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

[mamba]

Okay, its been a few weeks. What was it that had 70% approval or more, as stated by Crawford, that they got rid of anyways? And how is that because of the survey methodology?

Don't think he said what specifically, he basically said most things reached 70%, so there at least is a very good chance some of mine fall into that category

Dungeons & Dragons' Designer Explains How Playtests Have Moved From Experimental to Focused

Dungeons & Dragons was fully prepared to adopt any of the “experimental” changes seen in early One D&D playtests, had they received high enough feedback from players. At Gen Con, ComicBook.com had the chance to speak with Jeremy Crawford, the lead rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons, in a...

comicbook.com

"Interestingly, many of the bigger changes reached the threshold that Wizards considers to be a success – a 70% success rate."

If it isn't just because you can't believe you were out-voted, then it must be something crawford announced, in his videos, and in which case it should be completely unambiguous.

Do you ever bother reading my replies to you? It sure does not look like you do based on your follow-up posts...

 

[mamba]

Prove they picked the numbers arbitrarily and not on a scientifically sound principle.

Prove that they did. Heck, propose a sound principle they could have used to assign a percentage to the four choices

 

[Maxperson]

Prove they picked the numbers arbitrarily and not on a scientifically sound principle.

There isn't one. Quite literally no specific number can be correct, so it's an arbitrary selection by definition. They're picking one wrong number among all wrong numbers.

Don't state (yet again) that they couldn't possibly have any idea what the results really mean. Prove that they picked the numbers arbitrarily, and not based on any methodology that has a solid track record of working. Because your entire point rests on this idea that they have no accurate reasoning behind the numbers they picked.

There are no accurate numbers for the method they are using. None.

 

[mamba]

There isn't one. Quite literally no specific number can be correct, so it's an arbitrary selection by definition.

shhh, I wanted to see what they had to say…

 

[Chaosmancer]

Don't think he said what specifically, he basically said most things reached 70%, so there at least is a very good chance some of mine fall into that category

Dungeons & Dragons' Designer Explains How Playtests Have Moved From Experimental to Focused

Dungeons & Dragons was fully prepared to adopt any of the “experimental” changes seen in early One D&D playtests, had they received high enough feedback from players. At Gen Con, ComicBook.com had the chance to speak with Jeremy Crawford, the lead rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons, in a...

comicbook.com

"Interestingly, many of the bigger changes reached the threshold that Wizards considers to be a success – a 70% success rate."


Do you ever bother reading my replies to you? It sure does not look like you do based on your follow-up posts...

So... let me get this straight.

You think the survey is sloppy and giving poor results. And that, combined with some of the things you like scoring well in the survey, but not making it into the game, has led to this discussion.

But you don't know what specific things scored well that won't make it into the 2024 books. You are just assuming it will be things you liked, because you think he said most things reached 70%. The article didn't actually say that, it said "many of the bigger changes" reached the threshold. That isn't most of them. That isn't even most of the changes at all. They were essentially saying "more of the big changes than expected were well received" which doesn't support your assertion at all.

And I assume you are ignoring the part of the article where he says this "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."" Because that means that even those big changes, that reached 70%, that won't be in the PHB will still be put into the game, just later. And the reason for that is because of the community discourse.

And, you are assuming there was a problem with sloppy survey testing and poor survey results, because they looked beyond the survey, read comments, and followed the community discourse over the rules changes. And that is bad because it shows the survey didn't capture every single facet of people's opinions on the subject?

...

So you either misunderstood or misrepresented the article, to present a problem that doesn't exist, ignored the actual context, and used all of that to justify this assertion that the survey is sloppy and bad based off the expectation that maybe things you like won't make it in, because they took in more information than just the survey.

...

And somehow this will yet again be turned into me being a scummy person who is too stupid to realize that you are actually correct.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Prove that they did. Heck, propose a sound principle they could have used to assign a percentage to the four choices

Sure, they could have used a synthetic population model, combined with iterative proportional fitting and propensity weighting.

