D I already made), you just can do the character you want to be, as said by someone in that game thread, a good thing is that the main maths are attached to the class itself and the character level, giving you room for customization not falling too behind the known optimizers, maintaining the balance and avoiding making you feel useless at their side.
People that feels so disgusted should give it a try (or any other). The games are not excluding, I am converting D&D adventures and playing at Forgotten Realms set for them, so need the manuals for conversion (Monsters) and also the set ones (Sword Coast, Ravenloft, etc.).
I see different levels of games, those hard-RPG (Rolemaster, D&D 3.5, PF1), mid-point (PF2), and easy ones (D&D 5E). The merit of D&D 5E is a system that gives you good options for role-playing that can be easily played even for newers. Then what we need are options, and extra DMGs (Xanathar) and Player (Tasha) manuals give options to make the game some more complex for those who want it (healing, flanking, crafting, tasks out of combat, etc) but under the same easy principles.
The main issue I saw at it (D&D 5E) was the problems with the huge difference between character creation and optimization, not allowing to enjoy YOUR (not the optimal) character, the tier concept, some cuts to magic (like having only 1 slot for level 6-9, there are other ways to balance). I got saturated of that specially about the looking for exploits in character creation.
I have been in an ongoing PF2 campaign as a player for almost 3 years at this point and while I do enjoy it, I think the issue with it is that by the time you are about 5th level, you have so many feats and abilities, it starts to become really difficult to even remember what you can do, let alone anyone else. Once you reach 10th level, forget about, the game is impossible to play RAW, you are going to forget to implement half the rules every session. Especially if you use stuff beyond the core rulebook where you have passive abilities that the DM has to remember to implement on your behalf. The countless modifiers too, I mean its crazy how many different effects can end up in a single combat.
Its a really well-designed game in principle and mathematically but you have to have some really attentive players who really understand every level and moving gear in the game.
The combat is also ultra-slow to the point of stop. Its tactical and interesting, so it does make-up for the slowness but if you can finish a typical 4-5 player combat in under 2 hours your playing the game at a neck-breaking pace. For us, rarely does a combat end in under 3 hours and big boss fights take up entire sessions.
I don't know that as a role-playing game this is a good approach, I mean, its kind of OK for me as a player but I wouldn't want to run it.
As far as "options for role-playing", I don't think that is a real thing. Like people say that, but mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with role-playing, role-playing is EXACTLY the same no matter what system you're using. Wether you have a mechanical background that says "Soldier" or its something you write into your character's backstory, it's the same difference so far as role-playing goes.
I think at the end of the day the question is, how much mechanics do you need to have a good role-playing game, the answer is, very little. Combat mechanics and the various bells and whistles of feats and all that stuff... its just there to sell you books, it has nothing to do wtih a roleplaying game.
That's why I want to stay far away from the pathfinder games.
5e lacks danger and in that, players feel like they can just waltz into any situation and do whatever they want. In first and second far less so. This is one of the biggest sticking points with those like myself that remember those games.
I'm the only old fart in a 5e game I'm playing. When the police were looking for someone guilty of a crime we committed, I was the only player concerned with concocting an alibi. When we had tons of money and the town was one of thieves, I'm the only one wanting to have more than one place to sleep.
These are role play choices that are almost knee jerk because in 1and 2, you got your ass handed to you for walking into a tavern carrying your sword still....
Even the pathfinder crowd don't get that... reservation. That need to be cautious and the desire to RP yourself out of a situation because 90% of the time combat was going to come at a cost.
And there's a bit of a knock on effect there, where role playing not to die kind of encourages you to role play the situations where you aren't likely to die anyhow.
That's how the best stories came about... new players... they immediately jump to combat. I give a setting and things to do in a place that don't require much actual combat, and they NEED to be encouraged and told to.search rooms or to talk to people or encouraged to interact... and around 3 is when the RP aspect kinda died.
Anyhow combat mechanics CAN force good RP, when the lethality and consequences are up, which is my objection to the "drama club" games - there's authors and no lethality.
It's just a bunch of kids in the school yard asking of each other's characters, "but can he beat Goku tho?"
That's why I want to stay far away from the pathfinder games.
5e lacks danger and in that, players feel like they can just waltz into any situation and do whatever they want. In first and second far less so. This is one of the biggest sticking points with those like myself that remember those games.
I'm the only old fart in a 5e game I'm playing. When the police were looking for someone guilty of a crime we committed, I was the only player concerned with concocting an alibi. When we had tons of money and the town was one of thieves, I'm the only one wanting to have more than one place to sleep.
These are role play choices that are almost knee jerk because in 1and 2, you got your ass handed to you for walking into a tavern carrying your sword still....
Even the pathfinder crowd don't get that... reservation. That need to be cautious and the desire to RP yourself out of a situation because 90% of the time combat was going to come at a cost.
And there's a bit of a knock on effect there, where role playing not to die kind of encourages you to role play the situations where you aren't likely to die anyhow.
That's how the best stories came about... new players... they immediately jump to combat. I give a setting and things to do in a place that don't require much actual combat, and they NEED to be encouraged and told to.search rooms or to talk to people or encouraged to interact... and around 3 is when the RP aspect kinda died.
Anyhow combat mechanics CAN force good RP, when the lethality and consequences are up, which is my objection to the "drama club" games - there's authors and no lethality.
It's just a bunch of kids in the school yard asking of each other's characters, "but can he beat Goku tho?"
Well you won't get any argument from me, this is why I still run Old School 1e D&D. It's not because I think the mechanics are so stellar (in fact I use Old School Essentials Advanced Fantas and I alter the hell out of it)... But yeah, implementing a good challenge level is difficult in 5e, keeping a rhythm in which players respect the consequences of the game is impossible. Mainly because it's kind of an all-or-nothing thing. Either you have balanced combat encounters or you don't, but that is largely the jist of the consequence in 5e and if a battle is unbalanced, you are likely facing a TPK every time. Players in modern games just aren't accustomed to the premise of "you can't win this fight" and "things can kill you".
