D&D General D&D's Utter Dominance Is Good or Bad Because...

[Reynard]

The bolded part is probably true if the goal is to make a really well-designed game.

That is not the first priority of WotC as far as D&D is concerned; the first priority is to make a very popular game.

And, ya gotta admit, it's working.

So, a couple things:

"Well designed" and "popular" are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I do think that 5E is "well designed" in a general sense, but I also think that it is a) old, b) has some obvious flaws, and c) does not address some pretty significant very D&D concerns in any meaningful way.

So my problem is that marketing stunts dressed up as public playtests do not address any of those things, and actively hold back design innovations because the people that respond to surveys are the most likely to be strident about preferences.

@Hussar keeps asking for evidence and I would point them to the American political primary system as well as every beta test ever. It is known to be true that more invested individuals with more strongly held positions are more likely to engage in these things. This isn't controversial. It's just how humans do.

 

[Eric V]

So, a couple things:

"Well designed" and "popular" are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I do think that 5E is "well designed" in a general sense, but I also think that it is a) old, b) has some obvious flaws, and c) does not address some pretty significant very D&D concerns in any meaningful way.

So my problem is that marketing stunts dressed up as public playtests do not address any of those things, and actively hold back design innovations because the people that respond to surveys are the most likely to be strident about preferences.

@Hussar keeps asking for evidence and I would point them to the American political primary system as well as every beta test ever. It is known to be true that more invested individuals with more strongly held positions are more likely to engage in these things. This isn't controversial. It's just how humans do.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. I hope you don't think I was saying they were. They can be, though.

Yeah, 5e is generally well-designed, but my point was simply that being a well-designed game isn't the main priority for the company. If fixing the flaws in the system would mean losing popularity, WotC wouldn't touch them.

 

[Oofta]

Take a set of cups.

Have 5 of them be various colors, and 50 of them be red.

Have 5 of them be various colors, and 10 of them be red.

Have some in a hurry toss a marble in a cup.

See how many marbles land in the varied colored cups in each case.

If you don't see the parallel I'm suggesting, you don't.

There are still 5 varied colored cups. It doesn't matter if there are 10 red cups or 100. Finding a game to join is not a rushed decision, nor is it difficult to find alternative games in today's day and age.

I don't know how other people find games or players. Personally I use meetup.org where you can search and filter out games. There's all sorts of social media or simply Google to find them. If you're asking people you already know, using word of mouth it still doesn't matter. Either some connection will get you the right contact or it won't, the number of negatives due to playing D&D or not gaming at all is irrelevant.

You aren't randomly throwing marbles or showing up at random locations hoping to find a game. I just don't see what the issue is.

 

[Oofta]

No, they are not mutually exclusive. I hope you don't think I was saying they were. They can be, though.

Yeah, 5e is generally well-designed, but my point was simply that being a well-designed game isn't the main priority for the company. If fixing the flaws in the system would mean losing popularity, WotC wouldn't touch them.

The goal of the game is to have people buy it. The way to do that is to make a game people enjoy. If something makes the game more enjoyable for the target audience it is therefore not a flaw.

 

[MNblockhead]

As you say here. If you increase the non-D&D player pool by 5%, who's going to actually notice?

Those publishing non-DnD games.

 

[Reynard]

The goal of the game is to have people buy it. The way to do that is to make a game people enjoy. If something makes the game more enjoyable for the target audience it is therefore not a flaw.

My thesis is that broadly speaking the people that want to enjoy D&D will, so public playtests are irrelevant at best, and potentially harmful.

 

[mamba]

Feel free. I'm explaining my attitude and that of people with a similar view. You don't have to accept it, but at least you can not treat it as a mystery, which some people have done.

no, not a mystery, just a theory I disagree with. Neither of us has sufficient evidence to show anything conclusively

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar keeps asking for evidence and I would point them to the American political primary system as well as every beta test ever. It is known to be true that more invested individuals with more strongly held positions are more likely to engage in these things. This isn't controversial. It's just how humans do.

Still not evidence that the 80 some THOUSAND people who respond to the WotC playtests have stronger held positions than the rest.

 

[Hussar]

My thesis is that broadly speaking the people that want to enjoy D&D will, so public playtests are irrelevant at best, and potentially harmful.

Ok.

Now, where is your evidence? After all, 2024 D&D will contain revisions that were on the public playtest. So, the public playtests are not irrelevant since they actually shape what the game will look like. And, again, you'd have to demonstrate that the game is being harmed in some fashion by canvasing the fandom when making new products.

After all, Tasha's was extensively publicly playtested as well. One of the most successful books ever. Whereas something like Radiant Citadel was not publicly playtested at all (AFAIK) and is one of the worst received publications for 5e to date.

I understand you thesis. I just think that it's based on your personal perception that you happen not to like where 5e has gone, and therefore are looking for something to blame.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You know there is a notable difference with Paizo and their playtests, right? They put out complete games and give the engaged people a large amount of time to explore it in full campaigns, not just piece meal integration of some small subset of ideas.

Even so -- yes,I recognize that public playtests are now a thing. It still doesn't make it a good idea.

Though its difficult to do blindtesting in this industry without public playtests, and lack of blindtesting is not a virtue.