D&DNext: Playtest Review

[Duke Flauros]

So that's what they use Tom LaPille for nowadays. Bad enough he contributed to wrecking MtG, now he's moved on to helping wreck DnD. What's his next job gonna be - Official WotC Cheerio-Pisser?

Look no further than
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... e_reaction
in which LaPille takes 805 words to say "we brought back the 3rdED action economy."
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... us_musings
900 words to say "5e monster design will involve more fluff than crunch."
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/bl ... isysteming
534 words to say "we want fighters to have actual abilities."

And he's still less of a blowhard than Mearls or Thompson;
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120604
1.5k words to say "accuracy and armor will be unrelated to level."
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120430
just over 1k words to say "the fighter will now be balanced and have level-appropriate powers."
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120305
1.3k words to say "we aren't removing SODs."

The Village of Beginadventureshere doesn't have all that shit, though.

Any specific area may not have any specific enemy. You can however have low-level dragons, aberrations, undead, and magicians.

So you have to keep wandering from one firewalled adventure zone to another firewalled adventure zone. You may be fine with that, but it's not unreasonable to want something different.

Where did you get from? Yes, you can have low level adventures in a high level area. In the abyss, a level three wizard probably won't be important enough to attract the attention of a demon lord, but a few hungry dretches might try to make a meal of him. At mid-levels, the demon lord might notice him on an espionage report and send a few babaus to assassinate him. At high levels, the character might be enough of an immediate threat that the demon lord shows up to deal with him personally. A failure to create level-appropriate challenges is a failure of the DM, not the setting.

[CapnTthePirateG]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120709

Ze game will support rules guys and basket weavers, without causing fights!

Look, I wrote the whole article in 1 sentence!

[Aryxbez]

I dislike how it's implying the lack of an existing Encounter System, something that I find to be rather bothersome when it's not included in the Product! (looking at you Shadowrun, Mutants & Masterminds, among others)

[koz]

So that's what they use Tom LaPille for nowadays. Bad enough he contributed to wrecking MtG, now he's moved on to helping wreck DnD. What's his next job gonna be - Official WotC Cheerio-Pisser?

Is he the "add Tarmogoyf to tournament-winning decks for My Original Deck Design" guy?

No. He's the 'design Innistrad, or have anything to do with that steaming turd' guy.

Having seen his ridiculous verbosity, I think I ought to reconsider. He'll be the guy who writes you an essay on how having your Cheerios pissed in by WotC is awesome, and why he takes a nice long slash into his bowl every morning for a better day at the office. Which is probably not untrue, given who he works with.

[Duke Flauros]

One of the fun parts of working with a public playtest is that player feedback compels us to reconsider how we do things and to look at our traditional assumptions about Dungeon Masters, players, and the game. The biggest goal of the public test, beyond simply kicking the tires and making sure the game works, is to rebuild the connection between the R&D team and the public. It's important for us to be in tune with what people want from D&D, how people play the game, and what they like best about the game.

D&D's tone is just as important as its contents and functionality. What we choose to talk about, including how R&D addresses that topic, is more important in many cases than what we actually say. Let's imagine that we're showing off a new demon lord—let's call him Bob. We could take two approaches to presenting Bob, but let's assume that Bob went through the following steps in design regardless of how we present him:

We created an interesting backstory for him that fits in with established D&D lore.
We designed his mechanical abilities so that they are balanced and clear.
We made him a powerful guy, and he is a tough challenge for even the highest-level characters.

Now, let's consider two different approaches to how we talk about him in the adventure where he first shows up.

In the adventure, we present Bob's backstory as a brief narrative. In the adventure, he is trapped inside a tomb within a dormant volcano. Bob has the ability to conjure whirlwinds and air elementals, and the adventure text points out that during a fight he tries to hurl the characters into the lava that flows through the tomb as the volcano rumbles to life.

This point is where things could diverge. In one approach, we explain Bob's ability to conjure whirlwinds because he once conquered a region of the elemental plane of air, slew a mighty elemental prince of storms, and claimed his powers. In the other approach, we tell you that Bob is a controller, and because of that he has abilities that allow him to move people around in a fight.

