D&D (2024) One D&D origins playtest survey is live

[Reynard]

This is, unfortunately, one of those things that people are just never going to accept no matter how many times or in how many ways WotC says it.

When and where do they say this? And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater? Seriously, if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works, it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design, it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about. It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.

I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever. Which is fine and is the way design should be done. But it's pretty naughty word to invite your fans in just to market to them.

 

[JEB]

I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.

Eh, I think we can be pretty sure that's not true. If that was so, we'd have gotten a psionic class, and they wouldn't have revised the kender, off the top of my head.

 

[Parmandur]

When and where do they say this? And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater? Seriously, if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works, it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design, it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about. It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.

I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever. Which is fine and is the way design should be done. But it's pretty naughty word to invite your fans in just to market to them.

They say this literally every time they discuss UA. It isn't a tool for gathering hard math data, it is market testing. It prevents them from working beyond draft form on rules that aren't popular. The hard testing comes after the UA draft, in the private play test network.

 

[Reynard]

They say this literally every time they discuss UA. It isn't a tool for gathering hard math data, it is market testing. It prevents them from working beyond draft form on rules that aren't popular. The hard testing comes after the UA draft, in the private play test network.

Quote it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I prefer "add max weapon die value" - then you don't need to pick your dice up again. (I know people like to roll dice, but you can do that NEXT round.) It keeps crits from ever being disappointing when you roll lower on two (or more) dice than you often do on one.

So does maxing the normal dice and then rolling again.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When and where do they say this? And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater? Seriously, if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works,

Where are you getting this notion?

it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design, it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about.

They absolutely should care. It’s more important than most other factors.

It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.

This is a grossly overwrought usage of the term predatory.

I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever.

The case is the opposite of this.

 

[Parmandur]

Quote it.

The packet talks about how this is not a balancing playtest, Crawford talks about the process a bit in the video attached, and he has detailed it in numerous Sage Advice videos, please do look them up if you want to know.more about the process. Mearls, back in his Happy Fun Hour, talked extensively about this as well, as thst was a demonstration of the initial drafting phasez what they would do before a UA article, which then they would survey and see if people were interested enough to move along to hard playtesting. UA is taste testing, not math balance testing.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So does maxing the normal dice and then rolling again.

? I'm not sure what you mean. Why would you max a die you've already rolled and then roll it again? That's just a wasted step. I mean, yeah, it's the same thing, other than the waste of time.

 

[Charlaquin]

When and where do they say this?

Literally right at the beginning of the playtest packet, in the sidebar marked “this is playtest material.” Here’s the relevant bit:

Power Level. The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the Player’s Handbook (2014). If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before official publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form.

And assuming it is accurate why do they bother with a public playtest at all other than as theater?

To get a sense of general interest (or disinterest) in the options presented. They want to know the audience’s broad emotional reactions to the concepts. They work out the design specifics between their designers and their private playtesters.

Seriously, if the public playtest doesn't have enough information to actually judge whether a thing works, it is essentially useless for design -- which means the public playtest isn't about design, it's about "feelings" which literally no one responsible for a revised edition of D&D should give a single solitary naughty word about.

I strongly disagree that the designers shouldn’t care about the audience’s feelings. That’s… kinda the thing they should care about the most. But, yes, you have correctly identified that gauging feelings is the purpose of the open playtests.

It's disingenuous. Even worse, inviting the current fanbase to give their feedback with no intention of it mattering is predatory.

It isn’t disingenuous at all; they are very open about the fact that they are gathering feedback on the concepts, not the specific design. The feedback does absolutely matter, because if the general response to an idea is too negative, they’ll change or (more likely) drop it.

I think maybe they don't care what their fans think and will do whatever. Which is fine and is the way design should be done. But it's pretty naughty word to invite your fans in just to market to them.

They do very much care what the fans think. Or more precisely, how the fans feel. The lesson they learned from 4e is that feel is paramount. But no, they don’t care about fans’ design ideas, and have never really claimed they do.

 

[JEB]

Having just finished the survey, I'd say the new inspiration and long rest rules are among the things most subject to change. They called them out specifically in my survey.