More than that, the absence of consequences outside of combat really doesn't exist in modern 5e D&D. Like, you can get poisoned and you know with nearly 100% certainty that you are going to live, so approaching things like traps is seen as "yeah, worst-case scenario, you get hurt". Insta-save or die traps and things that can really kill you because of a decision you made.
In my game a couple of years back I had an entire adventuring die from a Rot Grub infection while traversing the open ocean. They were unprepared for disease and made a lot of poor decision that turned a solvable problem into a deadly epidemic. By the time they figured out what was happening it was too late.
If something like that happen in a 5e game, people would rage quit the game. The idea that there are consequences beyond "heroic combat" is just not something that is accepted but this is both a system and a culture thing. I don't blame or even have issue with it, but I just that want to run a game where players can do whatever they want knowing comfortably that the game isn't going to kill their character because they are the heroes of the story. To me that doesn't really make anyone a hero. Being a hero is accepting the potential consequences and adventuring anyway. If you have effectively mechanical plot armor, in that story there are no heroes. This is of course just my opinion and my playstyle, but unfortunately 5e doesn't really support it and requires quite a bit of adjustment to implement and I find that adjustment is easier made from 1e than from 5e.
I don't like talking about PF2 in this forum, since it makes me feel like I'm trolling. However, sometimes it is unavoidable. Both games want to achieve a similar gaming experience, but through different philosophies.
5e pretends to be easy, but it doesn't succeed. Instead it is simple, but at the same time it is complicated. Who doesn't have constant discussions about how this or that mechanic works? If what is said in X spell is "flavor" or is it a rule? Etc... And despite all the discussions, the game lacks the depth of both other editions and other D20 systems.
For its part, PF2 aims to be complex, and it is. But within that complexity, once you become familiar with the rules, the game system is simple. And that is mainly because of two things: The rules are well explained, and everything works with similar mechanics. If something is an attack, it is an attack. And there's no discussion (they put a label on it to make it even easier to see). Does it have the Move label? Well, that action is a Move. Does it have the Manipulate label? Well, that action is Manipulate. And so with any mechanics. That ends a lot of arguments and debates, and makes the game system easier (even if it is complex).
However, that being said, it must be kept in mind that although PF2 is very well designed, its philosophy is not for all players. That's something many PF2 fans forget. There are people who are overwhelmed by complexity. There are people who suffer from analysis paralysis. There are people who like to break the game. Etc... For all those people, no matter how well PF2 is designed, they will never like it.
I prefer PF2, I'm not going to hide. But I also like 5e. What I would like is that in this revision of 5e they would take examples of the things that PF2 does best, and integrate them into the game. And here I am not talking about mechanics, but rather a way to explain them. I'm tired of ambiguities, confusing terminology, disparate mechanics to do basically the same thing, and a long etc. How many times do you have to go look up what Jeremy Crawford said in a tweet, or search through Sage Advice to clarify basic mechanics? That has to stop. The minimum, minimum that I expect from this reissue (or whatever they call it) is that it is well explained, clear, and without ambiguities. After the PHB is published, I hope no one has to go ask Jeremy Crawford on Twitter if a cleric can use his holy symbol without holding it. Otherwise, if we continue to have to seek clarifications, WoTC will have done its job poorly.
I prefer PF2, I'm not going to hide. But I also like 5e. What I would like is that in this revision of 5e they would take examples of the things that PF2 does best, and integrate them into the game. And here I am not talking about mechanics, but rather a way to explain them. I'm tired of ambiguities, confusing terminology, disparate mechanics to do basically the same thing, and a long etc. How many times do you have to go look up what Jeremy Crawford said in a tweet, or search through Sage Advice to clarify basic mechanics? That has to stop. The minimum, minimum that I expect from this reissue (or whatever they call it) is that it is well explained, clear, and without ambiguities. After the PHB is published, I hope no one has to go ask Jeremy Crawford on Twitter if a cleric can use his holy symbol without holding it. Otherwise, if we continue to have to seek clarifications, WoTC will have done its job poorly.
I'm not anti-pathfinder, I just hate that everyone suggests it when you mention dissatisfaction with D&D.
What you say about JC is absolutely true, and I hate to say it but his voice irritates me like he's got a wad of cotton balls stuffed in his cheeks and I hate how he always seems to be trying to sell me a bad sale of goods in every UA.
I don't mind SOME ambiguities, though I also agree with most of the efforts to remove mother may I, (and am confused when they add in others).
What bothers me is how scattered and disparate the info is. Is the answer buried in a subclass description? Or is it in a supplement? What was errata-ed and what was not? (Because on DDB, changes make it something "always was" when print conflicts. The species change for example. Love the change in terms, but some things in Tasha's and on are just... gone. Like lizard folk's crafting. Or what books had what classes and species? I haven't double-checked but I swear to God tabaxi and triton were phb at one point...)
The thronging Internet morasses they keep surveying are not game designers. Most of the people answering these surveys couldn't design their way out of an ankle-high stack of rotten fruit. They don't know the first damn thing about what makes a good game. The highly paid game designers who do know those things have effectively no say in the process, and it's maddening. So many awesome ideas have arisen in this playtest, and every last one of them has been thrown away because people's knees won't stop spasming and short-circuiting their brains.
There's an old-ish saying, sometimes applied to playwriting, writing, game design, etc... "Always trust your [players/readers/audience] to tell you something is wrong. Never trust them to tell you how to fix it."