Depending on your point of view, either approach or both approaches can make a lot of sense. The truth is that we use both a story and mechanical basis for everything we do. Even if we don't tell you that Bob is a controller, the person in R&D who designed his abilities knows that Bob needs to do something useful and powerful, with a focus that makes sense, to threaten the characters. The trick is looking at how DMs want to think of the game.

Many DMs prefer to keep things at the story level. They don't want game constructs—things that explain or frame mechanics but don't appear within the game world—to stand at the forefront. They want to approach the world as a fictional place, where things work the way they do because of elements that arise from the setting rather than the rules. The evil duke sends twenty orcs to ambush the characters because he has twenty orcs on hand, not because twenty is the "correct" number to challenge the party by the encounter-building guidelines. If the characters are powerful enough, they might wipe the floor with the orcs. If they are weaker, they might have to flee or surrender if they want to live.

On the other hand, many DMs prefer to start with the mechanics first. They want to see the numbers and design intent up front. The duke sends the right number of orcs to ambush the party, where the "right" number matches the difficulty the DM intends for the fight. Are the characters meant to surrender? Then it's twenty orcs. Should the characters steamroll the orcs and find a map among their possessions that points to the duke's hideout? Then it's six orcs.

Neither approach is inherently better. I've played with both types of DM and have had a good time, and I've also run D&D using both approaches at different times in my life. The big question boils down to this: how does R&D present the game? Both types of DM want a different approach. Does one have to win out over the other?

I believe that we can use both approaches, as long as we're mindful of how and why we're doing it. An entry in a book like the Monster Manual might be driven entirely by the first approach. The entry frames everything in terms of story and the immersive elements of the world of D&D. Monsters don't have roles, they have backstories and cultures.

On the other hand, our encounter-building guidelines should speak to our more technical-minded DMs. We give crystal clear advice on how to balance encounters. We give you a list of every creature and tell you what it's best at. The DM who wants to be an architect crafts encounters with a fine precision. The story DM rolls on random encounter charts or just picks the creature that feels right. The DM in the middle uses what he or she wants from the tools we've provided, rolling on tables, assigning things, or taking the time to sculpt a battle.

In other words, a monster has a role when it's time for us to talk about that monster as a mechanical element in the game. When it's time to talk about the monster as a creature in the universe of the D&D game, then the monster has a backstory. A monster has both, but we talk about each in the correct context. As a DM or player, it's up to you to determine how you want to look at the game. Do you start with a list of monsters by level and role, or do you flip through a book looking for creatures that are greedy and foolish enough to strike an alliance with a cleric of Cyric? When the characters head to the Amedio jungle, is your first impulse to sort creatures by their typical climate and geographic territory, or would you happily reskin a yeti into a jungle brute if you liked the yeti's mechanics? If we're doing our job right, it doesn't matter which approach you prefer. The game supports both without making one or the other feel wrong.

At the end of the day, the key is for R&D to understand how gamers approach D&D and how they interact with it. If we understand your viewpoints, we can build a game that accommodates them without triggering a fight between them. That understanding is at the root of the D&D Next process.

This point is where things could diverge. In one approach, we explain Bob's ability to conjure whirlwinds because he once conquered a region of the elemental plane of air, slew a mighty elemental prince of storms, and claimed his powers. In the other approach, we tell you that Bob is a controller, and because of that he has abilities that allow him to move people around in a fight.

So they haven't even changed their design philosophy from 4e.

[Voss]

An entry in a book like the Monster Manual might be driven entirely by the first approach. The entry frames everything in terms of story and the immersive elements of the world of D&D. Monsters don't have roles, they have backstories and cultures.

Apparently he never looked at the MM his team produced for 4e. Its all controller/brute/monkey with 6 different flavors of Evil Eye for no apparent rhyme or reason.

And what if no one gives a shit about Bob's backstory or his 'role'? They just care that he's throwing tornados about. No one wants a fucking monologue about the DM's latest NPC.


Also,

On the other hand, many DMs prefer to start with the mechanics first. They want to see the numbers and design intent up front. The duke sends the right number of orcs to ambush the party, where the "right" number matches the difficulty the DM intends for the fight. Are the characters meant to surrender? Then it's twenty orcs. Should the characters steamroll the orcs and find a map among their possessions that points to the duke's hideout? Then it's six orcs.

