D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[DEFCON 1]

That's what I don't get.

Why don't people who say "I want non-supernatural martials" complain about lack of non-supernatural player, monster, and dungeon support from WOTC, Paizo, and other 3PP who keep grinding out magic magic magic magic magic?

Well people other than @Micah Sweet.

Because there's only 12* of you. But because you all congregate in the same threads it makes it seem like "everyone" in those threads agrees the game needs less magic and more "gritty martial fighting". But you are only 12* people out of 400,000... most of whom don't care about the issue in the least.

But you aren't alone. Every single thread here on thess boards where someone says "D&D NEEDS X!" has the requisite dozen players show up and agree with them that this has to happen because there's this supposedly massive monolith of players who also think this is true. When in actuality 99% of the playerbase has probably never even thought of or worried about it, let alone formed an opinion on it. And even those that have formed an opinion... a large number of them just fixed their own game to take it into account, rather than sitting on their hands for WotC to do it for them.

Look... if there actually WAS this huge throng of the playerbase who wanted more martial characters, or high-level adventures, or arcane half-casters, or Warlords, or Psions, or "simple spellcasters", or "0-level characters", or any other repetitive exclamations of supposed "truth" that gets trotted out here on the boards as NEEDING to be added by WotC or else they are stupid, lazy designers... WotC would know it and they might eventually do something about it. But in reality WotC won't because it actually ISN'T true. There's only 12* of you who actually want it. And which is why even DMs Guild designers don't often bother making it for you, because you won't buy it and just end up complaining about their work too.

* exaggeration for humorous effect

 

[Oofta]

Though "works for them" and "makes them happy" can quite easily be worlds apart. Again: several 5e classes and subclasses have abysmal player satisfaction percentages, despite still being played frequently.

And WotC clearly cares about this. That's why we have an image from a presentation discussing the current playtest, showing this information. That's why they're doing a playtest at all, rather than just publishing a barely-changed update and calling it good. That's why they changed their design structure a few years back, to avoid short-rest abilities in most cases (not all, but the vast majority.)

Yes, corporations clearly care about easily measured metrics, that they can make go up.

Like us, they are into seeing 'bigger numbers.'

The sad thing is, it doesn't necessarily make for a better game. Just wait for the results of the survey regarding Wizards getting more power, and Cantrips being improved across the board all receive 'overwhelming support'.

So let me get this straight. We're now at the point where people don't really like playing the game, they just do it for ... reasons ... I guess. That along with making a game (and it is a game after all) appeal to more people by making it something they want to play (except of course they don't really want to play the game) is somehow making the game worse.

Wow. That's just ... wow. You personally don't like the game? Fine. I happen to like quite a few things other people do not and vice versa. But does it ever occur to you that what makes people happy could in some odd twist of fate actually be something that you don't personally care for? Because people I play with actually enjoy playing the game. Shocking, I know.

Saying you don't like the game? That's too bad, sorry to hear it. Saying that because you don't like the game people aren't really having fun with it and it's poorly designed? Give me a break.

 

[Oofta]

Because there's only 12* of you. But because you all congregate in the same threads it makes it seem like "everyone" in those threads agrees the game needs less magic and more "gritty martial fighting". But you are only 12* people out of 400,000... most of whom don't care about the issue in the least.

But you aren't alone. Every single thread here on thess boards where someone says "D&D NEEDS X!" has the requisite dozen players show up and agree with them that this has to happen because there's this supposedly massive monolith of players who also think this is true. When in actuality 99% of the playerbase has probably never even thought of or worried about it, let alone formed an opinion on it. And even those that have formed an opinion... a large number of them just fixed their own game to take it into account, rather than sitting on their hands for WotC to do it for them.

Look... if there actually WAS this huge throng of the playerbase who wanted more martial characters, or high-level adventures, or arcane half-casters, or Warlords, or Psions, or "simple spellcasters", or "0-level characters", or any other repetitive exclamations of supposed "truth" that gets trotted out here on the boards as NEEDING to be added by WotC or else they are stupid, lazy designers... WotC would know it and they might eventually do something about it. But in reality WotC won't because it actually ISN'T true. There's only 12* of you who actually want it. And which is why even DMs Guild designers don't often bother making it for you, because you won't buy it and just end up complaining about their work too.

* exaggeration for humorous effect

You are correct that it's an exaggeration that there's actually a dozen. I count about half that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So let me get this straight. We're now at the point where people don't really like playing the game, they just do it for ... reasons ... I guess. That along with making a game (and it is a game after all) appeal to more people by making it something they want to play (except of course they don't really want to play the game) is somehow making the game worse.

Wow. That's just ... wow. You personally don't like the game? Fine. I happen to like quite a few things other people do not and vice versa. But does it ever occur to you that what makes people happy could in some odd twist of fate actually be something that you don't personally care for? Because people I play with actually enjoy playing the game. Shocking, I know.

Saying you don't like the game? That's too bad, sorry to hear it. Saying that because you don't like the game people aren't really having fun with it and it's poorly designed? Give me a break.

Clearly, people are choosing to play. Yet a very significant percentage are not happy with what they're playing. That's a weird situation. It requires explanation. If you can provide an explanation for the abysmal satisfaction survey numbers--which, notably, were significantly improved over the course of the current playtest thus far--I'm all ears.

