D&D General Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?

[Thomas Shey]

In no particular order-

The reason I noted that you don't play 5e is not because you are not allowed to discuss 5e. It's for a more salient reason- while you might think that your lack of playing 5e somehow makes you more dispassionate or a better observer or something with regard to this conversation (about the statistics of people playing 5e), others might view it as odd. Because ... you are very invested in a conversation over which you have no first-hand knowledge. Other than observing the comments on these boards, which are not representative of the player base as a whole, you really can't speak to the issues that people keep telling you. So when people (as they always do) keep saying that there is a high demand for the "simple fighter," especially for new players, it is bizarre that you choose to push back so hard given that you don't actually have any knowledge at all. Again, since 2015 I have run games for new players, repeatedly, for years, and the fighter is the single most popular choice, over and over again, over the course of years. These are players that are new to D&D, so it's not like they've been "contaminated" with past edition knowledge. And this anecdotal experience matches with the anecdotal experience of other people with similar experiences that I have spoken to. Moreover, it matches with the stats that are reported.

The problem here is that I've seen the same claims outside 5er, and outside the D&D-sphere before, with the same, to be charitable, assumptions that the data applies. And I don't even think its wrong, per se (it would be a bit of a stretch to not suggest that people sometimes want a simple character type to play at best). I'm just noting that the degree to which people insist its true in any game whatsoever is not heavily supported in any objective way, but people will certainly act like it is. And this isn't the only area where that's true.

Next, you complain about the data set. Again, we see the same thing here that we have seen every single time a data set is reported. The fighter comes out as the top choice.

And I've never suggested it wouldn't be. What I've challenged is the assumptions about why.

Finally, I am not going to further address your issues with WoTC's survey methodology. There has been enough ink spilled on the issue of their choice to design in a "safe" manner by only making broadly popular changes. It is what it is; that said, I don't particularly care to go down the rabbit hole of those who will often criticize WoTC for "slavishly following surveys" and refusing to make bold choices on the one hand, and then criticizing WoTC for not correctly using data on the other hand.

If you assume I have both those positions, I'd like a quote to show it, otherwise I'm not required to carry water for other people's pathologies. If the surveys are properly done (but I consider that a massive "if") and interpreted, then I'd say WOTC's decision here is entirely logical, at least on a business and property growth basis. I am just unwilling to make that assumption because I've seen too many cases of business related surveys that fell on the rocks too many ways, and very few companies are willing to reveal their methodologies fully for me to extend trust as a given.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Okay, its a fair cop that you can have potentially simple basic combatants if the system otherwise has mechanical options that allow that simple framework to be applied in varied and at least moderately useful ways. I'd question whether you can then have characters of that type that are distinct in meaningful ways (one of the things along with the lack of said tactical options that drove me out of OD&D) but that's a separate issue there.

I think that the distinction you are highlighting is the same old issue people have when they discuss this- this is what is referred to in FKR circles as "tactical infinity."

On one side, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&D) that the lack of specified options is what provides the freedom of more options. People argued against the introduction of the Thief class because once you gave specified abilities to one class, you were necessarily excluding those abilities from other classes (kind of the TTRPG equivalent of expressio unius est exclusio alterius).

On the other hand, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&D) that it is only by providing specified abilities that you can have a richness of play; without knowing what the end-result of a declaration is, you always end up in the world of DM adjudication.

Usually, more colorful terms are used, but I'm sure you've seen this play out enough times to know what I'm talking about. Generally, it comes down to preferences in styles of play. Some people are more comfortable with one, some more comfortable with the other. Arguably, 5e tries to please both crowds, which means that it is often unsatisfying to people who are strong proponents of either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that the distinction you are highlighting is the same old issue people have when they discuss this- this is what is referred to in FKR circles as "tactical infinity."

On one side, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&D) that the lack of specified options is what provides the freedom of more options. People argued against the introduction of the Thief class because once you gave specified abilities to one class, you were necessarily excluding those abilities from other classes (kind of the TTRPG equivalent of expressio unius est exclusio alterius).

On the other hand, people will argue (and have argued, as you know, since OD&D) that it is only by providing specified abilities that you can have a richness of play; without knowing what the end-result of a declaration is, you always end up in the world of DM adjudication.

Usually, more colorful terms are used, but I'm sure you've seen this play out enough times to know what I'm talking about. Generally, it comes down to preferences in styles of play. Some people are more comfortable with one, some more comfortable with the other. Arguably, 5e tries to please both crowds, which means that it is often unsatisfying to people who are strong proponents of either.

