# D&D Next Chat Transcript (Mike Mearls & Jeremy Crawford)



## Morrus (May 16, 2012)

_This is the transcript of the D&D Next (5E) live chat held today. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford were on hand to answer questions about the upcoming public playtests of D&D Next._

*Mearls:* Hello world. 

*Trevor:* There's Mike Mearls, one of the stars of the show!

*Mearls:* Jeremy Crawford will be a little late. We just finished up a meeting on the playtest packet. 

*Trevor:* You want to regale us with any playtest tidbits while we wait for him, Mike?

*Mearls:* Hmmm... let's see. I've been DMing mostly, and the rules have changed a lot over the past few days. Probably the funniest thing was guest starring as a librarian in a playtest game at DDXP. Also, I got to test the DR rules when the players had to cut open a dead wererat's stomach to find a gem it had swallowed. That was not how I expected to test those rules.

Trevor, you can go ahead with questions. Jeremy will be here shortly, and I can defer to him as needed. 

*Trevor:* Alright, lets get the intro blurb in there and get started then. 

Welcome everyone to the Q&A for the next iteration of D&D and the upcoming playtest! I'm Trevor Kidd, Community Manager for Wizards and D&D and I'll be facilitating the chat. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford from the D&D design and development teams will be fielding Your questions.

*Jeremy Crawford:* Hello, everyone! 

*Trevor:* This is a moderated chat, which means every comment or question you make is seen on our end of things, but you won't see it until we publish it to the room for Mike and/or Jeremy to talk about. With all that said, let me get out of the way and let Mike and Jeremy introduce themselves and say a few words. After that, we'll start fielding your questions!

And there we have Jeremy!

Alright - I'll leave the floor to you two. When you're done with introductions let me know and I'll get on to the questions.

*Mearls:* I'm Mike Mearls and I'm the senior manager for the D&D team. My job is to oversee the development of the game and make sure all the teams work together.

*Jeremy Crawford:* And I'm Jeremy Crawford, head of editing and development for D&D products.

*Mearls:* I also pitch in as needed to get work done. For instance, my other open window has the rules text for rituals, though those won't be in the initial playtest. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* I do enjoy trying to get Mike to work as a writer still. 

*Mearls:* I think we're ready for questions. 

*Trevor: To cover a lot of very basic questions out there, can you remind us when the playtest starts and give us a little information about what people can expect from this first playtest packet?* 

*Mearls:* The playtests starts on the 24th. That's next Thursday. Which is much sooner than it seems. Much, much sooner. 




*Jeremy Crawford:* Here's what to expect in the packet . . .

Five pregenerated characters
The Caves of Chaos adventure
A bestiary to accompany the adventure 
And rules of play, both for players and DMs
*Mearls:* We're doing two clerics to test the range of the domain/deity system. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* One of the clerics is more of an armor-and-mace fellow, and the other is more of a mystic 

The five characters will feature the background and theme system that we've alluded to in the past few months. 

*Trevor: Another very popular set of questions from many in the room: Who can play in the playtest, and how are we going to distribute the playtest information to people?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We hope everyone will play! 

*Mearls:* The playtest is open to anyone who signs up, and the information will be available digitally. As part of signing up, there will be an online playtest agreement similar to the one we used for _Dungeon Command_ last year.

*monstermanual: What level of complexity will we see in the first wave playtest PCs, and what options will we have to adjust them to our taste*?

*Jeremy Crawford:* There will be a range of complexity, from a relatively straightforward fighter to a class wizard. 

By "class" I mean "classic".  

*Mearls:* Character customization will come in a bit later. To start with, we're focusing on the core system. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We will roll out adjustment options in the next few months. For now, we'd like people to play with the pregens.

*OngoingDamage: How different will the 5/24 playtest materials be from what we saw at PAX East? Did any of the PAX East playtest feedback get incorporated into the current version?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* There will be many differences, both in the core mechanics and in the characters. 

*Mearls:* Yes, we incorporated that feedback. The playtest will look fairly different in terms of characters. Mostly, things will look a little simpler for DMs. The classes, themes, and backgrounds are a little better organized, and we've done some work in figuring out what parts of a character sit where. 

*shamsael: How much can we expect the rules to change from the start of public playtesting to final release? To put it differently, how much of the system at this point is set in stone and how much is free to be tweaked or rewritten at this point?* 

*Mearls:* Probably the biggest change is in the mechanic for advantage and disadvantage. We've also have done a lot to the cleric, fleshing out domains and making those a bigger part of the class that changes a lot of stuff.

*Jeremy Crawford:* An example change: Spellcasters all have at-will spell options now. 

*Mearls:* Nothing is set in stone. Since we're starting simple, we can make huge changes without massively reworking tons of text. We're taking it slowly precisely because we expect to release rules, incorporate feedback, than use that to drive the next wave of material. 

*John Sussenberger: Will we be able to run play tests in public locations, such as a game store or convention?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Addressing the previous question: The only things we won't budge on are the things set in D&D's stone, such as using the d20 or that the game contains wizards. 

*Mearls:* I believe we're working on that option now. Right now, for the playtest each person taking part should sign up. We're working on something right now that will alow cons and stores to run stuff.

*Gerardo: Hi, thanks for making this live chat. I've been following the character class design post and I'm intrigued to know how you measure balance. How do you know a class is balanced or not? Some number or value attached to powers that you add up and say OK it's good, or is it more a gut feeling based on the designers experience and playtest feedback?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* It's a mix of math, playtest feedback, and a dash of intuition.

*Mearls:* It's a combination of the two. D&D covers so much ground, that we can balance stuff based on combat without actually balancing anything for a specific campaign. We're looking at each area of the game - combat, exploration, interaction - and making sure that characters can contribute in each area. It's maybe 50/50 art and science. 

*Mearls:* Feedback will be the biggest, important factor for us. 

*The Mormegil: Can you tell us more about movement and positioning in D&D Next? What will it look like?What about attacks of opportunity? What are your thoughts about interrupts and other out-of-turn actions?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* That's a Russian nesting doll of questions! Mike and I are conferring . . . 

Our desks are next to each other, so we're chatting at the same time. The simple stuff first: Attacks of opportunity are not in this playtest, but the system does have rules that point to the peril of making ranged attacks in melee, for instance. 

*Mearls:* Ha! Jeremy will love this question. I'm really not a fan of giving people extra turns in addition to their own turn. I think it really slows the game down. For movement and positioning, the goal is to focus more on terrain and interesting things to move to and around, rather than flanking and such.

There are off-turn actions in the game, but the philosophy now is to have them eat into your turn or have something you have to set up. For instance, instead of everyone automatically getting opportunity attacks, a character might need to take a feat or choose an ability that basically says, "If you make a melee attack on your turn, you get one opportunity attack for the next round."

A rogue might have this - you can move away from an enemy that moves next to you, but you lose your move on your next turn. 

*Arbanax: Can I ask how Monsters will be handled in terms of stat blocks and information, the off table help and fluff and the at table crunch?*

*Jeremy Crawford:* In this playtest, you'll see shortened stat blocks in the adventure, and then full stat blocks in the bestiary. 

The bestiary includes both mechanical information and lore. 

What you'll see is just a starting point. We expect the stat block format and the lore information to evolve quite a bit in response to playtesting. 

*Jools: I'd love to know what your thoughts are on conditions in 5e. Something spoilery would be nice!* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We've been discussing conditions quite a bit lately. They're certainly in the game. I'll be revising them this afternoon, in fact.

We're fans of conditions that make sense both as game mechanics and as something in the world. Prone, for example, is a useful game concept, and it matches what's going in the story. You're knocked on your butt! 

*Mearls:* We're trying to keep the list of conditions slim and make it apply to things that are obvious changes in the world. For instance, right now invisible and ethereal are on the list of conditions. We also added intoxicated. Basically, what are things that when they happen to you have a clear effect on how you interact with the world?

Here's another thing - with stuff like paralyzed, we're dealing more in describing what happens rather than trying to make everything mechanical. So paralyzed says that you can' t move your limbs. Spellcasting specifies that you need to move your arms to cast a spell. Thus, a paralyzed creature can't cast spells.

The idea is that we give the DM clear mechanics, but also make it clear what's happening in the world so the DM can make any judgment calls as needed. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* My favorite new condition is intoxicated. 

*Mike: How are we going to provide feedback on the open playtest? *

*Mearls:* We'll have a series of surveys we're sending out. I also think that we might have a dedicated forum on the site for discussion, but I think Trevor might now more about that. The idea is to make it as easy as possible for us to capture feedback, while also reaching as wide an audience as possible. BTW, the surveys are being put together by the folks at WotC who do that for a living. 

*The Mormegil: I know your top one priority is making the game feel like D&D, but those of us who do not notice any distinctive feel in D&D and would like to help too may need a direction for their efforts. What are you looking for in this playtest? What do you expect from it?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We also want to know whether the game is enjoyable for you, whether the rules make sense, and whether is evokes a swords-and-sorcery feel. 

*Mearls:* There are two ways to look at it.

If you're a long-time D&D fan, the playtest should feel like you're coming home again. We want the rules to be easy to use, rulings simple to make, and the game to move at a good pace. All while feeling like D&D at its heart.

If you don't have a particular attachment to D&D or its specific feel, then the game should be fun to play, interesting to run, and an overall good fantasy RPG.

Our biggest goal is making sure that the core rules are easy to understand, easy to use, and fully functional. 

*Tara: What were some of the major changes from the last few days?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Haha!

*Mearls:* Hmmm... is there anything we haven't changed in the past few days?

*Jeremy Crawford:* One of my favorite changes from this week is adding more flavorful effects to some of the cantrips.

*Mearls:* I did a review of our weapon table, and I think the spear was the one weapon I didn't comment on. Probably the biggest things are rogue schemes and cleric domains. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Yeah, the rogue has really come into focus this week.

*Mearls:* Yes, cantrips that you use to attack are basically utility cantrips that have a way you can use them against creatures. The ignite cantrip lets you start fires, whether its lighting a torch or a goblin's butt. 

*Kamikaze Midget: Can you tell us about anything you guys have discovered in focusing the game on the entire adventure, rather than on the individual encounter? *

*Jeremy Crawford:* The poor goblin and his butt.

*Mearls:* The biggest thing is making it OK for one character to own a particularly encounter. If the wizard casts sleep and KOs a group of six kobolds, that's OK. In the next encounter, the rogue might sneak up on the kobold shaman and gank him, or the fighter blocks a doorway and takes down a wave of attackers. Same goes for characters with good social abilities, and so on. 

It also means for a much faster game - characters contribute in each encounter, but we can let someone shine without feeling that everyone must have at least 4 or 5 turns to do their thing.

*Jeremy Crawford:* There is a tremendous amount of world texture that we can include when there isn't pressure to make everything count in every single combat encounter. We can include character options that speak to social situations, exploration, traveling on the high seas, hopping into other planes of existence, and so on, without segregating those options into little buckets.

*Mearls:* It also means that "unbalanced" options are more viable. For instance, in one adventure the characters fought a gang of hobgoblins. One of the hobgobs was a beast master who used a whip and a prod to drive a pair of giant scorpions forward. The rogue sniped the beast master, so the scorpions turned around and had their revenge on the tribe.

It ended the fight pretty quickly, but it made for a fun adventure. The characters ended up luring the scorpions into a room with a window, locking them in there while the rogue climbed out.

*Brian: How do you plan on handling the discrepancy between the 4e-style spells for wizards/sorcerors (Powers) vs the older-style spells (A lot of very unique and varied spells)? Would both styles of play get along nicely in a game? *

*Jeremy Crawford:* Yes, they get along together very nicely. 

*Mearls:* We have some potentially interesting ideas for the warlock vs. sorcerer vs. the wizard. I can't say much, but when you have two or three classes using arcane magic, you have room to maneuver. In 3e the warlock was sort of 4e-like, as was the binder. I think we can make room for both in a way that makes those classes unique and fun. 

The great thing about classes is that you can have a spell slot system, a spell point system, and a power system all in the same game.

*Somnambulant gamer: Everyone's incredibly excited about this initial offering, do we know what kind of timeframe we're looking at for materials to generate new characters and a chance to see more of the core classes that will be released? *

*Jeremy Crawford:* Even in the playtest spells, you will see elements from classic spells and elements from powers.

*Mearls:* Let me check our schedule. It's on a white board on the other side of my desk... 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We plan to roll out character-customization options this summer.