I think that the only mistake they made was calling this One D&D at the start. That set completely opposite expectations from what they wanted, which is a minor Skyrim style anniversary revision, and which was clearly their goal from the 2nd playtest onward, and probably before too. Their number one goal was backward compatibleness, then simplification and finally limited innovation. Over all these lords the fact that the community has to say yes to all changes. Honestly I am fine with this as long as the Monster Manual and the DMG are designed in the studio and not like the handbook. The Player Handbook is for the players, the rest needs to be tackled by proper designers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
I think that the only mistake they made was calling this One D&D at the start. That set completely opposite expectations from what they wanted, which is a minor Skyrim style anniversary revision, and which was clearly their goal from the 2nd playtest onward, and probably before too. Their number one goal was backward compatibleness, then simplification and finally limited innovation. Over all these lords the fact that the community has to say yes to all changes. Honestly I am fine with this as long as the Monster Manual and the DMG are designed in the studio and not like the handbook. The Player Handbook is for the players, the rest needs to be tackled by proper designers.
Yes, I tend to agree with that. Like the character race/class and progression stuff I can reasonably live with limited innovation, as a whole most of the issues I have with 5e D&D really don't have that much to do with the way the character progression stuff works, but rather more with how those core mechanics play out in the game.
At the top of my list of things that I think need serious design fixing are ....
1. Monster Design - which right now is atrociously bad, I say without reservation that the 5e monster manual is the worst one in all of D&D history. So much work needed here to make combat feel good.
2. Speed of Play - I swear every effort was made to ensure 5e D&D combat is the slowest it can possibly be. From action economy to the way initiative works, monster design (again) contributes heavily to the slowness to the stubbornness of certain things like Opportunity Attacks. Any single thing I can't say is the problem, but put it all together and you get this completely uninspiring and boring tactical slugfest which is a pain to balance to boot.
3. Magic Items - So poorly balanced the concept of magic items is that they had to create a meta-rule that says you can only use 3 at a time. Its as if they just gave up on the premise entirely and went... screw it.. let's just place a hard limit on it and call it a day.
4. Rules Clarity - Its just so terrible throughout the game, like the game can be relatively simple but it becomes complicated because of terrible organization, rules writing and this whole stupidity of trying to squeeze in creative writing into a rulebook. Already been mentioned but man, just look around, people are writing clear and concise rulebooks. Just ...do that..
5. Power Creep - For the love of god, there is so much power creep in this game and it gets dumber with the release of every book. Just stop already, figure out a baseline and make sure everything works from that baseline. You would think this was nipped in the but with Bound Accuracy, but I swear the power creep in 5e is just as bad as it was in 3e.
While some of these issues can be found in the players handbook, it has more to do with how it all comes together than any specific rule or feature.
The strategy that the development team is following is: "if any change is voted down, it is reverted to 2014".
It's not even just that; they reverted standardised sub-class levels because people weren't positive enough about the change, despite not one of the surveys asking about it or giving us any good way to provide feedback about it (in fact, they actually removed the ability to rate the "sub-class improvement" features", so made it even harder).
The moment they announced that reversion and then tried to blame us for it, they cast serious doubt on whether there's any point to anybody filling out the feedback surveys at all.
... D&D's evolution has taken place largely despite the community, not because of it. ...
I don't think a truer sentence has ever been written on any Internet website, ever. This whole process has revealed that Involving The Community at every step, trying to get Mother-May-I buy-in from a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary yaybos, and basically saying "if we print this will you promise to buy it?" before recoiling if the answer is 'no'? It's the worst thing they could've done. The worst.
The thronging Internet morasses they keep surveying are not game designers. Most of the people answering these surveys couldn't design their way out of an ankle-high stack of rotten fruit. They don't know the first damn thing about what makes a good game. The highly paid game designers who do know those things have effectively no say in the process, and it's maddening.
It's funny seeing this thread because I actually drafted something very similar and then deleted it for fear of being seen as incendiary.
What's been VERY interesting is seeing two projects from Matt Colville's MCDM: first, their monster book on Kickstarter, Flee Mortals, and the videos talking about the development effort for MCDM's own TTRPG. Flee, Mortals easily blows any monster book WOTC has done out of the water. There's an intentionality in the monster design and a lot of creativity which keeps things interesting for players AND DMs. From entry-level critters like goblins and orcs to BBEG-type entries like liches, it's clear each monster and each monster's traits and abilities have been carefully and fully thought through and designed.
While the TTRPG is still being designed, the in-progress videos are an amazing contrast to the videos we're getting from WOTC regarding the playtest. Very strikingly, the MCDM TTRPG is being built by experienced game designers who are willing to try everything as well as question all presumptions about what a D&D-like game would do. Again, there's an intentionality and focus there on building the best game for the best experience - and the playtesting is being done with closed, limited groups. They're not asking for the great unwashed masses (note that I'm counting myself in that crowd) for approval or applause: they're trying to build the best f**king game they can, based on decades of experience in actual game design and playing TTRPGs.
(Another striking thing: it's clear that Colville & Co. hold the DM as an equal player in the game and someone who should be having fun, whilst WOTC seems to be hurtling towards a version of D&D in which a human DM is superfluous.)
I think WOTC's decision to crowdsource the next version of D&D has been a huge mistake, and we're seeing fruits of it now: whatever comes next will be a cautious, conservative set of changes, giving us a blander, easier game that will require more work from DMs and players to provide any real flavor or distinction.
At this point, I'm seriously considering either just sticking with the 2014 rules set (combined with a very healthy set of house rules/homebrew) and/or switching over to Colville's game, if it proves to be able to scratch the same itch D&D has been doing for decades with me.
It's funny seeing this thread because I actually drafted something very similar and then deleted it for fear of being seen as incendiary.