What does this have to do with the shitty way they write up monsters in the MM? It has zero to do if you design monsters from a story perspective first, or mechanics perspective first. Once the DM has settled on orcs, all he is doing is looking at the fucking stat block for this shit.

Nevermind that I'm laughing at the idea of D&D players surrendering (to 20 orcs no less).

[Krusk]

Someone on WoTC pointed out that WoTC has 70,000 insider accounts still active. Assuming they pay the minimum each month because they bought an annual rate, that is 420,000 a month. What does this buy a company like WoTC and how long can people forgetting to cancel their DDI account keep DND as a brand afloat?

I've been calling for a Gencon announcement of a release date now, but this may change things up? (gencon announcement that its out in time for christmas 2013)

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... Playtest_2

If you want to check the 70,000 subscribers, I was a member when they had the "buy a month download all the rules and cancel" policy before they made it online only.

[Duke Flauros]

And what if no one gives a shit about Bob's backstory or his 'role'? They just care that he's throwing tornados about. No one wants a fucking monologue about the DM's latest NPC.

Tell that to RA Salvatore.

Nevermind that I'm laughing at the idea of D&D players surrendering (to 20 orcs no less).

You just don't understand the beauty of WOTC's design team, Voss. Because of bounded accuracy, level 1 orcs will now be a threat to PCs at all levels, even if they die in one hit and inflict no damage. Bounded accuracy automagically makes everything better, and how dare you question such great writers as Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson.

Someone on WoTC pointed out that WoTC has 70,000 insider accounts still active. Assuming they pay the minimum each month because they bought an annual rate, that is 420,000 a month. What does this buy a company like WoTC and how long can people forgetting to cancel their DDI account keep DND as a brand afloat?

I've been calling for a Gencon announcement of a release date now, but this may change things up? (gencon announcement that its out in time for christmas 2013)

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... Playtest_2

If you want to check the 70,000 subscribers, I was a member when they had the "buy a month download all the rules and cancel" policy before they made it online only.

They said they would have it out by August. They didn't say which August.

Also,

This point is where things could diverge. In one approach, we explain Bob's ability to conjure whirlwinds because he once conquered a region of the elemental plane of air, slew a mighty elemental prince of storms, and claimed his powers. In the other approach, we tell you that Bob is a controller, and because of that he has abilities that allow him to move people around in a fight.

(snip)

I believe that we can use both approaches, as long as we're mindful of how and why we're doing it. An entry in a book like the Monster Manual might be driven entirely by the first approach. The entry frames everything in terms of story and the immersive elements of the world of D&D. Monsters don't have roles, they have backstories and cultures.

(snip)

In other words, a monster has a role when it's time for us to talk about that monster as a mechanical element in the game. When it's time to talk about the monster as a creature in the universe of the D&D game, then the monster has a backstory. A monster has both, but we talk about each in the correct context. As a DM or player, it's up to you to determine how you want to look at the game. Do you start with a list of monsters by level and role, or do you flip through a book looking for creatures that are greedy and foolish enough to strike an alliance with a cleric of Cyric? When the characters head to the Amedio jungle, is your first impulse to sort creatures by their typical climate and geographic territory, or would you happily reskin a yeti into a jungle brute if you liked the yeti's mechanics? If we're doing our job right, it doesn't matter which approach you prefer. The game supports both without making one or the other feel wrong.

So do monsters have a role or not?

[koz]

Duke Flauros: They both do and don't, because boundedly-accurate exception-based design principles leveraging higher-level GNS theory in light of the analytical insights of previous DnD editions, combined with our novel approach to balance, will allow us to simultaneously provision for both without any loss of deliverables to the final end user, while also providing significant design power to overcome future creative challenges with 110% efficiency.

Now I need to take a shower, because writing that made me feel like someone pissed on me and in my Cheerios.

[Voss]

And does it really matter? When all that is out is the MM1, you have maybe a dozen monsters to choose from for the first few levels, and it decreases rapidly as you get to higher levels.

So you either keep throwing generic shit at the party, or you just make your own.

