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

[Shardstone]

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.

No, I honestly think he is a mid tier designer. I think his conservative mindset for design is trash. He may be a great person, and I think he is nice and chill, but he sucks at his job.

 

[Shardstone]

I found this part interesting and hopeful:

As for some of the other proposed changes that tested well, Crawford noted that there was still a chance that they might appear in a future book as optional rules. "Some of the other things that scored well but then had a mixed reception in terms of people's commentary on it, all of those things still have a chance to appear as optional rules in a future book." He also added that they could save some of those designs for a future edition "years from now."

Eyeroll.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can call me out if you like. I was merely making an observation. I'll try to internet better in future post.

It's an actively unhelpful "observation" which says nothing about the discussion and everything about the "observer" - usually it is made in bad faith as an attempt to either derail conversations or try to make people responsible for views that are not theirs. I'm presuming it's not bad faith in your case but yeah if not a single person ever made that "observation" again, humanity's lot would improve - infinitesimally - but it would improve.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The process you seem to desire, however, mirrors the sort of process that went into making 4E (designers going off on a tangent, trying to drag users along kicking and screaming rather than tailoring to user behaviors).

That's an unusually disingenuous description of the absolutely normal design process which literally 98% of TTRPGs and other games use.

I tend to expect better from your arguments, honestly.

The reality is that 4E was designed the same basic way as every previous edition and the overwhelming majority of TTRPGs. Which is to say designers doing what they think is right, based on the fact that they are (presumably) talented and experienced people with skills and goals. 4Es design was clearly influenced by long term goals from WotC corporate, but so is 2024s, so that's actually a point of similarity (whereas 5E 2014 interestingly was seemingly devoid of many long term goals beyond "survive").

5E 2014 took an alternative path because it was an "apology edition", which is not a situation many TTRPGs have ever been in, and particularly the designers felt like they didn't know what the audience they were trying to win back wanted. Despite this they seem (I use this word intentionally - we don't know) to have overruled the audience on certain points and rushed in a certain amount of half-arsed and inconsistent design at the end.

It's interesting that 5E seems to have mostly continued with that, but I feel like there are at least elements of the cargo cult around how Crawford seems to regard surveys. I think they combine in a rather unfortunate way with his leanings towards extreme design conservatism. I actually suspect more daring designs would have been successful by his metrics (particularly for martials, monks and some others) but they simply were not presented. And his design conservatism definitely influences the conclusions he draws from data.

 

[Parmandur]

The reality is that 4E was designed the same basic way as every previous edition and the overwhelming majority of TTRPGs.

Yes, that us an essential problem with the way the TTRPG industry operates. 5E had a huge leg-up over other competitors due to the research resources Hasbro had in hand, but that doesn't mean that other companies couldn't try more modern prodict design strategies. For my Master's program (completed during the pandemic, super fun couple of years there) one of my classes was on web page design, and our main textbook wqs Designing for Interaction: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices (Voices That Matter) whi h encapsulates a broader current standard of "this is how you design a product for end users" which is the hip thing. Somebody involved in the Next process was familiar with the ethos current there, and frankly even without giant Beyond surveys other RPG designers could learn a thing or two.

 

[Stalker0]

I now largely agree with people who say 2024 isn't looking like a full new edition, it's much more like a 5.5 - more actual changes than 3.5E by far, no question about that, but their substance isn't looking to be larger.

if what we have seen in the playtest is the only things wotc is changing, then it’s not even close to what was changed in 3e -> 3.5.

Now wotc is almost certainly going to change some things outside the survey, but they gave a good bit to go to approach 3.5 change levels.

 

[Stalker0]

I just want to point out that there is no need for them to consult with the fans on any of this. We act like we are owed some extensive public playtest. We are not. This is the first edition that got one at all and we already feel so entitled!

Wotc raised the bar when 5e came out, it’s rare for customers to lower their expectations

 

[darjr]

That's an unusually disingenuous description of the absolutely normal design process which literally 98% of TTRPGs and other games use.

I tend to expect better from your arguments, honestly.

The reality is that 4E was designed the same basic way as every previous edition and the overwhelming majority of TTRPGs. Which is to say designers doing what they think is right, based on the fact that they are (presumably) talented and experienced people with skills and goals. 4Es design was clearly influenced by long term goals from WotC corporate, but so is 2024s, so that's actually a point of similarity (whereas 5E 2014 interestingly was seemingly devoid of many long term goals beyond "survive").

5E 2014 took an alternative path because it was an "apology edition", which is not a situation many TTRPGs have ever been in, and particularly the designers felt like they didn't know what the audience they were trying to win back wanted. Despite this they seem (I use this word intentionally - we don't know) to have overruled the audience on certain points and rushed in a certain amount of half-arsed and inconsistent design at the end.

It's interesting that 5E seems to have mostly continued with that, but I feel like there are at least elements of the cargo cult around how Crawford seems to regard surveys. I think they combine in a rather unfortunate way with his leanings towards extreme design conservatism. I actually suspect more daring designs would have been successful by his metrics (particularly for martials, monks and some others) but they simply were not presented. And his design conservatism definitely influences the conclusions he draws from data.

Well hold on.

98% of rpg game design is for such a small group that it almost has to be very opinionated and therefore NOT take in user input. Sometimes there isn’t any to be taken in yet.

That’s a wholly different design prospect than designing the core systems of D&D.

Edit to add: “has to”? well, I dunno.

 

[mamba]

98% of rpg game design is for such a small group that it almost has to be very opinionated and therefore NOT take in user input. Sometimes there isn’t any to be taken in yet.

That’s a wholly different design prospect than designing the core systems of D&D.

ok, now I am curious, what are the 98% of the design then, if they do not impact the core? Where are those 98% in 5e? Are you talking about 98% or TTRPGs being so small they have to go this route?

 

[darjr]

ok, now I am curious, what are the 98% of the design then, if they do not impact the core? Where are those 98% in 5e? Are you talking about 98% or TTRPGs being so small they have to go this route?

I meant 98% of the design of other games.

Not 98% of all games.

Maybe I misunderstood the comment I was responding too.

Most games are so small in user base, or generally will be, that it might actually be an asset they are wholly designed behind a curtain.

Also many just dint have a big enough audience anyway, especially vs D&D.

So the concern between designing behind a curtain vs showing and asking the user base some if it is different when you are talking about D&D.