What's been VERY interesting is seeing two projects from Matt Colville's MCDM: first, their monster book on Kickstarter, Flee Mortals, and the videos talking about the development effort for MCDM's own TTRPG. Flee, Mortals easily blows any monster book WOTC has done out of the water. There's an intentionality in the monster design and a lot of creativity which keeps things interesting for players AND DMs. From entry-level critters like goblins and orcs to BBEG-type entries like liches, it's clear each monster and each monster's traits and abilities have been carefully and fully thought through and designed.
While the TTRPG is still being designed, the in-progress videos are an amazing contrast to the videos we're getting from WOTC regarding the playtest. Very strikingly, the MCDM TTRPG is being built by experienced game designers who are willing to try everything as well as question all presumptions about what a D&D-like game would do. Again, there's an intentionality and focus there on building the best game for the best experience - and the playtesting is being done with closed, limited groups. They're not asking for the great unwashed masses (note that I'm counting myself in that crowd) for approval or applause: they're trying to build the best f**king game they can, based on decades of experience in actual game design and playing TTRPGs.
(Another striking thing: it's clear that Colville & Co. hold the DM as an equal player in the game and someone who should be having fun, whilst WOTC seems to be hurtling towards a version of D&D in which a human DM is superfluous.)
I think WOTC's decision to crowdsource the next version of D&D has been a huge mistake, and we're seeing fruits of it now: whatever comes next will be a cautious, conservative set of changes, giving us a blander, easier game that will require more work from DMs and players to provide any real flavor or distinction.
At this point, I'm seriously considering either just sticking with the 2014 rules set (combined with a very healthy set of house rules/homebrew) and/or switching over to Colville's game, if it proves to be able to scratch the same itch D&D has been doing for decades with me.
I fully agree regarding the work over at MCDM.
The amazing thing about Flee Mortals is that not only does it fix 5e monsters masterfully, it actually challenges the entire premise of what D&D combat can be as a whole for any edition.
I fully agree that the work they are doing on their new RPG is quite evolutionary, they are not afraid to challenge all of the D&D traditions and standardized designs to build something entirely new. Matt Colville is a big fan of 4e and it feels to me like he is inspired by some of the core design concepts, less so actual rules which I think is actually a good thing. 4e I think was on the right track conceptually, but it had some execution issues, but I think its worth saying that MCDM is going quite a ways beyond that as well. It's all very new and fresh. Very exciting stuff.
In my opinion, the problem is not that playtest documents are released and the community is asked for its opinion. That's ok. Especially if the people voting have actually played the playtest. However, several things are happening here that are degenerating the playtest into a pantomime:
- Many, many people vote without playing the playtest (this is very noticeable when you read the opinions in this subforum). - Many people vote according to what they like, and not according to what works or doesn't work. - The design team is taking the surveys as a market study, and not as an authentic playtest. This is probably because they are aware of the two points above. - WoTC is afraid of the community reaction. This is probably an effect derived from the great controversy of the OGL, and other recent controversies of the company. And, in addition to that, they are partly using the playtest to clean up their image. - Time is running out, and WoTC doesn't want any more experiments. They want to have this ready by the scheduled date.
That makes this not really a playtest. A playtest is used to adjust things. So that the design team realizes what is not working and finds a solution. And, for that feedback to work, people should play the playtest, and vote based on what works and what doesn't. "In our game this feature made most combat trivial." "The player who was testing x class fell in every fight." "This spell, with this feat, made exploration too easy for the players." Etc...
In my opinion, the problem is not that playtest documents are released and the community is asked for its opinion. That's ok. Especially if the people voting have actually played the playtest. However, several things are happening here that are degenerating the playtest into a pantomime:
- Many, many people vote without playing the playtest (this is very noticeable when you read the opinions in this subforum). - Many people vote according to what they like, and not according to what works or doesn't work. - The design team is taking the surveys as a market study, and not as an authentic playtest. This is probably because they are aware of the two points above. - WoTC is afraid of the community reaction. This is probably an effect derived from the great controversy of the OGL, and other recent controversies of the company. And, in addition to that, they are partly using the playtest to clean up their image. - Time is running out, and WoTC doesn't want any more experiments. They want to have this ready by the scheduled date.
That makes this not really a playtest. A playtest is used to adjust things. So that the design team realizes what is not working and finds a solution. And, for that feedback to work, people should play the playtest, and vote based on what works and what doesn't. "In our game this feature made most combat trivial." "The player who was testing x class fell in every fight." "This spell, with this feat, made exploration too easy for the players." Etc...
Good points but I think I would add two other issues to the list.
First, Wizards of the Coast has politicized the process and drawn a lot of attention to the games ethical implications which they constantly bring up drawing debate, so its no longer just about creating good game mechanics or a playtest they must now walk a fine line of libreral politics that they have drawn for themselves. For example the whole changing the word Race to Species wasn't even a real change, I mean they literally just changed a word. Had they just slipped it into the playtest and not drawn attention to it, I don't think anyone would have even noticed or cared, I mean.. Race, Species, Ancestry, Lineage... call it whatever the hell you want, who cares? But because they drew attention to it, politicized it and made a whole show out of it this community spent the next two months in debates turned hostile arguments drawing attention away from the playtest process, into the arena of theoretical debates about how racist society is. It was in a word, stupid.
Then of course there is the whole method of testing. We get these incomplete bits that might be ok in the context of a whole game and in the context of future changes, but right now, as is, things have issues when they are out of this context.
To me what they need to be doing is releasing a complete game for us to playtest, not bits and pieces that we are supposed to what? Inject into our ongoing campaigns? How do they expect it to work. They release a new class and we are supposed to be like "ok Bob, we are changing your character with the updated UA changes that are untested, you're our guinea pig."
