D&D 5E UA 8 Bastions and Cantrips playtest survey is now live. Update now closed.

[The Myopic Sniper]

I hope the community doesn't kill Bastions. It's a good idea that just needs more time in the oven/generally a lowering of the level requirements.

I lambasted the implementation and not the concept and included specific advice in each text field on how to make a system that would work for me. Of course, if they just look at all the "Highly Unsatisfied" ratings I and others gave and then conclude "Well, that didn't spark joy. Bin it!" that is really on them and their survey methodology than on the players who took the time to read, playtest and grok 23 pages of fairly dense game rules and fill out a survey on it.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Of course, if they just look at all the "Highly Unsatisfied" ratings I and others gave and the conclude "Well, that didn't spark joy. Bin it!" that is really on them and their survey methodology

Definitely. It's not on the community to coddle their inability to use surveys properly / start the playtest earlier / release playtest packets on time...

 

[Vaalingrade]

I lambasted the implementation and not the concept and included specific advice in each text field on how to make a system that would work for my. Of course, if they just look at all the "Highly Unsatisfied" ratings I and others gave and the conclude "Well, that didn't spark joy. Bin it!" that is really on them and their survey methodology than on the players who took the time to read, playtest and grok 23 pages of fairly dense game rules and fill out a survey on it.

Yep, that's how it's gonna get got.

 

[bedir than]

Definitely. It's not on the community to coddle their inability to use surveys properly / start the playtest earlier / release playtest packets on time...

They also have a large internal play test group and don't need to reveal any timeline

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Much like many of you, I also said "Please don't bin it, just because I don't like it - But I don't like it. I like the IDEA. It just needs to be very different than... this."

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe we have fogortten some possible gameplay loophole. What about the players enjoyed the same Bastion but a different group of PCs? For example a facility is unlocked at level 9, but the PCs loses a level for an adventure. Or players alternating PCs to unlock more facilities.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I lambasted the implementation and not the concept and included specific advice in each text field on how to make a system that would work for me. Of course, if they just look at all the "Highly Unsatisfied" ratings I and others gave and then conclude "Well, that didn't spark joy. Bin it!" that is really on them and their survey methodology than on the players who took the time to read, playtest and grok 23 pages of fairly dense game rules and fill out a survey on it.

Well, then if you wanted them to just amend rather than trash the system, why did you give them a 'Highly Unsatisfied' rating (if you knew that doing so could just lead them to trashing rather than revising it)?

If you were okay with the base idea but hated the specifics, fine... but wouldn't it have been more conductive to getting it to a place you would be happy with if you just went middle-ground in your vote (so the percentages would still be closer to non-binned territory), and then giving all your complaints and changes in the write-up?

It's all well and good to complain about WotC's survey policies... but if (general) you know how those policies work, you're better off playing their game to get them to listen to (general) you rather than thumbing your nose at them and by extension cutting it off to spite your face.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, then if you wanted them to just amend rather than trash the system, why did you give them a 'Highly Unsatisfied' rating (if you knew that doing so could just lead them to trashing rather than revising it)?

If you were okay with the base idea but hated the specifics, fine... but wouldn't it have been more conductive to getting it to a place you would be happy with if you just went middle-ground in your vote (so the percentages would still be closer to non-binned territory), and then giving all your complaints and changes in the write-up

It's all well and good to complain about WotC's survey policies... but if (general) you know how those policies work, you're better off playing their game to get them to listen to (general) you rather than thumbing your nose at them and by extension cutting it off to spite your face.

That's the problem with their survey method, isn't it?

I don't think that it's actually clear how their survey policies work.

I mean, we (collectively) have a theory (based on things that they've said) but we don't really know. I think trying to game the system by answering their questions the way we think that it works, rather than by answering the questions that they ask has got to be a risky way to act.

One way or another, it's pretty clear (to me) that their methodology is going to get really messy results. Especially if people are trying to second guess how they should answer to get the results that they want.

 

[Parmandur]

I gave it all high marks, it all seems good to go.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's the problem with their survey method, isn't it?

I don't think that it's actually clear how their survey policies work.

I mean, we (collectively) have a theory (based on things that they've said) but we don't really know. I think trying to game the system by answering their questions the way we think that it works, rather than by answering the questions that they ask has got to be a risky way to act.

One way or another, it's pretty clear (to me) that their methodology is going to get really messy results. Especially if people are trying to second guess how they should answer to get the results that they want.

But we don't need to know-know exactly what is going on... we just have to listen to what they say and take from it a logical result.

They've made it clear that they want to see something at least 70% acceptance (basically 4-point and 5-point votes) for them to continue to pursue it. We know this. Which means if there's anything introduced that we like the basics of (but not necessarily the specifics) and we don't want to see it shat-canned... we should vote at least an acceptable rating so that we can contribute to getting it to 70% at minimum. And then give all our issues in the write-ups so then they can see what needs to be amended.

But if you go straight to 1-point votes because you don't like the specifics (even if you think the foundation is sound) and you want to get your disdain and displeasure out for WotC for whatever reason (even though nobody else cares one way or the other what you think of it)... you're going to just contribute to not getting it to 70. And you will see the thing binned, rather than worked on and pushed forward. Which goes against precisely what you were hoping to see happen.

Are there any guarantees to any of this? Well, no, of course not. But nothing I've said here should be a surprise to anyone, because it's an exceedingly easy reasoning to come to based on what Jeremy et. al. have made clear about he surveys in the past. So even if we don't know precisely the rules, we can still play the game they have laid out before us.