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

[mamba]

Sure, if I was making a product and there was a failure, I might look into it before putting it out to the public. But here's the difference. We aren't making the product. We are consuming it.

so the same fact has meaning and we should be looking into it when we are making the product, but none if someone else is making the product? That makes no sense

What you are talking about is business 101. Something even dumb lay-people like me know.

and yet you argue against it

 

[Chaosmancer]

You know he's discussing WotC's product and it's polling flaws, right? He's not talking about himself and what he does.

Which would make him a consumer of the product, like I just said. Maybe re-read my post?

Again, this is wrong. It means something because it CAN mean something is wrong with the product. It's a very foolish company that ignores a failure found in the first 10 QC attempts and doesn't investigate further.

Okay, prove this is the very first time WoTC has ever had a Quality Control pass on their decade long survey process.

AGAIN, we as consumers have found a single, solitary person who misunderstood the survey. A phenomenon we absolutely would expect to find. How does that possibly mean that WoTC has never quality controlled their work, has no idea, and that the survey is fundamentally flawed?

An example was given from the last video. Crawford expressed confusion that their polling indicated that a class or subclass(I can't remember which now) indicated a neutral view when voting on the individual abilities(ie one got somewhat favorable and the next somewhat unfavorable), yet the class as a whole was voted somewhat unfavorable.

That confusion shows very clearly that they don't understand their polling very well, because of the flaws in the way they go about it.

That is not at all what Crawford said or expressed. He was not confused at all.

The methodology which many have been talking about as being flawed for years AND the video showing that their main designer doesn't understand it. Their main designer not understanding it is pretty bad.

What are Jeremy Crawford's duties in the compilation of the Survey data? When does he receive it? What does he do to process it? As the lead designer, what are his daily tasks? Do you know ANYTHING about this, beyond making up the fact he was confused when he wasn't and this supposed point that their survey's have been flawed for years, which has not a single iota of evidence?

 

[Chaosmancer]

no one claimed it did. We all understand that

that is not true. If you expect to find, say 1 case in 10000 and you find one on your first try in a sample of 10, then you absolutely should investigate, because if the ratio really were 1:10000, that would be an extraordinary outlier

Does it tell you anything definitively? No, but it is a good reason to take a closer look. Not doing so is where you go wrong

Why is it your job as a consumer to assume that no Quality Control has ever been done, and that this single instance needs investigated?

Actually, lets take this a step forward. Fine, then you go ahead and investigate it. You investigate their data, analyze their process, and find all the flaws in their data. You... do know how to do that, right? And you do have access to their corporate records to do so right? Or do you want to just start shouting "the survey is flawed! WoTC must fix it!" with... zero real evidence that anything is actually wrong and you didn't just find a rare outlier? In fact, it's been a week, have you done any further research to prove that there is actually an issue and not just a rare outlier?

this is irrelevant, if you are not comfortable with a possible error rate as high as 1 in 5, then the fact that you found one in a sample of 10 means you should take a closer look, rather than ignore it

When I am running my own company, I will do whatever I feel like. In fact, what is the error rate that WoTC is comfortable with? Can you cite that? Can you cite the latest results of their quality control proccess? Do you even know what their quality control process IS?

fully understand that, you seem to not get that finding an issue is what matters here, not the small size

I am fully aware, please provide the sample of 1000 that shows this, until then this is at most wishful thinking

none, I do not believe I ever said they are doing this intentionally

No, of course they aren't doing it intentionally. Which means that they have quality control apparatuses in place, right? And they have access to far more of the data than us, right? So... why do I need to show you anything? Why should I assume that WoTC has so utterly failed at their quality control and has such a fundamental misunderstanding of their data, that I, a consumer with no access to any of that information, must step forward and make business recommendations to them?

Because you found one person in a single group of ten that was confused, and there might be more? Therefore WoTCs entire survey apparatus is not maintained, is not quality controlled, and we as consumers must investigate their practices to confirm they are getting useful data?

then 1) I would be very surprised and 2) it would alleviate my concern. Now show me the 50%, I believe 5% is pretty high in reality.

Upon what facts do you base the idea that 5% is high? Cite a paper. Cite a source. Your own gut instinct is worse than useless when discussing things like this. Heck, cite the actual percentage of comments. Wouldn't that be more useful? And since you are investigating WoTC for Quality Control, don't you know this information?

then why even bring the past success and 2014 playtest up, if you want to use this cop out?

I never claimed I was talking about the 2014 playtest. I was talking about the things which actually underwent the survey process and were released for 5e. Maybe stop jumping to conclusions?

