Quote from: Benoist;677461Looking at (...) the fact they are still fucking around with the game system's basics that late in the playtest, I am doubtful they have any idea where it is they are going at this point. (...) There doesn't seem to be a vision or an understanding of what they want to do with the game beyond "please, like us again!"

I gave up following the 5e playtest because I feel that with every new round of playtest the game changes fundamentally.
Why bother testing rules of five slightly different games? If I like something in iteration #3 it will be missing from the final product anyway.

Quote from: Haffrung;677327I'm gonna assume you guys are taking the piss. Not even the most delusional back-in-the-day grognard really believes D&D, or any other RPG, could sell like Risk, Clue, etc. today.

Fuck, even the biggest boardgaming sensation of the last 20 years, Settlers of Catan, doesn't move 1/10th the number of units annually as those hoary old Parker Brothers games.

So your contention is that low volume games have to reinvent themselves every few years in order to generate sales for their publishers?

Quote from: Benoist;677461So IF such a thing happens as a real basic game that isn't crippleware and represents an evergreen value for its players' tables, I suspect it'll occur by pure coincidence, rather than design.

Or they could be doing what Mongoose did with their playtest. Which turned out to have little to do with the actual system they released.

Quote from: estar;677488Or they could be doing what Mongoose did with their playtest. Which turned out to have little to do with the actual system they released.

I highly doubt that the finished product will be the same as current or future playtests, because why would people buy the thing if it were the same as what they have for free? I also suspect that at some point lock down will occur. I also suspect that the playtests are more of a way to keep up people's interest rather than being meaningful. I mean why would Mearls et al. value the opinions of some basement living, overweight, spotty, non-tabletop RPG gamer, MMORPG enthusiast over people who actually play D&D and other RPGs*?

*stereotyping for effect, but no doubt pretty close.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;677334In a general sense, with this new packet and tonight's L&L(http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130805), it seems like they are now throwing both 3E and 4E under the bus.

How do you figure.  This last packet is clearly catering to the 4e crowd.  That's like...the opposite of "throwing under the bus".

Quote from: Opaopajr;677347This.

Fun, if you know what you're getting into and want it. But absolutely not beginner friendly. Tried it with beginners in Encounters repeatedly; the sheer level of confusion was legendary. And I've been teaching various RPGs to completely green players for years. I had an easier time teaching CCGs, and that says a whole hell of a lot.

(edit: and mechanical, boring, and video gamey has no direct correlation with childish and simple. You obviously heard that criticism somewhere else than here.)

Yeah, I can't see how anyone in their right mind can say 4e catered to the casual player.  It was all about tactical play and power chains.  That's not casual at all.  Casual is more like B/X, where you don't have hardly any fiddly bits to keep track of, a character can be made in 5 minutes and fit on a post card.

Quote from: elfandghost;677512I highly doubt that the finished product will be the same as current or future playtests, because why would people buy the thing if it were the same as what they have for free? I also suspect that at some point lock down will occur. I also suspect that the playtests are more of a way to keep up people's interest rather than being meaningful. I mean why would Mearls et al. value the opinions of some basement living, overweight, spotty, non-tabletop RPG gamer, MMORPG enthusiast over people who actually play D&D and other RPGs*?

*stereotyping for effect, but no doubt pretty close.

Because the published rulebook will have races like Dragonborn, Tieflings, and classes like Warlock, Blackguard, etc.

Interesting that they only released a small vanilla list of options to playtest.  It just means that all those other classes, subclasses, and specialties (like a cleric of disease) aren't getting tested nearly as much as those included in the packet.


************

As an aside, I am more than a bit worried about having major changes to the core game this late in the game.  I do software testing for a living, and changing the requirements after this long is one of the worst things you can do.  On a personal level, it seems to me that they decided to go to RPG.net and read the forums there, and say, "Well, if RPG.net hates it, then clearly we need to make it more like 4e, and make sure that it's less important on how the mechanics actually work in actual game play, and most important on how they work in arena combat."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677522Because the published rulebook will have races like Dragonborn, Tieflings...

