The 5E Playtest, what will TGD members do?
Moderator: Moderators
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
The 5E Playtest, what will TGD members do?
I know that I've signed up for this; the very least that I can do is try to get my inputs, of course, having people from here doing the same would probably, although very pessimistically/realistically little-to-no, have some small effect; but I highly doubt it.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120109
Who knows, maybe with some responses, 5e won't be .... terribad?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120109
Who knows, maybe with some responses, 5e won't be .... terribad?
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Dude, I'm willing to do WotC's work for damned cheap, but they are big and successful enough that I won't do it for free. Unless there are at least half-way credible promises of promo copies for playtesting, I'm sitting it out.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I simply cannot take Mike Mearls seriously when he says that he is going to be open to negative feedback or constructive criticism.mearls wrote:It's pretty easy to argue with someone when you make up their statements for them.FrankTrollman wrote:As to Mearls' specific complaint that it is somehow unfair to take him to task for having presented multiple systems for skill challenges that are untested and nonfunctional... No. It's not unfair at all.
In that vein, as to Frank Trollman's specific observation that skill challenges are the Ghandi of game mechanics, I can only agree.
There, we agree now! Case closed, comrade.
He really is a sticking point. Once a man has done something like that, I simply will not do free work for them until they fucking apologize. While Mearls has sort of kindof eaten some crowish food out of the side of his mouth in the runup to the 5e playtest announcement, it's going to take some genuine accountability before I take them seriously. If Mike Mearls isn't publicly and officially apologizing, and he still has a fucking job, I am not interested.
-Username17
Certain groups are thinking of just submitting "Read FATAL and use that for ideas. D&D needs an Anal Circumference stat". So, the equivalent of drawing a penis on your ballot paper on election day.
Actually, more like voting Kalle Anka (Donald Duck) in the Swedish elections, where it's not even fucking mandatory so they elect to spend time out of their day submitting a joke answer.
Yes, I imagine there will be zero point to this, and the best that will happen is they get trolled with "Needs more WoW influence. Give the rules out for free, but make people pay you a monthly fee to play" and "Anal Circumference" and "Women should have -4 Strength". Maybe some recommendations of "Needs playable ponies".
Actually, more like voting Kalle Anka (Donald Duck) in the Swedish elections, where it's not even fucking mandatory so they elect to spend time out of their day submitting a joke answer.
Yes, I imagine there will be zero point to this, and the best that will happen is they get trolled with "Needs more WoW influence. Give the rules out for free, but make people pay you a monthly fee to play" and "Anal Circumference" and "Women should have -4 Strength". Maybe some recommendations of "Needs playable ponies".
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
I'm not going to playtest their product either unless I see some definite proof that WotC is actually willing to use and implement their playtest data. Judging from the 4E D&D Barbarian fiasco, I'm going to go ahead and say that they're not.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:I'm not going to playtest their product either unless I see some definite proof that WotC is actually willing to use and implement their playtest data. Judging from the 4E D&D Barbarian fiasco, I'm going to go ahead and say that they're not.
Details on mentioned fiasco? I must not have been paying attention to this.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 pm
Same here. I want to see what direction they're taking D&D and see if it's in a direction that I remotely even care about.Previn wrote:I've signed up, but to preview the material rather than actually provide feedback.
Given their track record on listening to feedback I'm not sure the difference matters anyways.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
They released a playtest Barbarian. It had some attacks available where you attacked a fuck tonne of times. This being 4e, that involved you doing about twice as much damage as any other attack in the game. This being 4e, this was considered horrendously broken. People involved in the playtest wrote extensively on how that was way out of line with any other attack. And the final print version was... exactly the same. Well, not quite, the wording had been altered slightly just to rub in the fact that the editors had touched it since the playtest printing, it was just still horrendously out of line with the way 4e powers were supposed to work.Seerow wrote:Lago PARANOIA wrote:I'm not going to playtest their product either unless I see some definite proof that WotC is actually willing to use and implement their playtest data. Judging from the 4E D&D Barbarian fiasco, I'm going to go ahead and say that they're not.
Details on mentioned fiasco? I must not have been paying attention to this.
This caused Titanium Dragon (of "sounds more than millions" fame) to get angry at WotC and decry that the playtest had been a sham.
-Username17
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
On the D&D forums before the 4E PHBII was released Mearls (Heinsoo's name was on the document, too, but he was already on the way out at this point) released a Barbarian playtest document as a preview of what the Barbarian was going to bed. They then proceeded to blatantly ignore some of the problems of the test like the whole STR/CON barbarian issue for a class that doesn't get heavy armor, Hurricane of Blades and Storm of Blades and the pile of ass that was the Frenzied Berserker. What made it extra galling was that the Hurricane of Blades power was actually changed in the final product but was still preserved to give you six attacks.
In the end, certain things got errata'd, but the damage was already done. WotC blatantly ignored the feedback from the playtest even though at the time it was the hottest buzz on the 4E CharOP forums.
