D&D (2024) The WotC Playtest Surveys Have A Flaw

[Mistwell]

Hm. I wasn't off by much. I'm one gamer out of 18 total, so that would be about 6% (1/18 = 5.55%)

And this estimate of 900,000 playtesters out of 13 million is about 7% (900K/13M=6.92%)

I used this calculator and if those estimates are correct, then it's a very high confidence level survey at 95%. In fact it even scored better than 99% confidence level, if my read and input was correct.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm just going to throw this out there- while I am not particularly happy with all of the changes, either, I think that it might just be because ... the issue isn't the playtesters, but us.

Maybe we're the weird ones? And the desired demographics for the game probably isn't a bunch of older gamers that spend their time on an internet forum complaining about 5e?

They've said this before, that people on forums like this skew very different from the general population of consumers of their products.

And, because there is some pain involved in accepting that (my pain - not speaking for anyone else) I am naturally resistant to accepting that.

 

[Zaukrie]

I think the bigger problem is the idea that they can satisfy everyone, period, with any decision they make in the game. I'm not trying to win an argument with Doug, I'm trying to make sure the final product is enjoyed by the most people possible. Assuming that "if they do what I want, it will be a success" is kinda weird.

You actually think they think they can satisfy everyone? I doubt that very much. These are smart people that follow the boards and surveys.....

 

[CleverNickName]

You actually think they think they can satisfy everyone? I doubt that very much. These are smart people that follow the boards and surveys.....

That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

[Ondath]

I'm just going to throw this out there- while I am not particularly happy with all of the changes, either, I think that it might just be because ... the issue isn't the playtesters, but us.

Maybe we're the weird ones? And the desired demographics for the game probably isn't a bunch of older gamers that spend their time on an internet forum complaining about 5e?

That's not entirely incorrect. But I think D&D relying on one special player (aka the DM) to do all the heavy lifting in order to make a table happen creates a weird situation.

Sure, the kind of people who hang out in ENWorld (out of which those who fill the survey are an even smaller percentage) are a silly folk. The average player cares a lot less about the martial/caster disparity, short rests being a viable mechanic, or there being very few ways to spend gold. But their DM probably does. And if the game doesn't attract the group's DM, then that group isn't playing D&D. They'll probably switch to Level Up or Tales of the Valiant or Pathfinder 2E or whatever alternative game the DM prefers (that isn't niche enough to turn off their average players).

So I think even though we are kinda weird, I do also think that 5E should listen to us. We're the loud minority that D&D needs to satisfy for the game to happen.

And to approach @Ruin Explorer's point from another angle, I do think WotC's internal playtesting team has a very peculiar playstyle, and they've had that for a long time. These are the people who didn't realise the 3.5 Cleric was overpowered, because they just played the class as a healer and didn't push the class's potential to the fullest extent. AFAICT, 5E's internal playtesters also play the game like a classic dungeon crawler, even though the game has evolved into a very different playstyle. And I think these kinds of disparities ultimately lead to a product that isn't as good as it could have been.

 

[Retreater]

For WotC to do proactive research on a decent scale. That costs money, it requires organisation, and so on. Huge money compared to getting people to fill in surveys on a website you already own, but tiny money compared to how much D&D makes. The trouble is, WotC doesn't seem interested in investing in that kind of thing.

I'd say it's significantly too late in the process now. Maybe for next edition, or the next half edition or whatever?

I mean, if they had designers who could actually develop for an improved game experience instead of a corporate's multi-billion dollar strategy, that would help.
As it is now, it's all being distilled into what will sell the most copies - not what will make the better game.

 

[MockingBird]

I mean, if they had designers who could actually develop for an improved game experience instead of a corporate's multi-billion dollar strategy, that would help.
As it is now, it's all being distilled into what will sell the most copies - not what will make the better game.

That's the dig, it's all subjective. No doubt it's designed to make money but if that's a better game or not is completely dependent on how one feels about it.

 

[pointofyou]

That's the dig, it's all subjective. No doubt it's designed to make money but if that's a better game or not is completely dependent on how one feels about it.

There's nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that a better game will make more money. I think conventional economics would predict exactly that.

 

[Dustin Cooper]

I honestly wonder if the point of the playtests isn't so much "let's have the community help us to design/refine a game" as "let's see if any of the changes we want pisses of the grogs enough that we might be 4eing ourselves again." The latter seems like the one meaningful thing this survey could really tell them.

 

[CleverNickName]

There's nothing inherently contradictory in the idea that a better game will make more money. I think conventional economics would predict exactly that.

It's not contradictory, but it can be a false equivalence.
Plenty of bad games sell lots of copies, and not every good game is a good seller.