I downloaded 5E beta-test stuff back in May, but I have to admit that I barely glanced at it. Real life, alas, showed her ugly head - meaning with "real life" 15 days of vacation in France, closing my 13 years old D&D campaign, initiating my friend's Pathfinder campaign and working on my new 3.5/Pathfinder campaign.

To sum it up, I lost track of how things are going. Is there a site where I can go to get unbiased commentary about how 5E is shaping up and the players' feelings about it?

Quote from: Reckall;563845Is there a site where I can go to get unbiased commentary about how 5E is shaping up and the players' feelings about it?

Haha, that's pretty funny.  There is no NPR of the rpg world, I'm afraid.  I'm sure there are a few people out there, but I can't recall anyone as they are drowned out from all the nerdrage.

Quote from: Reckall;563845To sum it up, I lost track of how things are going. Is there a site where I can go to get unbiased commentary about how 5E is shaping up and the players' feelings about it?

No. In fact I would say that their is not even anywhere close to providing that.*

Even the ENWorld thing that recorded what the developers were saying stopped updating last month.



*although I would be happy to be proved wrong.

In the most general sense, WotC seem to be making a good faith effort to incorporate some feedback into the ongoing growth of the playtest product.  (How much of that goes in to the published product remains to be seen.)  But, given that, if you gauge the various weekly posts from Mearles et al, you might have a good view of how people - playtesters - feel about it, to wit: things a, b, and c are asked on the feedback reviews.  Some things resembling a, b, and c wind up being adjusted in the next playtest cycle, so we can guess based on that that people felt a certain way about the playtest material, since the each successive round of playtest material is at least somewhat shaped by that feedback.

It's a bass-ackwards way for us to judge what the mood is like but without going to Big Throbbing Purple it's impossible to know for sure 100%

Quote from: jadrax;563851No. In fact I would say that their is not even anywhere close to providing that.*

Even the ENWorld thing that recorded what the developers were saying stopped updating last month.



*although I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Now that's depressing. I just give my feedback via the surveys and polls and just hope at this point because the white noise is deafening.

My feeling - caveat: entirely based on intuition - is that things are getting dire.

First, I always had the impression that 5E team first promised something (1E-4E retro compatibility!) and then started looking for a way to fulfill this promise.

Looking at the current beta-testing material, the game isn't even in a pre-alpha stage. It is more or less a bunch of rules who put together the greatest common denominator of 1E--->4E, with designers trying to stick interesting things around them - helped by the community.

There is no flavor, no context, not even - at this stage! - a rule that explains how a 3E/4E power or feat can be converted in 1E/2E terms (correct me if I'm wrong, however: as I said I lost track of the happenings). Right now you can mostly run some (a?) test adventure with a DM filling the gaps.

By comparison, when Kim Mohan wrote on the pages of Dragon about 3E beta-testing, it was clear that the testers got a complete package of rules. Maybe broken, maybe unpolished, or whatever, but they could freely delve into a semi-finished product and give their feedback.

Pathfinder followed the same route, only with even a stronger background to build on. 3.5E was well known and played. Paizo could allow the luxury of putting out a whole book for beta-testing. According to rumors, some people are even still playing for free by using that beta book - just to underline on what Pathfinder's beta-testing was conducted.

5E... well, all I see is an anemic bunch of scrawlings on some PDFs, designers musing on, and asking opinions about, questions that - for the best or for the worst - at this point should have been answered, and the whole "D&D Next Open Beta!" making barely a blip on the RPG scene - if you exclude the full-fart debates mostly devoted to the past.

I'm starting to understand more and more why Monte Cook cut the corner. Been there (in my line of work) avoided to do that like Monte did, sent back the T-shirt. This is not going to end well.

Just anecdotally:

4E fanboys hate it for being a new edition (big surprise)

Something Awful and a lot of other 4E fans hate it for being regressive back towards 3E.

ENWorld Pazio fans are fine-tooth-combing it for any trace of 4E influence and freaking the hell out about it.

