D&D (2024) WotC On One D&D Playtest Survey Results: Nearly Everything Scored 80%+!

In a 40-minute video, WotC's Jeremy Crawford discussed the survey feedback to the 'Character Origins' playtest document. Over 40,000 engaged with the survey, and 39,000 completed it. I've summarised the content of the video below. High Scorers The highest scoring thing with almost 90% was getting a first level feat in your background. This is an example of an experimental thing -- like...

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a 40-minute video, WotC's Jeremy Crawford discussed the survey feedback to the 'Character Origins' playtest document. Over 40,000 engaged with the survey, and 39,000 completed it. I've summarised the content of the video below.

High Scorers
  • The highest scoring thing with almost 90% was getting a first level feat in your background. This is an example of an experimental thing -- like advantage and disadvantage in the original 5E playtests.
  • Almost everything also scored 80%+.
About The Scoring System
  • 70% or higher is their passing grade. In the 70s is a thumbs up but tinkering need. 80% means the community wants exactly that and WotC treads carefully not to change it too much.
  • In the 60s it's salvageable but it really needs reworking. Below 60% means that there's a good chance they'll drop it, and in the 40s or below it's gone. Nothing was in the 50s or below.
Low Scorers

Only 3 things dipped into the 60s --
  • the d20 Test rule in the Rules Glossary (experimental, no surprise)
  • the ardling
  • the dragonborn
The next UA had a different version of the d20 Test rule, and they expect a very different score when those survey resuts come in.

It was surprising that the dragonborn scored lower than the ardling. The next UA will include new versions of both. The main complaints were:
  • the dragonborn's breath weapon, and confusion between the relationship between that dragonborn and the one in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons.
  • the ardling was trying to do too much (aasimar-like and beast-person).
The ardling does not replace the aasimar. The next version will have a clearer identity.

Everything else scored in the 70s or 80s.

Some more scores:
  • new human 83%
  • dwarf, orc, tiefling, elf tied at 80-81%
  • gnome, halfling tied at 78%
Future installments of Unearthed Arcana
  • The next one will have new ardling and dragonborn, a surprise 'guest', and a new cleric. It will be a shorter document than the previous ones, and the one after that is bigger again. Various class groups.
  • Warrior group digs into something teased in a previous UA sidebar -- new weapon options for certain types of characters. Whole new ways to use weapons.
  • New rules on managing your character's home base. A new subsystem. Create bases with NPCs connected with them, implementing downtime rules. They're calling it the "Bastion System".
  • There will be a total of 48 subclasses in the playtest process.
  • New encounter building rules, monster customization options.
  • New versions of things which appear in the playtest after feedback.
Other Notes
  • Playtests are a version of something with the assumption that if something isn't in the playtest, it's still in the game (eg eldritch blast has not been removed from the game). The mage Unearthed Arcana will feature that.
  • Use an object and other actions are still as defined in the current Player's Handbook. The playtest material is stuff that has changed.
  • Thief subclass's cunning action does not interact with use an object; this is intentional. Removed because the original version is a 'Mother may I?" mechanic - something that only works if the DM cooperates with you. In general mechanics which require DM permission are unsatisfying. The use an object action might go away, but that decision will be a made via the playtest process.
  • The ranger's 1st-level features also relied too heavily on DM buy-in, also wild magic will be addressed.
  • If you have a class feature you should be able to use it in the way you expect.
  • If something is removed from the game, they will say so.
  • Great Weapon Fighting and Sharpshooter were changed because the penalty to the attack roll was not big enough to justify the damage bonus, plus they want warrior classes to be able to rely on their class features (including new weapon options) for main damage output. They don't want any feats to feel mandatory to deal satisfying damage. Feats which are 'must haves' violate their design goals.
  • Light Weapon property amped up by removing the bonus action requirement because requiring light weapon users to use their bonus action meant there were a lot of bad combinations with features and spells which require bonus actions. It felt like a tax on light weapon use.
  • Class spell lists are still an open question. Focus on getting used to the three big spell lists. Feedback was that it would be nice to still have a class list to summarize what can be picked from the 'master lists'. For the bard that would be useful, for the cleric and wizard not necessary as they can choose from the whole divine or arcane list.
The playtest process will continue for a year.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
People aren't mega-corporations.

A lot of the people on this site work for mega-corporations. Are they all untrustworthy automatons who only care about money?

If you or I can work for a corporation and care about being decent people and doing a decent job, it doesn't seem like a big ask to extend that grace to the folks at WotC.
1. At the mega-corps what you say about the company in public can directly affect your livelihood, especially if it's derogatory about the company. Which means at best you are only really hearing half the story from the people working there.

