how do people feal about the morningstar kickstarter ? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 edwin_su Dec 06, 2014 2:33:09	how do people feal about the morningstar kickstarter ? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/trapdoortech/codename-morningstar
#2 pukunui Dec 06, 2014 2:44:43	I dunno. Since it's not attached to the D&D brand anymore, it's going to be a generic thing. I'm not sure how well it will work. I'll reserve judgment until it's actually out and functioning as intended and see what people think of it then.
#3 edwin_su Dec 06, 2014 3:03:12	pukunui wrote:
(Reply to #3) TheLyons	edwin_su wrote:
#5 Zardnaar Dec 06, 2014 5:07:58	Watching the video, I'll mention it to those who care. THats a big goal. Numenera and Pathfindewr Online are about the only RPG kickstarters that I know of to get in that area.
#6 Emerikol Dec 06, 2014 6:10:26	I'm not sure it was ever for me. I'm probably more of a practical database user. I don't need all the fluff slowing me down. Still I believe they expect a 5e OGL of some sort to be coming. So for now they are producing a Pathfinder version using the existing OGL. Then after they get that rolling they will come back around for a 5e version when the 5e OGL is better clarified.
#7 FFSAA Dec 06, 2014 7:54:15	$450k goal? $20 product? Then you have to buy content? Good luck.
#8 kalil Dec 06, 2014 8:35:22	No way I am backing a bad hero labs with astronomical ambitions and zero track record
#9 joeburgos Dec 06, 2014 8:42:20	edwin_su wrote:
#10 Mistwell Dec 06, 2014 9:24:48	I wish them luck. They seem like a good group of people. I did not like the "Thieves in the night" crack they made about WOTC. That was unnecessarily unprofessional, and I think it would be a wise public relations move to make a lengthy, genuine, and non-cryptic apology for that. I do not think they will make the goal they set for this Kickstarter. It smacks of Kickstarter-newbie to me. They do not have the track record and name recognition to support that goal, in my estimation, based on the history of RPG-based kickstarters. I am guessing they over-estimated their fan base. But what do I know? I've never run a kickstarter myself. Good luck to them. If they come out with a product that is good and supports a game I play, I will likely eventually buy it. But...not in this kickstarter.
#11 LupusRegalis Dec 06, 2014 9:11:32	Maybe not the best time of year to be trying to raise that much money, in so short a time period. I'd like to back them though, even if it doesn't succeed. The project is worth making the effort, and the only way it will Succeed is if we want it to. I think it's worth pointing out that under the OGL that does exist, a few companies have already released content, including Adventurers, for use with 5e (FrogGodGames, for example). If what some of the Devs have said is still true, another version of the OGL that is 5e specific is also being hammered out. So likely, there will be more than enough content from both 3rd part publishers as well as generated by the Users themselves. Personally, I think being divorced from WotC and D&D might be the best thing to happen to this company, if they make it. Not only will it likely be of higher quality, but being open to Content from a variety of RPG Sources makes it more useful. For me at least, D&D makes up about a quarter of my gaming, and not all of that percentage is 5e.
(Reply to #10) LupusRegalis	Mistwell wrote:
#13 BoldItalic Dec 06, 2014 9:19:35	From looking at what they have posted, it seems that they expect WotC to hand them a 5e OGL on a plate for them to exploit, with them making the money and WotC getting nothing out of it. That doesn't seem a very realistic expectation. More likely, it will make WotC think twice and decide not to issue a 5e OGL at all. No one wins if that happens.
#14 joeburgos Dec 06, 2014 9:23:55	Mistwell wrote:
#15 Mistwell Dec 06, 2014 9:43:58	LupusRegalis wrote:
#16 joeburgos Dec 06, 2014 9:46:52	Their approach was to make it satirical, bit tongue-in-cheek; but its a veiled passive-aggressive attack at the hand that feeds you.
#17 bawylie Dec 06, 2014 9:49:44	I'm not interested in playing pathfinder. So a tools suite for pathfinder ismy useful or interesting to me. Best of luck to them, though.
#18 Gnarl Dec 06, 2014 10:02:05	I don't know what to think. I haven't managed to figure out whether there's an off-line PC version or not. I'm not interested on applications that require an internet connection. In most places of the world, internet connections are that unreliable.