*Mearls:* OK, if things go smoothly you'll have that stuff before the end of the summer. Keep in mind that feedback is a part of this, and it's all contingent on how much we need to change based on round 1. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* And we'll roll out other classes bit by bit. Since our focus is on collecting feedback, we are not going to release too much at once. We want to make sure each part of the game gets the love it deserves. 

*Andrew: Can you comment on adventure pacing versus the wonder of magic? In 3e, PCs were often required to rest after the cleric/wizard were out of spells, regardless of the state of the rest of the party. In 4e, everyone can keep going until out of surges, but there was less "magical pizazz" across the classes -- a sword being a magic missile being a druid's claw. *

*Jeremy Crawford:* We have been striving to connect pacing to concrete things in the game world: magical resources, such as spells; hit points; and various options that might rely on a character expending some of his or her vitality.

*Mearls:* That's a great question. We want magical to feel magical yet rooted in the world. The cantrip thing ties into this. Cantrips aren't specifically made to blast people, but a cantrip you use to create a small amount of acid as part of an alchemy experiment can also be a useful weapon. Spells should feel magical and maybe even mysterious in some way.

For instance, going back to cantrips, we specifically didn't want to just make a spell that was the same as a crossbow but it did fire damage. That sells magic short, IMO.

*Somnambulant gamer: You mentioned all casters have at-will spell "options" now. Are these class features, or tied into the themes or backgrounds?*

*Jeremy Crawford:* Both! The cleric and the wizard get them, and some backgrounds and themes offer them. 

*Mearls:* Yes, both. At-will spells come with classes. Rogues and fighters can opt into that if they want. I'd also like to at some point offer an option for a non-at-will magic game, but we received overwhelming feedback in favor of at-will magic. That feedback was largely edition independent.

Je*remy Crawford: *Yeah, when playing a spellcaster, many people like to feel like a spellcaster all the time and not have to resort to a crossbow--or a dart! 

*Preston: What races will be in the play test? Do you see race or culture as being a driving force behind a characters mechanics?* 

*Jeremy Crawford:* The classic four will be in the playtest: dwarf, elf, halfling, and human. 

*Mearls:* Halfling, human, dwarf, and elf. We're actually doing a mix of race and culture with our approach. A high elf and a wood elf share some innately elf things, but also get some things distinct to their specific culture. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Right out of the gate, you'll see the high elf, for instance. 

*HustontheTodd: What I love about 4e is the ease with which I can throw an encounter together. What can I expect from dndnext to make adventure building fun?*

*Jeremy Crawford:* While Mike answers that, I'll say something else about race. A thing I love about our current approach is that you don't just pick your race, such as dwarf. You also pick what kind of dwarf you are.

*Mearls:* 4e provides the standard we're using for DM tools and adventure building. My goal is to do a mix of basic D&D - which was fairly step-by-step - combined with 4e's approach, though focusing more on the adventure as a whole rather than encounters. We also know that DM experience plays a big role in how people approach adventure and campaign design, so we want to offer a lot of options including "roll lots of dice and randomly determine everything" to "do whatever you want." 

*RupertDnD: Are Fighters getting cool stuff too, like powers or maneuvers? *

*Jeremy Crawford:* The fighter gets to carry my wizard's tea!

*Mearls:* Right now, we're keeping the fighter fairly basic but giving you those options in feats. However, the fighter does get a couple unique mechanics to make him different. This is definitely an area where we're looking at feedback, but so far people seemed more concerned with getting at-will magic that in making manuevers something all fighters automatically get.

And to be clear, right now if you spend a feat for maneuvers you're getting a whole suite of options to use, not just one thing. Also, I don't think the first pregen fighter has maneuvers to start with. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We're committed to giving fighter players interesting tactical options, but we also want to make it possible to play the simple basher. Feedback is usually split on wanting both types of fighter. 

*Jozh: Prestige Classes/Paragon Paths? In or out?*

*Mearls:* We're not sure yet. One of our next big tasks is to look at high level play and how things might evolve beyond class. If we do paths or prestige classes, we want to make sure that they fit into the overall Next system in an organic way, We don't want to just bolt them in.

OK, one more question then I have a lunch meeting.

*Jeremy Crawford:* Our initial high-level playtests were a hoot and included elements similar to paragon paths / prestige classes, but we're still exploring options.

*EdofDoom: Are there any obvious tanking mechanics in the new edition? Something that guarantees a wizard in the back doesn't get ganged up on by people running past the fighter?*

*Jeremy Crawford:* There are definitely ways for one character to protect another. We have a whole theme dedicated to the concept, in fact, but you won't see a tank per se in the first batch of five characters. 

*Mearls:* There are two things. First, creatures grant cover. So, cowering behind people is a good idea. That said, the basic option for that rests in a theme right now. My feeling on tanks is that it's best if a player wants to do that, rather than saying an entire swatch of characters are assigned that when a player might want to be a fighter to be good in combat.

I'd rather it be clear that a player has taken a theme to do that and is getting into it because that's what the player enjoys doing in D&D.

Thanks for the questions, everyone. This was a lot of fun. I've asked Trevor to capture the questions we couldn't get to so we can cover them before the playtest launches. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Yes, thank you, everyone!

*Trevor:* Alright, that wraps things up for the Q&A! Thanks everyone for all the great questions. We weren't able to get to them all, but as Mike mentioned, we will be trying to answer as many as we can in future articles and conversations.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 16, 2012)

Even for an early playtest I'm a little peeved that they're giving out pregens and not some kind of basic quickstart character creation rules. The character creation process is step 1 of playing a D&D game (and arguably the most important part and the most fun part). Seems like it should be step 1 of testing the game.

The hints at mechanics at least suggest that they're taking a sensible approach to balance and that they have some idea of what magic needs to be. At-will magic isn't a necessity, but the cantrips sound appropriate.


----------



## Matt James (May 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Seems like it should be step 1 of testing the game.




I disagree. The core mechanic of the game needs to be hammered out. The foundation of a game system needs to be exercised rigorously. I can't think of a better way than an open playtest. Character creation will be changed vastly by the feedback they get on the system. Then, in later rounds, I imagine they will refine sub-systems such as character creation.


----------



## renau1g (May 16, 2012)

I agree with Matt for all the same points


----------



## Henry (May 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> The character creation process is step 1 of playing a D&D game (and arguably the most important part and the most fun part). Seems like it should be step 1 of testing the game.




To me, not necessarily. I don't think they're even that far along. They want to be sure the most grounded concepts do work. Problem with chargen rules is that some people just will not test certain options -- or more specifically, they will not test all options equally. You will get gaps in your test data. If you really want to test the cool new rogue "cut a backflip and stun a monster" class feature, but no one picks it, and you really want to see what people's feeling of it is, it will be self-selected out, maybe not because the feature sucks, but because it's worded in a complex fashion, or only 10% of your testers played rogues, etc. So, you spread out all the options, and make people say, "this sucked," or "this played better than it read" and remove doubt.


----------



## drothgery (May 16, 2012)

Matt James said:


> I disagree. The core mechanic of the game needs to be hammered out. The foundation of a game system needs to be exercised rigorously. I can't think of a better way than an open playtest. Character creation will be changed vastly by the feedback they get on the system. Then, in later rounds, I imagine they will refine sub-systems such as character creation.



I guess I still kind of think the core mechanics you can -- and probably should -- figure more out from private / internal playtesting. The big advantage of a public playtest is that a very large number of people are trying things, which should stress unexpected corner cases.


----------



## Argyle King (May 16, 2012)

"There are off-turn actions in the game, but the  philosophy now is to have them eat into your turn or have something you  have to set up. For instance, instead of everyone automatically getting  opportunity attacks, a character might need to take a feat or choose an  ability that basically says, "If you make a melee attack on your turn,  you get one opportunity attack for the next round."

A rogue might have this - you can move away from an enemy that moves next to you, but you lose your move on your next turn."


I'm undecided on how this makes me feel.  While I do play games which use similar ideas (i.e. you did a move and attack, so now you can't use a certain defense,) I've historically found the idea to be implemented somewhat sloppily in d20 games.  With some people already saying 4E is too difficult to keep track of, I'm curious to see how people feel about keeping track of whether or not they already used moves or attacks prior to their turn.  

Also, I'm unsure what they mean by focusing on adventures rather than encounters.  Are they going for a model similar to the D&D Facebook game?


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 16, 2012)

Matt James said:


> I disagree. The core mechanic of the game needs to be hammered out. The foundation of a game system needs to be exercised rigorously. I can't think of a better way than an open playtest. Character creation will be changed vastly by the feedback they get on the system. Then, in later rounds, I imagine they will refine sub-systems such as character creation.



Character creation isn't the core of the game? It isn't the foundation?



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> To me, not necessarily. I don't think they're even that far along. They want to be sure the most grounded concepts do work. Problem with chargen rules is that some people just will not test certain options -- or more specifically, they will not test all options equally. You will get gaps in your test data. If you really want to test the cool new rogue "cut a backflip and stun a monster" class feature, but no one picks it, and you really want to see what people's feeling of it is, it will be self-selected out, maybe not because the feature sucks, but because it's worded in a complex fashion, or only 10% of your testers played rogues, etc. So, you spread out all the options, and make people say, "this sucked," or "this played better than it read" and remove doubt.



Clearly they are far along enough to make characters, because they made some. I'm not asking for a wide range of options, just some kind of choice.

The point that feedback will be unequally distributed is fair; however, the converse is that if your favorite character archetype is not well represented or if the characters they made are limited or poorly made, the feedback is limited by that.

I'm not saying it's easy, just that I would have done it differently. I would have written a real quick character creation guide for levels 1-2 or so for a limited list of classes/races/backgrounds/etc., some sample monsters, put it out there, and let people generate feedback from a set of playtest games as diverse as they are.


----------



## hafrogman (May 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Character creation isn't the core of the game? It isn't the foundation?



No, it isn't.  Character creation is important, but you don't do it all the time.  The core of the game is what you do day in and day out, every session.  Conflict resolution, movement, core mechanics, skill use.

I think it's most telling to look at what people complain about the most when they're talking about the edition they hate (which they do a lot around here).  Most of the complaints I see aren't about character creation.

For 4e it's healing surges, resting mechanisms, powers, etc.
3e it's skills, break down of scaling, etc.
2e and before it's THACo, inconsistent mechanics, etc.

Those aren't character creation, they're the very base that WotC is trying to iron out in this phase.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 16, 2012)

hafrogman said:


> No, it isn't.  Character creation is important, but you don't do it all the time.  The core of the game is what you do day in and day out, every session.  Conflict resolution, movement, core mechanics, skill use.



Still not really buying this line of thinking. The character _you created_ is what you use day in and day out. Conflicts are resolved based on the choices you made in character creation.

By analogy, this would be like saying that your favorite TV show is primarily about shooting in front of a camera. In truth, development, writing, casting, set design, and other forms of preparation define what can happen in front of that camera, and editing, sound design, and other forms of post production create what you see in the end.

My contention is that all parts of the process are relevant (character creation and other prep, roleplaying at a session, and reflection/reaction afterwards) and it makes sense to go through them in order.



> I think it's most telling to look at what people complain about the most when they're talking about the edition they hate (which they do a lot around here).  Most of the complaints I see aren't about character creation.
> 
> For 4e it's healing surges, resting mechanisms, *powers*, etc.
> 3e it's *skills*, break down of scaling, etc.
> ...



Skills and powers aren't part of character creation? Never mind other common sources of discontent, like multiclassing, race choices, class restrictions, experience, or magic equipment (which arguably shouldn't be a part of character creation but is)? Seems like character creation is pretty important to me.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 16, 2012)

It was a good chat, but what I'd like to know is what questions were moderated out of the chat, posed by those forum members who did have a moment to attend.  (I know I saw Kamikaze Midget got one in, but I'm willing to bet there's something to glean by knowing what was filtered out.)

Mine was: "Can you provide even a vague example of how you're intending to make the game modular to suit the needs of fans of all editions?"

Just curious.


----------



## mudbunny (May 16, 2012)

What they are looking to get from this phase of the testing is a baseline of how things work.

% of parties that complete the encounter in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 turns...
% of parties that get TPKed in round 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...

How often each spell/ability/feat/foozle gets used.
How many encounters can the party get through before needing to rest.

