The announcement on January 9 made me optimistic and hopeful about D&D Next, particularly the words "modular" and "inclusive."

I was very excited about the opportunity to playtest the next edition at D&DXP, and participated through three playtest games. I would have played in more if I'd been able. I wanted to get a flavor for various character options, and I wanted to see how these rules might play out under different GMs.

I wasn't disappointed; in fact, I went from cautiously hopeful to enthusiastic over the course of that weekend. I returned to the over 100 players and GMs I network with in my area and reported what I learned, though I was very careful not to violate the NDA--I only reported what became public knowledge through the seminars, wrote transcripts of the seminars, and linked to other transcripts and videos online so that my network could have a fuller view of what was revealed, rather than solely through my words.

As I read through various forums and blogs, a few things stand out:

Speculation: I've noticed a lot of rampant speculation about D&D Next. I suppose that this is good, overall, as it keeps buzz and interest high. (I mean, WotC even devoted an entire forum to speculation!)

Misinformation: I am astounded by the amount of claims by people that are just plain wrong. Not factual in the least. It's one thing to wonder if D&D Next will be [insert comment here]--that's speculation. To claim that D&D Next IS [insert claim here], and to be completely and utterly inaccurate, is just disappointing.

Identification: I started DMing D&D with the Larry Elmore BECMI red box in 1983. (The first RPG I ever ran was Star Frontiers in 1982.) I can honestly say that when I participated in the playtest at D&DXP, it felt like coming home, like I was opening that red box again for the first time. In the playtest, (hastily sketched) maps and minis were used solely as visual references, and were by no means required. The character sheet was a fast read and easy to comprehend; many players needed to reference it relatively little in play. Game play was quick and smooth. But I did still see glimpses of tiny innovations from 3e and even 4e on the sheet, little bits that I found interesting. (I wish I could elaborate further.) What I find most striking, however, is how some of the people who participated in the playtest, and who came to D&D much later than I with 3e and 4e, seemed to latch onto the bits of the mechanics that they were most familiar with, and expounded upon how much the playtest next edition seemed like the edition they were most familiar with. And perhaps that's a good thing, as it should be; or perhaps simply unavoidable, given human perception.

Anticipation: Finally, I feel great anticipation over the public playtests. I hope that the rough version of the rules will be released soon, so I can start running players through the game and get their feedback and thoughts as well.

Roman, based on your experience how do think someone who is extremely anti-4E or extremely anti-3E will react to the new edition?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513022Roman, based on your experience how do think someone who is extremely anti-4E or extremely anti-3E will react to the new edition?

Quite favorably, I think. At least with regard to the core playtest mechanics I saw.

I think that the intent to make the system modular--"Like tactical combat? Add it! Like lots of character options? Add them! Want a fun play experience more like BECMI? No need to add anything! Official 'house' rules all around!"--was a good decision.

Of course, I feel like I need to caveat ad nauseum that these are rather early playtest rules, but that said, I was very pleased with them, and hope that development continues in this vein.

Awesome. Thanks for taking the time to post this on theRpgsite.

I am a big 2e fan, and do not like the tactical combat of 3e and 4e.

If it doesn`t violate your NDA, are you able to tell us if the basic core even uses movement rates. Some RPGs don`t even use movement rates in combat (e.g. Legend of the Five Rings RPG).

I've just had a chat with Mike Mearls that, without having yet seen the rules themselves (waiting for some contract issues to be resolved), I can say has renewed my sense of hope for the core game being very suitable to Old School type play.

RPGPundit

Quote from: 1989;513045Awesome. Thanks for taking the time to post this on theRpgsite.

I am a big 2e fan, and do not like the tactical combat of 3e and 4e.

If it doesn`t violate your NDA, are you able to tell us if the basic core even uses movement rates. Some RPGs don`t even use movement rates in combat (e.g. Legend of the Five Rings RPG).

Unfortunately, they did ask us not to take pictures of the character sheets, or reveal anything about what was on them or about the mechanics themselves beyond what was in the seminars. So I can say, "Yes, there *are* fighters! And half-orcs!" But as to specific abilities, stats, etc., I'm not comfortable stating.

(I may be splitting hairs, but I'm trying to err on the side of keeping my word.)

Roman, thanks for posting all this. It must be hard to walk the fine line, and I like the others appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

Did you play the Caves of Chaos three times in a row, or other things too? Are you at liberty to say what, what modules, or the type of adventures you played at all?

Quote from: Roman;513014I wasn't disappointed; in fact, I went from cautiously hopeful to enthusiastic over the course of that weekend. I returned to the over 100 players and GMs I network with in my area and reported what I learned, [...] wrote transcripts of the seminars, and linked to other transcripts and videos online so that my network could have a fuller view of what was revealed, rather than solely through my words.

In other words, you contacted 100+ people to tell them about the new edition and how great it was. I've playtested games before but the most I did was to write a forum post about it. I've never spinned (span?) "the news" to my circle of acquaintances like I was a Jehova's witness.

And yet here you are, doing not only that but writing an Enthusiastic Support This Edition Call post you cross-post in forums you hardly frequent. Like here, or in the Wizards forum, where you got 9 posts, and one of them is this:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28904003/Speculation,_Misinformation,_Identification,_and_Anticipation?pg=1

Taken with

Quote from: Roman;513014Misinformation: I am astounded by the amount of claims by people that are just plain wrong. Not factual in the least. It's one thing to wonder if D&D Next will be [insert comment here]--that's speculation. To claim that D&D Next IS [insert claim here], and to be completely and utterly inaccurate, is just disappointing.