#19 TheLyons Dec 06, 2014 10:17:43	I don't think I'll ever back a Kickstarter that is for something subscription based. The ONLY thing I have ever had in my whole life that was subscription based is Netflix, and that's only after getting kids and also in lieu of cable TV. Not knocking subscriptions, but if I am going to back a Kickstarter, I want something permanent. One thing I found rather odd from their Kickstarter was that only one backer level, the $1000 level, was for a "lifetime" subscription. However, they have it listed at 5 years. There is a spot in the FAQ about if they last longer than 5 years they'll "take care of you", but that is pretty vague and could be interpreted a multitude of ways (including some that aren't positive). But it also begs the question, what if they fold 5 months after release? You just paid $200 a month for a product that is now probably defunct. I do like that team, but I don't like their Kickstarter. And while I can't say for certain until I see it, I quite likely may not like their product without D&D specifically in it. That's all I want in a product. I don't play anything else, and these days won't (not enough time, and I love D&D too much).
(Reply to #15) LupusRegalis	Mistwell wrote:
#21 Zardnaar Dec 06, 2014 12:25:47	Makes me laugh how companies that get shafted by WoTC just default to the IGL and PAthfinder lol. They may actually make their goal $12000 in one day X30 and kickstarters often snowball in the last 24 hours. Oeople on these forums seem to struggle with how popular Paizo and the OGL is.
#22 Mistwell Dec 06, 2014 14:08:16	LupusRegalis wrote:
#23 Mistwell Dec 06, 2014 14:18:10	Zardnaar wrote:
#24 Zardnaar Dec 06, 2014 15:31:04	Mistwell wrote:
#25 bawylie Dec 06, 2014 16:14:55	Ryan Dancey's involvement is enough to make me not buy a product.
#26 Mirtek Dec 06, 2014 17:02:26	LupusRegalis wrote:
#27 Mecheon Dec 06, 2014 17:46:37	LupusRegalis wrote:
#28 Shasarak Dec 07, 2014 1:56:32	Mecheon wrote:
#29 pukunui Dec 07, 2014 1:58:26	Shasarak wrote:
#30 Shasarak Dec 07, 2014 2:04:33	pukunui wrote:
#31 Bluenose Dec 07, 2014 2:51:06	Zardnaar wrote:
#32 pukunui Dec 07, 2014 9:59:52	Shasarak wrote:
#33 Zardnaar Dec 07, 2014 11:38:50	What could be funny is paizo ending up with an online mmo morningstar and pdfs while wotc are still thinking about pdfs and an ogl.
#34 Shasarak Dec 07, 2014 12:29:09	pukunui wrote:
#35 pukunui Dec 07, 2014 14:02:58	Shasarak wrote:
#36 Grazel Dec 07, 2014 15:11:20	I have no faith in Trapdoor. After seeing the web 'beta' (was so bad I didn't even bother checking out the Android beta when I got the invite), I don't think they'll be able to put out anything outside of iOS. Thye are an iOS shop, that was part of their problems. They waited until after the release of the PHB to hire web and Android developers (and from what I could see didn't get decent ones, or they stifled them with formatting limitations to try to mimic iOS). Sure they didn't have the rules to fill in the tools but if it was meant to be a flexible system with a "forge" for custom content there should have been lots of work done on all three formats before they got the PHB rules. The basic harnesses should have been in place, as well as a houseruling scripting engine (which could be used to code the core rules with as well) and a lot more to show than what they gave us. This was all new territory to them and once the betas were released it became obvious they didn't have the skills, manpower, or resources to accomplish what they were contracted for. They claim WotC hadn't paid them anything yet which seems unlikely if there was really a contract. What it sounds like is WotC provisioned a contract if they could provide a proof of concept by the beta release. They failed to show a proof of concept (iOS sounds like it was better but only the people at WotC, Trapdoor and those at GenCon could ever know for sure as there was no beta option for it) for Android and Web formats. Also by the beta they seemed to have drifted away from one of the core promises that I think WotC wants for sure: a stand-alone offline mode. Looking at their kickstarter it looks like they've abandoned that concept for good by touting it as a 'cloud based service' which amounts to a subscription model because you will only have access to the content as long as their servers are up and running. This is a problem with early video game DRMs that required "call home" code where you couldn't play the game if it couldn't reach a server to check-in with. That resulted in many hacks to bypass the check-in or fake it just so people could play the game they paid for, while others became unplayable after less than a year if their studio folded and shut down their servers. I lost access to a few games when gamespy shut down just because it required a gamespy login even if playing single-player and not multi-player. All the other 3rd party tools I have tied to RPGs I can use as long as I've gotten the initial download of data. I don't need to worry if Hero Labs goes away as a company because I already have all the content I paid for on my system. I have map making programs too that I don't need to hit the cloud just to start them or use them so they too will surivive a shutdown of servers, a company going under, or me losing my internet connection.
