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

[Chaosmancer]

not really, you can easily fix that by providing anything that is more than an assertion or simple disbelief, I am still waiting for that

Like official company releases? The Lead Designer talking about the process? The successful sales numbers of multiple products that have undergone the survey?

Or do I need internal memos and a full documentation of their internal data?

no, I told you where they are contradictory and you have not yet resolved that, or rather you did in your last post by agreeing with me about something you insisted for days was not the case

You misinterpreted my answers in a way that made them seem contradictory. I've corrected you on that consistently, and you have consistently insisted that I simply don't know what I am talking about.

no, my position is the questions are not good at getting the answers they are looking for, the information we have when answering them is insufficient for our answers to accurately reflect what we want, and the terms used for the different levels are misleading by disagreeing with plain English use of them.

And then we found one person in a handful that was mislead, indicating that this could be a widespread problem, which you then wanted to ignore against all reason, because anything else does not fit your narrative.

And all you have to rebut any of this is 'WotC is big, they have considered all of this, nothing to see here'. You will have to do much better if you want me to take your posts seriously.

Okay. If WoTC isn't getting good data on what makes a successful product from their surveys, why was Tasha's a critical and financial success? Why did Xanathar's win awards for how good it was? Every single product with player facing material WoTC has released, using this survey data which according to you is not well-equipped for getting them accurate and useful data... has been a success.

You are insisting they are Mr. Magoo, blindly wandering around and just stumbling into success after success after success. And this is based solely on... your own personal interpretation of their survey intent and their survey design, which you insist must be correct.

Why do I need more evidence that their surveys are working, than the historical evidence that every time they've used the survey data... it has worked?

No, I only have to do so once you have shown that WotC has a different idea of what good design is. I am saying that for WotC good = popular, there is nothing else to it (apart from balancing it, which WotC does by themselves). If you want me to make a distinction here, then you first have to show that WotC is making a distinction. As long as you cannot show that they make one, I have no reason to make one either.

That is nonsense. And fully irrelevant.

because planning and succeeding are not the same thing, which should be obvious.

So then it would be easy for you to find a design they put out, using the survey data, that was unpopular. Or a design that was universally popular with hundreds of thousands of people (not just your personal echo chamber) that they did not put out.

I am not misunderstanding you, I am rejecting your claim since you provide zero evidence for it. If you could fix that, we would make more progress. I am not granting you things you just assert, that is all.

then explain your position better. I keep asking you things and you fail to answer

I have not failed to answer. I have answered you repeatedly. You just insist I must be wrong.

correlation is not causation, no evidence, we had that already. They are popular despite the playtest method, not because of it. Feel free to actually provide facts to the opposite, as always it is nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

So you can provide evidence of that claim? Evidence that they are popular in spite of the playtest method and not because of it? I'd like to see that evidence. I'm sure it is very strong and not your personal opinion.

they had the most successful RPG for over 30 years before they even started having playtests, how is that possible? The consistent thing here is that they sell better than others, not the playtest part.

If they didn't need the playtest data to improve their game, how come 5th edition, using their playtest method, has succeeded beyond all other editions of the game? And heck, if they are such highly skilled game designer that they can make the most successful RPG of all time with bad data.... why do we want to insist that this bad data is suddenly going to lead to the creating a bad product for the first time in this entire span?

then show that WotC differentiates between the two

How do you propose I do that? Seriously, what evidence are you looking for here? You don't even believe that the sky-high sales of 5e proves it has a solid design, you just seem to think it is because WoTC happens to be making DnD and therefore it would be successful regardless of what they did. It is almost like you believe the success of DnD has absolutely nothing to do with WoTC.

nonsense, I told you that WotC makes no such distinction, so for them good = popular and therefore I do not need to distinguish between the two either. That is not a fallacy. You will have to show that WotC actually does consider these two to be different things, and even then it still is not a fallacy, but at least by then I am wrong.

No, it is still literally a fallacy. Whether or not WoTC is engaging in the same fallacy is immaterial.

no, I am saying that 1) they do not need us for balancing and 2) a balanced design by itself is neither good nor popular

So a balanced design is not a good design. You can't say "no I don't think that" then immediately say it again.

yeah right, it totally is not why they started having playtests right after it bombed, to ensure that they never release something like that again. That absolutely shows two things 1) that for WotC good = popular and 2) they cannot figure out popular by themselves.