I honestly think that 99% of the stuff released into the community through the UA process goes completely untested, I don't think there are many DM's out there willing to inject random untested stuff WOTC splashed in the UA into their ongoing campaigns. I think what happens is that people generally vote and fill out the surveys based on a reading of what is there and if that really is the case, the entire playtest is utterly useless as a data source for determining what actually works or is good.
Give me a complete system to test and I will create a new campaign and run the game for a year... THEN we can have a serious conversation about what works and what doesn't. The stuff we get in the UA... if we are being completely honest, I don't see how we are supposed to make any sense out of it or judge it in anyway. It comes off as some homebrew adjustments any one of us (players & DM's in the community) could post online and debate.
Its super unprofessional the way they are running this thing.
For the playtest we do short campaigns of a few sessions, or oneshoots. In short campaigns everything speeds up a lot. That is, you level up (sometimes several levels) from one session to another, to test the character at different levels.
Additionally, games are designed to test things. That is, we don't pay attention to the story, or whether it is a good game. We make sure that we can try as many things as possible.
For example, I was DM in the first UA in which the druid appeared. To test whether wild shape had utility outside of combat, what I did was run several scenes that the druid could classically resolve with his wild shape.
By this I mean that we do not insert the Playtest into an ongoing campaign, but rather we make specific games for the playtest. Basically, we try to test the released document. Something that by the way is increasingly difficult for us to do, since there are many people in my gaming groups who are completely disenchanted with the direction of the Playtest, and do not want to know anything more about it. They don't want to miss a session where they could be playing something else, to try this out. And I understand them.
For the playtest we do short campaigns of a few sessions, or oneshoots. In short campaigns everything speeds up a lot. That is, you level up (sometimes several levels) from one session to another, to test the character at different levels.
Additionally, games are designed to test things. That is, we don't pay attention to the story, or whether it is a good game. We make sure that we can try as many things as possible.
For example, I was DM in the first UA in which the druid appeared. To test whether wild shape had utility outside of combat, what I did was run several scenes that the druid could classically resolve with his wild shape.
By this I mean that we do not insert the Playtest into an ongoing campaign, but rather we make specific games for the playtest. Basically, we try to test the released document. Something that by the way is increasingly difficult for us to do, since there are many people in my gaming groups who are completely disenchanted with the direction of the Playtest, and do not want to know anything more about it. They don't want to miss a session where they could be playing something else, to try this out. And I understand them.
Yeah, it's tough to convince a group of D&D players who usually already struggle to get everyone to the table to burn an opportunity to run a main campaign to do some side thing just to test mechanics. Like I wouldn't even suggest that to my group, they would lynch me.
I am holding out hope that feedback for both things the community likes and dislikes will not be the end-all-be-all of what comes out in 2024. Even with changes that they put out, get feedback, then revert to 2014 for the playtest doesn’t necessarily mean it will stay that way in 2024. It’s just reverted for playtest. I believe we’ve seen UA before that final product wasn’t like what the UA presented.
Well currently using PF2 and if you have tons of options for customizing characters (which I like as it fits with a suggestion for D&D I already made), you just can do the character you want to be, as said by someone in that game thread, a good thing is that the main maths are attached to the class itself and the character level, giving you room for customization not falling too behind the known optimizers, maintaining the balance and avoiding making you feel useless at their side.
People that feels so disgusted should give it a try (or any other). The games are not excluding, I am converting D&D adventures and playing at Forgotten Realms set for them, so need the manuals for conversion (Monsters) and also the set ones (Sword Coast, Ravenloft, etc.).
I see different levels of games, those hard-RPG (Rolemaster, D&D 3.5, PF1), mid-point (PF2), and easy ones (D&D 5E). The merit of D&D 5E is a system that gives you good options for role-playing that can be easily played even for newers. Then what we need are options, and extra DMGs (Xanathar) and Player (Tasha) manuals give options to make the game some more complex for those who want it (healing, flanking, crafting, tasks out of combat, etc) but under the same easy principles.
The main issue I saw at it (D&D 5E) was the problems with the huge difference between character creation and optimization, not allowing to enjoy YOUR (not the optimal) character, the tier concept, some cuts to magic (like having only 1 slot for level 6-9, there are other ways to balance). I got saturated of that specially about the looking for exploits in character creation.
I have been in an ongoing PF2 campaign as a player for almost 3 years at this point and while I do enjoy it, I think the issue with it is that by the time you are about 5th level, you have so many feats and abilities, it starts to become really difficult to even remember what you can do, let alone anyone else. Once you reach 10th level, forget about, the game is impossible to play RAW, you are going to forget to implement half the rules every session. Especially if you use stuff beyond the core rulebook where you have passive abilities that the DM has to remember to implement on your behalf. The countless modifiers too, I mean its crazy how many different effects can end up in a single combat.
Its a really well-designed game in principle and mathematically but you have to have some really attentive players who really understand every level and moving gear in the game.
The combat is also ultra-slow to the point of stop. Its tactical and interesting, so it does make-up for the slowness but if you can finish a typical 4-5 player combat in under 2 hours your playing the game at a neck-breaking pace. For us, rarely does a combat end in under 3 hours and big boss fights take up entire sessions.
I don't know that as a role-playing game this is a good approach, I mean, its kind of OK for me as a player but I wouldn't want to run it.
As far as "options for role-playing", I don't think that is a real thing. Like people say that, but mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with role-playing, role-playing is EXACTLY the same no matter what system you're using. Wether you have a mechanical background that says "Soldier" or its something you write into your character's backstory, it's the same difference so far as role-playing goes.
I think at the end of the day the question is, how much mechanics do you need to have a good role-playing game, the answer is, very little. Combat mechanics and the various bells and whistles of feats and all that stuff... its just there to sell you books, it has nothing to do wtih a roleplaying game.
