D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[Sadras]

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.

I could be 100% incorrect but here is my assumption and preference: I prefer that they kept the manoeuvres/powers to minimum. I would like those to stand as a guideline for "what fighters can do at a certain level" rather than "fighters can do only this at this level". I don't want/need splat books with countless manoeuvres/powers.

Think of the fighter as having an in-built p42 of 4e. @Ruin Explorer very much informed me and no less than 4 others on Enworld that p42 was "THE SPIRIT OF 4E", and everything else was secondary. Everything else, I kid you not - go back to my history you will find it, if you want I can link it.

So if anything @Ruin Explorer, who according to all those that PM and XP him (refer to his post above), who also claim that he should not be called an outlier, must and should love 5e due to it keeping p42 alive and therefore in essence THE SPIRIT OF 4E.

Mearls actually did it! He united the fanbase. Viva la Mearls! Hugs for everyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you agree with me that the public playtest and public surveys increase the odds that WOTC will collect more representative data from the community than not doing public playtests and public surveys?

Actually, no, I can't agree with that. it all depends on the methodology. It's not at all difficult to collect data that are worse than useless. It also depends on what you're comparing it to. WotC probably hasn't been flying blind the whole time, it just didn't make a show of it as they did with the playtest.

Since WotC doesn't share anything about their market research activities, we can't assume that a highly-public, obviously flawed (for a number of reasons, including, of course, being self-selecting) survey gave them any better data than whatever their usual methods were. Not just because there's reason to suspect the survey, but because we don't know what it would be compared to.

Whether you're talking assumed 'market research' in the past, or the last, showy, survey, WotC hasn't shared much about the data, meta-data, or methods used. So if you put stock in the latest ed because it's 'based on data,' it's really little more than faith. With each ed, there have been folks very vocally displaying that sort of faith.

Do you agree with me that we should assume the creators desire to create a game with the best odds of selling well, so that they can keep their jobs, and therefore their greatest bias would be to use the data collection tools they have to gather the best possible data, and to make a game which most closely matches the results of their data?

No, I can't agree with that, either, due to my own personal experiences. It's the hardest thing in the world to get decision-makers to set aside their biases and agendas and look at data objectively.

It's different because they did much more extensive data collection of the marketplace, increasing both the quantity of data collected and they time frame they use to analyze that data and draft rules that best conform to it.

Since we don't know much about the latest collection effort, and know /nothing at all/ about previous ones, we cannot make that comparison.

I liked and played 4e for a long time. I used to routinely be called a 4e fanboy, and that mistophecy crack someone mentioned recently was about a rather infamous incident where I made a positive generalized prediction about 4e when it first came out.

And now you're doing the same for 5e. Which is great. The game /needs/ that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I could be 100% incorrect but here is my assumption and preference: I prefer that they kept the manoeuvres/powers to minimum. I would like those to stand as a guideline for "what fighters can do at a certain level" rather than "fighters can do only this at this level". I don't want/need splat books with countless manoeuvres/powers.

I could see that, if CS dice turn out to be presented as an open-ended system, with maneuvers explicitly cited as mere examples - and if anything that could be done with a fighter CS maneuver could not be done through improvisation by any other class.

Otherwise, the upshot "the fighter can only do this at X level, when he uses a CS die" is that non-fighters /can't do it at all/. In other words, a unique fighter ability.

Think of the fighter as having an in-built p42 of 4e.

P 42 was, ironically, a formal set of rules on how to improvise. Does the fighter have formal rules that allow him to improvise maneuvers and/or are other classes somehow restricted from improvising?

In the 'Rulings not Rules' philosophy of 5e, /everyone/ (and no one, but the DM) has a built-in (implied) p 42. In 4e, everyone could (formally) use p42. In 3e, there was Rule 0, even though, in practice RAW ruled. So, I'm not seeing how the 5e /fighter/, specifically, could be seen as benefiting from a lack of options.

 

[ExploderWizard]

P 42 was, ironically, a formal set of rules on how to improvise. Does the fighter have formal rules that allow him to improvise maneuvers and/or are other classes somehow restricted from improvising?

In the 'Rulings not Rules' philosophy of 5e, /everyone/ (and no one, but the DM) has a built-in (implied) p 42. In 4e, everyone could (formally) use p42. In 3e, there was Rule 0, even though, in practice RAW ruled. So, I'm not seeing how the 5e /fighter/, specifically, could be seen as benefiting from a lack of options.

P 42 was kind of pointless because it only provided level appropriate damage expressions. When players want to improvise a move then usually its because they want to do something other than just knocking off a few hit points. Why improvise when the end result is just more damage? Hitting it with your weapon has the same effect after all.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, no, I can't agree with that. it all depends on the methodology. It's not at all difficult to collect data that are worse than useless. It also depends on what you're comparing it to. WotC probably hasn't been flying blind the whole time, it just didn't make a show of it as they did with the playtest.