Once they have a large enough number of people that respond to those, the statistical anomalies will jump out of the data and they will have a baseline set of values that they can compare things to. From there, as they add things, it is easy to see what type of effect it has on the results.


----------



## am181d (May 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> My contention is that all parts of the process are relevant (character creation and other prep, roleplaying at a session, and reflection/reaction afterwards) and it makes sense to go through them in order.




No. Character creation is an *optional* add-on to the game (that can be bypassed by playing pre-gens). Assuming that it takes 4 hours to make a character and you play the character for 20 4 hour sessions, that's less than 5% of your total time in play. Character creation has its own set of rules (nowhere else in the game, for example, do you roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die) that are unrelated to the core game.

The argument to include character creation is that character creation gives playtesters the opportunity to find broken rules combinations that wouldn't appear in a pre-gen. But there's no point in doing this UNLESS THE CORE MECHANICS OF THE GAME ARE FIRST DECIDED. After all, if the core mechanics are off, *every* combination will be broken.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Still not really buying this line of thinking. The character _you created_ is what you use day in and day out. Conflicts are resolved based on the choices you made in character creation.
> 
> By analogy, this would be like saying that your favorite TV show is primarily about shooting in front of a camera. In truth, development, writing, casting, set design, and other forms of preparation define what can happen in front of that camera, and editing, sound design, and other forms of post production create what you see in the end.
> 
> ...




Important, but not anywhere near the foundation or the most fun of the game. _Playing_ the character is the foundation, subjecting it to the stresses of the world, seeing what needs to be improved and changed or replaced - much like playtesting a game system. D&D characters start out fairly weak and unformed, especially in older editions like I started with 30+ years ago. Through play, you see where the character is weak, where it is strong, and what new directions to take it in that didn't occur to you when it was being created. 

If anything, the minigame character creation became in D&D (and which it is in many other games) is a weakness, not a strength in D&D - in my opinion. This comes from someone who loved classic Traveller and its character creation which was really a game in itself. Same for Pendragon. The kind of game the Next design team seems to be working toward is one in which that minigame is not the default, and the character is truly created mostly by game play, as it was in the past, and which seems well-suited for games that use levels and incremental advancement.


----------



## WotC_Trevor (May 16, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> It was a good chat, but what I'd like to know is what questions were moderated out of the chat, posed by those forum members who did have a moment to attend.  (I know I saw Kamikaze Midget got one in, but I'm willing to bet there's something to glean by knowing what was filtered out.)
> 
> Mine was: "Can you provide even a vague example of how you're intending to make the game modular to suit the needs of fans of all editions?"
> 
> Just curious.



I didn't really moderate out any questions - I had almost 900 questions and comments in there and I tried to find the ones that were asked by a few different people and ones that seemed interesting. There were questions about future products and exact release dates that I avoided because we just don't have that info yet.

If I didn't get to a question, it's most likely just because we didn't have time to get to them all.


----------



## Ahnehnois (May 16, 2012)

am181d said:


> No. Character creation is an *optional* add-on to the game (that can be bypassed by playing pre-gens). Assuming that it takes 4 hours to make a character and you play the character for 20 4 hour sessions, that's less than 5% of your total time in play.



Character creation is not optional. Pregens are occasionally used for special purposes, but the first experience of most D&D players is sitting down and creating a character.

Moreover, character creation and character advancement as you level probably expends a lot more than 5% of the time spent playing D&D. People like leveling up, which is why we still have a somewhat hackneyed system of classes and levels.

Character creation is essential to the D&D experience. It's when you take ownership of the game and make it yours. I understand the playtest isn't a complete game, but it'll be hard to render any judgments without being able to go through the whole process of playing the game.



> The argument to include character creation is that character creation gives playtesters the opportunity to find broken rules combinations that wouldn't appear in a pre-gen. But there's no point in doing this UNLESS THE CORE MECHANICS OF THE GAME ARE FIRST DECIDED. After all, if the core mechanics are off, *every* combination will be broken



That's a straw man argument. It's not about finding broken combos, it isn't even about balance. It's about actually giving the game a fair shake. Without character creation options, people are simply going to improvise their own, which won't be reflective of what's in the actual rules. Of course the core mechanics of the game are what's at issue, but how one decides ability scores or chooses skill is about as core as it gets.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 16, 2012)

Fair enough Trevor.  Sorry to portray that question in a less than wonderful way.  

Considering the strength with which that question of mine was discussed at length here; I didn't think it possible that it wouldn't be asked a bunch of times.. so I assumed.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## GSHamster (May 16, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> My contention is that all parts of the process are relevant (character creation and other prep, roleplaying at a session, and reflection/reaction afterwards) and it makes sense to go through them in order.




There are multiple types of testing. To use a software analogy, you have two extremes of tests. One type is called "end-to-end" or integrated testing. This is where you test the entire system from start to end, and make sure that all the components work well with each other.

The other extreme is unit or component testing. This is where you take a single component and test it in isolation. Give defined inputs to the component, and get outputs.

Both types of testing are necessary. But in general, you want to start with the unit tests, with testing the individual components before stringing them together.

Let's say you only did integrated testing, and a problem popped up. You can't really be sure if it's a problem inside a component, or if the problem happens because two components aren't talking to each other correctly.

WotC is starting with a more specific test. Their "inputs", the characters and the encounters, will always be identical. If there are issues in this playtest, like a majority reports that the rogue is not fun, they don't have to worry that the rogue creation rules are unclear or bad. Instead they know that there is something wrong with the default rogue mechanics.

Integrated testing will happen eventually. But component testing with defined inputs needs to come first. If anything, this setup says to me that WotC is taking the public playtest seriously, and it's not just a publicity stunt.


----------



## kimble (May 16, 2012)

I don´t know. For everything that I like (conditions, at-will magic,etc.) there are at least one that I don´t (you need to take a specific theme to hold your enemies, unbalanced options are fine, thinking that the only problem with magic is damage, etc.). 

I´ll still try the playtest, but this is the first D&D edition that doesn´t make me feel eager to play. Hope that changes until the final version.


----------



## WotC_Trevor (May 16, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> Fair enough Trevor.  Sorry to portray that question in a less than wonderful way.
> 
> Considering the strength with which that question of mine was discussed at length here; I didn't think it possible that it wouldn't be asked a bunch of times.. so I assumed.
> 
> Thanks for the reply.



Nah, blame me for not asking it - that's totally fine 

The question does come up and they've tried to answer it at panels and such, but I don't think we have enough specifics to really get into the meat of it. It is something I know we'll be seeing in the playtest though, and something we'll continue to try to answer.


----------



## Gold Roger (May 16, 2012)

Everything sounds great to me, except that part of mechanically hardcoded cultures (high elf, wood elf) that's a lot of implied setting right there in the core rules. 

My homebrew has elves, but no high elves and not exactly wood elves either. I don't want to houserule racial culture options.

I thought we had backgrounds to represent stuff like that?


----------



## WotC_Trevor (May 16, 2012)

kimble said:


> I don´t know. For everything that I like (conditions, at-will magic,etc.) there are at least one that I don´t (you need to take a specific theme to hold your enemies, unbalanced options are fine, thinking that the only problem with magic is damage, etc.).
> 
> I´ll still try the playtest, but this is the first D&D edition that doesn´t make me feel eager to play. Hope that changes until the final version.




So keep in mind that themes so far have been explained as feat delivery systems. If you can get tank-like holding an enemy from a theme, then it sounds like you can get it from a feat. Using a feat to get a sticky/tank like ability seems cool to me.

As to the magic thing, I know Mike and the team have talked about the challenges of balancing magic. At two of the seminars I think they used the example of a spell that mind controls an enemy, basically saying it takes the monster out of the fight and could have a lot of different uses from dealing more damage in the same fight to all sorts of utility outside the fight. From what I've heard, balancing numbers for them is easy, it's tackling spells like that and making sure that they end up with an option that's a cool spell, but doesn't trample over the other classes, the balance, or the power level they expect.


----------



## Meophist (May 16, 2012)

From what was said about themes, I kinda want to see if it's possible to make a Wizard with the Defender theme, for example.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 16, 2012)

> Mearls: Ha! Jeremy will love this question. I'm really not a fan of giving people extra turns in addition to their own turn. I think it really slows the game down. For movement and positioning, the goal is to focus more on terrain and interesting things to move to and around, rather than flanking and such.
> 
> There are off-turn actions in the game, but the philosophy now is to have them eat into your turn or have something you have to set up. For instance, instead of everyone automatically getting opportunity attacks, a character might need to take a feat or choose an ability that basically says, "If you make a melee attack on your turn, you get one opportunity attack for the next round."
> 
> A rogue might have this - you can move away from an enemy that moves next to you, but you lose your move on your next turn.




This was my favorite part. It indicates seriousness about keeping combat moving, while not merely grossly simplifying key interactions as a mushy compromise.


----------



## Andor (May 16, 2012)

Morrus said:


> Mearls: I did a review of our weapon table, and I think the spear was the one weapon I didn't comment on. Probably the biggest things are rogue schemes and cleric domains.
> 
> Jeremy Crawford: Yeah, the rogue has really come into focus this week.




I'm surprised nobody pounced on this yet. 

Rogues have schemes, possibly as a parallel to a clerics domains?

So is a scheme how a Rogue does things (again, like a Clerics Domain) so you might have a cat-burglar or a thief-acrobat or a conman, or is it a mechanic that allows the rogue to accomplish his schtick? So you might 'pull a scheme' to flim-flam some cash out of the yokels by selling snake oil, or organize a ring of child pickpockets, or try to inflitrate the society ball to snag her ladyships jewels and/or virtue. Each of those might be a seperate scheme, possibly analagous to a 4e skill challange, and thus giving the rogue his own design space akin to the fighters manuevers or a wizard or clerics magic.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 17, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> "There are off-turn actions in the game, but the  philosophy now is to have them eat into your turn or have something you  have to set up. For instance, instead of everyone automatically getting  opportunity attacks, a character might need to take a feat or choose an  ability that basically says, "If you make a melee attack on your turn,  you get one opportunity attack for the next round."
> 
> I'm undecided on how this makes me feel.




What I'd prefer is something like:

*Defend the Line*
Move Action
Until the start of your next turn, you can make a melee basic attack against any enemy that tries to leave a space adjacent to you. You can take these 'opportunity attacks' a maximum number of times equal to your Dexterity modifier (minimum 1) between your turns. 

(This assumes there are normally no rules for opportunity attacks.)


or

*Out of Harm's Way*
Move Action
One time before the start of your next turn, you can move 5 feet at any point, such as to duck behind cover from an incoming arrow or leap out of the blast of a fireball. You can increase the distance to 10 feet, but you fall prone afterward.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 17, 2012)

" It also means for a much faster game - characters contribute in each encounter, but we can let someone shine without feeling that everyone must have at least 4 or 5 turns to do their thing."

BOOYAH!!  If this can become a reality there is yet hope.......


----------



## grimslade (May 17, 2012)

Come on May 24! This is great I am jazzed even about the stuff I don't like. I want to take this for a test drive. 

I would have loved to play test the character creation system at the start but that would be a lot of variables and the game would have to have a lot more concrete decisions made. Control the variables and change what needs to change before they impact the whole system.


----------



## soulcatcher78 (May 17, 2012)

It'll be nice to break out the caves of chaos in the new edition and see how it fares compared to the old version.

Having pregens at the beginning frees up more time to actually play with the rules and see what is/can be broken.  If we're looking at a span of 4-8 weeks (round 2 this summer some time) then we should have plenty of time to disect what they're going to give us and be hungry for more when the time comes.

Another vote for Rogue "schemes"...tell us more!


----------



## Argyle King (May 17, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> What I'd prefer is something like:
> 
> *Defend the Line*
> Move Action
> ...





In a previous thread here on Enworld, I suggested the idea that you could opt into having OAs by taking a feat in a way similar to how 4E characters could opt into being able to use Rituals via a feat.  Fighters would simply get the feat for free as part of their class; mirroring how 4E wizards got ritual casting for free.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 17, 2012)

Just jumped on to say there is nothing in that I do not like a lot


----------



## am181d (May 17, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's a straw man argument. It's not about finding broken combos, it isn't even about balance. It's about actually giving the game a fair shake. Without character creation options, people are simply going to improvise their own, which won't be reflective of what's in the actual rules. Of course the core mechanics of the game are what's at issue, but how one decides ability scores or chooses skill is about as core as it gets.