Now, does knowing that mean I know what the numbers ended up being? No. But I know that it is a pretty common way to go about things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There isn't one. Quite literally no specific number can be correct, so it's an arbitrary selection by definition. They're picking one wrong number among all wrong numbers.

There are no accurate numbers for the method they are using. None.

"I don't know it, so therefore it cannot exist"

Do we call this incompetence of the gaps? You can't just declare there is no accurate way to do something that sociologists and political machines and universities do all the time. This is like declaring cell phones are black magic because you don't understand how signals can go through the air.

 

[Maxperson]

"I don't know it, so therefore it cannot exist"

No. It's impossible, therefore it cannot exist. With thousands of voters all with differing ideas of what percent they'd be voting with, it's literally impossible for any one percentage to be correct. When you do that 4 times with 4 different categories, you can't even be close to correct.

Do we call this incompetence of the gaps?

I prefer the incompetence of WotC.

You can't just declare there is no accurate way to do something

I didn't. It's math. If you have 1000 people voting satisfied, what exact percentage are all 1000 picking? I'm arguing that there isn't 1 number. You are arguing that there is and that it's accurate.

that sociologists and political machines and universities do all the time.

Show me an example of one that does it like WotC. Your example needs to have 4 categories, thousands of voters, and then has to pick some sort of percentage for it all to mean based on those 4 categories. Mind you those categories can't be specific. They have to be broad and vague like, "Satisfied" and "Very Satisfied.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. It's impossible, therefore it cannot exist. With thousands of voters all with differing ideas of what percent they'd be voting with, it's literally impossible for any one percentage to be correct. When you do that 4 times with 4 different categories, you can't even be close to correct.

I prefer the incompetence of WotC.

I didn't. It's math. If you have 1000 people voting satisfied, what exact percentage are all 1000 picking? I'm arguing that there isn't 1 number. You are arguing that there is and that it's accurate.

So was flight. So was space flight. So was splitting the atom. So was developing cures to diseases. So was building an island.

The problem is, you are convincing yourself the number must be accurate within a value 0.0001, but people aren't like that.

Show me an example of one that does it like WotC. Your example needs to have 4 categories, thousands of voters, and then has to pick some sort of percentage for it all to mean based on those 4 categories. Mind you those categories can't be specific. They have to be broad and vague like, "Satisfied" and "Very Satisfied.

So like... most political policy polls? I mean, how do we know what percentage of people approve of same-sex marriage? How do we know what percentage of people think that the new education policy is worth pursuing? How do we know what percentage of people approve of marijuana?

All of these have vague categories, go out to thousands of people, and then have a final percentage tally. I'm sorry that you are not aware of exactly how they work, and I'm sorry I'm not a trained expert, but you are literally calling an entire field of research acquisition impossible.

 

[mamba]

So... let me get this straight.

You think the survey is sloppy and giving poor results. And that, combined with some of the things you like scoring well in the survey, but not making it into the game, has led to this discussion.

no, you constantly replying with whatever pops into your head has led to this discussion.

I started with pointing out flaws in their methodology, that was before this interview was done / before I was aware of it.

But you don't know what specific things scored well that won't make it into the 2024 books. You are just assuming it will be things you liked, because you think he said most things reached 70%.

it doesn’t even matter, as I already told you. I am complaining about the flaws, not about some stuff I wanted not making it in. The flaws exist regardless of that, and as I said, if my stuff did not make it in and I considered the methodology sound, I would not be complaining (and that Crawford then comes in and tramples all over the survey result based on personal bias, as that interview showed, is just the icing on the cake).

This is about the methodology, not about what makes it in or not, no matter how much you try to spin the opposite.

The flaws to me are pretty obvious and I explained them, several times. Take it or leave it, I am not interested in rehashing the same (or new) unfounded claims of yours for another month.