In the end, certain things got errata'd, but the damage was already done. WotC blatantly ignored the feedback from the playtest even though at the time it was the hottest buzz on the 4E CharOP forums.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I don't think I'll get involved. The whole situation with 4E has made me pretty apathetic about D&D in general. I'll check it out when they release some substantial previews, but I'm not planning to keep up with the news about it until then.
The "modularity" thing actually sounds great - I've thought about making an RPG like that, but wondered if it was actually practical. However, my confidence that WotC can pull it off is near 0%.
The "modularity" thing actually sounds great - I've thought about making an RPG like that, but wondered if it was actually practical. However, my confidence that WotC can pull it off is near 0%.
Last edited by Ice9 on Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I professionally:
1) am a sucker for punishment,
2) am an asshole,
3) convince people that:
3a) their product is unacceptable,
3b) they should fix it,
and 3c) this was all their idea.
I manage that okay, and that's in an area that can have fairly unpalatable impacts. Worst case here, I say "fuck it" and leave.
1) am a sucker for punishment,
2) am an asshole,
3) convince people that:
3a) their product is unacceptable,
3b) they should fix it,
and 3c) this was all their idea.
I manage that okay, and that's in an area that can have fairly unpalatable impacts. Worst case here, I say "fuck it" and leave.
I vaguely remember seeing this conversation quoted before, but I don't know if I ever figured out whether the phrase "Gandhi of game mechanics" actually means anything or if he was just being silly/facetious.mearls wrote:In that vein, as to Frank Trollman's specific observation that skill challenges are the Ghandi of game mechanics, I can only agree.
Last edited by ScottS on Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- NineInchNall
- Duke
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Well, that's Mearls for ya. Just throws words on paper and hopes they make sense.
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
Indeed. Given his recent similes:
But at least the random words make some kind of sense, even if they're largely meaningless and not indicative of any actual improvements in the game. Let's face it, we could have ended up with:
"D&D is like playing the guitar in Narnia, but in McDonalds they only play Thrash Metal."
You know, if someone told me to list a hundred things D&D is like, not one of them would be "a guitar". Sure, I get what he's saying there, but still.Mearls wrote:D&D is like playing the guitar, and it's like we said the only way to play is Thrash Metal - but there are other ways of playing the guitar!
I can only assume by this he's referring to the complaints people have had that 4E doesn't "feel" like D&D. I like how he's pretending he had this sudden mystic insight where he realised their attitude with 4E was wrong all along.Mearls wrote:D&D is like the wardrobe into Narnia... if you step through and there's a McDonalds there, you're going to say "This isn't Narnia".
But at least the random words make some kind of sense, even if they're largely meaningless and not indicative of any actual improvements in the game. Let's face it, we could have ended up with:
"D&D is like playing the guitar in Narnia, but in McDonalds they only play Thrash Metal."
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
3E and 4E D&D made a major mistake by inflating the assumed size of an adventuring party.
When I read the 2E D&D, I was actually rather surprised that the game thought that parties with just two or three people in it were fine. Now while I think a game of 3E or 4E D&D's magnitude can support an average playgroup size of four PCs, five is too damn many.
5E D&D should be able to be played with a minimum of three PCs and should comfortably scale upwards to about six or seven. Anything fewer than three aborts too many games before they start and no game with any depth to it is playable with eight people in it. Shit, you can't even play Monotpoly with seven players, why should D&D scale that high upwards?
When I read the 2E D&D, I was actually rather surprised that the game thought that parties with just two or three people in it were fine. Now while I think a game of 3E or 4E D&D's magnitude can support an average playgroup size of four PCs, five is too damn many.
5E D&D should be able to be played with a minimum of three PCs and should comfortably scale upwards to about six or seven. Anything fewer than three aborts too many games before they start and no game with any depth to it is playable with eight people in it. Shit, you can't even play Monotpoly with seven players, why should D&D scale that high upwards?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
It's been established that Mearls is great at being the D&D sales guy. If only they kept him there. I've already been fooled by him with Iron Heroes until I noticed my houserules were starting to look like the Tomes.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
I signed up. I doubt I'll make a meaningful contribution, or that my contribution will somehow stand out from the noise, but I am curious. Whether I provide any feedback depends entirely on what I get asked to look at, and the format of those responses.
If it a self-validating questionnaire similar to the garbage at the end of the Legends and Lore editorials, I won't bother.
If it a self-validating questionnaire similar to the garbage at the end of the Legends and Lore editorials, I won't bother.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
-
- Knight
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:39 am
- Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts
After extensively reading and subsequently dismissing 4e, my curiosity overpowered my suspicions of marketing and signed me up to participate in their open playtest marketing hype.
-Kid Radd
shadzar wrote:those training harder get more, and training less, don't get the more.
Stuff I've MadeLokathor wrote:Anything worth sniffing can't be sniffed