Dude. This is the first set of playtest rules. There will be others, as already announced. Rules down the road will have character creation.


----------



## Mika (May 17, 2012)

I think I have exactly one misgiving about using pregens for the initial playtest.

Let's say that we play through all 10 levels with the pregens.  All goes well, and there is a general consensus that everything works well and is well balanced.

Then we get the character creation rules and find out that the fighter's stats required some extremely lucky rolls, the rogue was optimized by an expert with the system, and the casters were severely gimped compared to other options that they could have taken.  

If that were to happen, our conclusions from playtesting with the pregens would be completely invalidated.  Either that, or the character creation rules would need to be tweaked -- but would that be possible at that point?


----------



## frankthedm (May 17, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> *Out of Harm's Way*
> Move Action
> One time before the start of your next turn, you can move 5 feet at any point, such as to duck behind cover from an incoming arrow or leap out of the blast of a fireball. You can increase the distance to 10 feet, but you fall prone afterward.



Thankfully it sounds like 5E is moving away from the tracking every single square of the battlefield that dragged out 3E and 4E combat.







> For movement and positioning, the goal is to focus more on terrain and interesting things to move to and around, rather than flanking and such.


----------



## hafrogman (May 17, 2012)

Mika said:


> Then we get the character creation rules and find out that the fighter's stats required some extremely lucky rolls . . .



 I would be absolutely stunned if the premade characters were not built using either point buy or an array.







Mika said:


> . . . the rogue was optimized by an expert with the system, and the casters were severely gimped compared to other options that they could have taken.



I also expect all the premades will be made using the "default" character builds, not something that required either extreme system expertise or passing up obvious choices.







Mika said:


> If that were to happen, our conclusions from playtesting with the pregens would be completely invalidated. Either that, or the character creation rules would need to be tweaked -- but would that be possible at that point? .



Character creation is by far the easiest thing to tweak at the end of development.  Change how combat works or skills work and you need to change ever class that has skills or will ever enter combat.  Change how a specific feat or class ability functions, and for the most part that's all that needs to be edited.

But also, this is, as others have said, merely the first step.  They said character customization will roll out this summer.  So sometime between June 21st and September 21st we'll be able to start toying with those rules.  But they've also said no releases 2012 .  So there's still  time for playtest, feedback and revisions once we get that part of the playtest rolling.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 17, 2012)

It looks like the direction they are taking with a good numnber of things suggests they are getting a larger amount of feedback from players who like 4E mechanics.  I am wondering if that is because they are primarily getting playtesters who are players of 4E.  I am also wondering if the audience of this coming edition will wind up being mostly 4E players moving forward from 4E to this new edition and that the lack of feedback from non-4E players/lapsed players is going to wind up producing an edition that doesn't draw lapsed players back to D&D thus not addressing the problem WotC wished to address, that of recapturing lapsed players.

Now one could argue that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if lapsed players don't participate in the playtests in large enough numbers to influence the design process then that is their loss, but I'm not sure that serves WotC's ends which was suggested to be the broadening of the new edition's audience to include current players and lapsed players.  I'm wondering if they are considering this potential disparity by gauging how much of their feedback is coming from current players versus those more representative of the portion of the market they are trying to recapture.

Even if they are getting low amounts of feedback from lapsed players, possibly because many are taking a wait and see what happens stance, they might be wise (if they really want to appeal to lapsed players) to cast a more discerning eye on the source of the feedback they are getting and be sure it is balanced not in regard to who they are drawing in for the playtest but based on who they hope to draw back in as players overall.

If they indeed produce a new edition that merely carries a portion of the current players forward (some not seeing enough changes to switch), and draws only a small portion of players from the lapsed player pool, they might be in danger of coming out the other side with an even smaller market share than they have at present.  And thet wouldn't serve anyone since they might pull the plug even faster than this last time around.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 17, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> It looks like the direction they are taking with a good numnber of things suggests they are getting a larger amount of feedback from players who like 4E mechanics.  I am wondering if that is because they are primarily getting playtesters who are players of 4E.




While I like almost everything from the transcription, I had this same feeling when I read that the "overwhelming" majority of feedback was in favour of at-will spells, even if it's just cantrips...

I am _not_ against at-will magic, but I really hope it is *one option*. It is OK for to have _some_ wizards which toss around prestidigitations all the time, and if they can then I presume most of them in fact would do that to help them with houseworks and daily activities. But I don't want that to be the default for every wizard, otherwise it might automatically give a certain feel to all campaign settings, that spellcasting somehow always starts from the little tricks, which means the world around expects those tricksters to be fairly a normal presence.


----------



## Zireael (May 17, 2012)

I must admit I like practically all of what Mearls and Crawford wrote.

What a pity a question about modules wasn't put into the transcript...


----------



## Matt James (May 17, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> It's about actually giving the game a fair shake.




I'm not sure if you're ignoring what others and myself have said, or if you just want to argue. Character creation playtesting will surely come in the future. It is not, however, crucial at this point. The game is in it's infancy. It is no where near publication and WotC is doing everything it can to make sure feedback is targeted and concentrated. 

I'll repeat: At this stage of the game's development, character creation isn't something that needs to be looked at by the community as a whole. Once they have the core of the game smoothed out the way they think it should be, based on playtest feedback, they can focus on other areas.

Despite what the Internet says, WotC has a staff of professional game designers that are milling through all of the feedback that has already been provided, in addition to their internal data. Next week, the public playtest will dump streams of additional data. This is good for the game, and a healthy way for WotC to interact with the consumer. Let them do their work.

Why won't _you_ give the game a fair shake?


----------



## Goonalan (May 17, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> It looks like the direction they are taking with a good numnber of things suggests they are getting a larger amount of feedback from players who like 4E mechanics.  I am wondering if that is because they are primarily getting playtesters who are players of 4E.  I am also wondering if the audience of this coming edition will wind up being mostly 4E players moving forward from 4E to this new edition and that the lack of feedback from non-4E players/lapsed players is going to wind up producing an edition that doesn't draw lapsed players back to D&D thus not addressing the problem WotC wished to address, that of recapturing lapsed players.
> 
> Now one could argue that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if lapsed players don't participate in the playtests in large enough numbers to influence the design process then that is their loss, but I'm not sure that serves WotC's ends which was suggested to be the broadening of the new edition's audience to include current players and lapsed players.  I'm wondering if they are considering this potential disparity by gauging how much of their feedback is coming from current players versus those more representative of the portion of the market they are trying to recapture.
> 
> ...




That's a little difficult to work around though isn't it?

WOTC: We made a game that after a year of playtesting and feedback is as close to the publics wants and needs in every way...

Lapsed D&D player: Yeah, well it's not what I wanted?

The point being if you are connected to D&D in any way, I figure by now you've heard WOTC are up for a new edition- and they're looking for feedback. Chasing Pathfinder- the home for some of the lapsed D&D players, perhaps.

So what's WOTC to do, second guess the people who are not bothered enough to provide feedback, or get involved, or else try and guess what they'd like in the new edition.

I see what you're saying and all, and I don't want to come across as harsh but what are your suggestions- other than shouting it from every rooftop- D&D is getting a new edition, if you're interested then feedback is important, come one come all.

I guess the thought is with the modular settings then any iteration can be replicated to some extent- but if you don't say anything, sit on the sidelines. Or worse still come along a year later and say I didn't vote for that when the truth is you didn't vote at all...

WOTC are going to listen to the numbers (+ intuition, game desigher-fu etc).


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 17, 2012)

Goonalan said:


> That's a little difficult to work around though isn't it?
> 
> WOTC: We made a game that after a year of playtesting and feedback is as close to the publics wants and needs in every way...
> 
> ...





If there goal was just another edition, i would agree with you. But since their goal is to bring back lapsed D&D player (i think coming home is the language they have been using) it is on them to seek out and get feedback from the lapsed crowd. Personally I don't know if it is the case that they aren't doing that. It does appear they have reached out to the old school community for example. Where I think they may run into trouble is relying too much on their own forum for feedback (which is predominantly made up of 4e folks). Most news and playtest info (not to mention polls) hit there first and most frequently, so I suspect it is possible the playtest is weighted a bit in the 4e direction.

Wizards is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of 5E. If they fail to get the broadest mix of players in their feedback pool and therefore end up not achieving their goal of uniting the base they have no one to blame but themselves. It is not our responsibility as players to make sure the next editon gets the feedback it needs. If they really want feedback from people who didn't like 4e, we are easy enough to find. 

But I will be the first to admit I am just not feeling "it" when it comes to participating in some of the feedback events they have set up. I hope 5e ends up good enough that I play and like it,it just isn't the focus of my life. I come here and therpgsite and happily share my toughts;  I am not going to sign up for a account on the wizards forum because i dont currently buy their products.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 17, 2012)

Goonalan said:


> That's a little difficult to work around though isn't it?
> 
> WOTC: We made a game that after a year of playtesting and feedback is as close to the publics wants and needs in every way...
> 
> ...





Yup, as I said.  You could argue that if there isn't a majority of opinion steering in a particular direction then WotC should go a different way.  I see from your sig you play 4E and I assume you like what you see in the direction of the new edition.  Let's assume you like what they eventually produce and, along with some portion of the current base as well as a minor portion of lapsed players, you buy into the new edition.  Then, let's say WotC doesn't feel the turnout is enough to support that new edition after but a couple/few years.  I don't think those folks, maybe including yourself, are going to be all that happy having spent a hundred or more dollars on the new edition.


However, if they wish to recapture lapsed players and only a small percentage of the feedback is coming from lapsed players, do they ignore that small percentage in favor of a lot of feedback from current players?  Do they abandon their plan to recapture the ones who are not giving feedback but WotC knows are out there and WotC wants if they are going to be as successful as they need to be to not just give up on this edition after a few years like the last one?  I suppose the correlated question would be, how does a company unable to get feedback from some segment of the market manage to produce a game for that segment of the market if it really needs to reach them?


It seems they have created a slippery slope for themselves.  They say they want "everyone" on board, but the early feedback is driving them toward creating a game with many of the features that were rejected by the very fans they want to recapture.  The more they show they are going in that direction the less likely those lapsed players are to follow along, playtest, and give feedback.  As that progresses, WotC works with the feedback they have and continues further in the direction away from pleasing the lapsed fans.  The cycle accelerates.  It might become a self-fulfilling failure based on the inability to see beyond the early, current fan feedback.


One way to adjust for the situation would be to make sure the feedback they do receive is weighted in such a way that sheer numbers from any one school of thought won't tilt the design process in a given direction.  If they wish a design to ultimately please, let's say, five different editions' fans, then the feedback from each fan base would garner 20% of the design priority, regardless if any given edition had an overwhelming number of fans giving feedback.  Wthout such an approach, they are bound to never have a chance to bring certain segments on board during the design phase and probably not once they reach the point when they plan to publish.


----------



## hafrogman (May 17, 2012)

I think the problem in asking WotC to accommodate the opinions of people who refuse to contribute to the discussion is that you cannot always tell how they feel about an issue simply based on a binary yes/no kind of question.

At-will magic is a great example.  

Person A feels that low-level magic-users feel too mundane and would like their wizards to have at-will spells.  From previous editions, it's easy to assume that Person B exists who feels low-level magic-users being tied to their crossbows is fine and doesn't need wizards to have at-will spells.  But it's tougher to realize (until you read the thread on ENWorld) that there is a vocal bunch of People C who find at-will magic to be anathema and not only don't want it for their wizards, but also want to make sure Person A can't use it.

There's also two VERY distinct types of "lapsed users" and they're very difficult to cater for because they already have something else they play.  There are lapsed users who still play AD&D (or a similarly built retro-clone) and there are lapsed users to play Pathfinder.  Then we can add in people who still play 3.5, but not Pathfinder.  They're a little easier because they don't have a currently supported game.  Then there's lapsed users who don't play any D&D at all, and I can't imagine that they're any more unified in their views on RPGs than the D&D community itself is.

Now, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think 5e will get anywhere trying to be everyone's favorite game.  But if instead they can make a game that Person A, B and C can sit down and play together. . .

The most important way they've addressed the fractured fan-base is to go back to the old editions and try to create a game that can play like any of them.  But if people want to make sure that their individual vision is supported right out of the box, that really requires everyone (yes, WotC too) to work REALLY, really hard to make sure that their voices are being heard.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 17, 2012)

One of the little things I liked - when talking about cantrips, they said that they were utility abilities, some of which could also be used in combat. The example of the torch lighting cantrip to light up a goblins butt. So no magic missile or fire spear that you throw all day long - just utility stuff that can be used in combat.