We have classes and subclasses that lots of people are playing. They are also classes--and subclasses--that are getting sub-par to downright abysmal satisfaction scores. The straightforward explanation is that people like the idea/concept/presentation, but are dissatisfied with the execution/implementation/results.

Both of these data points come from WotC themselves. If we are to question one for being bad data collection, it seems we should treat both with equal suspicion; if we are to accept one because it is WotC data and thus presumably good enough, it seems we should treat both with equal deference.

Do you have a better explanation?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For a game where people say "oh I like gritty fantasy" "I like low magic" and "I don't want magic items everywhere",

What game is this?

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to high level adventures, every campaign I start I plan on going to 20th level. It's one of the reasons I don't use published campaigns. Then again, it's also quite odd that mods have the adventurers fighting Tiamat at level 16.

However, in order to make those higher level story arcs truly interesting you have to know your group and customize the adventure for them. It takes more flexibility than modules allow for in order to adjust what's happening based on what the party does because they can at times do things you weren't expecting. While players seem to find a way to derail what I thought was going to happen from session one forward, at higher levels the derailments can have a much bigger impact.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Clearly, people are choosing to play. Yet a very significant percentage are not happy with what they're playing. That's a weird situation. It requires explanation. If you can provide an explanation for the abysmal satisfaction survey numbers--which, notably, were significantly improved over the course of the current playtest thus far--I'm all ears.

We have classes and subclasses that lots of people are playing. They are also classes--and subclasses--that are getting sub-par to downright abysmal satisfaction scores. The straightforward explanation is that people like the idea/concept/presentation, but are dissatisfied with the execution/implementation/results.

Both of these data points come from WotC themselves. If we are to question one for being bad data collection, it seems we should treat both with equal suspicion; if we are to accept one because it is WotC data and thus presumably good enough, it seems we should treat both with equal deference.

Do you have a better explanation?

Yes, I do.

It's called a playtest. Which means a few things-

1. This is not a survey of all players. It is a survey of people who (1) are doing the playtest, and (2) responding to the surveys.

2. You are not looking at overall data, or even the revealed preferences of players. Instead, you are looking at survey data of people expressing opinions about options presented for a playtest.

3. Finally, you can't just cherrypick certain data from the playtest (and say that some numbers are "abysmal"). How does any of this support what you want? In other words, we will see the final version. I am assuming it will make you unhappy. Which means that after incorporating this data that you are trying to assert is meaningful, it still will not support your position.

Which will lead to a whole bunch of threads after the release of 5e2024, most assuredly about how the Community REALLY REALLY (for sure, this time) is demanding something something martials.

 

[Oofta]

Clearly, people are choosing to play. Yet a very significant percentage are not happy with what they're playing. That's a weird situation. It requires explanation. If you can provide an explanation for the abysmal satisfaction survey numbers--which, notably, were significantly improved over the course of the current playtest thus far--I'm all ears.

We have classes and subclasses that lots of people are playing. They are also classes--and subclasses--that are getting sub-par to downright abysmal satisfaction scores. The straightforward explanation is that people like the idea/concept/presentation, but are dissatisfied with the execution/implementation/results.

Both of these data points come from WotC themselves. If we are to question one for being bad data collection, it seems we should treat both with equal suspicion; if we are to accept one because it is WotC data and thus presumably good enough, it seems we should treat both with equal deference.

Do you have a better explanation?

I've played with at least a couple dozen people over the course of 5E. As far as I can tell everyone was having fun playing. If people don't like a class or subclass they play something else. I don't personally care for warlocks and if asked on a poll would rank them low so I play something I do enjoy. Fortunately nobody is forcing me to play a warlock. For that matter, the Arcane Archer subclass of fighter is not my cup of tea and I would say I was not satisfied with it's implementation but it's quite likely my next character will be a fighter, just a different subclass. It's not like we're lacking for options.

You keep throwing around these vague assertions of dissatisfaction. Without knowing how the poll was worded, what specifically they were asking, I think you're likely making a tempest in a teapot. Are some people unhappy? Obviously. Some people would complain if someone handed them $100 because they weren't handed $1,000.

Everything can be improved. There are several things in D&D I wish had been done differently. But overall I still enjoy the game and have fun playing, even if I am dissatisfied with some specific aspects of the game.

 

[Oofta]

Even in 4e there were more magic classes.

All the Arcane classes were magic.
All the Divine classes were magic.
All the Primal classes could be magic and the 4/5 were definitely so.
Psionic depends on whether you considered it magic .

So of the 4 main power sources, 74% were magic. 80% if you include Psionic.

For a game where people say "oh I like gritty fantasy" "I like low magic" and "I don't want magic items everywhere", WOTC keeps pumping out magic that gets bought up constantly in books.

---

That's what I don't get.

Why don't people who say "I want non-supernatural martials" complain about lack of non-supernatural player, monster, and dungeon support from WOTC, Paizo, and other 3PP who keep grinding out magic magic magic magic magic?

Well people other than @Micah Sweet.

Plenty of people want the option to play characters that are not overtly supernatural beyond core D&D assumptions.

I don't remember anyone saying they want D&D to be a gritty no magic campaign. There are other games for that.

 

[Remathilis]

And, sadly, the mechanical gap between commoner and 1st-level character has been growing wider ever since, peaking with 4e.

You see bug, I see feature.