[infected slut princess]

None of these articles are even worth discussing, because they are so fucking lame. It's not even fun to laugh at them anymore. I just cry for D&D. I mean, "Tactical Narrative Combat Module"? Are you shitting me? ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME??? Absolute total shit. How could they even let that get published with their name on it? Does Tom LaPille hate D&D so much that he is trolling the fans who are too blind to realize that 5e is hopeless?

Does this playtest suck or what? What we've gotten so far is basically just a shitty free game with a shitty free adventure. If anyone else released this crap, it would dismissed as a "cute" rules-lite D&D-wannabe. As a playtest for the world's flagship RPG franchise, it's total garbage. No innovative new ideas, no groundbreaking mechanics, no coherent philosophy. Just a huge embarrassment. If I was the CEO I would fire so many people in WotC's D&D division and I would literally kick them in the ass as they left the building, even at the risk of criminal assault charges.

There's no MEAT to the shitty playtest, and the next round of playtest is like two months away. They should have released WAY more at the beginning. ESPECIALLY character generation rules. But I think it's pretty obvious they put together the initial playtest packet in about 48 hours. People are already totally losing interest, even at the websites that like to suck WotC's schlong.

The only good thing about it is that it is royally PISSING OFF the 4e lovers because they are being forced to come to terms with the fact that, yes, 4e DID suck, and it WAS a failure and pretty much killed D&D. And they are turning against Mearls, and they are pissed that WotC isn't doing ANYTHING to support their shitty game anymore.

[CapnTthePirateG]

infected slut princess, did you note the little article by Morrus on EnWorld encouraging people to keep playtesting?

Welcome to an eternity of Pathfinder.

[infected slut princess]

Tomorrow I am going to try and contact Brian Goldner. I can conclusively demonstrate to him that by letting the current WotC idiots sink D&D, he is effectively throwing tens of millions of dollars in the garbage.

[Voss]

Does this playtest suck or what? What we've gotten so far is basically just a shitty free game with a shitty free adventure. If anyone else released this crap, it would dismissed as a "cute" rules-lite D&D-wannabe. As a playtest for the world's flagship RPG franchise, it's total garbage. No innovative new ideas, no groundbreaking mechanics, no coherent philosophy. Just a huge embarrassment. If I was the CEO I would fire so many people in WotC's D&D division and I would literally kick them in the ass as they left the building, even at the risk of criminal assault charges.

Said it before and I'll say it again: this is what happens when 'public feedback' is your (apparent) priority. Nevermind that it makes for a good scapegoat. There is no way it can produce a good game, because it is not possible to get a coherent design out of it.

You have to piss some people off to get a good product. Trying to make them all happy would be better achieved by having the office play Russian Roulette. At least there is a chance that a designer supporting elements people don't like will be out of the project.

[Duke Flauros]

www.enworld.org/forum/news/326037-lunch ... dding.html

The text:

Lunch with Mike Mearls? Cocktails with Erik Mona? Star bidding!

The ENnies Dream Dates are an important part of the Gen Con EN World RPG Awards fundraising efforts. The ENnies have substantial running costs, and these costs are met mainly through the Dream Date and product auction programs each year.

The first of the ENnies 2012 Dream Dates have gone live. These, as always, are auctioned on eBay. This first pair of actions is Paizo Publishing (who are always very supportive of the ENnies) and WotC (which has been incredibly generous this year - seriously, that prize is a doozy):

Paizo Publishing

This year, the highest bidder will meet Erik Mona, Jason Bulmahn, Sean K Reynolds, James Jacobs, and other Paizo staff at the cocktail reception starting at 6:30pm and sit with them during the 2012 ENnie Awards ceremony taking place at Gen Con on Friday, August 17th, at 8:00pm in the Grand Ballroom of Union Station.

You will also receive a copy of our new Rise of the Runelords hardcover signed by all of the authors and Wayne Reynolds. (Authors are James Jacobs, Richard Pett, Nicolas Logue, Wolfgang Baur, Stephen S. Greer, and Greg A. Vaughan).

