D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!

[mamba]

I have a vague recollection many years ago - and I am not confident it really is just vague - that at some point one of the Devs said some percentage of fans will give full approval to anything WOTC puts out in a UA and so they needed to increase the scale to compensate for those "sure I'm good with anything" people.

Why, if they really are good with everything, why should this not be a reason for the change instead of being a barrier to it... I also would not rely on this being a constant...

 

[Mistwell]

Why, if they really are good with everything, why should this not be a reason for the change instead of being a barrier to it... I also would not rely on this being a constant...

I assume, since they're good with the old rules and new equally, that they're just splitting that group 50-50? Like, if 20% of people will vote 5 stars on anything including both the old rules and new, they discount the total by 10% for new? But that's adding an assumption on what is already a shaky vague recollection.

 

[mamba]

I assume, since they're good with the old rules and new equally, that they're just splitting that group 50-50? Like, if 20% of people will vote 5 stars on anything including both the old rules and new, they discount the total by 10% for new? But that's adding an assumption on what is already a shaky vague recollection.

ok, if you split it, I agree. If you say 10% are fine no matter what we do, so we need to raise the threshold by 10%, then I would disagree

 

[tetrasodium]

ok, if you split it, I agree. If you say 10% are fine no matter what we do, so we need to raise the threshold by 10%, then I would disagree

They also need to correct for the munchkin brigade. Just like there is s group who will vote positive for literally anything wotc puts out, there is also the group who will react negatively to any slight to their absolute power builds no matter how small no matter the reason and no matter what that slight allows... The return of short rest class design in packet 6 without changes to rests is an indicator that wotc is probably not yet (if ever) planning to correct for that always vote x segment GMs have been setup to fight with since 2014 with "just homebrew it".

 

[Mistwell]

They also need to correct for the munchkin brigade. Just like there is s group who will vote positive for literally anything wotc puts out, there is also the group who will react negatively to any slight to their absolute power builds no matter how small no matter the reason and no matter what that slight allows... The return of short rest class design in packet 6 without changes to rests is an indicator that wotc is probably not yet (if ever) planning to correct for that always vote x segment GMs have been setup to fight with since 2014 with "just homebrew it".

No, not the same issue. If people like old and new equally and no matter what, then discounting that view makes sense and can cause no harm (they're fine if they don't count as they liked both anyway). But discounting people because you don't like their perspective on the game, that's a bad reason. People you characterize as "the munchkin brigade" have a view that is as valid as yours.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, not the same issue. If people like old and new equally and no matter what, then discounting that view makes sense and can cause no harm (they're fine if they don't count as they liked both anyway). But discounting people because you don't like their perspective on the game, that's a bad reason. People you characterize as "the munchkin brigade" have a view that is as valid as yours.

I don't think you are talking about what I wrote once again. Calling out the existence of that group and that wotc doesn't appear to be correcting for it does not also imply the size... Beyond they though you are wrong on a fact that is extremely relevant to a claim you are trying to make. DMs are only 20 percent of customers. That puts people who primarily gm in a position that is incapable of being as "valid" as any group capable of hitting the 30%+1 veto threshold and wotc has decided to ignore it until the core rules the gm uses are all nailed down rather than including elements in places like the rules glossary aiming at gm "pain points".

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think you are talking about what I wrote once again.

Please just talk about the argument and not me.

Calling out the existence of that group and that wotc doesn't appear to be correcting for it does not also imply the size

I didn't mention the size of that group either?

... Beyond they though you are wrong on a fact that is extremely relevant to a claim you are trying to make. DMs are only 20 percent of customers.

I didn't mention DMs?

That puts people who primarily gm in a position that is incapable of being as "valid" as any group capable of hitting the 30%+1 veto threshold and wotc has decided to ignore it until the core rules the gm uses are all nailed down rather than including elements in places like the rules glossary aiming at gm "pain points".

What does any of that have to do with the topic we were discussing, which was your argument that WOTC should discount what you called the "munchkin brigade" because you don't like their perspective?