2. It's not so much that they are necessarily untrustworthy, it's that there's a gaping conflict of interest. Kind of like with a used car salesman or a politician.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I think they can tell "actually not very popular but a vocal minority loves it." as it wont get to 60%. That's why aardlings are staying. And the comments and video saying "they hate it" turned out to be the minority.

But "controversial but still good" and "vocal minority hates it but most players love it," will both give you 70%. So then they'd have to dig into the comments and hope to find a trend.
The problem is in sample representativeness.

If a vocal minority hates something, they may drown out the mild positive responses. Consider, for instance, the playtest Warlock and Sorcerer. I have never spoken with someone who has said they actually just completely disliked them, and yet they got deleted so hard the classes never recovered during the public playtest and the classes we actually got were very clearly flawed and remain a sore spot for the game's balance today.

A vocal hater minority is much more driven than even a vocal adoring minority. They may even resort to underhanded tactics (like trying to respond multiple times to the survey) in order to bias the results. They will be driven to respond. If most players are perfectly fine with a change but 10% hate it with a passion, you can easily get biased results.

Given they have neither actually trained social psychology folks on staff, nor anyone with anything more than a cursory education in statistics, they simply do not have the technical knowledge required to address these issues. There is no need to assume malfeasance or conniving trickery; ignorance of statistics, survey design, and player psychology is more than enough to explain the faults of their process.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Nah I’ve met a lot of new D&D players who have played a couple times with friends, or have ongoing games with friends, all of whom began together.

None of them found it difficult to pick up.

In fact, things liken the ambiguity (freedom) of the skill system mostly seems to bother Raw-Only vets with old system expectations vastly more than new players, IME
Oh when you're all new, there's no problem because you don't know when there's a mistake or that your improv is a disaster if repeated.

The issue I am describing was when you mix the old and new.

A new DM can use the DMG for vet players because the vet players will move in way and have expectations that the DMG doesn't tell you.

For example, the master manual is not written using the rules of the dungeon master's guide. So if you run straight MM rules new players won't figure out that the monsters are too easy with all the items you tossed out and the game is too easy but veteran players will realize.

Or for players, the PHB only has few fully noob class/subclass.and none of them teach you the magic or skill system.
 


Remathilis

Legend
The people who are most likely to engage with the survey are already 5e fans. The new revision is changing very little. Ergo, the 5e fans are happy that few meaningful changes are being proposed.
I'm a little shocked that the entirety of the playtest packets don't have a 96% approval rate.
I want real change to the game, but what can I do besides take a survey and respond "scrap most of this and do something new, or just reprint the 2014 version with a new commemorative cover."
I mean, I filled out all the Pathfinder 2e feedback with "scrap this and just support 5e" but they didn't listen either.
 

Hussar

Legend
Given they have neither actually trained social psychology folks on staff, nor anyone with anything more than a cursory education in statistics, they simply do not have the technical knowledge required to address these issues. There is no need to assume malfeasance or conniving trickery; ignorance of statistics, survey design, and player psychology is more than enough to explain the faults of their process.
Do you really think that they are going through 39000 responses by themselves? That they haven't hired a firm to handle things?

Why would you presume that WotC is doing this 100% in house?
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
You're more in the Mearls era than the current one. If they're going for a 70% success rate as their primary means of feedback they do have ways to weed out over-amplified vocal minorities unless survey stuffing is going on.
70% success rate has been claimed as the cutoff from the Next playtest and the failure to meet it after one single attempt is allegedly why the original Warlock and Sorcerer failed to get even a single attempt to fix it.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
The problem is in sample representativeness.

If a vocal minority hates something, they may drown out the mild positive responses. Consider, for instance, the playtest Warlock and Sorcerer. I have never spoken with someone who has said they actually just completely disliked them, and yet they got deleted so hard the classes never recovered during the public playtest and the classes we actually got were very clearly flawed and remain a sore spot for the game's balance today.

A vocal hater minority is much more driven than even a vocal adoring minority. They may even resort to underhanded tactics (like trying to respond multiple times to the survey) in order to bias the results. They will be driven to respond. If most players are perfectly fine with a change but 10% hate it with a passion, you can easily get biased results.

Given they have neither actually trained social psychology folks on staff, nor anyone with anything more than a cursory education in statistics, they simply do not have the technical knowledge required to address these issues. There is no need to assume malfeasance or conniving trickery; ignorance of statistics, survey design, and player psychology is more than enough to explain the faults of their process.
The DNDNext Playtest had too high a barrier for consideration. This allowed a minority to gatekeep.

This play test doesn't have that high barrier according to Crawford.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top