The flavor of at wills being that way works very well for me - they aren't mini combat spells. Changes the whole at will magic issue tone. 

I just home the spells choices are limited by type no X utility spells, X combat spells etc.


----------



## SteveC (May 17, 2012)

Just a comment on the "lots of feedback from 4E players..." from a 4E player.

I've played every version of D&D from the start, and people who know me will say I'm currently a 4E fan. I'm going to be very vocal from my experiences with my group on the playtest, since I want to shape D&D to continue to be a game that I play. I currently play D&D a lot, so it's in my best interest to do so.

For those who are more a fan of earlier editions, I'd say "make your voices heard loud and often!" Even if I don't like the same sort of things you do in a game, I want you to be heard and taken into consideration... we're all out to make the next Edition a  great one.

I liken this to voting (hopefully not stepping on the no politics rule here...): I have voted in every election I could since I've been 18. I think that if you want to complain about how things are going in the country, the state, the city ... or in D&D, you have to step up and get involved. Then you totally have a right to complain to your heart's content.


----------



## Siberys (May 17, 2012)

Morrus said:


> *Mearls:* ... My feeling on tanks is that it's best if a player wants to do that, rather than saying an entire swatch of characters are assigned that when a player might *want to be a fighter to be good in combat.*




That bolded bit worries me just a bit, because in my experience this could lead to trap options. I mean, in 4e, if you want a mundane warrior but /don't/ want to be a defender, you don't choose a fighter - you choose a rogue or a barbarian or a ranger or a warlord or some other class that /is/ built for the role you want. If what you want is a round hole, it's /possible/ the fighter is a square peg, y'know.

Depending on how this is structured, though, it could work. I just think that the very clear design goals associated with 4e's combat roles were a good thing for the game.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 17, 2012)

Siberys said:


> ...I just think that the very clear design goals associated with 4e's combat roles were a good thing for the game.




Roles were really good for those that liked the effect they had on the game.

Roles were very bad for those that disliked the effect they had on the game.

I'm assuming they are going to try and find a middle ground, or have the ability to play either way. It's a very polarizing aspect of 4E, most either love or hate it, with very few being just "meh" about it. That's something that needs to be dealt with, which means likely not having roles hard coded into the core rules (it's much easier to overlay a concept of roles through a module or options, than it is to remove the concept of roles from the core rules).


----------



## Tsuga C (May 17, 2012)

At-will magic for fighters and rogues?  What a crock!  Fighters should fight, rogues should steal and backstab.  Leave the 4E homogenization in 4E where it belongs.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 17, 2012)

SteveC said:


> I liken this to voting





We've passed that point in the discussion.  What you suggest doesn't help WotC make sure they build an edition that draws back lapsed players and likely leads to fewer players than those using the current edition.  That's the danger.




SteveC said:


> I have voted in every election I could since I've been 18. I think that if you want to complain about how things are going in the country, the state, the city ... or in D&D, you have to step up and get involved. Then you totally have a right to complain to your heart's content.





I've heard that false analogy before.  Paying taxes gives people the right to complain.  Voting is just one of the ways in which they voice their complaints.


----------



## thzero (May 17, 2012)

"Here's another thing - with stuff like paralyzed, we're dealing more in describing what happens rather than trying to make everything mechanical. So paralyzed says that you can' t move your limbs. Spellcasting specifies that you need to move your arms to cast a spell. Thus, a paralyzed creature can't cast spells."

Um, but if it is only the limbs, it can move its head and speak.  Not to mention cast, at least potentially if using 3X magic system, spells with the Still Spell feat.  I hope that was just a general description, and not the exact description, because if it is the former that is going to raise lots of questions thoughout the game.


----------



## nillic (May 17, 2012)

This idea of "lapsed" D&D players is silly. When people say "lapsed" what they mean is not playing the current edition. But I promise those "lapsed" players are opening their OD&D, AD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, and whatever books and having a great time. The language being thrown around by WoTC and others implies that there are these players languishing in dark basements all over the world, just waiting for a savior. But trust me, if they're still opening those 20+ year old books there is a reason. Because they're happy.


----------



## thzero (May 17, 2012)

nillic said:


> This idea of "lapsed" D&D players is silly. When people say "lapsed" what they mean is not playing the current edition. But I promise those "lapsed" players are opening their OD&D, AD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, and whatever books and having a great time. The language being thrown around by WoTC and others implies that there are these players languishing in dark basements all over the world, just waiting for a savior. But trust me, if they're still opening those 20+ year old books there is a reason. Because they're happy.




They did the same thing back when 3rd and 4th editions were released, so it really isn't surprising.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 17, 2012)

Tsuga C said:


> At-will magic for fighters and rogues?  What a crock!  Fighters should fight, rogues should steal and backstab.  Leave the 4E homogenization in 4E where it belongs.




1. That is why Fighters and Rogues can opt-in.  It's not core.
2. Fighters have an at-will sword, Rogues have an at-will stealth roll.  Mages have magic missile.  - At will was not a 4e creation.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 17, 2012)

nillic said:


> This idea of "lapsed" D&D players is silly. When people say "lapsed" what they mean is not playing the current edition. But I promise those "lapsed" players are opening their OD&D, AD&D, 1st ed, 2nd ed, and whatever books and having a great time. The language being thrown around by WoTC and others implies that there are these players languishing in dark basements all over the world, just waiting for a savior. But trust me, if they're still opening those 20+ year old books there is a reason. Because they're happy.




I completely understand where you're coming from, but I'd argue that your interpretation of what they mean is what's silly.

From a business perspective they're trying to get back the people who were spending money on D&D products that are now not doing so.  There have been many articles on Wizards.com and statements made here where it's clear they (WoTC) understand people are playing the other editions, like them, and are happy staying with them.

It's not wrong for them to be classified as a non-paying customer, thus lapsed, and not a bad idea to try and get some of them to monetize by putting out a better product.


----------



## thzero (May 17, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> 2. Fighters have an at-will sword, Rogues have an at-will stealth roll.  Mages have magic missile.  - At will was not a 4e creation.




Yes, yes it was.  Neither wizards nor sorcerers ever had an "at-will" magic missile or anything of the sort; not until much later in some of the 3.5 splat books and even that fell far short of what 4e has described.  And really there is no good reason a rogue can't have the exact same melee attack (screw the "at-will" verbage) as a fighter; they just tend to go about it in different manners.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 18, 2012)

thzero said:


> Yes, yes it was.  Neither wizards nor sorcerers ever had an "at-will" magic missile or anything of the sort; not until much later in some of the 3.5 splat books and even that fell far short of what 4e has described.  And really there is no good reason a rogue can't have the exact same melee attack (screw the "at-will" verbage) as a fighter; they just tend to go about it in different manners.




The concept of at-will long pre-dates 4E.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 18, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> 2. Fighters have an at-will sword, Rogues have an at-will stealth roll.  Mages have magic missile.  - At will was not a 4e creation.




this is really stretching the term in my opinion.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 18, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> this is really stretching the term in my opinion.




I'll agree, but stretching is needed considering the collapsed and sometimes revisionist view taken by some proponents of earlier systems.


----------



## thzero (May 18, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> The concept of at-will long pre-dates 4E.




No, really it doesn't.  And even if you did, as another poster put it, you've stretched it well beyond the definition it holds in the context of 4E.  But hey, more power to ya.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 18, 2012)

thzero said:


> No, really it doesn't.  And even if you did, as another poster put it, you've stretched it well beyond the definition it holds in the context of 4E.  But hey, more power to ya.




Any monster that has an at-will ability in any 2e or 3e monster manual has an at-will ability.  That is not stretching the term.  At most, the 4e characters have abilities that were once only the realm of the Monster Manuals.  

This is natural evolution, not stretching.

Now using my original elaboration on sword, stab, at-will.. sure.  That's stretching, hence I agreed with B.


----------



## Tsuga C (May 18, 2012)

*And Get Offa My Lawn, Young Hellions!  *



Kobold Boots said:


> At most, the 4e characters have abilities that were once only the realm of the Monster Manuals.
> 
> This is natural evolution, not stretching.




This in and of itself I find an objectionable *de*volution and remains one of the myriad of reasons that some players and DMs just couldn't make the edition jump last time around.  And, as duly noted by *thzero*, magic missile was never an at-will ability for player characters using core materials.

*grumbles*

I never did run high-magic campaigns and was hoping that 5E would back away from such significantly.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 18, 2012)

Tsuga C said:


> This in and of itself I find an objectionable *de*volution and remains one of the myriad of reasons that some players and DMs just couldn't make the edition jump last time around.




Sure.  I respect that people may feel this way.  At the same time, I don't agree with you.  I just don't see much to get that invested in.



> And, as duly noted by *thzero*, magic missile was never an at-will ability for player characters using core materials.




Sure, if you want to take something I wrote the way someone else interpreted it; your response makes sense.  What I actually meant was more in line with: 

The fighters primary attacks are at will .  The rogues primary attacks are largely at will.  The mage's primary attacks were not at will by nature of the vancian casting system, so spell combinations aside this creates an imbalance that should be corrected by giving mages at least one or two attacks that can be at will.



> I never did run high-magic campaigns and was hoping that 5E would back away from such significantly.




It's not the responsibility of the rules system to back away from a type or style of play.  It's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules set and play the game the way his or her group wants to play.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 18, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> Even for an early playtest I'm a little peeved that they're giving out pregens and not some kind of basic quickstart character creation rules. The character creation process is step 1 of playing a D&D game (and arguably the most important part and the most fun part). Seems like it should be step 1 of testing the game.
> 
> The hints at mechanics at least suggest that they're taking a sensible approach to balance and that they have some idea of what magic needs to be. At-will magic isn't a necessity, but the cantrips sound appropriate.




Sorry, but I disagree. You need the system done before you can make characters for it. Sure, once the game is done making characters is first, but the game is not close to done.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 18, 2012)

Tsuga C said:


> At-will magic for fighters and rogues?  What a crock!  Fighters should fight, rogues should steal and backstab.  Leave the 4E homogenization in 4E where it belongs.




They said that kind of things would be in themes.

If a fighter or a rogue wants to go that way, I say let them. The option should be there.


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 18, 2012)

This is reminding me a bit of the run up to 4E release. I am liking some of what I am hearing and disliking some of what I am hearing. So all and all interested to learn more but mostly meh about it. Though the PR has been TONS better so far for this edition.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 18, 2012)

Dark Mistress said:


> Though the PR has been TONS better so far for this edition.





XP to you!  Yup.  Good point. The PR has been very, very good and respectful of the customer base.  They seem to have turned that around since last time and everyone should give them their due for that.


----------



## pming (May 19, 2012)

Hiya



Kobold Boots said:


> Sure, if you want to take something I wrote the way someone else interpreted it; your response makes sense. What I actually meant was more in line with:
> 
> The fighters primary attacks are at will . The rogues primary attacks are largely at will. The mage's primary attacks were not at will by nature of the vancian casting system, so spell combinations aside this creates an imbalance that should be corrected by giving mages at least one or two attacks that can be at will.




  Hate to sound like a child here, but...why? Honestly, *why* does a mage have to have at least one or two attacks "at will"? On the flip side, why not say that everyone who isn't a spell caster "needs to have at least one or two spells they can cast each day"?

  I think you are forgetting that the game isn't just about "dealing damage in combat"; warrior types are the meat of the 'combat guys'...they fight all day long, any time, any place. They dont' have fancy spells or abilities other than the sheer capability to dish out damage and take it. Magic users *don't* fight all day long, any time, any place. In fact, they try to (or should try to) avoid combat like the plague...they'd get their butts handed to them in short order 9/10 times. So, their idea of a "fair fight" tends towards the "all or nothing"...either they spend 4 seconds casting a spell that kills/stops their foe, or they die 4 seconds after that. This, IMHO, *is perfectly fine*. 

  Magic users *shouldn't* be very versitile in combat. They *shouldn't* have "at will" magic missiles and stuff like that. Simply put, _they are not fighters_. They shouldn't be treated like it. To treat them exactly like any other class is to totally miss the entire point of being a magic user; spells and magical'ness.



> It's not the responsibility of the rules system to back away from a type or style of play. It's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules set and play the game the way his or her group wants to play.