Old school fans are fairly divided, some liking it, some hating it, some indifferent.

Paizo's boards are mostly just cheerleading Paizo and Pathfinder so their opinion is probably worthless.

RPG.Net is pretty much consensus free in terms of discussion of 5E itself, though an early straw poll showed that most people weren't optimistic.

So... yeah. There's really no general mood or consensus, and there really couldn't be, since the various groups are looking for such fundamentally different things in their RPGs.

Seems like their big problem is that they have to write the RPG-nerd Treaty of Westphalia and make it look like fun. Which is a pretty big problem.

Quote from: Imp;563896Seems like their big problem is that they have to write the RPG-nerd Treaty of Westphalia and make it look like fun. Which is a pretty big problem.

I second this opinion, but with more optimism.

Last time I looked at it was during PAX east, and it struck me as a home-ruled version of 1st ed with some of the more newbie-unfriendly excentricities extracted. It was clear to me then that the system really was designed to have other features bolted on to suit individual needs. Very few people seem to acknowledge the potential genius of this approach in their doom-seeking and critiques however. Instead they moan about the options that they don't like as if they were mandatory and mourn the options that they do like as if being made optional banished them forever.

4e whiner: "Argh, vancian magic is an option, this is going to suck!"

grognard whiner: "Argh, daily and encounter powers are an option, this is going to suck!"

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;5639114e whiner: "Argh, vancian magic is an option, this is going to suck!"

grognard whiner: "Argh, daily and encounter powers are an option, this is going to suck!"

Well, this is a given. The problem is that Wizards promised how all the whiners of the world will join their hands in a great chain and play 5E all together. How are the Red Socks doing in the World Series?

What about the 5E (sorry, "D&D Next" =P) discussion subforum on the Wizards website?
I only visit there very rarely nowadays (post-3E-era), but I would've thought that would be a good place to get news on it.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;563943What about the 5E (sorry, "D&D Next" =P) discussion subforum on the Wizards website?
I only visit there very rarely nowadays (post-3E-era), but I would've thought that would be a good place to get news on it.

It is not a forum I would describe as particularly well informed, although I haven't been there in about a month or so now so it might have improved.

Quote from: Reckall;563916Well, this is a given. The problem is that Wizards promised how all the whiners of the world will join their hands in a great chain and play 5E all together. How are the Red Socks doing in the World Series?

The thing is, they haven't built in or even tipped their hands on the customization controls and how they work next.  They're building a foundation.

Me, I'm largely indifferent to it now that the reprints are out (FYGM), but I'll keep my eye on it.

Quote from: Imp;563896Seems like their big problem is that they have to write the RPG-nerd Treaty of Westphalia and make it look like fun. Which is a pretty big problem.

That's a good way to put it.

I quite like a lot of the direction - make it simple, accessible and customizable, play to D&D's strengths - but I am not sure it has been thought through systematically. There are good bits and rough edges, but there does not seem to be a cohesion behind the individual features. If the goal is something that's as easy to start as the Cyclopedia, but accommodating for expansion, then it needs a more robust framework.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;563911I second this opinion, but with more optimism.

Last time I looked at it was during PAX east, and it struck me as a home-ruled version of 1st ed with some of the more newbie-unfriendly excentricities extracted. It was clear to me then that the system really was designed to have other features bolted on to suit individual needs. Very few people seem to acknowledge the potential genius of this approach in their doom-seeking and critiques however. Instead they moan about the options that they don't like as if they were mandatory and mourn the options that they do like as if being made optional banished them forever.

4e whiner: "Argh, vancian magic is an option, this is going to suck!"

grognard whiner: "Argh, daily and encounter powers are an option, this is going to suck!"

My take as well.

The problem seems to be that each interest group isn't happy with their demands being met with an 'optional' they want it in the core.

In reality designing a game that offers multiple ways to get the same effect is pretty easy , Clash has been doing it for years, but there is also a desire to offer a unified play experience through the RPGA , or whatever its latest iteration is. This latter element is perhaps what colours the debate.