D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[Parmandur]

It would not, however, be accurate to say (absent additional evidence) that the community didn't want Mechanic X.

It depends on what you mean by "want." Lack of enthusiasm is about as bad as active dislike for a game product.

Everything about UA and how WotC responds to the feedback if one interprets the 70% threshold as being a median result of pushing the top button in the aurvey: if as many people put a 4 or 5 (depending on which scale theybare using) as pit the lower options combined...it's in. If more people don't pick the top option, it's out. If that is what WotC is doing, then everything about what we see in UA and final products makes sense.

 

[Mistwell]

Sometimes it's not what we say but how we say it. Even something as simple as making a declarative statement that something needs to happen in the game versus suggesting the game could benefit from having the option will change the resultant responses.

After all... every single one of us instinctually knows that when someone makes a post, there is essentially an "In my opinion..." that invisibly precedes the posting. But if the post doesn't itself include that phrase, then their post appears like they are saying something objective, which will result in people showing up to say "No, you're wrong." And then the discussion devolves into the participants being "right" or "wrong" and not about the substance of the post itself.

Different ways of presenting opinion in our posts will result in different ways people respond, and the different parts of the posts people latch onto to argue. And it takes a bit of doing on our part when we present our opinions, such that you can get folks to actually discuss the parts of the post you wanted to discuss, and not the extraneous other stuff we get ourselves wrapped up in-- like word choice or attitude or stuff like that.

Too true. There is one particular user here who tends to say "The game must have X" when they really mean, "Based on my personal preferences I'd really prefer if the game went in this direction..." There is nothing "wrong" with this person's opinion, but they tend to state their opinion in absolutes, demands, and staunch declarative statements and it often rubs me the wrong way.

It's hard to take a pause and remember they really mean they just like that proposal and don't really mean the game "must" go that route.

 

[Mistwell]

The main reason for doing this public playtest is to provide cover against any criticism

I don't agree. But more importantly, has anyone at WOTC said or even implied anything like that being the motivation, or are you just speculating about their motives because you don't like some choices WOTC made that they claimed were based on the playtest process?

[Edit - just decided to look back on the "Do they read the surveys" controversy and there are direct statements from FIVE different WOTC employees past and present who declare in no uncertain terms they read all surveys, there are three full time people doing it and several other higher ups who do it as part of their job, they do make changes based on survey responses, and they run the entire design schedule and plan based on when survey feedback comes in and what that feedback looks like. All five different people, to varying degrees, make it super clear the intent of the playtest and surveys is to gather feedback they can use to alter their path, and they do not mention even impliedly or in the briefest sense a motive to avoid criticism behind them. So that's the context you're facing - your allegation is, in essence, saying all these people are lying, even the ones who were fired and no longer representing the companies interests who said that's how that system operates.]

 

[Mistwell]

August is possible, but September (or later) is more likely. At this point, I would bet on September (or October).

I think it's a Christmas release.

 

[Sulicius]

I’m gonna call it 5e25 then. That probably won’t bother anyone

 

[CapnZapp]

August is possible, but September (or later) is more likely. At this point, I would bet on September (or October).

I really believed GenCon would be the date.

But now they're saying they're still deep in development.

Then even 31 December is an incredibly tight deadline.

 

[CapnZapp]

So that's the context you're facing - your allegation is, in essence, saying all these people are lying, even the ones who were fired and no longer representing the companies interests who said that's how that system operates.]

No I'm not.

I am absolutely convinced the absolute majority if not all of these people are telling the truth and that they are doing their genuine best.

Your analysis, however, comes across as incredibly superficial since you appear completely oblivious to the fact these are not the people in charge.

But the first order of business is to make something very clear:

I am not alleging they are lying. That you may have convinced yourself I am is something I can't help you with.

 

[mellored]

Not many details...
Just that everything passed.

Guess I'll have to wait for the book, which will be after May.

I don't even consider that a cynical view. It's just a realistic take that open player feedback is of limited value and is not appropriate for all situations. Over the years and in different situations I have seen so, so many horrible takes and attempted suggestions from the players of various games.

As is often cited, players are good at flagging problems and terrible at devising solutions. They don't see the big picture, they don't understand the under the hood mechanics, they don't know any of the behind the curtain business concerns. UA releases are for flagging potential problems with an idea. It is not an all purpose system. Random anonymous players are not equal co-participants in the design process. That's how it is and how it should be.

I disagree, but also agree. More data is more valuable.

However, doing a public playtest is not cheap, and time is limited. Spending the effort to read though all the comments on all the feedback, or spend it playtesting on your own and refining the words.

Would having public feedback on a new Simulacrum spell be useful? Yes.
Would it be worth delaying the books for a month to get? No.

 

[OB1]

I'm really intrigued about the new encounter builder they are developing for the DMG. The current builder really only has a couple of levers (Monster XP, Party Level, and size of each force), but I'm wondering if they might try and do something more granular like the way that building your own monster works with CR. I'm thinking of things like magic items having a XP value associated with them (which is removed from total encounter XP budget), percentage of resources available at the start of the fight, party composition, etc.

Might be a bit time consuming with pen and paper, but on DDB it could all be factored in automatically. Imagine if an encounter you design as Hard flashes up as Deadly when you go to it during a session because of resources spent earlier in the adventuring day. Or a Deadly fight suddenly becomes Hard because the party broke into a vault containing a rare staff. Going one step further, DDB could even design an encounter on the fly by selecting a difficulty level, type of creature, and then looking at the party to create something appropriate.

What other kinds of things could the designers factor in to help design encounters?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not many details...
Just that everything passed.

Guess I'll have to wait for the book, which will be after May.

I disagree, but also agree. More data is more valuable.

However, doing a public playtest is not cheap, and time is limited. Spending the effort to read though all the comments on all the feedback, or spend it playtesting on your own and refining the words.

Would having public feedback on a new Simulacrum spell be useful? Yes.
Would it be worth delaying the books for a month to get? No.

People who read all the comments in the survey have been laid off.
So it also might be a staff shortage going forward for public playtests of that multitude.

And honestly I don't think they need playtests for spells. Most of them are about numbers or scaling or extra saving throws.
Often this means nerfs to overpowered spells. Which means it has a good chance to get downvoted...

So only spels they really want to redo need UA testing and only if they are unsure about the concept.

I am quite sure they already know how to change simulacrum (or the wish spell).