  I half-half agree/disagree with this. The rules should, at it's core, be the absolute most BASIC of rules and assumptions. The rules have the responsiblity to present the least amount of 'unusual/interesting' stuff as a core...then allow the DM to add-on what he/she wants or needs. The reasoning is simple; it's much easier for a DM to give something to players than to try and take it away. If the rules give the players base choices to play psionic characters, and the DM doesn't like that, if he tries to say "No psionics in my game", he has a *much* higher chance of hearing whiny players pouting about the _ mean ol' DM taking away their fun!_ But if the core rules don't have that as a base option, and the DM says "There are psionics in my game", he has a *much* higher chance of hearing elated players exclaiming _Awesome! I love 'em! I have this idea for a character..._. Now, I ask you, what would you rather have your players be saying to you? 

Rules are the same thing; It should be "Falling damage: take 1d6/10' fallen". Period. Done. That's the base rule. Now...under the skill Tumbling, lets say, there could be an option that says "A successful Tumble skill against [rules for figuring out DC], reduces the damage taken by X". Now the DM can use/not use it. But if that is the base assumption, and the DM tries to say "No, I don't use that; too complciated. Just a flat d6/10', please"...well, you're back to the whiny vs. happy player thing again. So...most BASE of rules = GOOD.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 19, 2012)

Hi Paul - Thanks for your reply.

I think the strength of my argument is that I don't need to explain myself to have it be consistent.  I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it's pretty clear that if your preferences are specific to feel of a particular character class, that it won't be core.  However, that's not saying you won't be able to play the game your way, which is awesome.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## El Mahdi (May 19, 2012)

Tsuga C said:


> ...*grumbles*
> 
> I never did run high-magic campaigns and was hoping that 5E would back away from such significantly.






Kobold Boots said:


> ...It's not the responsibility of the rules system to back away from a type or style of play. It's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules set and play the game the way his or her group wants to play.




I don't entirely agree with the idea that it's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules and make them play the way they want for their group.  It really shouldn't be necessary for a DM to have game design skills in order to play the game they want...which is essentially what you're saying.  ?For those that do have such skills, they do definitely come in handy...but a system should not be designed with an expectation that it's users will have those skills.

As for the responsibility of a rules system, it's only responsibility is to do what the designers intended for it to do...period.  Though some designers are more successful than others.

However, I will cede that a game system that's flexible enough to be used for mutiple styles and feels, and is inuitive or easy enough to adapt to do that, is likely going to be a much more successful system than one that doesn't.  And one that's actually designed to be variable is even better.

*So far though, that kind of flexibility and intuitiveness is what the designers of 5E are aiming for.* 

We'll see just how successful they are at that when we see the final product (though we all do get a chance to help ensure that through the open playtest and our feedback).  5E should be able to run both high-magic and low-magic with equal ease, and have the mechanisms for doing this already in the rules.  Or at least that's a goal the designers have stated (they're called "dials").


----------



## El Mahdi (May 19, 2012)

pming said:


> Hate to sound like a child here, but...why? Honestly, *why* does a mage have to have at least one or two attacks "at will"?




So a magic user can continue to contribute all the time without having to resort to an un-magical, non-wizardly option...such as a crossbow or using a staff in melee.

This is a concern of may players and DM's.  It may not be a concern for you, but that doesn't make it any less of a concern for those that it is important to.  And apparently the designers agree, and are incoporating a mechanical aspect that addresses this concern for those who feel it is important.  If you don't like at-wills, simply ignore them.



pming said:


> On the flip side, why not say that everyone who isn't a spell caster "needs to have at least one or two spells they can cast each day"?




One: because that's just silly.

Two: because it turns a non-magic class into a magical class...ruining the entire feel or reason for playing such a class in the first place.

Third: it's a completely unrelated, and unreasonable comparison using poor logic.

Fourth: because that's just silly.


The designers of 5E have already said that magic-users are going to have some at-will elements, mainly for the reason I stated above.  If you think the problem that it is fixing really isn't a problem, then it's a very simple thing to simply prohibit the use of the at-will magic-user class components in your games.

Problem fixed.  No muss, no fuss.


----------



## Tsuga C (May 19, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> 5E should be able to run both high-magic and low-magic with equal ease, and have the mechanisms for doing this already in the rules.  Or at least that's a goal the designers have stated (they're called "dials").




You'll have to pardon me if I remain skeptical of such claims.  Experience has taught me that when a system is not actively set up to resist such, the drift towards homogenization and the unique and special becoming common and mundane is well nigh [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8I9pYCl9AQ]inevitable.[/ame]  As noted so well by *pming*, limitations are a _good_ thing.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 19, 2012)

Tsuga C said:


> You'll have to pardon me if I remain skeptical of such claims. Experience has taught me that when a system is not actively set up to resist such, the drift towards homogenization and the unique and special becoming common and mundane is well nigh inevitable. As noted so well by *pming*, limitations are a _good_ thing.




You'll have to pardon my disagreement.

Choosing to be a pessimist seems an illogical approach, as is attempting to limit 5E to one's own personal preferences and biases.

If everybody approached 5E optimistically, and worked to make it both the game they like, and the game that others will like, it can't help but be successful and awesome.

It's a shame that peoples own biases and pessimism restrict the whole from being everything it can.


----------



## nillic (May 19, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> It's not wrong for them to be classified as a non-paying customer, thus lapsed, and not a bad idea to try and get some of them to monetize by putting out a better product.




If they mean lapsed customers, then say "hey we want you to buy our things again" and call them as such.

Again, these people aren't lapsed D&D players, they're still playing D&D in some form. Just not the one WoTC wants them to.


----------



## hafrogman (May 19, 2012)

nillic said:


> Again, these people aren't lapsed D&D players, they're still playing D&D in some form. Just not the one WoTC wants them to.



 And the ones that aren't playing D&D?  What's D&D?  

Is Pathfinder?  Is Arcana Evolved?  They're based on D&D.
Is DCC? is 13th Age?  They're inspired by D&D.
Is Gurps?  Is Hero?  They can be used to make fantasy RPGs.
Is Shadowrun?  Is World of Darkness?  They're other RPGs.

Not everyone who quits D&D goes back to D&D.  Some go to other things.  I've seen the 2e D&D era mentioned as a golden age of other RPGs because many people stopped playing D&D at all.  Some of them came back for 3e.  The concept of replacement goods is an important one.


----------



## nillic (May 19, 2012)

hafrogman said:


> And the ones that aren't playing D&D?  What's D&D?
> 
> Is Pathfinder?  Is Arcana Evolved?  They're based on D&D.
> Is DCC? is 13th Age?  They're inspired by D&D.
> ...




Admittedly, people who were attracted to these other games would be lapsed D&D players (assuming D&D is where they started) I cede that to you.

I guess I'm just a little frustrated that the language WoTC is using (to me at least) portrays these people as yearning for something different or new or better. I'd just like them to be more upfront about what they're after. 

i.e. "Hey, we're making a new game and we think it's awesome and you should come try it out!"

Because to me it just comes off as "We know you're unhappy with what you're playing, and we're going to make it all better"

Like I said though, that's just how I'M interpreting all this.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 20, 2012)

nillic said:


> If they mean lapsed customers, then say "hey we want you to buy our things again" and call them as such.
> 
> Again, these people aren't lapsed D&D players, they're still playing D&D in some form. Just not the one WoTC wants them to.




This is a splitting hairs discussion.  PM Trevor or Mearls and ask them what they mean...


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 20, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I don't entirely agree with the idea that it's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules and make them play the way they want for their group.  It really shouldn't be necessary for a DM to have game design skills in order to play the game they want...which is essentially what you're saying.  ?For those that do have such skills, they do definitely come in handy...but a system should not be designed with an expectation that it's users will have those skills.




My experience is that a DM who runs a game for any length of time develops some rudimentary, applied design skill.  DMs that don't generally aren't running their games for very long; regardless of the edition they're playing.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 20, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> My experience is that a DM who runs a game for any length of time develops some rudimentary, applied design skill. DMs that don't generally aren't running their games for very long; regardless of the edition they're playing.




One, not all DM's, even those with experience, develop such skills.  Building a game in a manner that requires such skills is a mistake.

Two, DM's have to start somewhere, and that means starting with no experience.  Games need to be designed with beginners in mind also...to a certain extent.  Building a game in a manner that overlooks this is also a mistake.

Your experience is anecdotal, and not representative of the entirety of the player and DM base.  Designing a game as if all DM's had the requisite design skills is a mistake.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 20, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> One, not all DM's, even those with experience, develop such skills.  Building a game in a manner that requires such skills is a mistake.
> 
> Two, DM's have to start somewhere, and that means starting with no experience.  Games need to be designed with beginners in mind also...to a certain extent.  Building a game in a manner that overlooks this is also a mistake.
> 
> Your experience is anecdotal, and not representative of the entirety of the player and DM base.  Designing a game as if all DM's had the requisite design skills is a mistake.




1. I know what my experience is.  Thank you.

2. Any game with the possible complexity of a RPG requires someone to develop some level of applied game design skill to run it long-term.  It's not an option.

3. You and I are having different conversations.  If 5E has "dials" that increase or decrease complexity; this implies development of applied game design skill as a DM advances in table experience in order to determine what defines "balance" at his or her table.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## El Mahdi (May 20, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. I know what my experience is. Thank you.




Okay...I'm glad we got that straight...



Kobold Boots said:


> 2. Any game with the possible complexity of a RPG requires someone to develop some level of applied game design skill to run it long-term. It's not an option.




There seems to be a flaw in that logic.

If someone is able to run it as a beginner, which a game does need to facilitate, then no it doesn't require development of such skills for long term play. If one can DM it as a beginner, then one can DM it in prepetuity even if those skills are never developed.

There skill at DM'ing will obviously not be as good as someone who has experience, but it's most obviously not a requirement. If it was, nobody would ever be able to DM.



Kobold Boots said:


> 3. You and I are having different conversations. If 5E has "dials" that increase or decrease complexity; this implies development of applied game design skill as a DM advances in table experience in order to determine what defines "balance" at his or her table.




Not necessarily. It's only necessary if one is concerned with running a balanced game. That's not a universal consideration or constant. One can conceivable play even a "5E with dials" by simply picking the parts that sound good to them based on asctetics or just a "cool" factor, and completely ignore mechanical balance. It may not be a game you or I would want to play in, but it can be done...and likely will be done.

Again, even in this scenario, prior design skill, even of a rudimentary nature, is not a requirement.

Will one be better at using options if one does have such skills? Of course.

But they are not a requirement.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 20, 2012)

nillic said:


> If they mean lapsed customers, then say "hey we want you to buy our things again" and call them as such.
> 
> Again, these people aren't lapsed D&D players, they're still playing D&D in some form. Just not the one WoTC wants them to.




I understand what you're saying. And I agree.

What's happening is WotC's definition of lapsed D&D gamer is different than ours. In the end, their job is to make a game that people buy. Customers who play the game will likely mean more purchases, but someone playing it isn't necessarily required in order to sell it to that someone.

But yeah, what they are calling lapsed players are actually lapsed customers. And it's definitely not splitting hairs as Kobold Boots said.

However, calling them lapsed customers highlights things that they would rather not highlight. No company of a niche product like this would. So they instead say "lapsed D&D gamers". It's a minor bit of spin, but one that's mostly necessary.

I agree with you though. IMO, the people playing any edition or derivative of D&D, whether they are playing the most current edition or not, are playing D&D.



nillic said:


> ...I guess I'm just a little frustrated that the language WoTC is using (to me at least) portrays these people as yearning for something different or new or better. I'd just like them to be more upfront about what they're after.
> 
> i.e. "Hey, we're making a new game and we think it's awesome and you should come try it out!"
> 
> ...




I understand what you're saying, but I really don't think there's anything consciously nefarious going on with how WotC is saying things.  I can appreciate wanting them to be a little more plain spoken, but I'm sure they aren't trying to say "we know you're unhappy with what you're playing..."

From a practical sales objective though, you have to talk about your product as if it's assumed people are going to buy it.  If you don't, it comes off as a lack of confidence in your product, and then nobody buys it.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 20, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> If someone is able to run it as a beginner, which a game does need to facilitate, then no it doesn't require development of such skills for long term play. If one can DM it as a beginner, then one can DM it in prepetuity even if those skills are never developed.