...
...

So... an incredibly well-designed game, which was unpopular... does not support the idea that good design and popularity are seperate... because it wasn't successful, and they wanted to make it... popular...

And further, this proves to you that they can't figure out popularity of a product. Which implies the surveys are about the popularity of the product. The thing I keep saying that you keep saying I'm not supporting or saying...

...
...

So you completely agree with my position. Because 4e is the ultimate expression of my position, and you just said it proves to you... my exact position.

I thought you said they are good at designing and do not need the playtest for this... Also, why are you then asking in this very post "And, if WoTC is only planning on putting out designs that are popular, why on this green earth would I even be able to find examples of them putting out unpopular designs?!" Sounds more like you "are just twisting and conflating words to try and "win""...

You thought incorrectly, again. And, again, if something that didn't go through the survey process is your only evidence of something that failed, how does that show the survey process is bad? It would be like claiming that since you made mistakes before using a calculator, that the calculator you are using must be broken. It is nonsensical.

This has gone on long enough, at this point I want exactly two things from you

1) tell me what criteria WotC uses to identify and compare good designs, otherwise stop claiming that good and popular are not the same thing, because all the evidence we have points to exactly that.
You can also just move on from this, as I said this is completely irrelevant to the case I am making, so I am not even sure why you keep bringing it up

I keep bringing it up because it is fundamental to your misunderstanding of the survey. To the point that just above you disproved your own points in the discussion of 4e, and seemingly haven't even realized it.

2) tell me how the way the survey is structured is a great way to get accurate answers by addressing the concerns I raised and show 1) how it is simple for the participants to communicate that they a) like the proposal enough to include it as is, b) like it but want improvements, or c) do not like it and want it thrown out, and 2) how it is easy for WotC to pick up on that (without everyone having to fill out the text box). Same here, if you cannot do that, then all the evidence we have is the problems with it that I brought up.

And all your evidence is nothing except a miniscule number of people insisting it is a problem, because they didn't get the results they wanted.

For all those getting a version of the game they are happy with... the survey is clearly working. And since that large base of people who the survey is trying to appeal to... it is working. I mean, you'd think if the survey WASN'T working, Crawford would have at some point over the last few years made a comment about how the survey data wasn't matching with the reception they were getting.

You keep acting like you have iron-clad evidence that proves WoTC's incompetence, but you just have the natural results of not appealing to everyone all the time.

 

[mamba]

That is nonsense. And fully irrelevant.

Good summary for your entire post. You have shown repeatedly that you do not understand the first thing about the claim I am making or the implications of it on the playtest results. This post is a great example of that. You are arguing ten things that have nothing to do with my claim instead of the one thing I asked you for that does…

If I were correct in my analysis, what would the impact on the playtest be? If you understood that, you should see why most of what you posted to show me wrong is just nonsensical…

I tried correcting all your misguided interpretations and arguments that came from that, but that is just a never ending game of whack-a-mole I lost any interest in. That is why I said in my last post that I want exactly two things from you and predicted you would address neither, and sure enough, that is exactly what you did.

I now want one of those two things only, as I said the other was irrelevant all along anyway. I just wanted that so you for once back up anything you say. The one that is left is

tell me how the way the survey is structured is a great way to get accurate answers by addressing the concerns I raised and show 1) how it is simple for the participants to communicate that they a) like the proposal enough to include it as is, b) like it but want improvements, or c) do not like it and want it thrown out, and 2) how it is easy for WotC to pick up on that (without everyone having to fill out the text box). Same here, if you cannot do that, then all the evidence we have is the problems with it that I brought up.

No backing up needed here, just your own analysis and understanding. Not expecting anything this time either, you have been going for weeks without ever even attempting that. I am not continuing the whack-a-mole game. Either you come with something worth responding to, or I simply will ignore it instead of trying to point out why it isn't.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Good summary for your entire post. You have shown repeatedly that you do not understand the first thing about the claim I am making or the implications of it on the playtest results. This post is a great example of that. You are arguing ten things that have nothing to do with my claim instead of the one thing I asked you for that does…

If I were correct in my analysis, what would the impact on the playtest be? If you understood that, you should see why most of what you posted to show me wrong is just nonsensical…

I tried correcting all your misguided interpretations and arguments that came from that, but that is just a never ending game of whack-a-mole I lost any interest in. That is why I said in my last post that I want exactly two things from you and predicted you would address neither, and sure enough, that is exactly what you did.