Wizards of the Coast

The winner will receive the following package:

For your first date, you'll go to lunch on Friday from 12 PM – 1 PM with Mike Mearls, senior manager of the D&D Research and Design team. During this clandestine retreat, you'll be offered the opportunity to go under NDA (non-disclosure agreement) and ask Mike anything about the current design and development of D&D Next.
Your second date will be attending the Ennies at 7 PM on Friday, August 17th, 2012 night with the Dungeon & Dragons R&D team.
Your third date is a game with the dreamiest (and deadliest) Dungeon Master of all, Chris Perkins. The winner and up to five of his or her friends will sit down at Gen Con to playtest D&D Next with Chris Perkins as the Dungeon Master. (Subject to availability; available times include Saturday 4 PM – 6 PM or Thursday 4 PM – 6 PM.) If you're short party members, don't despair! The D&D R&D will supply up to three additional party members to help fill up the adventuring group.



In addition to your dream date(s), you'll receive:


Reserved front-row seating at every Gen Con D&D seminar, including the Gen Con keynote.
1 ticket to each event in the D&D Experience, including Dungeon Command and the D&D Next playtest.
1 copy of the 1st Edition Premium Dungeon Master's Guide (MSRP $44.95)
1 copy of the 1st Edition Premium Player's Handbook (MSRP: $34.95)
1 copy of the 1st Edition Premium Monster Manual (MSRP: $34.95)
1 copy of the 1st Edition Fiend Folio (MSRP: $25.00)
1 copy of Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth, signed by the designers (MSRP: $39.99)
1 copy of Dungeon Command: Heart of Cormyr, signed by the designers (MSRP: $39.99)
1 copy of Lords of Waterdeep, signed by the designers (MSRP: $49.99)

Winning bidder must sign Wizards' D&D Next playtesting terms and conditions, Non-Disclosure Agreement, and publicity release form. Dates must occur on the calendar days scheduled by Wizards. The winner may not change dates, locations and /or events provided for in this package. Failure to comply with these and/or any other requirements may result in forfeiture of the package. Employees of Wizards of the Coast are not eligible to participate.

:sarcasticrofl:

[infected slut princess]

There is no way it can produce a good game, because it is not possible to get a coherent design out of it.

That really seems to be their basic problem. Not just that they are bad at math and have problems thinking systematically, because most RPGs actually do have math problems and system problems. It's because they don't have any good ideas, or any coherent design creed. They have nowhere to set their aim because they are all over the place and have no idea what they are doing.

Lunch with Mike Mearls? Cocktails with Erik Mona? Star bidding!

Those are hilariously crappy prizes. They dont seem to be giving out plane tickets and hotel rooms or anything to go with these Dream Dates.

Basically their prizes are "pay to hang out with some socially inept nerds for a few hours."

Hell, I bet Paizo will make the poor sucker who wins their 'prize' buy his own drinks at the cocktail reception.

And you'd have to fucking pay me at least $120/hr to sit down with Mearls and watch that slob eat food.

[Duke Flauros]

Those are hilariously crappy prizes. They dont seem to be giving out plane tickets and hotel rooms or anything to go with these Dream Dates.

Basically their prizes are "pay to hang out with some socially inept nerds for a few hours."

Hell, I bet Paizo will make the poor sucker who wins their 'prize' buy his own drinks at the cocktail reception.

And you'd have to fucking pay me at least $120/hr to sit down with Mearls and watch that slob eat food.

For your first date, you'll go to lunch on Friday from 12 PM – 1 PM with Mike Mearls, senior manager of the D&D Research and Design team. During this clandestine retreat, you'll be offered the opportunity to go under NDA (non-disclosure agreement) and ask Mike anything about the current design and development of D&D Next.

Your second date will be attending the Ennies at 7 PM on Friday, August 17th, 2012 night with the Dungeon & Dragons R&D team.

Your third date is a game with the dreamiest (and deadliest) Dungeon Master of all, Chris Perkins.

The winner and up to five of his or her friends will sit down at Gen Con to playtest D&D Next with Chris Perkins as the Dungeon Master. (Subject to availability; available times include Saturday 4 PM – 6 PM or Thursday 4 PM – 6 PM.) If you're short party members, don't despair! The D&D R&D will supply up to three additional party members to help fill up the adventuring group.

It's beginning to look like they don't just want you to metaphorically fellatiate them.