This is obviously what I was asking for in the first place. But can lead is not enough, is the reason for the success is what we are looking for. Otherwise you have shown absolutely nothing. The most ass-backwards playtest can lead to a successful product too... so can no playtest

Right, so WoTC is just lucky. They are incompetents who just got lucky, and you can prove this because you think you've found a flaw in their design process, despite having no access to any of their corporate data.

no, you absolutely cannot do that. Well, I guess you can, but it is wrong to do so

Why is it wrong? They were successful products, this is true. If the Survey were so bad that lay-consumers of the products can tell it is bad, and WoTC was so incompetent to have no conception of these obvious flaws... then how have they released multiple successful products with this method? I own, what, five or six products that were high quality, produced by this test and survey method? Did they just stumble into success multiple times, with damaging surveys that hurt every single product? Does that seem logical to you?

then why have the 70% threshold…

Because 70% acceptance of the idea seems to be important.

so the same fact has meaning and we should be looking into it when we are making the product, but none if someone else is making the product? That makes no sense

Prove to me that WoTC has never looked into the Quality Control of their Surveys. Maybe an internal memo? An email where they declined to do so? Anything other than your gut intuition.

and yet you argue against it

I argue against your position, because you want to assert that WoTC has never, not once, tested the validity and quality of their surveys and is completely unaware that they contain massive flaws that are ruining their data. And your assertion comes from the fact that you found one person who was confused by a survey, and WoTC hasn't announced a retraction of their survey data, or publicly declared a need to retest everything based on this single person.

 

[mamba]

Why is it your job as a consumer to assume that no Quality Control has ever been done, and that this single instance needs investigated?

it is not my job, but that does not mean I cannot think for myself. If you want to assume that WotC is oh so smart and us mere mortals can only marvel at their ability, and any perceived issue is just us not understanding their genius, keep on doing what you are doing. I suggest a little less blind faith and more critical thinking however.

As to the issue, if they were so great at this, it should not have been this ridiculously easy to find an issue, I mean it was on the first try, with a ridiculously small sample size.

If you want to show that there is no issue, then show it, do not just say that you can think of a reason why it might not be one. Anyone can make wild, unsubstantiated claims, so that is not all that convincing.

I guess we end it here, not interested in repeating this another 10 times, and the rest of your post was not really more than you using a lot of words to say ‘I got nothing, but you have too little to convince me’

There is one thing I am interested in however, because to me your answer shows that you have not given any thought to what they are testing for, or how what they are asking may fit (or not fit…) into that… that is why I said a little less blind faith and some critical thinking would be a good idea

I disagree that that is what they seem to be looking for. They especially do not seem to be asking us if they should improve their ideas or not.

then why have the 70% threshold…

Because 70% acceptance of the idea seems to be important.

then what is the 80% threshold for? Why are there two thresholds?

 

[Mistwell]

The pages and pages you've been arguing to ensure that the survey weighting provides them an outsized level of say in striking down power reductions for any reason no matter why they were done no matter what the reduction improves or allows says otherwise about the existence of said group.

Again, nothing you've said has made any sense as to how that group is amplified. You've asserted it over and over, and when pressed can never explain how that's happening. Nothing is amplified. Nobodies opinion is given more weight than yours. And I am not the one voting that way - if I am your proof a "group" like that exists, then you have zero proof. I've liked some stuff and disliked other stuff and talked about that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Again, nothing you've said has made any sense as to how that group is amplified. You've asserted it over and over, and when pressed can never explain how that's happening. Nothing is amplified. Nobodies opinion is given more weight than yours. And I am not the one voting that way - if I am your proof a "group" like that exists, then you have zero proof. I've liked some stuff and disliked other stuff and talked about that.

The math has already been explained in detail, this is as far as the amplification provided by Wotc's weighting can be simplified... 41 is less than 60. 31 is less than 70 Right there is how the amplification occurs using basic elementary numerals.

 

[Mistwell]

But that's not amplification of a specific group of people, like the people you describe as munchkins. Nor is it proof that group even exists as you described them.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Prove to me that WoTC has never looked into the Quality Control of their Surveys. Maybe an internal memo? An email where they declined to do so? Anything other than your gut intuition.

Did you just straight up ask them to prove a negative?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If there really was a munchkin conspiracy voting down anything that reduces "power", there is no way that Paladin smites being once per turn and GWM/SS being toned down would have survived this far into the playtest.

 

[tetrasodium]

If there really was a munchkin conspiracy voting down anything that reduces "power", there is no way that Paladin smites being once per turn and GWM/SS being toned down would have survived this far into the playtest.

There doesn't need to be a "conspiracy", just a statistically significant fraction of respondents doing it.