I now want one of those two things only, as I said the other was irrelevant all along anyway. I just wanted that so you for once back up anything you say. The one that is left is

Ah yes, the nonsense of you admitting the own flaws in your reasoning and me pointing it out. No need to look into that, or to answer what sort of data you would need, or proving your own points in any meaningful way. Just keep repeating that my arguments are worthless and I don't understand or am unwilling to engage. That's the way to prove your point.

No backing up needed here, just your own analysis and understanding. Not expecting anything this time either, you have been going for weeks without ever even attempting that. I am not continuing the whack-a-mole game. Either you come with something worth responding to, or I simply will ignore it instead of trying to point out why it isn't.

Ok, okay, I hear you. You want me to explain how the survey works. You want me to show

1) How simple is it for the participants to tell WoTC their answers to the following questions.
a) Do you like this proposal enough to put it into the game.
b) Do you like this proposal, but would like it improved.
c) Do you want it thrown out

Now, how simple is it? As simple as clicking on the options in the survey. They even provide a comment box that is very simple to use to clarify your answers or give reasoning. That is how simple it is.

See, cause, and follow along here, if I like something, like a lot, I click this option that says "very satisfied". That communicates that I like the proposal a lot. And if I like it, but not that much, I click "satisfied". If I don't like it? If I'm looking at it and I'm like, "no, this isn't that good" then I click "disatisfied". And, and this is the tricky part, if I hate it? If I want it to burn in a fire? I click "very disatisfied". And then, I often put comments to clarify, in that convenient little comment box.

Now, how could WoTC POSSIBLY use that data? Well, see, they take my answers, and they compare them with tens of thousands of other answers. And if they get a result that is vastly in love with the idea.... they keep it and plan on putting it in the game. If they get a result that isn't that good, but it isn't a dumpster fire, then they will probably look at improving it, because more than half the people liked it, maybe liked it alot, but it just isn't where they want that number to be. And if something scored only about 50/50? They toss it.

Because, you see, they have this entire, complete, really popular game. Its kind of a big deal. And, if the worst thing they can do is fall back on their already incredibly popular and successful game... that's still good for them.

So, that's question one. I just showed you the entire process. Let's look at question two.

2) Show that they don't need the text box.

Oh, I already answered this. But, you see, when they run the answers of "Very satisfied", "Satisfied", "Dissatisfied" and "Very Dissatisfied" into their data processing program, that collates all the data, it gives them a percentage. And that percentage is how they determine how well liked the proposal was. And they could go just off that. But many people like myself give more nuanced answers in the text boxes, so since they graduated high school and realize nuance exists, they find referencing those comments to be useful at narrowing down WHY something was popular or unpopular. After all, if a Barbarian ability was popular because it didn't rely on Rage, and they change it to make it rely on Rage, that would make it less popular.

There is actually a whole science behind this sort of thing. And, I know, I know that I didn't really provide something like "well how does my individual vote move that percentage line" or "how do we know for certain that WoTC isn't lying about their data and their entire data processing center is just a gerbil in a terrarium" And the truth is, we don't know for certain. WoTC could be making decisions based on using a Ouiji board to contact the ghost of Dave Arneson and I'd have no way of knowing. But, you see, the process I've laid out is exactly what WoTC has said it is, exactly how they have reported their own data, exactly how they have claimed to use that data, and since I don't want to go to jail for breaking and entering and my spy drones can't fly across the country, I really have only two options.

I can believe them and that they know what they are doing or I can insist that I KNOW they are either lying or incompetent, and actually they aren't going to succeed at this project of theirs because I read the survey once and I can't believe people can actually understand how to fill it out.

