D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[Eirikrautha]

What is this ft. Bragg touchstone you are referencing? I am piqued!

God, now you've gone and made me look the darn thing up . It's a story from a Dragon magazine (AD&D era, I think) about how intelligently used low-level monsters can still be lethal. Someone has made a webpage of the original article:

http://www.tuckerskobolds.com/

 

[Mistwell]

So it was wrong for 4e and wrong again for Essentials, when they did claim they had a mountain of feedback data that pointed at the majority wanting exactly Essentials, and we heard a constant refrain of "WotC has the data! WotC did the market research!" but is right, now, because this time the vaguely-referenced mountain of data is claimed to be pointing in a direction you like.

Fine. It's always "different this time."

Now you're being disingenuous. My post was not "I disagree", and it's obvious to anyone who followed our conversation why you cut the remainder of my post, as your response makes no sense once people see the context. I detailed all the major differences between the two approaches. If all you want is a one-way conversation, then have at it mate. But if you actually want to have a two-way conversation, then cut the crap and reply to what I actually said as opposed to the blatant strawman you just pulled.

 

[SteveC]

I disagree. For 4e, WOTC did no large open playtest, their closed playtest was much more limited in both scope and timeframe, they did not hire a larger staff of outside consultants, they did not engage in a large amount of open surveys, they did not engage customers as much on social media, in fact almost none of the stuff I mentioned is stuff they did for 4e. And some of the very same people who did 4e are now saying they made a mistake by basing decisions on assumptions that they had not tested with consumers, and they're now finding some of those assumptions were false.

I'd just like to reply about what I call the playtest fallacy . "There was this huge playtest, so the stuff we're seeing in this edition is what the fans want, it has to be!"

As someone who's group participated in the playtest and send feedback all the time, I can say that 5E never had even basic design decisions in it the reflected the kind of game we wanted to play. The first edition of the playtest removed almost everything from 4E, and that was a deliberate choice. I definitely get that: 5E was designed to be a reaction to what happened with 4E, and to bring back the folks who left because of it. I get that.

The thing is, by not exploring, well, pretty much anything that came in with 4E WotC never gave anyone a chance to comment on those developments. There was never a public playtest of a fighter who had powers, for instance. There is supposedly the Battlemaster who will have maneuver like abilities, but the public never got to see it.

We had things like the "damage on a miss," and look what a kerfuffle that turned into. The thing was, the DOAM thing was taken as a rejection of all things 4E when it really wasn't a design component that anyone really cared about in the positive. The power system (AEDU) and character balance? Yeah, those were the important parts.

I didn't have much positive to say during the playtest. About the only thing I could talk about was when cantrips were added back in so that Wizards weren't entirely Vancian again.

As far as the assumptions of 4E being incorrect. I think one must take those comments with more than a grain of salt: if they're coming from the recent Schwab article, they're from someone who didn't actually like 4E in the first place. Moreover, they're exactly the sort of thing you'd say when you're making changes... they're just done with a better Diplomacy check than during the 4E period.

And here is my example of why I don't normally post on issues like this. I expect, "man, what's this guy's deal?" to be the large response to my post. I get that. Enjoy 5E. Hopefully when there's a 5.25 I'll join you. In the mean time, no one confiscated my 4E books, and 13th Age is awesome.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now you're being disingenuous. My post was not "I disagree",.

You went on about 4e and what they 'didn't' do - actually just didn't do publicly, which you equated to not doing at all - and ignored the actual point.

You want to go on about how WotC has sooo much data and market research on which they based 5e, and therefor 'the majority' must want what you want. Fine. Just be aware that you're not the first one to do that. Folks claimed Essentials was what everyone wanted for the same reason - that WotC had all this 'data' and 'market research.' The same assumption - that the 'big company' had those resources (whether they made a point of a public context for them or not, and however much or little of the results they shared) - was made about 4e. Probably 3e, too, though I don't recall anyone resorting to such arguments at the time.

It's a facile, and ultimately meaningless assumption.

And, it's just representative of the cycle we're seeing. Each rev-roll has it's instant fanboys and instant critics who won't hear a word against it or can't say enough bad about it, and they're always casting about for ways to justify themselves.

 

[Mistwell]

I'd just like to reply about what I call the playtest fallacy . "There was this huge playtest, so the stuff we're seeing in this edition is what the fans want, it has to be!"

When someone says that, then it would make sense to reply to it. But nobody said that, except you. Nobody said the playtest was some flawless representation of what people want. All I, or anyone I have seen, has said is that it tends to be a better tool to measure consumer sentiment than not doing such a large open playtest. The results you get for it have better odds of being correct - and odds are not 100%, just indications of what is or is not a "good bet".

As far as the assumptions of 4E being incorrect. I think one must take those comments with more than a grain of salt

Well after you just went on an extensive rant about how much you didn't like the development process for 5e, it's no doubt that you take it with a grain of salt. I don't though. The idea that the designers are lying, that they are engaging in some large conspiracy to misrepresent their findings so they can present their own personal preferences, and to do it in a way that would directly run contrary to them keeping their jobs (because the implication is they are going against what the majority of respondents want, which means the game won't sell well, which means they will be more likely to get laid off) is an extraordinary claim which therefore requires extraordinary evidence to support it.

Baring such evidence, I think it's fair to accept their comments as prima facia correct.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There was never a public playtest of a fighter who had powers, for instance. There is supposedly the Battlemaster who will have maneuver like abilities, but the public never got to see it.