= the 2008 Andy Collins directive to only post positive vibes because negative ones are MisINformation

and

Quote from: Roman;513014Identification: I started DMing D&D with the Larry Elmore BECMI red box in 1983. (The first RPG I ever ran was Star Frontiers in 1982.) I can honestly say that when I participated in the playtest at D&DXP, it felt like coming home, like I was opening that red box again for the first time.

waving the card of credibility

= this.

Yours is not the only post we've seen like this in the past weeks, there were others on Enworld. I'm sorry but personally I'll not take anyone seriously who comes on our board to tell us how Great the New Edition Is! And feels like Coming Home! 11! unless it is someone who's posted here in the past and established some genuine credibility.

Roman has posted here before.

As a side note, I find it kind of creepy that you cannot browse the WotC website unless you accept their cookies.

Quote from: Benoist;513068Roman, thanks for posting all this. It must be hard to walk the fine line, and I like the others appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

Did you play the Caves of Chaos three times in a row, or other things too? Are you at liberty to say what, what modules, or the type of adventures you played at all?

It was the same adventure 3 times, but we had plenty of options each time for exploration, so each time the adventure was a bit different.

Quote from: Windjammer;513127In other words, you contacted 100+ people to tell them about the new edition and how great it was. I've playtested games before but the most I did was to write a forum post about it. I've never spinned (span?) "the news" to my circle of acquaintances like I was a Jehova's witness.

I run the local RPG Meetup for my area, and I provided them with links to ENWorld's transcripts, videotaped transcripts, etc., simply because I'm not the fastest typist, and because other areas might have different things I missed, or might have different views in the forums.

QuoteAnd yet here you are, doing not only that but writing an Enthusiastic Support This Edition Call post you cross-post in forums you hardly frequent. Like here, or in the Wizards forum, where you got 9 posts, and one of them is this:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28904003/Speculation,_Misinformation,_Identification,_and_Anticipation?pg=1

I did crosspost this, yes. I was indeed enthusiastic. And while I did make the caveat that D&D Next is still in early playtesting--lots could change--and that I was looking forward to playtesting it, I do not see in this post where I exhorted everyone to support this edition.

And I do frequent this site, though no, I admittedly don't post often--mostly, I just read.

QuoteTaken with
= the 2008 Andy Collins directive to only post positive vibes because negative ones are MisINformation

Actually, by misinformation, I meant simply factually incorrect information with regard to the playtest, not merely positive or negative vibes.

Quoteand
waving the card of credibility
= this.

Just letting people know which edition I meant by "home." I haven't been playing since the little brown books, nor even since Moldvay/Cook, just Mentzer etc., after D&D had been been out nearly 10 years.

QuoteYours is not the only post we've seen like this in the past weeks, there were others on Enworld. I'm sorry but personally I'll not take anyone seriously who comes on our board to tell us how Great the New Edition Is! And feels like Coming Home! 11! unless it is someone who's posted here in the past and established some genuine credibility.

Certainly your prerogative. I don't yet know what the final version of D&D Next will be, but I'm hoping that they don't change much in the basic edition from what I've seen so far.

I've been keeping out of the 5e speculation threads, but I find both Roman's testimony and Pundejo's impression intriguing. In a good way.

I'll give 5e a fair shot, like I've given every other edition, and we'll see what happens from there.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;513022Roman, based on your experience how do think someone who is extremely anti-4E or extremely anti-3E will react to the new edition?

I am also under the NDA so I can't answers with specifics. The thing you have to remember is that what they are playtesting now is the core rules. The foundation on which they are going to build on. So nobody outside of Wizards has seen the new edition including the playtesters.

With that being said the core rules that being playtested now would make most older edition fans happy in the same way that Castles & Crusades, Basic Fantasy, Adventurer Conqueror King, Lamentation of the Flame Princess, etc would. All those retro-clones are a older D&D variant not an attempt to replicate an older edition. And that what current playtest is like.

Another thing is that the playtest is not like any retro-clone we seen although individual mechanics have been seen before. The "like Castles and Castles" comments are off base although there is a good reason while you would think that initially. The combination makes the playtest it's own game.

Monte Cook comments about this in his latest article.

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120206

QuoteThat's something that we're working on right now. But some of the answers are obvious. Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18. Fighters, clerics, wizards, and rogues. (Or, if you prefer, fighting-men, clerics, magic-users, and thieves.) Character levels. Experience points. Rolling a d20 to attack. Magic missiles. Fireballs. Hold person. And so on.

In effect, what you end up with is a fully playable game with its own style. Think of it this way: It would be wrong to say that there is no inherent D&D style that carries across the nearly forty-year lifespan of the game. What you really end up with, in this approach, is a game that ends up looking—not coincidentally—like original D&D. Not entirely, of course, and not precisely, but close. It's a game that captures the feel of OD&D.

Quote from: estar;513154I am also under the NDA so I can't answers with specifics. The thing you have to remember is that what they are playtesting now is the core rules. The foundation on which they are going to build on. So nobody outside of Wizards has seen the new edition including the playtesters.

I did figure that this was the case. I can't imagine they'd have classes or character generation hammered out in any detail based on what was said in the discussion. Enough to play, mind you, but I sort of assumed you used pregens, right?