All customers are customers. The people you're discounting are in fact customers of the game. They can also be DMs or players. While they do ask if you DM and I think they give some focus to DMs, that doesn't mean "the munchkin brigade" should be discounted because you don't like them. They are no more or less valid than any other player. If you think DMs in general should get more say, OK but that still has zero to do with singling out a specific group of players and discounting their voice.

 

[Charlaquin]

The playtest is not a democracy. We are just testing, commenting and advising, WotC is still firmly in charge of the game design. If a majority of players are excited about a feature, but a small minority of players identify a problem with it, and WotC agrees with that assessment, then they are correct to cut it.

Yeah, if anything that’s really good news to me. I’m glad WotC is willing to make executive decisions about the design direction that aren’t beholden to the player satisfaction polls alone. I still wish they would be bolder with those decisions, but it’s encouraging that they’re willing to make them at all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

you are missing the point. In that case you voted for the guy, by voting ‘dissatisfied’ you voted for throwing it out when you presumably wanted a revision

But I did not vote to throw it out. Throwing it out was the result of the accumulated votes of tens of thousands of people. We do not even know if every single person voted "dissatisfied" if that would result in it being thrown out. You are GUESSING it would, but you do not know.

You keep trying to draw a straight line from "you chose this option" to "this is the result" but that line does not exist.

you never said what it was meant to say, so hard to say one way or the other…

IT meant I was dissatisfied, and explained why. You are trying to layer on extra meanings to prove your point, without evidence.

because they are unaware

How could they possibly be unaware of this flaw in the survey style they have been using for a decade, but you, just now, in these results, figured it out?

so what, we know what the survey looks like, there is no need to speculate that they could have come up with a good one given all the money they have.

But there is plenty to determine that... it probably actually IS good, and you as a layperson without the expertise in the field likely simply do not have the context nor have witnessed the back-end processes to see why the data is actually really good?

Why would they use a flawed system for over a decade? How did you, as a layperson, uncover these flaws that the people they paid to do this work professionally, whose entire jobs and careers rely on making good surveys that get good data, did not notice or care about for this long?

The flaw from my perspective is that people filling out the survey have a different understanding of what they answered / voted for than what WotC thinks they did.

Would you agree that if this were true, it would very much be a flaw with the survey?

If I agree there is a flaw, would it be a flaw? Well, that isn't begging the question is it? Yeah, I think we can also agree that if the survey led to serial killers targeting your family it would be a flaw in the system, right?

Now, here's the trick. Can you PROVE that even the majority of the TEN OF THOUSANDS of people have different understanding of the survey answers than WOTC? Can you even state, definitively and with evidence, what WoTC considers these answers to mean? Not what you assume they think, but actual evidence of their opinions?

All you might have been able to show, to date, is that it is reasonable to assume that some people might have misunderstood. Perhaps even the same number of people who voted multiple times? Are you aware that surveyors often take into account variance like this and likely the survey was designed with this in mind?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Or else they would have been stuck with something they didn't like if they pushed it over the edge and WotC incorrectly thought it was wildly popular. We couldn't have known before final tally how popular it was in voting and couldn't take that chance.

And a wildly popular youtuber might have campaigned by sharing his thoughts and shaped the narrative enough to effect the vote.

Yes, things COULD have happened. That does not mean the survey is flawed from its design. It just means, that nothing is actually perfect and immune to any and all inaccuracy.

It's fundamentally broken because their questions and ratings system doesn't allow them to accurately see how D&D players really feel about things. That we're(all of us in the thread) having this discussion shows that.

Really? Does it really show that?

Because this is the EXACT SAME survey method used in 2017 for the UA. And 2018. And 2019. And 2020. 2021. At the start of the One DnD initiative this was the survey system used. And, during NONE of it, did this question come up. In fact, this discussion isn't some seismic tremor rocking the underlying strata of the community... it is Mamba declaring that the survey is flawed and people responding to them.

If their survey method has been fundamentally broken for nearly a decade, why did no one notice before Mamba started this discussion this week? Was Mamba in a ten year coma and the only one insightful enough to possibly see this error?

That you think that we to approve of something we disapprove of in order to get that thing changed when said approval could cement the thing we disapprove of as the final incarnation(hit 80% approval) shows that they are unclear about what your vote means.

That you don't even address the point or provide evidence shows that you don't have a strong argument.