More's the pity...

Quote from: elfandghost;677531More's the pity...

haha, I was thinking that too, but I didn't say it


Actually, I don't care if they do have them.  Easy enough for my group to ignore and not allow it.  And if including a few pages so someone can play a Dragonborn if they want results in increased sales, I don't have issue with it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677534haha, I was thinking that too, but I didn't say it


Actually, I don't care if they do have them.  Easy enough for my group to ignore and not allow it.  And if including a few pages so someone can play a Dragonborn if they want results in increased sales, I don't have issue with it.

They can put whatever crazy races they feel like in it. I only ask one favor: don't include stupid shit like " Play a dragonborn if you want to.....look like a dragon." :rolleyes:

Just include the races and try not to aim the text at a 1st grade reading level.

QuoteLooking at the design by committee thing going on and the fact they are still fucking around with the game system's basics that late in the playtest, I am doubtful they have any idea where it is they are going at this point. EVERYTHING that's been said so far amounts to peace offerings, wishful thinking, theories, "let's try this," "no, that" and maybes. It's all hypotheticals, even the big tent and blah blah blah. There doesn't seem to be a vision or an understanding of what they want to do with the game beyond "please, like us again!" I find that deeply troubling.

This.  They can't even get the damn math pinned down.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;677536They can put whatever crazy races they feel like in it. I only ask one favor: don't include stupid shit like " Play a dragonborn if you want to.....look like a dragon." :rolleyes:

Just include the races and try not to aim the text at a 1st grade reading level.

In 4e's defense that line was probably the funniest joke I've ever read in a D&D product, certainly funnier than Dragon Mirth ever was.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677522How do you figure.  This last packet is clearly catering to the 4e crowd.  That's like...the opposite of "throwing under the bus".

I love how everything you say is the polar opposite of what everyone else says. The nerd-rage over on the WotC forums for this packet being simplified and classes being significantly reduced in power is strong.

Hating something so hard that you see whatever you want to see must be lots of work. How do you ever find time to actually game?

I like 4e and it does seem to me that the new packet shows a bit more of a 4e influence. Certainly compared to some of the other packets.

"Just ignore the dice roll and decide whether players succeed or not based on how you feel' is terrible GM advice though, especially for any game trying to replicate 4e style play. You can't have a real challenge to overcome through tactics and luck when GM fudging is the basic unit of play.

For those of you who are playtesting 5e- when a new packet comes out, do you start your game from scratch or just make the necessary changes and move on?

Quote from: soviet;677557"Just ignore the dice roll and decide whether players succeed or not based on how you feel' is terrible GM advice though, especially for any game trying to replicate 4e style play. You can't have a real challenge to overcome through tactics and luck when GM fudging is the basic unit of play.

Heh, I abandoned the screen years ago. Open rolls. I don't even hide monster math.

Quote from: RunningLaser;677560For those of you who are playtesting 5e- when a new packet comes out, do you start your game from scratch or just make the necessary changes and move on?

I'm making the necessary changes and moving on. It's possibly not the best idea I've ever had since this packet has changed things in a way that can pretty much nuke a character concept. Oh well, they all agreed to it.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677550I love how everything you say is the polar opposite of what everyone else says. The nerd-rage over on the WotC forums for this packet being simplified and classes being significantly reduced in power is strong.

Hating something so hard that you see whatever you want to see must be lots of work. How do you ever find time to actually game?

Congrats.  You are so fucking stupid you're going to the top.  Why you insist on making things up that don't exist and honestly think people believe it are beyond me.

Quote from: RunningLaser;677560For those of you who are playtesting 5e- when a new packet comes out, do you start your game from scratch or just make the necessary changes and move on?

I make the changes and move forward.  It hasn't been that difficult up until now.  Now it's a bit harder since blackguards are gone, as well as feats in the context of how they were used.  Now they are less "feats" and more "specializations", as they are more packaged instead of individual benefits.  So gone is my dwarven protector cleric with interposing shield feat.