#37 pukunui Dec 07, 2014 15:28:39	Grazel wrote:
#38 CCS Dec 07, 2014 18:17:04	I don't think anything of it. They're trying to raise $ for a product I wouldn't buy/use anyways. But i dont have anything against them. So I guess.... good luck?
#39 Brock_Landers Dec 08, 2014 10:42:26	I have no interest in digital tools, especially with this edition.
#40 The_Jester Dec 08, 2014 10:51:51	I want to get excited but I can't. I was utterly unimpressed by the web beta, which was really the alpha as it was no where near finished. The problem was not just the staggering amount of bugs - which is to be expected in a beta - but the seeming lack of progress, as simple errors went unfixed for the entire beta. I expect regular updates and continual fixes for any remotely professional beta, and I did not see that. Going with the PRD and promising Pathfinder might hurt Morningstar more than it helps. Opting for Pathfinder puts Morningstar in direct competition with HeroLabs, which is out right now. As well as their RealmsWorks campaign manager. I already have HeroLabs for Pathfinder, so a new PF related character builder is unnecessary. Plus there is a staggering amount of content for Pathfinder at the moment. If the builder doesn't contain the splatbooks it's not particularly useful. The minimum amount of required content is staggering. And, unlike LoneWolf (creators of HeroLabs) Trapdoor Tech is unlikely have a licensing deal with Paizo to get the books early to have the content available at launch.
#41 Karnos Dec 08, 2014 11:45:22	The beta was unimpressive. The new app, without official 5e support, sounds even less useful. I'll pass on the kickstarter. I might look at the app once it is finished, but it sounds like something I would never use.
#42 Sword_of_Spirit Dec 09, 2014 16:24:13	I have no interest in Morningstar unless it eventually supports 5e in much the same way that it was originally planned (keep the content you bought, free basic materials, etc). While I understand that they want to bring their hard work to fruition, and hope they are able to get something satisfactory out of it, switching to Pathfinder means it isn't really the same thing at all anymore. It was orginally the 5e D&D tool, and now is a Pathfinder tool. Maybe they are counting on a 5e OGL so they can eventually re-integrate that content. As far as it's appearance, I actually liked the aesthetic. I prefer my digital tools to look less digital and more bookish, otherwise it's jarring for my immersion. However, even before they lost their contract, I had basically just rage-quit on it (and I'm not one to do that). In their final Dungeonscape interview, it was revealed that they were not going to support custom backgrounds in the character builder (beyond minor refluffing). You were literally stuck with the skills and tools your background gave you. No way to mix and match, despite the fact that that is core functionality (it isn't even listed as an optional module like multiclassing or feats--it's assumed functionality) right there on page 36 of the Player's Basic rules. (They were going to allow DMs to design custom backgrounds via the Forge designer's module, but it would be like creating a custom class or race--the DM creates it and uploads it to the campaign options. There was going to be no way for a player to just trade a proficiency in Persuasion for Deception, or switch one background feature for another, for example.) That was a straight up deal-breaker for me, but they didn't seem to "get it." Once it was actually out I'm sure they would have been inundated with complaints. Maybe new players just stick with default background options, but all of my players customize. Even the new ones, once it is explained to them that they don't have to just keep the default options, generally want to at least switch a skill. In other words, it was completely unusable for my group, since we couldn't make the characters we wanted, despite them being completely by the book. The fact that they didn't see how this was a big deal, as well as the fact that they listed the "Warrior, Priest, Trickster, Mage" titles along with the classes--despite the fact that the design team had abandoned that concept, and it was no where to be found in the published products--led me to believe that they weren't well versed in 5e. There are very few people on the team, and I think only a couple had prior D&D experience. I seriously doubt any of them were following the development of 5e as closely as half of the posters on here or ENWorld, and they really needed to be to understand what it's all about. I just don't think they were up to the job of representing 5e properly, without at least doing some serious consultation.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