[Korgan0]

For your first date, you'll go to lunch on Friday from 12 PM – 1 PM with Mike Mearls, senior manager of the D&D Research and Design team. During this clandestine retreat, you'll be offered the opportunity to go under NDA (non-disclosure agreement) and ask Mike anything about the current design and development of D&D Next.

Your second date will be attending the Ennies at 7 PM on Friday, August 17th, 2012 night with the Dungeon & Dragons R&D team.

Your third date is a game with the dreamiest (and deadliest) Dungeon Master of all, Chris Perkins.

The winner and up to five of his or her friends will sit down at Gen Con to playtest D&D Next with Chris Perkins as the Dungeon Master. (Subject to availability; available times include Saturday 4 PM – 6 PM or Thursday 4 PM – 6 PM.) If you're short party members, don't despair! The D&D R&D will supply up to three additional party members to help fill up the adventuring group.

Here's what someone should do: win the lunch date, order a bowl of cheerios, start pissing in them, look Mike Mearls straight in the eyes and whisper "This is what you are doing to all of us." Or something like that.

[erik]

Here's what someone should do: win the lunch date, order a bowl of cheerios, start pissing in them, look Mike Mearls straight in the eyes and whisper "This is what you are doing to all of us." Or something like that.

You win it by paying more than anyone else was willing to offer. I can usually think of better ways to set money on fire than by pissing in cheerios.

[ModelCitizen]

I'm gonna pay Mearls $10000 for the right to give him what for. That'll show him.

[Korgan0]

I'm gonna pay Mearls $10000 for the right to give him what for. That'll show him.

Touche.

[Previn]

Someone on WoTC pointed out that WoTC has 70,000 insider accounts still active. Assuming they pay the minimum each month because they bought an annual rate, that is 420,000 a month. What does this buy a company like WoTC and how long can people forgetting to cancel their DDI account keep DND as a brand afloat?

It's better than just books, and would keep D&D up with just that funding, but it's going to be a shell of what it was. There's extra overhead for keeping the service running and accessible and extra support people for it.

From the business side though:

Hasbro basically divides it's brands into 2 divisions, those that make $50,000,000 a year and those that don't. Those that to make it past the 50million mark get funding to continue being successful and grow, those that don't must fend for themselves with whatever profits they can rake in.

DDI is probably the most profitable part of D&D right now, and it's not even 1/10th of what Hasbro wants from a 'successful' brand once you factor out reasonable support costs. Do note that royalties for D&D movies/novels/cartoons/games is not counted as part of WotC's D&D 'profits.' Under TSR and early WotC novels actually made up roughly 60% of D&D 'profits' with the actual game only pulling in around 40%.

I don't believe that D&D has ever actually surpassed the 50million mark under any edition, so take that as you will.

[Duke Flauros]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/32593 ... ytest.html

Losing Interest in the D&D Next Playtest?
I've seen a number of threads in the past few days all along the lines of folks losing interest in the playtest. Some of them because what they saw didn't appeal to them, which is fair enough - but a whole bunch because they feel that the playtest process isn't fun enough, or that new materials aren't being released quickly enough. I thought I'd offer a counter-viewpoint to the latter group.


Here are a couple of examples of such threads; feel free to check them out.

Are You Still Playtesting? (My answer was "Still? I only just started!")
Losing Interest

I only got to play in my first playtest last week. It lasted about two hours. I'll have the second this week, I hope. But at this rate, we won't have finished the Caves of Chaos for another month or two. That's assuming we make the playtest our primary game - which we probably won't, as we have a Pathfinder game running, too, which competes for the same time slot.

So I appreciate that there are those who blasted through the playtest materials immediately after launch. I envy them: I wish I'd had that opportunity. But I - and presumably thousands like me - aren't that fortunate. For us, new materials right now would hamper our ability to playtest; we simply haven't had the time. And we want to give honest and valuable feedback to WotC; otherwise what's the point?

For me, it felt the opposite to what many are saying. It felt too fast; the survey closed before my group got chance to participate. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this. The odds that I am are astronomically low.

