WotC Jeremy Crawford Interview: Playtests from experimental to focused. By Christian Hoffer at GenCon.

[the Jester]

The evidence is that it exceeded 70% and they threw it out despite this.

That's a claim, not evidence. Evidence would be something that demonstrates 1. that their process includes "70% satisfaction means we go forward every time" and 2. that they threw out (whatever mechanical thing) despite it achieving a satisfactory mark. I don't think you have established 1, so 2 doesn't matter.

 

[the Jester]

That is just them sabotaging their own process, I have no reason to like it, regardless of outcome.

I don't think you actually understand their process. You want them to use your version of their process, but they aren't.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you havent, i highly suggest reading MCDM's Flee Mortals! monster book. It is, imo, the best designed monster book out there, is super innovative with mechanics, well playtested, and FUN. His solo boss monster reimaging of the Ankheg is a HIT.

Yeah I was thinking about getting that. I got a bit turned off on MCDM by the horrible decisions he seems to be making with his new RPG but his 5E stuff sounds excellent.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't know that it's really that inconsistent, if the complaints were primarily about messaging. Big changes or things that break compatibility make it quite clearly an edition change and it's dishonest to message otherwise...and without doing an edition change, we're stuck with all of the existing 5e problems that would require a new edition to fix. One could quite reasonably hold both opinions.

That's like nearly every argument on here - both sides usually have a point, from a certain perspective (their own!) I find I often agree with parts (and almost never the whole) of anyone's given argument.

For example, I'd be happy to think of 2024 D&D as an "edition change" if it was called 15th (or whatever the math works out to) edition, but ABSOLUTELY NOT if it's called "Five-Point-Five". Mostly because I think that nomenclature is outdated, foolish, poor marketing, and loaded. OTOH, I'm absolutely happy with it being called "50th Anniversary D&D". Because, regardless of all other considerations, that's what it IS.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's a claim, not evidence. Evidence would be something that demonstrates 1. that their process includes "70% satisfaction means we go forward every time" and 2. that they threw out (whatever mechanical thing) despite it achieving a satisfactory mark. I don't think you have established 1, so 2 doesn't matter.

To be honest, we cannot exactly tell what their process is, so any claims either way there seem suspect. They've represented their process in several different ways, but what is a little concern is with Crawford recently he's almost been talking like the percentage is more valid than what good game design is, and whilst I kind of get that given he is a very milquetoast game designer and thus perhaps shouldn't be trusting his own opinions, I feel like the process, as represented to us by WotC, however they actually work it, is to blame for quite a few bad, bad problems with 5E.

That said, it's evident that several long-term 5E problems, ones which sadly seem likely to be in the 2024 version, were the result of either largely or completely unplaytested decisionmaking by then-Mearls' team back in the late D&D Next era. 5E definitely has some issues as a result of rushing, and it's unfortunate that the attitudes of the current team seem to have ensured the only major "rushed" issue being addressed by 2024 is the low quality of the DMG.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's because the people talking about it are not a hive mind! Nor are they organized in any way, shape, or form. Some people believe one thing, others the other, and some... inexplicably, still hold to their first impression, whichever way that went.

Yeah the poster you're responding to is acting like he's literally never been on the internet before - obviously different people have different opinions, so acting like they're contradictory is merely evidence of the poster's own inability to comprehend the internet and collate information and absolutely nothing else. It's sad that people are still coming out with this total and utter canard in 2023. It was sad in 1993. At this point it's inexplicable.

 

[Azzy]

Yay! Another thread that devolves into the OneD&D Playtest has bad methodology and is kicking puppies. Can we get a few more like this?

 

[Demetrios1453]

“Interestingly, many of the bigger changes reached the threshold that Wizards considers to be a success – a 70% success rate. "The thing is, the scores are not the full story," Crawford said. "We also look at what are people saying in the written feedback and what they are saying in online discussion forums. And while people were often excited by a number of these experiments, there was also a lot of concern about what would this do to the existing game."”

so they should have iterated, and instead threw them out because there were some loud naysayers, great. I positively hate this process.

The problem here is "damned if we do and damned if we don't." If they stated they completely ignored any negative feedback from social media, they would have been eaten alive by social media for doing so.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Youre defending a mid designer who is making even more mid changes to the book.

It's one thing to vehemently oppose a design (I reeeeally don't like 2014 wildshape or pact magic, for instance). It's another to attack the person. I may not agree with some design decisions that a design groups make, but insulting the individual is uncalled for.

As for me, I personally get defensive and perceive others negatively when they attack and insult others. If someone wants to insult the designer, or another community member for that matter, that lets me know what kind of person they are. I watch for that stuff. It tells me more about the insulter than who they insulted.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Im not really surprised, I just actively choose to hope Crawford could really rise to the task and figure it out. For me, it is frustrating to see. The rest of the rpg industry, even in just 5e, evolves by leaps and bounds every year.

Homebrew designer laserllama has designed innovative and well playtested revisions of ths classes that maintain backwards compatiability. MCDM has put out a monster book strikingly 5e but far more enjoyable and useable than anything WotC has. A5E and Cubicle 7 have both put out streamlined and fun journey rules. And there are many amazing gm guides from very prolific authors and adventure designers.

Every problem 5e had going into 1dnd has been solved by someone else. They didnt need to steal these materials, just use them as inspirations for the first party game. Or, even, hire these ppl to come together and build your game for you. The money is there. The interest is there.

I will keep hoping and asking for a better dnd. Ive seen that it can be done, and ill never stop asking for them to do it.

That’s reasonable. It’s be even more reasonable if paired with acknowledgement that every qualitive judgement in your post is a subjective matter of opinion that may not be shared by the larger community.

Well, except the monsters, but the bar for better monsters is buried somewhere beneath Menzoberranzan.