Players will not tolerate a DM who does not improve those skills over time.  



> Not necessarily. It's only necessary if one is concerned with running a balanced game. That's not a universal consideration or constant.




I'm choosing to read this line as meaning you're simply interested in being contrary for the benefit of making an argument.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 20, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> But yeah, what they are calling lapsed players are actually lapsed customers.  And it's definitely splitting hairs as Kobold Boots said.




Fixed that for you.

I will grant you that your explanation of the situation is correct.  It's still rather silly to get worked up over.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 20, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> Players will not tolerate a DM who does not improve those skills over time.




I agree.  But that isn't the point you were making earlier.  You said such skills were a requirement for long term DM'ing, which I find to be incorrect. 



Kobold Boots said:


> I'm choosing to read this line as meaning you're simply interested in being contrary for the benefit of making an argument.




It would probably be best to just read it as is, rather than trying to read my mind or divine my intentions.  That's something that is frowned upon here at ENWorld, which makes it something one should probably avoid indulging in.

However, if you're asking me what my intention was in saying that, it most definitely was not simply for the benefit of making an argument.

You made a blanket, absolute statement: _"If 5E has "dials" that increase or decrease complexity; this implies development of applied game design skill as a DM advances in table experience..."_, which I find incorrect and based on false logic.  I was supplying you with one example that highlighted that.  It was not intended to be argumentative at all, let alone argumentative simply for the purpose of being agrumentative.

I haven't felt this coversation has been an argument at any point.  Without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.



Kobold Boots said:


> Fixed that for you.




This is also something that's frowned upon here at ENWorld, excepting in jest.  If it's in jest, it's usually best to use a  or  to highlight that, so there are no misconceptions.

Otherwise, I'd avoid doing this.  Most people don't appreciate others changing their words to say something other than what they actually said.  I know I certainly don't, and would appreciate your not doing this with my posts in the future.




Kobold Boots said:


> I will grant you that your explanation of the situation is correct. It's still rather silly to get worked up over.




I agree, it is very silly to get worked up over.  Though I'm confused as to why you added this.  (Like I was also confused about your stating _"I know what my experience is.  Thank You."_)   I haven't seen anyone getting worked up over it.  I've seen people politely stating their opinions, but no getting worked up.  I didn't see any evidence of getting worked up in *nillic*'s posts.  I certainly don't feel worked up, nor do I think I posted anything that comes across as worked up.  And I don't see anything in your posts that make me think you're worked up about it.  That is unless you're feeling something that wasn't conveyed in your posts.

Again though, without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.


----------



## Kobold Boots (May 20, 2012)

Hi - 

Because you're making some serious assumptions with your reply, I'm writing more completely to correct them.



El Mahdi said:


> I agree.  But that isn't the point you were making earlier.  You said such skills were a requirement for long term DM'ing, which I find to be incorrect.




1. You are assuming that my point regarding long-term DMing has nothing to do with my comment in regards to players not tolerating DMs that don't have skill.    They are intertwined.

I have no idea how you have a chance at being a long-term DM without retaining players to your table.  Perhaps you do.  Perhaps there's some central repository of tolerant D&D players that I lack access to.  Perhaps not.




> It would probably be best to just read it as is, rather than trying to read my mind or divine my intentions.  That's something that is frowned upon here at ENWorld, which makes it something one should probably avoid indulging in.




2. I see the above as ironic.  If you don't, then c'est la vie.




> I haven't felt this coversation has been an argument at any point.  Without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.




3. See above comment about irony.  Repeat 



> This is also something that's frowned upon here at ENWorld, excepting in jest.  If it's in jest, it's usually best to use a  or  to highlight that, so there are no misconceptions.
> 
> Otherwise, I'd avoid doing this.  Most people don't appreciate others changing their words to say something other than what they actually said.  I know I certainly don't, and would appreciate your not doing this with my posts in the future.




4. See the above two points about irony, repeat it, then realize it's what you and others have done through assuming my intention throughout.



> I agree, it is very silly to get worked up over.  Though I'm confused as to why you added this.  (Like I was also confused about your stating _"I know what my experience is.  Thank You."_)




5. Is it not possible that I already knew my experience had to do with my experiences or that I already knew it was anecdotal?  Can I not, legitimately, thank you?



> Again though, without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.




I'm not the one typing books here mate.  

Have a great day.


----------



## Morrus (May 20, 2012)

That's _enough_. Take the snark and sarcasm elsewhere, please. It's not clever, and it's not appropriate here. Don't make me start handing out threadbans; though it's not like we have a limited supply of them.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 21, 2012)

Kobold Boots said:


> You are assuming that my point regarding long-term DMing has nothing to do with my comment in regards to players not tolerating DMs that don't have skill. They are intertwined.
> 
> I have no idea how you have a chance at being a long-term DM without retaining players to your table. Perhaps you do. Perhaps there's some central repository of tolerant D&D players that I lack access to. Perhaps not.




I understood your point, and I understood that you see them as intertwined.

I simply disagree that this is so (that they are intertwined).

Not all players are concerned with the design skills of their DM. I'd go as far as to say that most players wouldn't even notice the presence or lack of such skills. They're just there to play and hang out. There are likely more players that take D&D significantly less seriously than those of us here do. Those that post on such RPG forums as here, are most likely the minority of those that play D&D (or all RPG's collectively).

So, I do believe that DM's lacking design skills can retain players, and do so long term.

And even in situations where such a DM can't retain players, there are places with lots of available players. Only one example, but a high turnover rate would allow a DM to play long term, even if a lack of design skills was the cause of their losing players. Not everyone who plays D&D is lucky enough to have groups that remain stable for long periods of time. I don't know what the exact average a group lasts is, but I'd bet it's somewhere around only one or two years. And that's not always a matter of having a bad DM. Groups have turnover for lots of reasons. One such example would be my experience being in the military. It meant I and everyone I gamed with would move every couple to a few years.


As to the rest of your post, I see this as going nowhere good very fast. So I'm out.

Enjoy the rest of the thread, and I'll see you around the forums.


----------



## Goonalan (May 21, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Yup, as I said.  You could argue that if there isn't a majority of opinion steering in a particular direction then WotC should go a different way.  I see from your sig you play 4E and I assume you like what you see in the direction of the new edition.  Let's assume you like what they eventually produce and, along with some portion of the current base as well as a minor portion of lapsed players, you buy into the new edition.  Then, let's say WotC doesn't feel the turnout is enough to support that new edition after but a couple/few years.  I don't think those folks, maybe including yourself, are going to be all that happy having spent a hundred or more dollars on the new edition.
> 
> 
> However, if they wish to recapture lapsed players and only a small percentage of the feedback is coming from lapsed players, do they ignore that small percentage in favor of a lot of feedback from current players?  Do they abandon their plan to recapture the ones who are not giving feedback but WotC knows are out there and WotC wants if they are going to be as successful as they need to be to not just give up on this edition after a few years like the last one?  I suppose the correlated question would be, how does a company unable to get feedback from some segment of the market manage to produce a game for that segment of the market if it really needs to reach them?
> ...




I play 4e because it plays well on Maptools and I live in Grimsby UK and without Mapotools I would have no one to play with, ergo... before 4e I played 3.5e, before 3.5e I played 3e etc all the way back to 1979. Every edition of D&D that has come along I've played (and dozens of other games).

In the last year I've also run (with some of my students) DCC RPG, Paranoia, Savage Worlds etc.

I'll play 5e but I don't get the brouhaha, at least... What I mean to say is there have been problems with more or less every RPG game I've played that have required house rules, so house rule 'em. Or else make some bastard hybrid, or else stick with what you know and love.

Now to WOTC and the insidious 4e conspiracy, how do they do that- how do they track down people who are lapsed D&D players and get some form of coherent opinion. I've seen forums here in which equally lapsed D&D players have said that (and I'm generalsiing but...) - 

I don't dig 5e as its just 4e with... 

And the next post-

I don't dig 5e because it's D&D.x with...

And an equal number of each.

Similarly I've read posts from 4e players saying, hang on though-

I don't dig 5e because they're going back to...

And I get that this partially proves your point, but it don't help me or WOTC none, so we end up here-

I suppose the correlated question would be, how does a company unable to get feedback from some segment of the market manage to produce a game for that segment of the market if it really needs to reach them?

And here is a difficult place to be, for all concerned, but here's the kicker- we're not even into the playtests and people seem to have some very rigid positions- 5e is not for me.

How do WOTC get around that, because there seems to be an awful lot of it about for a game that doesn't much exist yet, or at least could be re-written several times over if it all goes crazy in the playtest.

The point again from WOTC POV we don't tell you what we're up to (4e) you get mad, we tell you what we're up to (5e) and ask questions and you get mad and...

Just to make this clear- I couldn't tell you one thing I'm certain about in 5e, as in I've skimmed some stuff (on the 5e page here), rogues backstabs something, something about at wills I think- for wizards. But whatever it is that 5e turns out to be I'll either fix it and roll with the system or else stick with system X. JUst wanted to make clear where I'm at, oh and if 4e never existed I'd still be playing D&D. I'll still buy the crunch if the production values are up there- and I'll still use it (if I can), the same reason I still buy lots of Paizo stuff and have never played Pathfinder yet.

As to the 20% rule- fans of 4e vote now, fans of 3.5e vote now, fans of etc.

I've played them all, where do I sit, is there a system I like more than any other, well... yes, I mean no, I mean- well I'd like this from WFRP, I'd like this from DCC RPG. Is there a system of D&D I am a fanboy for- nope, 3.x at high levels drove me absolutely crazy for about 3 years- prep time spent crying (seriously); 4e is flavourless gick (at times). Oh I've fixed them though- eventually, or at least did some work arounds. 

Or does it all boil down to 4e and the others, because that seems to be right up there- those that played 4e and enjoyed it... and then the true D&Ders- the people that kept the flame alive with Pathfinder et al. Is that what this is really about?

There's bound to be more people in the system right now who play 4e, that's the edition we're on, I guess many people who didn't get the 4e boat are maybe over on Pathfinder island waving and smiling. 

Last bit, something I remember from the 5e spiel, wasn't it supposed to be some sort of base unit D&D- live and unplugged kinda thing with a 4e type top coat available, or a 3.5x, or a 2e feel- a modular system. What happened to that? Is that still how its going to work? Don't tell me we can't even agree at the very bottom level... Boy that'd be like getting 5 people in a room and having 5 different opinions, or it could be that we've all been playing our 'groups' version of D&D for the last whatever.

I get this is the internet but people are painting themselves in to corners and I don't even know what colour healing potions are- they're red and smell of apples, anything less and 5e is a joke.

Sorry for the levity, it's very serious though isn't it, arguing about a game I've not played and have seen exactly 0 of the rules for, oh and the rules are possibly subject to change in the next year or so...

I guess you're right- WOTC wants those lapsed players back, the point though is do you want D&D (and in particular 5e) if you do then you need to perhaps chillax a little more, see how it plays, if its not you then make some noise- tell WOTC in any way you can, otherwise I think the numbers may have it.

PS none of this was meant to offend, just POV, just spitballing.

Last bit, about my sig, if you'd have bumped into my sig five years ago it would have been full of my Goodman Games 3.5e campaign, and my Temple of Elemental Evil 3e campaign, and my 'Auntie and the Professor' Campaign- I kind of mixture of Paranoia, D&D and some other stuff campaign, and... I've been so busy playing D&D (my version based on whatever edition plus some stuff I made up) that I've almost had no time to worry about what's coming around the corner.

Cheers PDR


----------



## Mark CMG (May 21, 2012)

Goonalan said:


> I play 4e because it plays well on Maptools (. . .)





I'm not sure what this means.  I've recently playedx a game using MapTools and don't see that any system wouldn't "play well" on it.




Goonalan said:


> I'll play 5e but I don't get the brouhaha, at least... What I mean to say is there have been problems with more or less every RPG game I've played that have required house rules, so house rule 'em. Or else make some bastard hybrid, or else stick with what you know and love.





Tourney and convention play doesn't include house rules and a lot of people think the game should work fine out of the box without needing rewrites.




Goonalan said:


> (. . .) how do they track down people who are lapsed D&D players  (. . .)





Some are making the point that the only "lapsed" players are those that don't play D&D at all, reqardless of edition, so calling those who don't play 4E lapsed players isn't accurate.  It's a good point.