edwin_su

Dec 06, 2014 2:33:09

how do people feal about the morningstar kickstarter ?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/trapdoortech/codename-morningstar

pukunui

Dec 06, 2014 2:44:43

I dunno. Since it's not attached to the D&D brand anymore, it's going to be a generic thing. I'm not sure how well it will work. I'll reserve judgment until it's actually out and functioning as intended and see what people think of it then.

edwin_su

Dec 06, 2014 3:03:12

pukunui wrote:

(Reply to #3)

TheLyons

edwin_su wrote:

Zardnaar

Dec 06, 2014 5:07:58

Watching the video, I'll mention it to those who care.

THats a big goal. Numenera and Pathfindewr Online are about the only RPG kickstarters that I know of to get in that area.

Emerikol

Dec 06, 2014 6:10:26

I'm not sure it was ever for me. I'm probably more of a practical database user. I don't need all the fluff slowing me down.

Still I believe they expect a 5e OGL of some sort to be coming. So for now they are producing a Pathfinder version using the existing OGL. Then after they get that rolling they will come back around for a 5e version when the 5e OGL is better clarified.

FFSAA

Dec 06, 2014 7:54:15

$450k goal? $20 product? Then you have to buy content? Good luck.

kalil

Dec 06, 2014 8:35:22

No way I am backing a bad hero labs with astronomical ambitions and zero track record

joeburgos

Dec 06, 2014 8:42:20

edwin_su wrote:

#10

Mistwell

Dec 06, 2014 9:24:48

I wish them luck. They seem like a good group of people.

I did not like the "Thieves in the night" crack they made about WOTC. That was unnecessarily unprofessional, and I think it would be a wise public relations move to make a lengthy, genuine, and non-cryptic apology for that.

I do not think they will make the goal they set for this Kickstarter. It smacks of Kickstarter-newbie to me. They do not have the track record and name recognition to support that goal, in my estimation, based on the history of RPG-based kickstarters. I am guessing they over-estimated their fan base.

But what do I know? I've never run a kickstarter myself. Good luck to them. If they come out with a product that is good and supports a game I play, I will likely eventually buy it. But...not in this kickstarter.

#11

LupusRegalis

Dec 06, 2014 9:11:32

Maybe not the best time of year to be trying to raise that much money, in so short a time period.

I'd like to back them though, even if it doesn't succeed. The project is worth making the effort, and the only way it will Succeed is if we want it to.

I think it's worth pointing out that under the OGL that does exist, a few companies have already released content, including Adventurers, for use with 5e (FrogGodGames, for example). If what some of the Devs have said is still true, another version of the OGL that is 5e specific is also being hammered out. So likely, there will be more than enough content from both 3rd part publishers as well as generated by the Users themselves.

Personally, I think being divorced from WotC and D&D might be the best thing to happen to this company, if they make it. Not only will it likely be of higher quality, but being open to Content from a variety of RPG Sources makes it more useful. For me at least, D&D makes up about a quarter of my gaming, and not all of that percentage is 5e.

(Reply to #10)

LupusRegalis

Mistwell wrote:

#13

BoldItalic

Dec 06, 2014 9:19:35

From looking at what they have posted, it seems that they expect WotC to hand them a 5e OGL on a plate for them to exploit, with them making the money and WotC getting nothing out of it.

That doesn't seem a very realistic expectation.

More likely, it will make WotC think twice and decide not to issue a 5e OGL at all. No one wins if that happens.

#14

joeburgos

Dec 06, 2014 9:23:55

Mistwell wrote:

#15

Mistwell

Dec 06, 2014 9:43:58

LupusRegalis wrote:

#16

joeburgos

Dec 06, 2014 9:46:52

Their approach was to make it satirical, bit tongue-in-cheek; but its a veiled passive-aggressive attack at the hand that feeds you.

#17

bawylie

Dec 06, 2014 9:49:44

I'm not interested in playing pathfinder. So a tools suite for pathfinder ismy useful or interesting to me. Best of luck to them, though.

#18

Gnarl

Dec 06, 2014 10:02:05

I don't know what to think. I haven't managed to figure out whether there's an off-line PC version or not. I'm not interested on applications that require an internet connection. In most places of the world, internet connections are that unreliable.

