It had to happen sooner or later.  

I have been pleasantly surprised before and I wouldn't be unhappy if WotC produced a very good game.  I liked AD&D a lot, and it had limitations in the way it was developed.  Maybe Next has been about exploring ideas and will actually find a decent sweet spot to aim for.  Likely, no.  But a strong D&D isn't a bad thing.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;681883Well said.

The people who are interested in it are the ones providing feedback.  Sitting in the back throwing spitballs doesn't exactly work for feedback.

The first packet had me, hook, line and sinker. From there they gradually lost me. I just wish they'd come up with something that let me give them my money.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;681881I'm not really railing against it (any more- I had a few posts where I could be seen as doing so). If others like it, great. I just don't foresee having fun with it.

What I meant is that by you not playing it, you'd be just like those who are railing against it, because they don't actually play it either.

Not really, because I wouldn't be expending any energy against it.

Edit:

The people railing against it care as much as the people who love it. It's just in the opposite direction.

I'm only mildly disappointed that the game I grew up with won't have a new edition I want to play.

I did rail against 4e (mostly) privately. This is acceptance that it's not likely to be for me. I'm willing to be wrong.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;681890Not really, because I wouldn't be expending any energy against it.

Edit:

The people railing against it care as much as the people who love it. It's just in the opposite direction.

I'm only mildly disappointed that the game I grew up with won't have a new edition I want to play.

I did rail against 4e (mostly) privately. This is acceptance that it's not likely to be for me. I'm willing to be wrong.

Man, my wording must be really off today (entirely plausible).  I meant nothing more than, "Oh, you're not going to play it?  Then you'll have something in common with the usual suspects at TBP who have railed on it the past year or so."

I am still working my way through the August playtest. I haven't been thrilled with the progression and what I am seeing now is questionable, but I will be playing this weekend to see the newest ruleset in action.

HERE YE! HEAR YE!  Let the epic whining begin!!!

Random poster at RPG.net says:

"Its kind of unfortunate. It seems the whole playtest was - I don't know if this is the right words but of the 'alpha' process rather than the 'beta' process"

...oh, I'd agree, 4venger.  I'd definitely say you got alpha'd.

So, can anyone give a quick synopsis about what is certain about 5e from this point?

I lost interest after the second packet.

Quote from: 1989;682026So, can anyone give a quick synopsis about what is certain about 5e from this point?

I lost interest after the second packet.

Its ink is the tears of 4e players.


That's about I know is for sure.

QuotePublic playtesting when you don't tell people what the test is for ("Feel" being both nebulous and something that varies from group to group) may not work. Public playtesting when you have testable goals that people understand and a feedback system where results are reported in a form that actually tells you something about what happens (rather then what people "feel" about it) are a different matter.

Someone at TBP has never undertaken a qualitative research project, or has any idea of how to effectively slice the data into meaningful chunks.

Those things are hideously nebulous, and most likely to make the teeth of 4vengers itch like crazy.

Still, we wait and see.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;682038Someone at TBP has never undertaken a qualitative research project, or has any idea of how to effectively slice the data into meaningful chunks.

Those things are hideously nebulous, and most likely to make the teeth of 4vengers itch like crazy.

Still, we wait and see.

Most of them haven't done any professional testing.  From day 1, they keep saying the test fails because it doesn't give them what they want.  That's not the point of testing.  The point of testing is to see if it's working how it was designed, not how you personally want it.

I'll give you an example.  The whole DC debacle about a month or so ago.  They kept crying that the math was broken because a high level character shouldn't have a chance at failing at something like a tightrope walk.  Nothing in the math was broken.  The DC system worked great.  The only issue was whether or not your personal preference of what the DC should be for a tightrope act.

I think the usual suspects over there seem to think their subjectivity means objectivity to everyone else.

Quote from: 1989;682026So, can anyone give a quick synopsis about what is certain about 5e from this point?

I lost interest after the second packet.

The past edition it seems to have the most in common with, is 2nd edition.

Quote from: Mistwell;682086The past edition it seems to have the most in common with, is 2nd edition.

Well, you know that's got to be good, then.

2e victorious!

Quote from: Mistwell;682086The past edition it seems to have the most in common with, is 2nd edition.

It felt more like Basic to me, as a whole (except for things like combined class/race).