 

[mamba]

Ok, okay, I hear you. You want me to explain how the survey works. You want me to show

1) How simple is it for the participants to tell WoTC their answers to the following questions.
a) Do you like this proposal enough to put it into the game.
b) Do you like this proposal, but would like it improved.
c) Do you want it thrown out

Now, how simple is it? As simple as clicking on the options in the survey.

except that they do not have these options available

hey even provide a comment box that is very simple to use to clarify your answers or give reasoning. That is how simple it is.

I said without using the comment box, I doubt enough people do for it to make a difference

See, cause, and follow along here, if I like something, like a lot, I click this option that says "very satisfied". That communicates that I like the proposal a lot. And if I like it, but not that much, I click "satisfied". If I don't like it? If I'm looking at it and I'm like, "no, this isn't that good" then I click "disatisfied".

yeah, nice theory, except that you have four choices, not three. Very satisfied and very dissatisfied are the obvious ones. So, always satisfied, even if you think the proposal needs improvement? Then what is dissatisfied for?

I did not ask you to explain what WotC is doing, that is very clear. I asked you to address my concerns, but you are simply completely ignoring them. Denying them is not the same as addressing them. Should not have expected any better, my bad, this is clearly going nowhere, we are done.

 

[Mistwell]

I am surprised the direction they went wasn't to get rid of short rest dependence (Monk and Warlock) but instead make EVERY class more dependent on short rests. OK, that's a choice.

 

[Remathilis]

I am surprised the direction they went wasn't to get rid of short rest dependence (Monk and Warlock) but instead make EVERY class more dependent on short rests. OK, that's a choice.

Union mandated breaks for everyone!

 

[Charlaquin]

I am surprised the direction they went wasn't to get rid of short rest dependence (Monk and Warlock) but instead make EVERY class more dependent on short rests. OK, that's a choice.

It’s the better choice, in my opinion. A lot of players (like myself) have a very strong preference for resource management between short tests rather than between long rests. So, by the same logic that says we should have a simple fighter because some players don’t want to manage any limited resources ever, we should have a short rest caster. But obviously if only one or two classes benefit from short rests, there’s going to be tension between the party members who need them and the ones who don’t. Giving everyone at least a little stuff they can get back on a short rest helps ease that tension, without taking short rest classes away from the people who like them.

 

[Mistwell]

It’s the better choice, in my opinion. A lot of players (like myself) have a very strong preference for resource management between short tests rather than between long rests. So, by the same logic that says we should have a simple fighter because some players don’t want to manage any limited resources ever, we should have a short rest caster. But obviously if only one or two classes benefit from short rests, there’s going to be tension between the party members who need them and the ones who don’t. Giving everyone at least a little stuff they can get back on a short rest helps ease that tension, without taking short rest classes away from the people who like them.

The primary objection I have is every table varies greatly in access to short rests. We've had this discussion before, but certain common setting challenges, like Dungeons, it can be very difficult to get a short rest when needed. For other tables it is very easy. A variable like that shouldn't be the basis of the entire class system because it forces those tables where short rests are harder to access to change their settings to conform to the new system. And given the most common setting where it's an issue is dungeons, which is in the title of the game itself, I don't think it's a wise course to mandate frequent short rests due to the common limitation on accessing short rests.

IF however they changed the short rest to 1 minute or 5 minutes, it would be a different story.

 

[Charlaquin]

The primary objection I have is every table varies greatly in access to short rests. We've had this discussion before, but certain common setting challenges, like Dungeons, it can be very difficult to get a short rest when needed. For other tables it is very easy. A variable like that shouldn't be the basis of the entire class system because it forces those tables where short rests are harder to access to change their settings to conform to the new system. And given the most common setting where it's an issue is dungeons, which is in the title of the game itself, I don't think it's a wise course to mandate frequent short rests due to the common limitation on accessing short rests.

I mean, I think you can say the same of long rests. It’s just an inherent flaw of any system where resource recovery is restricted by nothing but time spent in inactivity.

IF however they changed the short rest to 1 minute or 5 minutes, it would be a different story.

Yeah, 10 minutes would be my preference, but I agree that shorter short rests would definitely be the best solution.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, 10 minutes would be my preference, but I agree that shorter short rests would definitely be the best solution.

The fact that it's such a relatively obvious solution to an issue they've been wrestling with the past few years makes me wonder as to the reasoning behind not implementing it yet.