#19

TheLyons

Dec 06, 2014 10:17:43

I don't think I'll ever back a Kickstarter that is for something subscription based. The ONLY thing I have ever had in my whole life that was subscription based is Netflix, and that's only after getting kids and also in lieu of cable TV. Not knocking subscriptions, but if I am going to back a Kickstarter, I want something permanent.

One thing I found rather odd from their Kickstarter was that only one backer level, the $1000 level, was for a "lifetime" subscription. However, they have it listed at 5 years. There is a spot in the FAQ about if they last longer than 5 years they'll "take care of you", but that is pretty vague and could be interpreted a multitude of ways (including some that aren't positive). But it also begs the question, what if they fold 5 months after release? You just paid $200 a month for a product that is now probably defunct.

I do like that team, but I don't like their Kickstarter. And while I can't say for certain until I see it, I quite likely may not like their product without D&D specifically in it. That's all I want in a product. I don't play anything else, and these days won't (not enough time, and I love D&D too much).

(Reply to #15)

LupusRegalis

Mistwell wrote:

#21

Zardnaar

Dec 06, 2014 12:25:47

Makes me laugh how companies that get shafted by WoTC just default to the IGL and PAthfinder lol. They may actually make their goal $12000 in one day X30 and kickstarters often snowball in the last 24 hours.

Oeople on these forums seem to struggle with how popular Paizo and the OGL is.

#22

Mistwell

Dec 06, 2014 14:08:16

LupusRegalis wrote:

#23

Mistwell

Dec 06, 2014 14:18:10

Zardnaar wrote:

#24

Zardnaar

Dec 06, 2014 15:31:04

Mistwell wrote:

#25

bawylie

Dec 06, 2014 16:14:55

Ryan Dancey's involvement is enough to make me not buy a product.

#26

Mirtek

Dec 06, 2014 17:02:26

LupusRegalis wrote:

#27

Mecheon

Dec 06, 2014 17:46:37

LupusRegalis wrote:

#28

Shasarak

Dec 07, 2014 1:56:32

Mecheon wrote:

#29

pukunui

Dec 07, 2014 1:58:26

Shasarak wrote:

#30

Shasarak

Dec 07, 2014 2:04:33

pukunui wrote:

#31

Bluenose

Dec 07, 2014 2:51:06

Zardnaar wrote:

#32

pukunui

Dec 07, 2014 9:59:52

Shasarak wrote:

#33

Zardnaar

Dec 07, 2014 11:38:50

What could be funny is paizo ending up with an online mmo morningstar and pdfs while wotc are still thinking about pdfs and an ogl.

#34

Shasarak

Dec 07, 2014 12:29:09

pukunui wrote:

#35

pukunui

Dec 07, 2014 14:02:58

Shasarak wrote:

#36

Grazel

Dec 07, 2014 15:11:20

I have no faith in Trapdoor. After seeing the web 'beta' (was so bad I didn't even bother checking out the Android beta when I got the invite), I don't think they'll be able to put out anything outside of iOS. Thye are an iOS shop, that was part of their problems. They waited until after the release of the PHB to hire web and Android developers (and from what I could see didn't get decent ones, or they stifled them with formatting limitations to try to mimic iOS). Sure they didn't have the rules to fill in the tools but if it was meant to be a flexible system with a "forge" for custom content there should have been lots of work done on all three formats before they got the PHB rules. The basic harnesses should have been in place, as well as a houseruling scripting engine (which could be used to code the core rules with as well) and a lot more to show than what they gave us. This was all new territory to them and once the betas were released it became obvious they didn't have the skills, manpower, or resources to accomplish what they were contracted for.

They claim WotC hadn't paid them anything yet which seems unlikely if there was really a contract. What it sounds like is WotC provisioned a contract if they could provide a proof of concept by the beta release. They failed to show a proof of concept (iOS sounds like it was better but only the people at WotC, Trapdoor and those at GenCon could ever know for sure as there was no beta option for it) for Android and Web formats. Also by the beta they seemed to have drifted away from one of the core promises that I think WotC wants for sure: a stand-alone offline mode.

Looking at their kickstarter it looks like they've abandoned that concept for good by touting it as a 'cloud based service' which amounts to a subscription model because you will only have access to the content as long as their servers are up and running. This is a problem with early video game DRMs that required "call home" code where you couldn't play the game if it couldn't reach a server to check-in with. That resulted in many hacks to bypass the check-in or fake it just so people could play the game they paid for, while others became unplayable after less than a year if their studio folded and shut down their servers. I lost access to a few games when gamespy shut down just because it required a gamespy login even if playing single-player and not multi-player.