There are comparisons to Paizo's public playtest of Pathfinder, which I don't feel are valid. They're two different things, and even if they weren't - so what? The validity of a playtest isn't in how fast it is, it's in how comprehensive and accurate it is. If one company does it at a different speed to another, that doesn't matter (and I'd argue that Pathfinder's playtest release schedule wasn't any faster - were they really releasing new packages every couple of weeks? Not that I remember). But, that aside, the two companies have/had different tasks: Paizo was expanding and developing a core system (D&D 3.5) which had been comprehensively playtested to death over a period of years by tens of thousands of people every week, whereas WotC is attempting to write a new system from the ground up. That's not a value judgement: it's just that they are/were doing different things. Not that a fast playtest defines a good playtest, and the ability to spew out MS Word documents on a weekly basis is not a valid metric.

There's an underlying vibe that the playtesting is supposed to entertain us; like it's a "free game", and needs to be "supported" at frequent intervals as though it were an actual product we'd bought. Ignoring the fact that it's only been four short weeks, I think that a playtest program with a focus being anything other than "gather valuable feedback" is fundamentally useless. While it might have side-effects of marketing and entertainment benefits, those are just side-effects. They're not the point.

I'm sure WotC could spam us with new material every week. It'd probably be crappy material, and it wouldn't incorporate any of the current feedback (and it wouldn't incorporate mine or many like me, because we haven't had time yet), but they could do it. But is that what we really want them to do? Surely we want them to take their time, playtest thoroughly, and in the meantime we get on with our home games and partipate voluntarily in the playtest process as and when we have the time and the inclination.

Marketing will come later. Mark my words, this time next year everyone will be inundated with it to the point of saturation. There will be ads, and previews, and all sorts of things. But that's a year away.

Right now, we're voluntarily playtesting. This is a process normally handled in-house by RPG companies - at least at first. WotC has made this public in response to our insistence that they do so; but playtesting isn't really a fun process. Ask any videogame playtester who plays the same level over and over and over until they bleed nightmares about it. It's not analogous to a videogame public beta release - it's analogous to the video game company employees who are employed at low wage to replay the same thing over and over. It's a job, not entertainment.

Maybe some stage in a year's time will be similar to a videogame's public beta. But that's a maybe, and that's in a year's time. This ain't it, though.

To their credit, we don't have it that bad. We're volunteers, and we have zero demands upon us. We're not forced to kill the same kobolds 500 times in a row to find a bug. But we do have the opportunity to participate and help shape the game. This will happen at intervals over the next year or so; and that's OK. D&D Next isn't supposed to replace your primary game yet; next year, the pretty hardcover books are the things that WotC hopes will replace your primary game. Not this.

So to those who are concerned that there isn't any new playtest material yet: please be patient. Some of us only just got to start it. And we have valuable feedback we want to give, which we'll do in various ways: forum posts, blogs, polls, and the like. Another month or two for the next package suits many of us just fine.

Taking time is never a bad thing. It may not be very entertaining, but it's the right thing to do. Take it slow, get as much feedback as possible, do more design work, get it right. I'd rather WotC did that than rush stuff out to spam us with new material to entertain us. After all, they'll probably do that just fine once the game is released - it's D&D after all! We'll be complaining about too many pointless splat books and power creep like we always have done.

At the moment, we've chosen to volunteer to be playtesters, because we want the game to come out right. It's a job, and we weren't forced to do it. But it's not necessarily fun all the time; that's OK. That's playtesting.

So my advice, for what it's worth? You're not supposed to be switching to 5E yet. They haven't sold it to you yet. Trust me, they will when the time comes (or at least they'll try). Just continue with your regular gaming, and occasionally dip into the playtesting if and when you feel like it and there happen to be a playtest package available that interests you. And then, when you've done that, go back to your regular game and carry on like normal. Maybe participate in the next playtest package whenever that happens to be. If you don't feel like it, that's fine - it's not an obligation - but it's not there to replace your weekly game night.

[erik]

That's like the 3rd time that comic has been posted in this forum this week. Perhaps now we can just say "ham.jpg" and people will know what you mean.

[Josh_Kablack]

We're volunteers, and we have zero demands upon us.

And that is where 5e lost me.

As I said here WotC does not get my charity

And as Frank has previously pointed out, that whole "zero demands" is why using free labor in the RPG industry probably isn't the best strategy