There was the weaponmaster in one of the later packets, it used basically the same CS-dice system, but had only 6 maneuvers, all gained automatically, no choices - and, IIRC, CS dice were still essentially 'encounter' mechanics, the short rest hadn't been pushed out to an hour. It was pretty sad as a 'complex fighter' meant to provide the same kind of awesome as the 4e fighter and it's hundreds of exploits, but it was tested. Presumably the battlemaster will be about the same, but choose it's 6 maneuvers from a list of 16.

As far as the assumptions of 4E being incorrect. I think one must take those comments with more than a grain of salt: if they're coming from the recent Schwab article, they're from someone who didn't actually like 4E in the first place. Moreover, they're exactly the sort of thing you'd say when you're making changes... they're just done with a better Diplomacy check than during the 4E period.

Can't've been that high a diplomacy check....

Hopefully when there's a 5.25 I'll join you. In the mean time, no one confiscated my 4E books, and 13th Age is awesome.

That's another good point. As much as I'd like to see 5e decide, I haven't bought the starter set - it's redundant for an old-timer, I haven't bought one since 1980 - and I'm still not sure I shouldn't just wait for the half-ed. They did it with 3.5 and with Essentials, can we really count on it "being different this time?"

The idea that the designers are lying, that they are engaging in some large conspiracy to misrepresent their findings so they can present their own personal preferences, and to do it in a way that would directly run contrary to them keeping their jobs is an extraordinary claim which therefore requires extraordinary evidence to support it.

Baring such evidence, I think it's fair to accept their comments as prima facia correct.

Wow. It really is like deja-vu all over again.

When someone likes what the design team is doing, the designers know everything and are infallible. Don't like it? They're incompetent. What about human, professional, and making tough decisions in the face of limited resources?

 

[jgsugden]

When 4E came out, there was a large crowd complaining about how ridiculously hard it was for a PC to die - that there was no challenge to the game when you could not fail. There was also a large crowd saying that the safety padding of 4E was a wonderful improvement because people hated to have their character die.

The axe is swinging back the other way. This is not going to please everyone, but it is no less valid a method than 4E. Embrace what it is.

 

[Zhaleskra]

You can't please everyone. To aim to do so is the height or arrogance.

Here's a link to a Game Theory episode. The most important bit falls between 2:14 and 2:40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXcr6sDRtw

 

[Mistwell]

You went on about 4e and what they 'didn't' do - actually just didn't do publicly, which you equated to not doing at all - and ignored the actual point.

OK, enough. Now you're outright lying about what I said. Which is why I said please stop cutting the context from my post when replying to it, so people can see what you are responding to. I listed 5 items, and 2 of those 5 were not "public" I said their closed playtest was much more limited in both scope and timeframe, they did not hire a larger staff of outside consultants. Neither is public, and my statement is correct. In hindsight the designers have admitted to a series of things which, while not known at the time, are now known to be the case - IE that they did not do as much market research as they should have done, and those are two of several things they think they should have done.

As for the remainder of the list, they did NOT do those things on the list either. For 4e, WOTC did no large open playtest, they did not engage in a large amount of open surveys, and they did not engage customers as much on social media. That's all true (and the last of those items was not done privately either).

You want to go on about how WotC has sooo much data and market research on which they based 5e, and therefor 'the majority' must want what you want. Fine.

No, I said it's more likely to get you a better read on the marketplace than not doing those things. Are you arguing different?

Just be aware that you're not the first one to do that. Folks claimed Essentials was what everyone wanted for the same reason - that WotC had all this 'data' and 'market research.' The same assumption - that the 'big company' had those resources (whether they made a point of a public context for them or not, and however much or little of the results they shared) - was made about 4e. Probably 3e, too, though I don't recall anyone resorting to such arguments at the time.

And again, we know about major, meaningful differences between the methods used to gather that data, and we know the data they've gathered this time is much greater in quantity than it was before (by orders of magnitude). That's meaningful. It's not a 100% certainty, but doing that increases the accuracy odds.

It's a facile, and ultimately meaningless assumption.

It's not though, and you have yet to make any argument that supports that view. You have to actually show that the major differences between the two methods are meaningless, to make that claim. You have not done so, and in fact have engaged in routine straw-manning and outright lying about my position when responding rather than using this opportunity to provide even a shred of support for your position.

And, it's just representative of the cycle we're seeing. Each rev-roll has it's instant fanboys and instant critics who won't hear a word against it or can't say enough bad about it, and they're always casting about for ways to justify themselves.

And that hasty generalization is itself facile and meaningless. I'm critical of plenty of aspects of 5e, and I was a fan of 4e as well. It's really easy to just dismiss someone as a hater or fanboy, than it is to deal with the positions they actually hold.

And now I am sure you will cut most of the context from my post, mischaracterize it, and respond with another strawman.

 

[Mistwell]

When someone likes what the design team is doing, the designers know everything and are infallible. Don't like it? They're incompetent. What about human, professional, and making tough decisions in the face of limited resources?

You didn't credit me on that quote so I had to happen to notice it. But no, that's yet another strawman of yours. I didn't say they know everything and are infallible. I did like 4e (and 3e), and I've never called anyone there incompetent. None of your characterization of my post is accurate, and it's no surprise you left my name off it.