All the other 3rd party tools I have tied to RPGs I can use as long as I've gotten the initial download of data. I don't need to worry if Hero Labs goes away as a company because I already have all the content I paid for on my system. I have map making programs too that I don't need to hit the cloud just to start them or use them so they too will surivive a shutdown of servers, a company going under, or me losing my internet connection.

#37

pukunui

Dec 07, 2014 15:28:39

Grazel wrote:

#38

CCS

Dec 07, 2014 18:17:04

I don't think anything of it. They're trying to raise $ for a product I wouldn't buy/use anyways. But i dont have anything against them. So I guess.... good luck?

#39

Brock_Landers

Dec 08, 2014 10:42:26

I have no interest in digital tools, especially with this edition.

#40

The_Jester

Dec 08, 2014 10:51:51

I want to get excited but I can't.

I was utterly unimpressed by the web beta, which was really the alpha as it was no where near finished. The problem was not just the staggering amount of bugs - which is to be expected in a beta - but the seeming lack of progress, as simple errors went unfixed for the entire beta. I expect regular updates and continual fixes for any remotely professional beta, and I did not see that.

Going with the PRD and promising Pathfinder might hurt Morningstar more than it helps.

Opting for Pathfinder puts Morningstar in direct competition with HeroLabs, which is out right now. As well as their RealmsWorks campaign manager. I already have HeroLabs for Pathfinder, so a new PF related character builder is unnecessary. Plus there is a staggering amount of content for Pathfinder at the moment. If the builder doesn't contain the splatbooks it's not particularly useful. The minimum amount of required content is staggering. And, unlike LoneWolf (creators of HeroLabs) Trapdoor Tech is unlikely have a licensing deal with Paizo to get the books early to have the content available at launch.

#41

Karnos

Dec 08, 2014 11:45:22

The beta was unimpressive. The new app, without official 5e support, sounds even less useful. I'll pass on the kickstarter.

I might look at the app once it is finished, but it sounds like something I would never use.

#42

Sword_of_Spirit

Dec 09, 2014 16:24:13

I have no interest in Morningstar unless it eventually supports 5e in much the same way that it was originally planned (keep the content you bought, free basic materials, etc).

While I understand that they want to bring their hard work to fruition, and hope they are able to get something satisfactory out of it, switching to Pathfinder means it isn't really the same thing at all anymore. It was orginally the 5e D&D tool, and now is a Pathfinder tool. Maybe they are counting on a 5e OGL so they can eventually re-integrate that content.

As far as it's appearance, I actually liked the aesthetic. I prefer my digital tools to look less digital and more bookish, otherwise it's jarring for my immersion.

However, even before they lost their contract, I had basically just rage-quit on it (and I'm not one to do that). In their final Dungeonscape interview, it was revealed that they were not going to support custom backgrounds in the character builder (beyond minor refluffing). You were literally stuck with the skills and tools your background gave you. No way to mix and match, despite the fact that that is core functionality (it isn't even listed as an optional module like multiclassing or feats--it's assumed functionality) right there on page 36 of the Player's Basic rules. (They were going to allow DMs to design custom backgrounds via the Forge designer's module, but it would be like creating a custom class or race--the DM creates it and uploads it to the campaign options. There was going to be no way for a player to just trade a proficiency in Persuasion for Deception, or switch one background feature for another, for example.)

That was a straight up deal-breaker for me, but they didn't seem to "get it." Once it was actually out I'm sure they would have been inundated with complaints. Maybe new players just stick with default background options, but all of my players customize. Even the new ones, once it is explained to them that they don't have to just keep the default options, generally want to at least switch a skill. In other words, it was completely unusable for my group, since we couldn't make the characters we wanted, despite them being completely by the book.

The fact that they didn't see how this was a big deal, as well as the fact that they listed the "Warrior, Priest, Trickster, Mage" titles along with the classes--despite the fact that the design team had abandoned that concept, and it was no where to be found in the published products--led me to believe that they weren't well versed in 5e. There are very few people on the team, and I think only a couple had prior D&D experience. I seriously doubt any of them were following the development of 5e as closely as half of the posters on here or ENWorld, and they really needed to be to understand what it's all about.

I just don't think they were up to the job of representing 5e properly, without at least doing some serious consultation.