The thing is... both forks are old school and tread well. I was watching a few videos recently on 4, which is one of the ones I missed out on, and it sounds like dependencies stacked on dependencies to being "crunchy in a different way" which is..yeah.. them and pathfinder are the crunchy fork.
I was in my local game store though, and while I don't care for crunch the owner was really intent on selling me one of a new RPG where "you don't even need dice." And that's... equally not for me... but a valid alternate path. If pathfinder and 3e are the calculator combatant, I would call it the drama club.
And I find the TTRPG world is kind of exploding with variations on how to have an aspect role play with an aspect of dice determined chance these days.
Overall I think 5e is in a somewhat a sweet spot between crunch and drama club, and I although you and I would like to see more integration of 1e and 2e principles, I have a feeling the d&d community wants more of a retread on crunch. Look at the forums and the YouTube videos. A lot more time is being devoted to "builds" and the desire to maximize damage. (And old farts saying 5e is too easy). The drama kids are kinda moving on...
Truthfully I want an innovative new take on the game. Something far far more modular than it is now.
For role-playing you use the skills, that’s why we need a good set of rules of skill development, bonuses, and usage. It matters a lot, is not the same a system based on OK talk what you think and the GM imagines and executes how it thinks it could be, compared to a system giving the character the abilities to accomplish what the players want to do. The best for that are the skill development systems (like Rolemaster), PF2 has a lot for about skills, PF1 and D&D 3.5 too, and 5E combining the different extra supplements can be good enough too with the multi-proficiency, tools usage, and etc.
That's why I want to stay far away from the pathfinder games.
5e lacks danger and in that, players feel like they can just waltz into any situation and do whatever they want. In first and second far less so. This is one of the biggest sticking points with those like myself that remember those games.
I'm the only old fart in a 5e game I'm playing. When the police were looking for someone guilty of a crime we committed, I was the only player concerned with concocting an alibi. When we had tons of money and the town was one of thieves, I'm the only one wanting to have more than one place to sleep.
These are role play choices that are almost knee jerk because in 1and 2, you got your ass handed to you for walking into a tavern carrying your sword still....
Even the pathfinder crowd don't get that... reservation. That need to be cautious and the desire to RP yourself out of a situation because 90% of the time combat was going to come at a cost.
And there's a bit of a knock on effect there, where role playing not to die kind of encourages you to role play the situations where you aren't likely to die anyhow.
That's how the best stories came about... new players... they immediately jump to combat. I give a setting and things to do in a place that don't require much actual combat, and they NEED to be encouraged and told to.search rooms or to talk to people or encouraged to interact... and around 3 is when the RP aspect kinda died.
Anyhow combat mechanics CAN force good RP, when the lethality and consequences are up, which is my objection to the "drama club" games - there's authors and no lethality.
It's just a bunch of kids in the school yard asking of each other's characters, "but can he beat Goku tho?"
Well you won't get any argument from me, this is why I still run Old School 1e D&D. It's not because I think the mechanics are so stellar (in fact I use Old School Essentials Advanced Fantas and I alter the hell out of it)... But yeah, implementing a good challenge level is difficult in 5e, keeping a rhythm in which players respect the consequences of the game is impossible. Mainly because it's kind of an all-or-nothing thing. Either you have balanced combat encounters or you don't, but that is largely the jist of the consequence in 5e and if a battle is unbalanced, you are likely facing a TPK every time. Players in modern games just aren't accustomed to the premise of "you can't win this fight" and "things can kill you".
More than that, the absence of consequences outside of combat really doesn't exist in modern 5e D&D. Like, you can get poisoned and you know with nearly 100% certainty that you are going to live, so approaching things like traps is seen as "yeah, worst-case scenario, you get hurt". Insta-save or die traps and things that can really kill you because of a decision you made.
In my game a couple of years back I had an entire adventuring die from a Rot Grub infection while traversing the open ocean. They were unprepared for disease and made a lot of poor decision that turned a solvable problem into a deadly epidemic. By the time they figured out what was happening it was too late.
If something like that happen in a 5e game, people would rage quit the game. The idea that there are consequences beyond "heroic combat" is just not something that is accepted but this is both a system and a culture thing. I don't blame or even have issue with it, but I just that want to run a game where players can do whatever they want knowing comfortably that the game isn't going to kill their character because they are the heroes of the story. To me that doesn't really make anyone a hero. Being a hero is accepting the potential consequences and adventuring anyway. If you have effectively mechanical plot armor, in that story there are no heroes. This is of course just my opinion and my playstyle, but unfortunately 5e doesn't really support it and requires quite a bit of adjustment to implement and I find that adjustment is easier made from 1e than from 5e.
.
I don't like talking about PF2 in this forum, since it makes me feel like I'm trolling. However, sometimes it is unavoidable. Both games want to achieve a similar gaming experience, but through different philosophies.
5e pretends to be easy, but it doesn't succeed. Instead it is simple, but at the same time it is complicated. Who doesn't have constant discussions about how this or that mechanic works? If what is said in X spell is "flavor" or is it a rule? Etc... And despite all the discussions, the game lacks the depth of both other editions and other D20 systems.
For its part, PF2 aims to be complex, and it is. But within that complexity, once you become familiar with the rules, the game system is simple. And that is mainly because of two things: The rules are well explained, and everything works with similar mechanics. If something is an attack, it is an attack. And there's no discussion (they put a label on it to make it even easier to see). Does it have the Move label? Well, that action is a Move. Does it have the Manipulate label? Well, that action is Manipulate. And so with any mechanics. That ends a lot of arguments and debates, and makes the game system easier (even if it is complex).
However, that being said, it must be kept in mind that although PF2 is very well designed, its philosophy is not for all players. That's something many PF2 fans forget. There are people who are overwhelmed by complexity. There are people who suffer from analysis paralysis. There are people who like to break the game. Etc... For all those people, no matter how well PF2 is designed, they will never like it.
