D&D 5E This Game is Deadly

[Mistwell]

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 means no dude.

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

Nope. And I repeatedly made that clear that I was talking about increasing the odds, but it was definitely not a sure thing. Not sure how much clearer I could have made it, as I said that several times, and took responses to it so used that as an opportunity to spell it out in different way so there would be no confusion on the matter. AND I said it directly to you, and then asked you if you agreed, in the very thread you just made that accusation in. So, I am not sure where your confusion could come from - you knew going in (having JUST replied to it moments before) I was talking about an increase in the odds it will better represent, and not a certainty it will better represent, the fanbase. You had JUST answered this question from me, "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?"

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?'

It was not a hopeful thing I had said, and I mentioned it because it was recently brought up by someone else here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And I repeatedly made that clear that I was talking about increasing the odds, but it was definitely not a sure thing.

I'll be sure to file each slice of that hair separately.

It was not a hopeful thing I had said, and I mentioned it because it was recently brought up by someone else here.

Excuse me for construing the making of "a positive generalized prediction" about a newly-released edition as 'hopeful.' I'll try to keep in mind that any positive predictions or generalizations you make about 5e are meant to be pessimistic or despairing in some way.

 

[Mistwell]

I'll be sure to file each slice of that hair separately.

Excuse me for construing the making of "a positive generalized prediction" about a newly-released edition as 'hopeful.' I'll try to keep in mind that any positive predictions or generalizations you make about 5e are meant to be pessimistic or despairing in some way.

No need for the passive aggressive tone dude. All you had to do was ask for the quote in question if you were curious. The word infamous was your clue to how I felt about it, I thought.

 

[ren1999]

There is a thread of discussion on Reddit where a first time DM discusses his TPK.

"First time DM, TPK, 5e Starter Kit"

I told him not to fudge the rolls but rather have the monsters do static average damage and throw in a few party NPCs. This was good advice I received here on EnWorld.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Yeah, three groups, a little over a dozen players myself in the last year, and likewise, I am the only one who spends any time on RPG-related messageboards, AFAICT.

The absolutely most serious optimizer among them (thankfully no longer an actual munchkin/game breaker!) does sometimes do searches that result in him finding optimization guides and the like (which he tends to then ignore as boring, thank god), but the idea of posting? It's alien to him. Neither of the other DMs does (one of them did reviews for RPG.net in the '90s but never posted there).

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.

That was my feeling.
[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] - That's pretty exciting news, and I hope the results get released, but even if not, interesting stuff!