Yup. I'm fairly firmly on one side of that, but I don't claim that to be anything but a preference.

 

[Oofta]

Okay, its a fair cop that you can have potentially simple basic combatants if the system otherwise has mechanical options that allow that simple framework to be applied in varied and at least moderately useful ways. I'd question whether you can then have characters of that type that are distinct in meaningful ways (one of the things along with the lack of said tactical options that drove me out of OD&D) but that's a separate issue there.

That said, I tend to go in a bit suspicious about how well a game system actually provides tactical options because whether they're genuinely useful or illusory has been, in my experience, a coin flip, but as I've noted I'm not qualified to make a statement which side of the coin D&D 5e lands on.

You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same desire for detailed tactical that you have. In my experience, most people don't. If they do, there are fighter subclasses that have a few options, you can multi-class or you can just play a different class altogether. If that's not enough there are 3PP like Morris's Level Up.

But I have players who really, really should have just done a champion fighter. I used to occasionally remind them to use even the most basic of abilities, action surge. I don't remember the last time they did even that or any of their maneuvers. They still have fun with the game, but tactical play? Not a thing for them.

For me, I did a champion fighter and had fun with it because sometimes I just want simple. My last fighter was a Rune Knight that was a blast. I'm running a wizard now and (unlike a lot of people) use more than 1 or 2 spells but it's no more or less fun to play than any of the other options I've had.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same desire for detailed tactical that you have.

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is if the system doesn't supply it, saying you can still do it only makes sense if you're willing to play a fine old game I call "playing the GM". If a game doesn't do that, then, yes, by my standards its not giving me what I need. If it does to other people, fine for them, but bluntly, why should I care? Its like (to use an ongoing joke around here) someone saying "But some people like pineapple pizza!" to which the appropriate response to people who don't, especially if they can't get anything else is quite legitimately "So?"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"But some people like pineapple pizza!" to which the appropriate response to people who don't, especially if they can't get anything else is quite legitimately "So?"

Zeno: Some people like pineapple pizza!

Achilles: If they like pineapple pizza, are they really people?

 

[Oofta]

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is if the system doesn't supply it, saying you can still do it only makes sense if you're willing to play a fine old game I call "playing the GM". If a game doesn't do that, then, yes, by my standards its not giving me what I need. If it does to other people, fine for them, but bluntly, why should I care? Its like (to use an ongoing joke around here) someone saying "But some people like pineapple pizza!" to which the appropriate response to people who don't, especially if they can't get anything else is quite legitimately "So?"

Ever play the "War" card game? You shuffle deck of cards then split the cards equally. One at a time, you flip over a card with the player with the higher card taking both. Player with the most cards at the end wins.

That is a game with no tactical options. Even the simplest fighter build has tactical options in D&D. What level of tactical options are available and what people actually want to play is a different story. What passes for "useful options" is in the eye of the beholder. For a lot of people the only useful option they care about is which enemy they attack.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Zeno: Some people like pineapple pizza!

Achilles: If they like pineapple pizza, are they really people?

Well, that gets into the "Pineapple pizza is bad and you should feel bad for liking it" which is its own problem; knowing what you want and arguing for it is one thing; even actively disliking somet things. Putting people down for liking different things is a whole 'nother, and one that doesn't go any good places.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ever play the "War" card game? You shuffle deck of cards then split the cards equally. One at a time, you flip over a card with the player with the higher card taking both. Player with the most cards at the end wins.

That is a game with no tactical options. Even the simplest fighter build has tactical options in D&D. What level of tactical options are available and what people actually want to play is a different story. What passes for "useful options" is in the eye of the beholder. For a lot of people the only useful option they care about is which enemy they attack.

I get that. I got my start on OD&D after all, and in practice, short of GM intervention, you choices were: 1. What weapon you used, and 2. What target you picked (and for the most part the first one was pretty clear in most cases). But again, the fact that some people want really (to me) simplistic tactical options, my response is "So? Why should I care?" And perhaps more on target, if WOTC wants to get All The Players, why should they? It only matters if people who want it that simple are the vast majority of players.

 

[Hussar]

How does that follow?

Most of the time when we think of "tactics" it means stuff done in/around combat, and in D&D there's enough rules there to render the DM's judgment somewhat secondary.

And I can have a very simple-to-play Fighter where all it does in combat is repeatedly hit things with blunt heavy objects, and yet the game can still have combat rules that allow me (if I so desire) to make all kinds of tactical decisions as to how and where and when I hit those things. A tactically interesting game does not negate the possibility of having a mechanically simple character.

True.

What version of DnD is that?