I prefer PF2, I'm not going to hide. But I also like 5e. What I would like is that in this revision of 5e they would take examples of the things that PF2 does best, and integrate them into the game. And here I am not talking about mechanics, but rather a way to explain them. I'm tired of ambiguities, confusing terminology, disparate mechanics to do basically the same thing, and a long etc. How many times do you have to go look up what Jeremy Crawford said in a tweet, or search through Sage Advice to clarify basic mechanics? That has to stop. The minimum, minimum that I expect from this reissue (or whatever they call it) is that it is well explained, clear, and without ambiguities. After the PHB is published, I hope no one has to go ask Jeremy Crawford on Twitter if a cleric can use his holy symbol without holding it. Otherwise, if we continue to have to seek clarifications, WoTC will have done its job poorly.
I'm not anti-pathfinder, I just hate that everyone suggests it when you mention dissatisfaction with D&D.
What you say about JC is absolutely true, and I hate to say it but his voice irritates me like he's got a wad of cotton balls stuffed in his cheeks and I hate how he always seems to be trying to sell me a bad sale of goods in every UA.
I don't mind SOME ambiguities, though I also agree with most of the efforts to remove mother may I, (and am confused when they add in others).
What bothers me is how scattered and disparate the info is. Is the answer buried in a subclass description? Or is it in a supplement? What was errata-ed and what was not? (Because on DDB, changes make it something "always was" when print conflicts. The species change for example. Love the change in terms, but some things in Tasha's and on are just... gone. Like lizard folk's crafting. Or what books had what classes and species? I haven't double-checked but I swear to God tabaxi and triton were phb at one point...)
There's an old-ish saying, sometimes applied to playwriting, writing, game design, etc... "Always trust your [players/readers/audience] to tell you something is wrong. Never trust them to tell you how to fix it."
I think that the only mistake they made was calling this One D&D at the start. That set completely opposite expectations from what they wanted, which is a minor Skyrim style anniversary revision, and which was clearly their goal from the 2nd playtest onward, and probably before too. Their number one goal was backward compatibleness, then simplification and finally limited innovation. Over all these lords the fact that the community has to say yes to all changes. Honestly I am fine with this as long as the Monster Manual and the DMG are designed in the studio and not like the handbook. The Player Handbook is for the players, the rest needs to be tackled by proper designers.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Yes, I tend to agree with that. Like the character race/class and progression stuff I can reasonably live with limited innovation, as a whole most of the issues I have with 5e D&D really don't have that much to do with the way the character progression stuff works, but rather more with how those core mechanics play out in the game.
At the top of my list of things that I think need serious design fixing are ....
1. Monster Design - which right now is atrociously bad, I say without reservation that the 5e monster manual is the worst one in all of D&D history. So much work needed here to make combat feel good.
2. Speed of Play - I swear every effort was made to ensure 5e D&D combat is the slowest it can possibly be. From action economy to the way initiative works, monster design (again) contributes heavily to the slowness to the stubbornness of certain things like Opportunity Attacks. Any single thing I can't say is the problem, but put it all together and you get this completely uninspiring and boring tactical slugfest which is a pain to balance to boot.
3. Magic Items - So poorly balanced the concept of magic items is that they had to create a meta-rule that says you can only use 3 at a time. Its as if they just gave up on the premise entirely and went... screw it.. let's just place a hard limit on it and call it a day.
4. Rules Clarity - Its just so terrible throughout the game, like the game can be relatively simple but it becomes complicated because of terrible organization, rules writing and this whole stupidity of trying to squeeze in creative writing into a rulebook. Already been mentioned but man, just look around, people are writing clear and concise rulebooks. Just ...do that..
5. Power Creep - For the love of god, there is so much power creep in this game and it gets dumber with the release of every book. Just stop already, figure out a baseline and make sure everything works from that baseline. You would think this was nipped in the but with Bound Accuracy, but I swear the power creep in 5e is just as bad as it was in 3e.
While some of these issues can be found in the players handbook, it has more to do with how it all comes together than any specific rule or feature.
It's not even just that; they reverted standardised sub-class levels because people weren't positive enough about the change, despite not one of the surveys asking about it or giving us any good way to provide feedback about it (in fact, they actually removed the ability to rate the "sub-class improvement" features", so made it even harder).
The moment they announced that reversion and then tried to blame us for it, they cast serious doubt on whether there's any point to anybody filling out the feedback surveys at all.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
It's funny seeing this thread because I actually drafted something very similar and then deleted it for fear of being seen as incendiary.
What's been VERY interesting is seeing two projects from Matt Colville's MCDM: first, their monster book on Kickstarter, Flee Mortals, and the videos talking about the development effort for MCDM's own TTRPG. Flee, Mortals easily blows any monster book WOTC has done out of the water. There's an intentionality in the monster design and a lot of creativity which keeps things interesting for players AND DMs. From entry-level critters like goblins and orcs to BBEG-type entries like liches, it's clear each monster and each monster's traits and abilities have been carefully and fully thought through and designed.
While the TTRPG is still being designed, the in-progress videos are an amazing contrast to the videos we're getting from WOTC regarding the playtest. Very strikingly, the MCDM TTRPG is being built by experienced game designers who are willing to try everything as well as question all presumptions about what a D&D-like game would do. Again, there's an intentionality and focus there on building the best game for the best experience - and the playtesting is being done with closed, limited groups. They're not asking for the great unwashed masses (note that I'm counting myself in that crowd) for approval or applause: they're trying to build the best f**king game they can, based on decades of experience in actual game design and playing TTRPGs.