Since WotC doesn't share anything about their market research activities, we can't assume that a highly-public, obviously flawed (for a number of reasons, including, of course, being self-selecting) survey gave them any better data than whatever their usual methods were. Not just because there's reason to suspect the survey, but because we don't know what it would be compared to.

Whether you're talking assumed 'market research' in the past, or the last, showy, survey, WotC hasn't shared much about the data, meta-data, or methods used. So if you put stock in the latest ed because it's 'based on data,' it's really little more than faith. With each ed, there have been folks very vocally displaying that sort of faith.


No, I can't agree with that, either, due to my own personal experiences. It's the hardest thing in the world to get decision-makers to set aside their biases and agendas and look at data objectively.


Since we don't know much about the latest collection effort, and know /nothing at all/ about previous ones, we cannot make that comparison.

Well lets just say I think we know a whole lot more about both the prior 4e market analysis they did, and the current 5e one, and leave it at that.

And now you're doing the same for 5e. Which is great. The game /needs/ that.

No, I am not. I have not predicted anything for 5e. And when I say I did something infamous, and you immediately reply I am doing it again, I'd think you'd have more to support such a claim than that. Infamous isn't a good thing, it's a spectacularly bad thing, and the hobby does not need more of that, nor have I done that for 5e.

 

[Morrus]

But your argument rests on the assumption that ENWorld is tightly representative of the RPG industry as a whole, or D&D players as a whole, and I don't think anyone believes that - @Morrus , I certainly doubt does.

Actually, I've no particular reason to believe that we, as a group, are particularly abnormal. Our demographics are pretty typical for the industry as a whole, our sample size is certainly statistically significant, and it's been 15 years since the times when folks used to say "yeah, but people don't typically go online to read about and delve deeper into their hobbies, so this is a self-selecting hardcore group". Not any more, it isn't - heck, my grandmother does it (though not for D&D)! So I'd daresay we're reasonably representative.

We're planning a big industry survey soon which will answer questions like that for sure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well lets just say I think we know a whole lot more about both the prior 4e market analysis they did, and the current 5e one, and leave it at that.

AFAIK, absolutely nothing is known about whatever data they collected prior to 4e, prior to Essentials, or prior to the announcement of Next. And only a little is known about some of what went on during the playtest. If there's a 'whole lot more about it' out there somewhere, by all means, point to it.

No, I am not. I have not predicted anything for 5e

You weren't just saying that it was going to much better-represent what the fan base really wants because of some playtest survey?

And when I say I did something infamous, and you immediately reply I am doing it again, I'd think you'd have more to support such a claim than that. Infamous isn't a good thing, it's a spectacularly bad thing, and the hobby does not need more of that, nor have I done that for 5e.

Usually, when someone calls something they did 'infamous,' they're not /that/ entirely ashamed of it, or they just wouldn't mention it at all. Doubly so when you say you were somehow 'infamous' for saying something /positive/. How twisted is the community that saying something hopeful makes you 'infamous?'

 

[drjones]

Playtests? Surveys? Hogwash! Just ask me how everything should be and I will tell them. Problem solved.

 

[Umbran]

... and it's been 15 years since the times when folks used to say "yeah, but people don't typically go online to read about and delve deeper into their hobbies...

It isn't just reading, Morrus. It's taking part in an online community.

In the past year, I've played regular sessions with four different gaming groups, some two dozen players, and I'm the only one of the bunch who spends any time on a gaming messageboard.

Of course, this is anecdotal - my personal experience is just that. But, you know, the hobby is expected to be in the hundreds of thousands to millions of players, right? And from the major messageboards, how many active users are there? And the choice to become part of an online community is not random, but a self-selection...

Not any more, it isn't - heck, my grandmother does it (though not for D&D)! So I'd daresay we're reasonably representative.

I'd say we may be demonstrative - if an attitude exists, it probably exists among us. But we are not representative - the frequency of an attitude among us probably doesn't indicate teh frequency of that attitude in the larger audience.

We're planning a big industry survey soon which will answer questions like that for sure.

Ooh, now *that* sounds interesting! Who comprises this "we"? I am always curious about data!

 

[Morrus]

Ooh, now *that* sounds interesting! Who comprises this "we"? I am always curious about data!

Me, a market research/stats friend with great connections, an expensive market research company, Kickstarter, and I'm talking to a certain Mr. Dancey. The idea is to repeat (update) that massive survey from 2000 or so.

I'd say we may be demonstrative - if an attitude exists, it probably exists among us. But we are not representative - the frequency of an attitude among us probably doesn't indicate teh frequency of that attitude in the larger audience.

Well, OK, if you say so. It's not a conversation I'm particular inerested in having, if I'm honest; I've had it too many times. I only answered because Ruin asked about my opinion. That's about as far as I have the inclination to go on the subject right now!

​