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

[Vaalingrade]

5.5 content is like a rescue cat. You can't make any sudden movements or show any disapproval. You must approach slowly, palms facing up and avoiding eye contact. Avoid eye contact or it will flee under the couch.

 

[Amrûnril]

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.

On the other hand, the developers have also said that if an option gets over 80% approval, they conclude that the community wants the specific version they playtested. If one wants further iteration, neither approval voting nor disapproval voting is a reliable way of pushing for that outcome.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

I mean, I agree with your reasoning, but it's not really what the survey is asking. So you're left with: Do you answer the survey as it is asked, or do you try to game the system? You're clearly advocating gaming the system, and I don't disagree, but it's pretty counter-intuitive.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

The problem with that is:
If something is a good idea, but needs work, you are just SOL.
Giving something a "4" means the item in question gets significantly above the approval threshold, and it's shipped as is.
On the flip side, giving something a "3" translates into "throw the idea into the shredder, then throw the shredder into a burning bin."

You effectively cannot say that you like the idea but the execution is flawed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem with that is:
If something is a good idea, but needs work, you are just SOL.
Giving something a "4" means the item in question gets significantly above the approval threshold, and it's shipped as is.
On the flip side, giving something a "3" translates into "throw the idea into the shredder, then throw the shredder into a burning bin."

You effectively cannot say that you like the idea but the execution is flawed.

Of course you can. You write all your critique in the comments section.

The thing I think most people forget is that not a single person at WotC cares about (general) YOUR opinion. Not your specific opinion. (General) you might have the greatest critique in the world... but you are still just one of thousands of people, all of whom have opinions. So the best any of us can do is participate in the manner WotC has laid out for us.

Which means if you like something foundationally but have major issues on specific things (like say for example Flex in the Weapon Mastery system)... you need to score things such that you lend your voice to keeping something in place, and then lend your voice to comments that collectively show WotC where they might have made a mistake. But (general) your individual comment? Won't have any impact.

Some folks here went into really in-depth detail as to why Flex was a bad Mastery. They might have had the most precise and indicative evidence and proven without a shadow of a doubt that it shouldn't be in the game. But guess what? Even if those comments were 100% on target... it wouldn't have mattered if they were the only 6-10 people amongst the 40,000 respondents to make that case. If everybody else didn't care and found Flex to be perfectly acceptable as-is... then there's a pretty good chance WotC wouldn't have done anything. And that's the issue-- NONE of us can make an individual effect here. We can only be one of many voices offering up critique that has import.

So we have to go into these surveys and not try and "stand out" by making a grand show of ourselves... like trying to thumb your nose at the entire process by voting '1' straight down the line in an effort to show WotC how bad you think their process is. No one cares that you felt "so offended" by what WotC gave you that you felt you had no choice but to make this personal grand show of downvoting every single thing in some new section they were asking your opinion on (because again... all those '1's were merely just a single voice of probably 100 to 500 OTHER voices that all voted '1' straight down the line too). Rather... we need to just be smart about it. If there are things that have a good basis to start but poor execution... you vote middle of the road. You lend your voice to the thousands of people who also go middle of the road so that WotC ends up curious as to why there were all these '3' votes and maybe then spends a little more time looking at the comments to figure it out. Instead of your '1' vote lending itself to the large group of other '1' and '2' votes that absolutely decimate the opinion level and tell WotC it isn't even worth wasting their time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I rated most with satisfied to counter your negative responses.
Overall the bastion system is not that bad, but it still needs work.

 

[mamba]

I rated most with satisfied to counter your negative responses.
Overall the bastion system is not that bad, but it still needs work.

two can play that game, so now I need to fill it out too to counter you

 

[UngeheuerLich]

two can play that game, so now I need to fill it out too to counter you

I think we need more people to fill it out.
20. With 13 writing in positive responses and 7 negative.

 

[Stormonu]

I think we need more people to fill it out.
20. With 13 writing in positive responses and 7 negative.

Add a "0" to the end of those numbers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Add a "0" to the end of those numbers.

Why? We need 65%... Do you think there are more people besides us on ENworld that fill out those surveys?