Goonalan said:


> There's bound to be more people in the system right now who play 4e, that's the edition we're on (. . .)





Doesn't seem to be the case if one considers PF to be 3.75, and one considers that it seems to be running neck and neck with 4E, and then one considers all of the 3.XE and previous ediiton players still out there.  This seems to be one of the main reasons WotC has moved on from 4E to building a 5E.




Goonalan said:


> Last bit, something I remember from the 5e spiel, wasn't it supposed to be some sort of base unit D&D-(. . .)





A default game with modularity, though the concrete things they are saying seem to lean in the direction of the current edition with only a bit of a nod thus far toward previous edition play.  It might be that they are going to have even fewer and fewer previous edition players giving them feedback which then leads to further design decisions along the same lines, etc.  I can see why you, as someone who is definitely buying in (the production values seem guaranteed given WotC budgets), might wind up getting an edition where fewer people play than ever, especially if only a portion of the current player base buys in and WotC doesn't draw much in the way of previous edition players and players who never played D&D.  It would mean a reduced player pool and even getting online games going might become problematic.  We'll see.


----------



## SteveC (May 21, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> We've passed that point in the discussion.  What you suggest doesn't help WotC make sure they build an edition that draws back lapsed players and likely leads to fewer players than those using the current edition.  That's the danger.



This made me laugh a bit. I'm going to playtest the ... heck ... out of this game, and I'm going to suggest D&D Next be exactly the kind of game I and my group wants. I have *no interest* in creating a game I don't want to play. At the same time, how much is WotC going to cater to our small but loud voices? Probably not much at all, but I'm still going to talk about it. And I know that many folks who want a different style of game are going to do the same thing.

I know you don't like 4E, so talking about how you want a return to earlier concepts is* your job* as part of this playtest, and the job of other people who feel the same way. If you don't do it, well, I'm going to say that WotC staff don't have the [psychic] keyword, so there's little chance that what you want will be heard.

It's WotC's job to take all the feedback they get, and synthesize it together to make the next edition. I think that strong and direct feedback about what a group wants or doesn't is how they do that.





> I've heard that false analogy before.  Paying taxes gives people the right to complain.  Voting is just one of the ways in which they voice their complaints.



This explains the disagreement: paying taxes in no way gives you a right to complain (in my opinion, of course). Paying taxes but not voting or getting involved is the equivalent of taking no part in the playtest, then buying the books sight unseen and complaining that WotC didn't give you what you wanted and stole your money.

The bad restaurant? The bad movies? The bad government? The bad game? None of them change until you vote them out in different ways. When I was in college, we'd go to a diner at 2AM after finishing up gaming. One of the people in the group hated doing this, and complained about it all the time ... but only after we got there, and after we had ordered!

So I'll say it again: even if you don't like the same things as I do in D&D (and when I say "you" in this, it's the generic you of anyone reading this... ) get involved with the playtest and let WotC know what you want. I want the next edition to be successful, even if it turns out that it doesn't resemble something I like or will play at that point. Success of D&D is that important to gaming as a whole (all of this being my opinion, of course...).

And hey, I can even invoke one of my favorite quotes:

" We're told every day, 'You can't change the world.' But the world is changing every day. Only question is...who's doing it? You or somebody else?"
-J. Michael Straczynski


----------



## Mark CMG (May 21, 2012)

SteveC said:


> This explains the disagreement: paying taxes in no way gives you a right to complain (in my opinion, of course). Paying taxes but not voting or getting involved is the equivalent of taking no part in the playtest, then buying the books sight unseen and complaining that WotC didn't give you what you wanted and stole your money.





Naw.  Taxes are taken before they are spent and the right to complain, either at the polls or through other means, about how those taxes are later spent, is always a right of those being taxed (some of whom don't even have the right to vote).


But then you've also created a false equivalency.  Buying a game sight unseen isn't the danger.  The danger for WotC is that folks won't like the early design decisions then not buy into the game at all.  The burden of creating a game that appeals to a wider audience than the last edition is one WotC has put on themselves.  The burden of drawing feedback that helps them realize that end is also on them.  Getting caught in an echo chamber of group think that leads to an edition that doesn't lead them to that goal is also a danger.


----------



## Goonalan (May 22, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm not sure what this means.  I've recently playedx a game using MapTools and don't see that any system wouldn't "play well" on it.
> 
> 
> It means the players I bumped in to on Maptools wanted to play 4e, and I had no other players- so I played 4e on Maptools. I've played 3.xe on Maptools also, 4e seems much suited to a grid- surely we can agree on that?
> ...




Yeah but the hobby seems to have split already, the evidence points to the WOTC slice of cake has already split into 2 (or more parts)- Pathfinder, old skool Osric, C&C or whatever etc. You can't put it back in the box- I guess they'd like to- the one edition to rule them all etc. But they were always going to say that, umm they're selling stuff- and I guess if enough people shouted loud enough then that'd be the thing that they'd be doing... I guess. But as you say Pathfinder is 3.75, some people have made the leap- WOTC is dead to them (or whatever).

Which just leads us with a consultion process, which is still six months (at least) from over, and subject to change- if lots of people wanted change- or things didn't work I'd like to think that WOTC would listen to that. It'd be great if everyone that ever played D&D (or any other RPG) would get involved, but the real world is WOTC have already lost a lot of good will (the understatement of the century), and plenty of people seem unconcerned- except to point out 5e is just... edition x with added whatever.

I'll do the polls, when I bump in to them- I'll encourage fellow players of any edition to also do so... I guess we need to shout it from the rooftops, but if they don't want to get involved, or else are feeling under-represented, I don't know- shout-louder, protest Wizards, create a Youtube anti-grappling rules protest song, be creative.

All the best fellow d20 roller.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 22, 2012)

Goonalan said:


> It means the players I bumped in to on Maptools wanted to play 4e, and I had no other players- so I played 4e on Maptools. I've played 3.xe on Maptools also, 4e seems much suited to a grid- surely we can agree on that?





I was only asking about the "plays well" part but obviously plenty of people who play other things than 4E use MapTools.  I'm not sure why you couldn't run into any of them.  As to the grid, I think you have the situation backwards.  Any era D&D works great on a grid if you want to use a grid.  4E is more known for practically requiring a grid and miniatures.  Your phrasing might be throwing me off, so if that is what you mean to be saying then my apologies for misunderstanding.




Goonalan said:


> .Getchya, but remember in Europe (as far as I know) we don't get much of this, I've never been to a tourney, never been to a game shop that's had D&D sessions etc. For many many reasons- like the only places that do that kind of thing are way away from me, and I have a family, job etc. None of those considerations are automatic, sorry.
> 
> I get playing the game out of the box but re-writes, that's a little much, everybody gets an AP every encounter and the monsters do more damage as per MM3- there, that's the rewrites done for our 4e game. Actually 3.xe had many more house rules but that was an organic thing- as discussed in any number of story hours etc here, people just grow new rules.





Oh, let's not go there.  I'm not getting into a "3E started it!" edition war argument though it's interesting for someone to throw out a "3E did it first" meme after they were the one discussed the problem they had with 4E.  I'm just going to stay out of that. 

All I'm talking about here is the simple desire to buy a 5E that is ready to run as is and that allows for people to find players who are also running it as is.  It's required for organized play, it's very much needed for convention and gameday play, and it's certainly easier for pickup games and when seeking new groups.  Can you personally find a handful of players who will enjoy the same rules changes you make?  Sure, that's not the point.




Goonalan said:


> OKay, agreed. But whatever the group is called, or whoever these players are- the people that don't fill in the surveys, or whose opinions are not being duly given enough weight. How do you find them- surely WOTC can try to cast its net as wide as possible, but if they're not interested in identifying themselves or else identifying the areas that need fixing for them to no longer be 'lapsed', or 'MIA', or whatever then... Well, that don't work.





It's above my pay grade to figure out how WotC is supposed to get more feedback from previous edition players.  If the staff they have can't figure it out, it's WotC's job to hire people who can.  What they can do is work with the feedback they have and give it enough weight in the design process, if they truly feel they wish to appeal to the audience whence it came.  If I have most people telling me they like red and a handful telling me they like blue, then I find a shade of purple to show them.  I don't just show them red while whispering the word blue over and over.  You not only won't attract more people who like blue, you'll lose the blue fans you have too.  Furthermore, you eventually won't sell as much red as you hope because you've already got a red being sold and plenty of people who have it won't feel they need a new red.




Goonalan said:


> Yeah, again okay, but I thought the complaint is that the new 5e is beginning to look like 4e, and the 4e 'dislikers' are concerned about this- smaller pool etc. Well obviously not concerned enough- I get it of course, everything you say. But again how do WOTC do this, they put the polls up (for what they're worth) people feedback- it's a numbers game.
> 
> Some people (lets say a majority- if it helps) are with Pathfinder (or other things now), well some of them have a go at the polls and some of them are happy where they are... Should WOTC take in to account the feelings of those that responded and sent feedback, or else the presumed responses of those that didn't. Or else what do they do- phone up Paizo and ask if they could get a half page spread in the next Adventure Path asking what do we have to do to get you back?





I'm not sure why you keep coming back to that even after discussing the real point.  None of that matters and what feedback WotC decides is worth incorporating is only important in regard to what audience WotC is trying to capture.  Again, WotC said they want players from all editions.  That's the bottomline and they are the ones who set it.

This isn't a "people who aren't giving feedback are complaining" problem.  It's a "if WotC isn't getting feedback from people who aren't playing the current edition then they are unlikely to be doing enough to attract that feedback" problem.  If you feel the answer is to then design the game based mostly off the feedback from people playing the current edition that's fine too.  But you have to understand that isn't going to get WotC any closer to that bottomline they personally set, and likely will leave them far short of it.  If they make a revised version of the current edition as the next edition, they won't bring in any former edition players and won't even carry over all of the current player base.  This likely leads to an edition with an even shorter shelf life than the current edition.

So, you see, for WotC and those of us who want to see a successful new edition, this isn't about telling people if they don't give feedback they're just out of luck.  That's doesn't put the ball in the back of the net.  What we actually seem to be seeing here is a fundamental problem for WotC that they need to overcome.  If they can't get much feedback from people not playing the current edition at this stage when it virtualy costs nothing across a medium that is renown for people voicing their opinions when given a free chance to do so, what can they be doing wrong?  What is it about the way they are discussing the game, or maybe more so about what they are saying versus what they are actually doing, that is causing former editions fans to not even bother turning up to give much of their opinion?  These seem like the questions WotC needs to answer, and quickly, if they don't want to spend the next year designing a game that doesn't attract the audience they need to make it a success.




Goonalan said:


> Yeah but the hobby seems to have split already, the evidence points to the WOTC slice of cake has already split into 2 (or more parts)- Pathfinder, old skool Osric, C&C or whatever etc. You can't put it back in the box- I guess they'd like to- the one edition to rule them all etc. But they were always going to say that, umm they're selling stuff- and I guess if enough people shouted loud enough then that'd be the thing that they'd be doing... I guess. But as you say Pathfinder is 3.75, some people have made the leap- WOTC is dead to them (or whatever).
> 
> Which just leads us with a consultion process, which is still six months (at least) from over, and subject to change- if lots of people wanted change- or things didn't work I'd like to think that WOTC would listen to that. It'd be great if everyone that ever played D&D (or any other RPG) would get involved, but the real world is WOTC have already lost a lot of good will (the understatement of the century), and plenty of people seem unconcerned- except to point out 5e is just... edition x with added whatever.





You're much more pessimistic than I am.  I still see time enough to make the course corrections to see them to their goal of a unifying edition.  I just don't see the steps they are taking as being in keeping with that goal.  I take it by your stance (if they don't give feedback then this is what they get) that you actually recognize what direction this is going too.  Maybe that is what the designers are beginning to feel too.




Goonalan said:


> I'll do the polls, when I bump in to them- I'll encourage fellow players of any edition to also do so... I guess we need to shout it from the rooftops, but if they don't want to get involved, or else are feeling under-represented, I don't know- shout-louder, protest Wizards, create a Youtube anti-grappling rules protest song, be creative.





I think that ball is in WotC;s court at this stage.  I don't think that people are unaware of the new edition or that they can give feedback.  I think that WotC is either not doing enough to draw them in or doing something that is keeping them away.  I think they better figure it out quickly too.




Goonalan said:


> All the best fellow d20 roller.





Same to you.  Keeping rolling.


----------

