[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.

 

[jgsugden]

I keep reading what you’re saying. You’re saying that your tiny sample of 8 groups is statistically relevant, to the point where a sample orders of magnitude larger must be flawed if it doesn’t agree with yours.

Incorrect. Tell me why and I'll agree that you're considering my statements thoughtfully. However, you're uninterested in continuing this discourse.

What I and others keep trying to say is that that an anecdote regarding just 8 groups is statistically insignificant.

For what purpose? Certainly not mine. For mine, there is a clear statistical implication which I have spelled out.

When I say that you don’t understand how statistical samples work, it’s because you knew rejecting the above two things.

Not following what you mean...

But I’ve said it several times now. I’m not going to keep doing so. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

Oh, so if you come across a result repeatedly it should be trusted? That's you stance, now? Well, only if you know what you're measuring.

And, I suppose, that’s fine. I know you’ll reject it again; I don’t expect anything else. I’ll just let you do so; I’m not getting into the Argument Clinic sketch over it.

And in the end, does it even matter?

It matters to me whether they have a fundamental misunderstanding about what people care about and are interested in usig for their games, yes. If so, they're less likely to make materials that the community wants.

As for lkj's comment that basically boils down to saying I should assume I experienced the aberration because there was a study... Heck no. If someone tells you they have a study, research, etc... with certain results, you test it yourself and you get a highly improbable result given the results of the study/research... YOU SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONS. If it matters to you, continue testing to see if you were unlucky. Continue asking questions about the study to see if you understand what they were saying, or if they have a flaw in their analysis or data. If it doesn't matter to you... then do nothing. If it does, do not just brush aside your results and ASSUME they are the aberration.

Putting it another way: Say someone put out a study that proved you could win a majority of the time using their Blackjack system. The company with the system is a Think Tank, even. It doesn't sound right to you, but you have some money to burn. You give it a shot and lose big on 8 trips to Vegas using the system. Is it time to co conclude you should ignore your expectations that the system is not right, and ignore the 8 failed trips as just bad luck....?

Afterall, what I'm looking at here is: Which is more likely: The statement that more games than not don't allow variant humans is right and I was "very unlucky", or that the statement is wrong.

 

[prosfilaes]

And since I'm on a crazy posting kick-- There are ways to model and control for sampling bias. I obviously don't know how they do their analyses or what ancillary data they take to detect bias (none of us do). But I'd be very surprised if a company doing market research would just ignore such bias. It's against their interest to do so.

It's expensive to run polls, and this came from the lead developer, not market research. Maybe they have taken effort to control for sampling bias, but maybe they just pulled some numbers out of the database and tossed them out there to generate press and discussion. I don't know if they're doing serious market research on D&D at this level.

 

[Azzy]

It's expensive to run polls, and this came from the lead developer, not market research.

And you know that the lead developer isn't using data from market research how?

 

[prosfilaes]

What I and others keep trying to say is that that an anecdote regarding just 8 groups is statistically insignificant.
...
What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

He's got a point that these are weird statements to combine together.

 

[lkj]

Incorrect. Tell me why and I'll agree that you're considering my statements thoughtfully. However, you're uninterested in continuing this discourse.

For what purpose? Certainly not mine. For mine, there is a clear statistical implication which I have spelled out.

Not following what you mean...

Oh, so if you come across a result repeatedly it should be trusted? That's you stance, now? Well, only if you know what you're measuring.It matters to me whether they have a fundamental misunderstanding about what people care about and are interested in usig for their games, yes. If so, they're less likely to make materials that the community wants.

As for lkj's comment that basically boils down to saying I should assume I experienced the aberration because there was a study... Heck no. If someone tells you they have a study, research, etc... with certain results, you test it yourself and you get a highly improbable result given the results of the study/research... YOU SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONS. If it matters to you, continue testing to see if you were unlucky. Continue asking questions about the study to see if you understand what they were saying, or if they have a flaw in their analysis or data. If it doesn't matter to you... then do nothing. If it does, do not just brush aside your results and ASSUME they are the aberration.

