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

[Ruin Explorer]

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

There's essentially no major competition in this market. It's a de facto monopoly. So no, not really.

Even the biggest 3PP stuff is reaching joke numbers of people compared to WotC. This wasn't true back in 4E days.

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.

I'm not even convinced their approach is going to lead them to what would make the most money, because I don't think it reaches the vast majority of the market.

I honestly wonder if the point of the playtests isn't so much "let's have the community help us to design 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.

I think that's exactly what they're doing - but here's the problem - grogs and semi-grogs (i.e. 3E vets who are now full grogs) were most of the market when 5E was being designed. But they're about 10% of the market, according to WotC's own figures, right now.

So grogs just cannot 4E them, as it were. It's not possible.

But this huge market who they aren't actually surveying? Those people absolutely could 4E them and I don't think they're just relying on "Well if we don't change much we'll be fine!". They're probably right but...

 

[Ondath]

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.

It's either that, or an extended marketing campaign disguised as a playtest, I think. It's hard to explain the short timeframe otherwise, and the UA articles had become marketing products for the last few years too.

 

[pointofyou]

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.

Agreed. Judging something's quality from its popularity is almost always a fallacy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's either that, or an extended marketing campaign disguised as a playtest, I think. It's hard to explain the short timeframe otherwise, and the UA articles had become marketing products for the last few years too.

It's a stunning failure as a marketing campaign, given that how few people have even heard of it, and how fewer still seem interested in it.

I think, ironically, part of the problem is that it doesn't have a name, and they're refusing to call it an edition, and downplaying the changes, so most people are left with the question "Why should I care then?".

I imagine they'll do a real marketing campaign closer to the date. I really hope they convinced stingy WotC to open that moth-filled purse and pay up for actual marketing, though. Because with WotC's attitude, I could see them just not even bothering. Yet I bet the moment that ultra-monetized, microtransaction-filled (by WotC's own account!) 3D VTT is ready to go WotC is all-in, advertising-wise.

 

[Retreater]

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.

When the questions they're asking are things like "can we sell you microtransactions on D&D Beyond" - I don't think those are questions designed to build a better game.

 

[CleverNickName]

We're toeing up close to the Edition War line, folks. I love a good discussion about the merits and faults of other game editions, but let's handle with care.

 

[pointofyou]

We're toeing up close to the Edition War line, folks. I love a good discussion about the merits and faults of other game editions, but let's handle with care.

Avoid stingrays.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We're toeing up close to the Edition War line, folks. I love a good discussion about the merits and faults of other game editions, but let's handle with care.

Ahhh the joy of having whoever is edition warring on ignore lol.

 

[Scribe]

I think the bigger problem is the idea that they can satisfy everyone, period, with any decision they make in the game. We have proven time and again that the only thing we love more than D&D, is arguing about D&D.

But 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.

Right, they cant satisfy everyone, not even close.

The problem is that while its a noble goal to get it to be enjoyable by the most people possible, there are many many cases where its not a situation of compromise.

I want ASI tied to species, I want Alignment to matter, and I want the game to reflect a tone closer to BG3.

I can find cases of people vehemently opposed to any or all of those cases. We will never ever ever come to a consensus beyond 'agree to disagree'. In fact you and I are in opposition on at least one of those right? Which is fine!

But I'm not going to load up the survey, tell Wizards "You are idiots for removing ASI from species, btw call it Ancestry, and PS, CleverNickName actually thinks Floating ASI and Tashas Custom Origin is better."

Why would I when I have a physical reaction against the concept of floating ASI and Tashas?

So argue on your behalf, let them know you exist. If other people cannot be bothered to engage and tell them what they want, thats on them.

 

[Ondath]

It's a stunning failure as a marketing campaign, given that how few people have even heard of it, and how fewer still seem interested in it.

I think, ironically, part of the problem is that it doesn't have a name, and they're refusing to call it an edition, and downplaying the changes, so most people are left with the question "Why should I care then?".

I imagine they'll do a real marketing campaign closer to the date. I really hope they convinced stingy WotC to open that moth-filled purse and pay up for actual marketing, though. Because with WotC's attitude, I could see them just not even bothering. Yet I bet the moment that ultra-monetized, microtransaction-filled (by WotC's own account!) 3D VTT is ready to go WotC is all-in, advertising-wise.

Given how they've been advertising books lately, I'm guessing we'll basically get one of the two options:

1) Todd Kenreck overenthusiastically talks about the new core rulebooks with Chris Perkins
2) Jeremy Crawford stands awkwardly in front of a camera with Chris Perkins and makes awkward jokes while explaining the most basic feature of the books with a minute-long run-on sentence.