[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.

 

[prosfilaes]

That’s not how statistical samples work.

We know that how this data was acquired was not from an optimally provisioned statistical sample, either, unless WotC has hired a polling firm to cold-call people and ask about their D&D characters, and even that has its problems.

 

[Morrus]

[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

We know that how this data was acquired was not from an optimally provisioned statistical sample, either, unless WotC has hired a polling firm to cold-call people and ask about their D&D characters, and even that has its problems.

You know nothing of the sort. There’s no way you can know.

The only thing you know, the one single thing you know, is that Crawford tweeted some info. That’s all you know.

Well, you probably know he won’t do it again now.

 

[lkj]

So the actual data shows that "most" was an exaggeration- only technically true, ecepting at low levels. Nice!

Only one part of several implied data sources. So who knows what the actual numbers are. But even at 50.5%, that's a large number of people not using feats given that many of us on this board like to use them as a matter of course (me included).

AD

 

[jgsugden]

That’s not how statistical samples work.

That is not how most people think about them, but what I said is accurate.

IF:
* More than 50% of groups do not use variant humans.
* I have played in 8 distinct independent games that had the normal probability of using the variant human rules.
* I did not encounter games without using the human variant rules as an option.

Then, there should have been less than a 0.4% chance, or 1 in 250ish, that I'd find everybody playing with variant humans. If the chances were 60%/40%, the odds drop to 1 in ~1525.

So, I'm saying, that if the odds of me experiencing that phenomena were worse than 1 in 250 - maybe even 1 in 1525 or worse - it is more likely that the data is flawed than that I actually experienced those long odds.

What I am saying is more comparable to looking at the results of a series of die rolls or coin flips to determine if it is a cheaters die or weighted coin rather than looking at population probabilities.

Another thing to consider: Why did you post this thread, Morrus? Because it would surprise people to hear what was said, or because the results matched common expectation. The former - it was surprising news. However, when you have surprising news, especially when it is based upon statistics, it is a good time to second guess your statistics.

For both of the above reasons - because the results do not come close to expectations, and because there is such an improbable chance for me to experience the results I've seen if the odds are as they say - I think their statistics are hokey.

 

[Morrus]

That is not how most people think about them, but what I said is accurate.

I don’t think you’re positioned to declare how most people think of statistics.

That isn’t how statistical samples work, either.

* I have played in 8 distinct independent games that had the normal probability of using the variant human rules.

You don’t understand. 8 groups is not a statistically relevant sample. 800 groups might be. 8 is definitely not.

Another thing to consider: Why did you post this thread, Morrus? Because it would surprise people to hear what was said, or because the results matched common expectation.

False dichotomy. Neither of the binary selection you offered.

It was option #3. Which you didn’t offer.

 

[Staffan]

As a data point, I have played six different characters in 5e, starting at various levels and ending at various levels. Out of those, only two had feats: the variant humans.

As another data point, the core PCs of the campaign I'm DMing are one regular human, two variant humans, and one dwarf. All the humans have a feat - the non-variant human is a Circle of the Moon druid, who thought it was a better choice to take Savage Attacker than an ASI since he spends most of his on-screen time in beast form, and doesn't cast all that many offensive spells.

 

[lkj]

That is not how most people think about them, but what I said is accurate.

IF:
* More than 50% of groups do not use variant humans.
* I have played in 8 distinct independent games that had the normal probability of using the variant human rules.
* I did not encounter games without using the human variant rules as an option.

Then, there should have been less than a 0.4% chance, or 1 in 250ish, that I'd find everybody playing with variant humans. If the chances were 60%/40%, the odds drop to 1 in ~1525.

So, I'm saying, that if the odds of me experiencing that phenomena were worse than 1 in 250 - maybe even 1 in 1525 or worse - it is more likely that the data is flawed than that I actually experienced those long odds.

What I am saying is more comparable to looking at the results of a series of die rolls or coin flips to determine if it is a cheaters die or weighted coin rather than looking at population probabilities.

Another thing to consider: Why did you post this thread, Morrus? Because it would surprise people to hear what was said, or because the results matched common expectation. The former - it was surprising news. However, when you have surprising news, especially when it is based upon statistics, it is a good time to second guess your statistics.

For both of the above reasons - because the results do not come close to expectations, and because there is such an improbable chance for me to experience the results I've seen if the odds are as they say - I think their statistics are hokey.

From the Wizard of Odds site (because it's fun!):

"Mr. Wizard, if 50 different people toss a coin in the air 8 different times. What percentage of the 50 people will toss 8 consecutive heads or tails? Thanking you in advance.

ANONYMOUS

The probability of any given person tossing 8 heads or tails is 2*(1/2)8 = 1 in 128. If 50 people did this on average 0.39 of them will get all heads or tails. The probability of at least one person getting all heads or tails is 32.44%."

In other words, sure, the odds of your getting that particular result are small. But the odds of you getting almost any particular result is pretty small. Exactly 6 heads and 2 tails for instance. All tails. Whatever. But the chances that someone in the population will get that result are fairly high. And if you ask enough people, you'll find someone that gets that result. It seems you are the lucky winner!

This is beside the fact that your samples aren't independent (as required by the math for straight binomial probabilities). And you are operating at the scale of the group when the actual scale is at the individual.

AD

 

[Yunru]

Of the six groups I've been in, none of lacked feats (including the one where feats were discouraged because most players were new).

The 8 becomes 14.

 

[prosfilaes]

You know nothing of the sort. There’s no way you can know.

Yes, yes, I can know. If you claim that "Most D&D players prefer..." then "an optimally provisioned statistical sample" can only come from a random sample of D&D players, including groups that are playing in home games. The only way to get that random sample is to get a random sample of people and survey the D&D players; otherwise, whatever source you have is going to be a biased sample. Unless WotC is using polling firms, there's no way they could possibly reach a random sample of D&D players.

 

[jgsugden]

You don't need a huge pool to validate data is flawed if you get massively inconsistent data.

Look at it this way:

A new player sits down at your table to play D&D. You're having fun. But a bit into the game, one of the other players says, "Wow, Newbie. You're lucky. You've rolled a d20 only 8 times, and the results were all 11 or above. That is real lucky." You think about it and realize all 8 rolls have been 11 or above. There is a 1 in 250 chance (roughly) that would happen.

A lot of people would have worries that the player was cheating... likely with loaded die or faked results.

Is it a certainty? No. Do similar streaks happen where no funny business is going On? Yes... about 1 in 250 times it occurs and there are a lot of opportunities for that to happen. However, that doesn't matter. I'm focused on my situation. I see something occuring that should be very unlikely. When does it become more likely there is cheating than that our situation was the oddity of 1 in 250.

When is it more likely their statistic is wrong than that my experiences were so uncommon.... especially when you complicate the matter by introducing the common expectation that a significant majority of players use human variants?

If all of their sampling and statistics are perfect, there would still be a number of people with my experiences. However, the rational position for them to take, without additional information, is that I experienced either really unlikely results, or the stats are funny. You could also challenge my underlying elements (we're the group's totally independent, etc...), but there are arguments both sides there.

My experiences are enough to say, "Those results look shady. Check yourself." Even with only 8 draws from the hat.