(Another striking thing: it's clear that Colville & Co. hold the DM as an equal player in the game and someone who should be having fun, whilst WOTC seems to be hurtling towards a version of D&D in which a human DM is superfluous.)
I think WOTC's decision to crowdsource the next version of D&D has been a huge mistake, and we're seeing fruits of it now: whatever comes next will be a cautious, conservative set of changes, giving us a blander, easier game that will require more work from DMs and players to provide any real flavor or distinction.
At this point, I'm seriously considering either just sticking with the 2014 rules set (combined with a very healthy set of house rules/homebrew) and/or switching over to Colville's game, if it proves to be able to scratch the same itch D&D has been doing for decades with me.
I fully agree regarding the work over at MCDM.
The amazing thing about Flee Mortals is that not only does it fix 5e monsters masterfully, it actually challenges the entire premise of what D&D combat can be as a whole for any edition.
I fully agree that the work they are doing on their new RPG is quite evolutionary, they are not afraid to challenge all of the D&D traditions and standardized designs to build something entirely new. Matt Colville is a big fan of 4e and it feels to me like he is inspired by some of the core design concepts, less so actual rules which I think is actually a good thing. 4e I think was on the right track conceptually, but it had some execution issues, but I think its worth saying that MCDM is going quite a ways beyond that as well. It's all very new and fresh. Very exciting stuff.
In my opinion, the problem is not that playtest documents are released and the community is asked for its opinion. That's ok. Especially if the people voting have actually played the playtest.
However, several things are happening here that are degenerating the playtest into a pantomime:
- Many, many people vote without playing the playtest (this is very noticeable when you read the opinions in this subforum).
- Many people vote according to what they like, and not according to what works or doesn't work.
- The design team is taking the surveys as a market study, and not as an authentic playtest. This is probably because they are aware of the two points above.
- WoTC is afraid of the community reaction. This is probably an effect derived from the great controversy of the OGL, and other recent controversies of the company. And, in addition to that, they are partly using the playtest to clean up their image.
- Time is running out, and WoTC doesn't want any more experiments. They want to have this ready by the scheduled date.
That makes this not really a playtest. A playtest is used to adjust things. So that the design team realizes what is not working and finds a solution. And, for that feedback to work, people should play the playtest, and vote based on what works and what doesn't. "In our game this feature made most combat trivial." "The player who was testing x class fell in every fight." "This spell, with this feat, made exploration too easy for the players." Etc...
Good points but I think I would add two other issues to the list.
First, Wizards of the Coast has politicized the process and drawn a lot of attention to the games ethical implications which they constantly bring up drawing debate, so its no longer just about creating good game mechanics or a playtest they must now walk a fine line of libreral politics that they have drawn for themselves. For example the whole changing the word Race to Species wasn't even a real change, I mean they literally just changed a word. Had they just slipped it into the playtest and not drawn attention to it, I don't think anyone would have even noticed or cared, I mean.. Race, Species, Ancestry, Lineage... call it whatever the hell you want, who cares? But because they drew attention to it, politicized it and made a whole show out of it this community spent the next two months in debates turned hostile arguments drawing attention away from the playtest process, into the arena of theoretical debates about how racist society is. It was in a word, stupid.
Then of course there is the whole method of testing. We get these incomplete bits that might be ok in the context of a whole game and in the context of future changes, but right now, as is, things have issues when they are out of this context.
To me what they need to be doing is releasing a complete game for us to playtest, not bits and pieces that we are supposed to what? Inject into our ongoing campaigns? How do they expect it to work. They release a new class and we are supposed to be like "ok Bob, we are changing your character with the updated UA changes that are untested, you're our guinea pig."
I honestly think that 99% of the stuff released into the community through the UA process goes completely untested, I don't think there are many DM's out there willing to inject random untested stuff WOTC splashed in the UA into their ongoing campaigns. I think what happens is that people generally vote and fill out the surveys based on a reading of what is there and if that really is the case, the entire playtest is utterly useless as a data source for determining what actually works or is good.
Give me a complete system to test and I will create a new campaign and run the game for a year... THEN we can have a serious conversation about what works and what doesn't. The stuff we get in the UA... if we are being completely honest, I don't see how we are supposed to make any sense out of it or judge it in anyway. It comes off as some homebrew adjustments any one of us (players & DM's in the community) could post online and debate.
Its super unprofessional the way they are running this thing.
For the playtest we do short campaigns of a few sessions, or oneshoots. In short campaigns everything speeds up a lot. That is, you level up (sometimes several levels) from one session to another, to test the character at different levels.
Additionally, games are designed to test things. That is, we don't pay attention to the story, or whether it is a good game. We make sure that we can try as many things as possible.
For example, I was DM in the first UA in which the druid appeared. To test whether wild shape had utility outside of combat, what I did was run several scenes that the druid could classically resolve with his wild shape.
By this I mean that we do not insert the Playtest into an ongoing campaign, but rather we make specific games for the playtest. Basically, we try to test the released document. Something that by the way is increasingly difficult for us to do, since there are many people in my gaming groups who are completely disenchanted with the direction of the Playtest, and do not want to know anything more about it. They don't want to miss a session where they could be playing something else, to try this out. And I understand them.
Yeah, it's tough to convince a group of D&D players who usually already struggle to get everyone to the table to burn an opportunity to run a main campaign to do some side thing just to test mechanics. Like I wouldn't even suggest that to my group, they would lynch me.
I am holding out hope that feedback for both things the community likes and dislikes will not be the end-all-be-all of what comes out in 2024. Even with changes that they put out, get feedback, then revert to 2014 for the playtest doesn’t necessarily mean it will stay that way in 2024. It’s just reverted for playtest. I believe we’ve seen UA before that final product wasn’t like what the UA presented.
Just a hope.
I'm very satisfied with the direction they are going.