Putting it another way: Say someone put out a study that proved you could win a majority of the time using their Blackjack system. The company with the system is a Think Tank, even. It doesn't sound right to you, but you have some money to burn. You give it a shot and lose big on 8 trips to Vegas using the system. Is it time to co conclude you should ignore your expectations that the system is not right, and ignore the 8 failed trips as just bad luck....?

Afterall, what I'm looking at here is: Which is more likely: The statement that more games than not don't allow variant humans is right and I was "very unlucky", or that the statement is wrong.

What I've been saying really really doesn't boil down to that. Of course you should continue questioning things you are interested in. Of course it's always good to get more data. What I'm saying is that data you presented offers no meaningful indication that there's anything wonky with Jeremy's statement and that the statistical argument you are making is completely unsound. (Nor has anyone said that most games don't allow human variants. Jeremy simply stated individual players more often do not choose to use feats. Those are not even remotely equivalent statements. I don't seem to be able to articulate to you the difference between groups and individuals for some reason.)

Anyway, all that said, I think I'll head Morrus' direction at this point. Let's just say we agree to disagree.

AD

 

[lkj]

It's expensive to run polls, and this came from the lead developer, not market research. Maybe they have taken effort to control for sampling bias, but maybe they just pulled some numbers out of the database and tossed them out there to generate press and discussion. I don't know if they're doing serious market research on D&D at this level.

Sure. We agree that we don't know.

AD

 

[Dausuul]

*bangs head on wall*

Crawford did not say that most groups ban feats. He said the majority of PCs don't use feats. That includes:

• People who prefer to boost their primary stat
• People who don't see any feats in the book that appeal to them
• People who don't like feats in general
• People playing in groups that ban feats

When you add up all of those subgroups, the total is over 50%. But that says nothing about how big any one subgroup is. "People playing in groups that ban feats" could make up 1% of the total and it would be entirely consistent with Crawford's statements.

I sure hope the folks at WotC are better at interpreting data than a lot of the people in this thread, or we're gonna end up with 6E: 10 Levels, All Humans, All Fighters, No Feats.

 

[ccs]

Is it possible that you & your ranged party members just need better teamwork?
Say, you knock them down, stab them & back off a bit.
Your teammates ready action & only shoot the target once its' spent 1/2 its' move standing up, but before it goes anywhere.
Next round you move in, prone it, repeat.

would that work?

Wouldn't I take an opportunity attack each round that way (though the attacks would be at disadvantage)?

You might. That'd be a risk you'd need to consider on a foe by foe/your current HP basis.

 

[Lanefan]

Feats are part of D&D.

Not anymore, thank the gods. They're only an option...which gives me all the reaosn I'd ever need to ditch them entirely.

Multiclassing has been part of the game since 1e

Regrettably

feats since 3e. Neither rule was any more optional than any other rule.

In those editions, no; uinless an enlightened DM saw fit to take them out, which some did.

In 5e they took the decision to make it easier for new players to get into the game, so they made these more complex bits 'optional'. But, for me, they are really part of the core game and making them optional is just a set of training wheels for the newbies that they'll take off as soon as they are ready.

Says you. To me, taking them out of 5e core makes the game playable.

That is a different thing than the DM offering players the chance to veto other people choosing ANY feat (sight unseen) on the spurious basis that choosing feats makes PCs less unique!

Further, why is multi-classing 'not allowed'? Do you think it's too complicated? If so, that shouldn't stop players who don't think it's too complicated from choosing to play a MC PC. Why would your campaign be destroyed if my PC took a fighter level?

It's possible to make a character unique without mechanical backup for this uniqueness; and such mechanical backup is most of the time completely unnecessary. Once you realize this a lot of mechanics (e.g. feats!) that otherwise just get in the way can be happily chucked to the sidelines.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, I see. So 3e did not actually introduce "character build", it just emphasized it more?

Yes. It took character build from a rules-mongering concept ignored by most reasonable players to a core concept without which your character would likely be unplayable.