D&D 5E Player satisfaction survey

[Mercule]

I'm overall pretty happy with 5E. I have some issues with a couple of the earlier classes, alphabetically, but those aren't game killers.

Where I've really been chaffing is that I'm feeling somewhat constrained by the system, creatively. I'm very much an old-school, GM is God, GM-fiat makes the world go 'round kind of guy. I don't say that in an authoritarian way, other than as a side-effect. I mean I hate stopping the game to look up a rule detail, whether that's squirrelly grappling rules or because a player thinks he should get a flat +2 in a circumstance instead of advantage. I ran my first game of Fate Accelerated, this weekend, and it was really freeing. I liked the system, but didn't love it as much as I thought I would (I suspect Fate Core would be a better fit). The real lesson, though, was that I need to stop running published adventures. I've always preferred to roll my own, but decided to do published adventures in 5E, because I have a ton of adult commitments and wanted to avoid prep, especially while learning the new edition. I think I let that go way to long and started to burn out.

Anyway, the point is that I think 5E is probably the best edition of D&D, so far. I still miss some of the broad brush strokes of AD&D, but it's a fair trade off. Savage Worlds and Fate continue to catch my eye, but I really just need to use 5E how I used all the other editions of the game and I think it'd work better, for me.

If I have a true issue with the game, it's the predominance of the Realms. I don't want to totally derail this thread, so I'll just say that it's gotten old and I need them to move on or I'm going to tune out. I don't care if "move on" means a new setting, Greyhawk, something generic, or even another setting I'm not thrilled with. Just change it up.

 

[Mercule]

I think the disconnect here with the poll responses is that I have no need for the game to be exactly right for it to make me happy.

Every edition of D&D I've played has had issues (for my definition of issues) that I've either contemplated fixing or did fix with house rules. At the same time, I've played games of every edition without those fixes and still had a fun, enjoyable time. I don't think that's an uncommon mindset!

Truth. Some of us just like to tinker. If I ever found a "perfect" system, I don't think I'd be able to play it. It'd be imperfect in its perfection. I must house rule.

 

[iserith]

My players have no complaints that they've made known.

I personally have no complaints either. I think that has something to do with how I approach RPGs: I run and play the game based on my understanding of the goals of play and the rules they give us. What I don't do is run my game the same way as another RPG or edition and then complain when the rules don't quite fit as if it's the game's fault I'm not playing it in the manner prescribed.

 

[TwoSix]

My players have no complaints that they've made known.

I personally have no complaints either. I think that has something to do with how I approach RPGs: I run and play the game based on my understanding of the goals of play and the rules they give us. What I don't do is run my game the same way as another RPG or edition and then complain when the rules don't quite fit as if it's the game's fault I'm not playing it in the manner prescribed.

Very true. Each edition is its own game, and playing them under the game's assumptions, rather than your own, is probably going to give you a better experience overall.

That being said, the sheer ubiquity of D&D makes its editions good rulesets to modify if you have a vision for an experience that's 80% like D&D, and 20% your own ideas.

 

[iserith]

Very true. Each edition is its own game, and playing them under the game's assumptions, rather than your own, is probably going to give you a better experience overall.

That being said, the sheer ubiquity of D&D makes its editions good rulesets to modify if you have a vision for an experience that's 80% like D&D, and 20% your own ideas.

Sure. I certainly do use the official variants and the like in D&D 5e to tailor the game. I consider it to be a game system with dials that I move around to suit the particular game I'm running. I don't really have any house rules though outside of players claiming Inspiration. (Which arguably isn't a house rule.) I don't tinker with the classes or the like.

What I see are a lot of posts over the years that scream "I'm playing this game like Edition X or RPG Y and something is wrong with this game." It's like, okay, make the game what you want, but it's not the game's fault you're playing it in a manner other than prescribed.

 

[Mercule]

What I don't do is run my game the same way as another RPG or edition and then complain when the rules don't quite fit as if it's the game's fault I'm not playing it in the manner prescribed.

There's a lot of truth to this. It only goes so far, though. I have my own goals in play. If the game/system doesn't support those goals, then it's a poor match and I'll walk away. If one edition of a game handles those goals well, I think it's totally acceptable to expect another edition of that game to also support those goals well. Granted, after 40+ years, a certain amount of drift is reasonable.

 

[schnee]

WOTC have been doing extensive customer satisfaction measurement the entire time, by qualified researchers. Their numbers are HUGELY positive.

They also say that web forums don't track even remotely close to their statistical sample, to their surprise. That was in a talk given to a design school about their process.

--

Forums are full of dour, argumentative sourpusses. Any poll here means nothing in the bigger world.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nope. You are counting "mostly satisfied" because it sounds positive as a whole, but it still implies that they want or "need" changes. I am counting only players who are satisfied with things as they are, instead of thinking how they could or "should" be.

Barbarian: 28% sat, 72% unsat
Bard: 47% sat, 53% unsat
Cleric: 42% sat, 58% unsat
Druid: 25% sat, 75% unsat
Fighter: 38% sat, 62% unsat

"unsat" = "want to change at least something"

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm getting hung up on the words. Wanting to make some minor tweaks doesn't mean "unsatisfied", by the definition. Very little in life is someone completely satisfied with something with no changes at all. There are tons of things we are satisfied with every day that we'd make minor tweaks to. So I'm getting hung up on the idea that most players are unsatisfied with the classes, because they are not.

For example, I was completely satisfied with dinner I made last night. I would have liked to have had some caramel sauce for my apple pie I made, but just because I'd like a minor tweak didn't mean I was unsatisfied with it.

 

[iserith]

There's a lot of truth to this. It only goes so far, though. I have my own goals in play. If the game/system doesn't support those goals, then it's a poor match and I'll walk away. If one edition of a game handles those goals well, I think it's totally acceptable to expect another edition of that game to also support those goals well. Granted, after 40+ years, a certain amount of drift is reasonable.

Sure. As long as "I have my own goals in play" doesn't become "Something's wrong with this game," then I have no complaints.

 

[ccs]

Nope. You are counting "mostly satisfied" because it sounds positive as a whole, but it still implies that they want or "need" changes. I am counting only players who are satisfied with things as they are, instead of thinking how they could or "should" be.

Barbarian: 28% sat, 72% unsat
Bard: 47% sat, 53% unsat
Cleric: 42% sat, 58% unsat
Druid: 25% sat, 75% unsat
Fighter: 38% sat, 62% unsat

"unsat" = "want to change at least something"

Well by your measurement then no edition of D&D would ever be good enough. And that's just not true. The proof of satisfaction lies in continuing sales & continuing play. Especially play.
As for tweaks & changes? That's part of the rules. It's written into the DNA of the game that you can (and should!) change things to suit your group. Some editions do a much better job of pointing this out than others, but it's always there. Making use of that feature of the rules =/= player dissatisfaction.

The players in my groups are satisfied with 5e.
Those of us who DM in my groups are satisfied with 5e.
If we weren't? Then (like 4e) we wouldn't be playing it.