Yaarel
🇮🇱 🇺🇦 He-Mage
I am only now coming across this. Here is the claimed leak by D&D Shorts on his Twitter account:
Quick Thoughts
• The surveys are "just a temperature test" on whether people like something.
Is that so difficult to believe?
Regarding the playtest back for 2014 to create the 5e version of the game, we hear from the 5e designers themselves, they cared deeply about the unprecedentedly massive playtest and its feedback. We know, the D&D staff read every single comment on every single survey. 5e is the result.
But even then, the designers described the survey process. They would make a proposal in a playtest. If it gained sufficient approval in surveys (varied from 80% to 60%), they would stick with the proposal. If the approval was insufficient, they would read the commentary and work on a revision in a future playtest.
In other words, the surveys also functioned as a "temperature test" even back then in 2014.
• We dont want to know what armchair gamers think would be better rules.
Now for the upcoming 2024, the designers are seeking "backward compatibility". In other words, they arent seeking significantly new mechanics. The surveys are mostly a "temperature test". They dont want "better rules" for a new version. They seek to polish up the old 5e version. This mood suggests 5.5 rather than 6e.
The source of D&D Shorts sounds plausible on this point.
(Personally, I suspect the shift into a digital experience is inherently a gamechanger, and it will be 6e after all. But I can believe the designers are finetuning the mechanical engine for a 5.5.)
• You ever fill out those surveys. Nobody reads anything you type in those. Nobody.
I would have expected the following process. Playtest → Survey → High Approval → Ignore comments in Survey. But otherwise: Playtest → Survey → Low Approval → Read comments in Survey.
The claim is surprising that nobody is on staff to read the survey comments for playtests that received low approval.
But if the goal is backward compatible with what already exists in 5e, is it implausible that there is no staff dedicated to read the survey comments? I would still think the designers themselves would peruse the commentary for any significant disapproval. So there is some eyebrow raising.
• A senior designer said ... : Were making the next version of the rules, not our customers.
• Surveys have a written component ... because ... we channel them to not be disruptive.
Such a stance is disappointing − aggressive and disregarding. But is it implausible that at least one of the senior designers feels this way?
Generally, the designers want backward compatibility. They dont want a new variation of D&D. They have a clear view of what they themselves feel needs to be fixed in 5e.
Maybe the 5e designers dont want feedback on ideas?
But they do want to doublecheck if their new fixes meet a sufficient approval.
[Edit]: D&D Shorts himself is aware of conflicting accounts about this source, suggesting the source is incorrect on certain points. He now tweets:
"Others can confirm the sources I'm in contact with. But, it seems that these insiders were incorrect on this unless more information comes to light. I'm still at a loss how two such conflicting accounts came to be. I'll keep you updated on this story, and the whole story."
If the designers actually do have staff to check comments for items that received low approvals (a low temperature), I can believe that.
But if they ignore comments for items that receive high approval, I can also believe that.
In the future, time and money permitting, I suspect staff will eventually go thru all of the comments to hunt for any gems. But this wont be for 2024, it would be for supplements or other products.
D&D Shorts notes, "everyone" speaks well of Winninger the president during 2014 and Crawford a lead designer during it.
Quick Thoughts
• The surveys are "just a temperature test" on whether people like something.
Is that so difficult to believe?
Regarding the playtest back for 2014 to create the 5e version of the game, we hear from the 5e designers themselves, they cared deeply about the unprecedentedly massive playtest and its feedback. We know, the D&D staff read every single comment on every single survey. 5e is the result.
But even then, the designers described the survey process. They would make a proposal in a playtest. If it gained sufficient approval in surveys (varied from 80% to 60%), they would stick with the proposal. If the approval was insufficient, they would read the commentary and work on a revision in a future playtest.
In other words, the surveys also functioned as a "temperature test" even back then in 2014.
• We dont want to know what armchair gamers think would be better rules.
Now for the upcoming 2024, the designers are seeking "backward compatibility". In other words, they arent seeking significantly new mechanics. The surveys are mostly a "temperature test". They dont want "better rules" for a new version. They seek to polish up the old 5e version. This mood suggests 5.5 rather than 6e.
The source of D&D Shorts sounds plausible on this point.
(Personally, I suspect the shift into a digital experience is inherently a gamechanger, and it will be 6e after all. But I can believe the designers are finetuning the mechanical engine for a 5.5.)
• You ever fill out those surveys. Nobody reads anything you type in those. Nobody.
I would have expected the following process. Playtest → Survey → High Approval → Ignore comments in Survey. But otherwise: Playtest → Survey → Low Approval → Read comments in Survey.
The claim is surprising that nobody is on staff to read the survey comments for playtests that received low approval.
But if the goal is backward compatible with what already exists in 5e, is it implausible that there is no staff dedicated to read the survey comments? I would still think the designers themselves would peruse the commentary for any significant disapproval. So there is some eyebrow raising.
• A senior designer said ... : Were making the next version of the rules, not our customers.
• Surveys have a written component ... because ... we channel them to not be disruptive.
Such a stance is disappointing − aggressive and disregarding. But is it implausible that at least one of the senior designers feels this way?
Generally, the designers want backward compatibility. They dont want a new variation of D&D. They have a clear view of what they themselves feel needs to be fixed in 5e.
Maybe the 5e designers dont want feedback on ideas?
But they do want to doublecheck if their new fixes meet a sufficient approval.
[Edit]: D&D Shorts himself is aware of conflicting accounts about this source, suggesting the source is incorrect on certain points. He now tweets:
"Others can confirm the sources I'm in contact with. But, it seems that these insiders were incorrect on this unless more information comes to light. I'm still at a loss how two such conflicting accounts came to be. I'll keep you updated on this story, and the whole story."
If the designers actually do have staff to check comments for items that received low approvals (a low temperature), I can believe that.
But if they ignore comments for items that receive high approval, I can also believe that.
In the future, time and money permitting, I suspect staff will eventually go thru all of the comments to hunt for any gems. But this wont be for 2024, it would be for supplements or other products.
D&D Shorts notes, "everyone" speaks well of Winninger the president during 2014 and Crawford a lead designer during it.
Last edited:
It just sounds like you’re describing syndicalism to me. Which is not a bad thing by any means, I’m very much in support of syndicalism!
