D&D General How much do you care about rule change specifics?

[Lanefan]

Why? They don't owe us any explanation. They put out a survey, feel free to respond if you want your opinion to be collected,

That's just it - while we know our opinions are being collected, we can't trust that some of those opinions aren't immediately being discarded as irrelevant due to some arbitrary "we don't want to hear from these people" limits.

For example, they might decide to toss out any responses from people who have never played 5e.
Or toss out any responses from people older than 35 (which is exactly what they did* in 1999).
Or toss out any responses from people who spend less than $50 per year on WotC products.

Or they might not do this. The point is that we can't trust them when it comes to massaging the data they use to arrive at their conclusions.

* - if you don't believe me, click on "Features" at the top of this page then click on "Adventure Game Industry..." (second selection down) then read section 1 carefully.

It should be self-explanatory that an online survey of far less than 1% of the player base is not intended to survey the entire player base

And yet they use those less-than-1% surveys to extrapolate what they think the player base wants in the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

MANY people reported this spell being completely bonkers, and needing to be nerfed, including prominent Youtubers. It "made it through playtesting" because WotC knew it was busted and didn't see a need to change it

Well they were requiring 30% to have problem vs 10% 2014.

Candy for the kiddies.

I dontbthink it's that bad until it hits level 6ish and it's mostly theoretical atm.

 

[Zardnaar]

Given that 2e's trajectory led to a crash landing that nearly killed the game, the two bolded statements would seem to clash.

2E sakes were fine. Profit was the problem. By that I mean strong initial sales followed by slow decline. Fails to hit heights of previous edition.

3.0 strong initial sales spike then reduction, 4E similar to 3.0 even faster collapse. 3.5 don't think that did very well to begin with (better than 3.0 year 3 though).

Don't think it's going to pull either of those scenarios. If sales pop next year it's a 3.0 though.

Could be completely wrong but that's my expectation.

Somewhat relevant context player asked how long I expect 5.5 to last. I said longer than 3 years, less than 10. He just bought the new books (came in late 5.0 barely used).

Also said worst case scenario it tanks we can keep playing or do a 5.25 hybrid.

He'll might dust of Pathfinder 1 if required. Barely played it. Mostly used as errata for 3 5.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's just it - while we know our opinions are being collected, we can't trust that some of those opinions aren't immediately being discarded as irrelevant due to some arbitrary "we don't want to hear from these people" limits.

For example, they might decide to toss out any responses from people who have never played 5e.
Or toss out any responses from people older than 35 (which is exactly what they did* in 1999).
Or toss out any responses from people who spend less than $50 per year on WotC products.

Or they might not do this. The point is that we can't trust them when it comes to massaging the data they use to arrive at their conclusions.

* - if you don't believe me, click on "Features" at the top of this page then click on "Adventure Game Industry..." (second selection down) then read section 1 carefully.

And yet they use those less-than-1% surveys to extrapolate what they think the player base wants in the game.

Political polling uses vastly smaller sample size than 1%.

Bookscan data was dismissed but it had a very large % of 5E sales. Useless for overall sales but useful spotting a trend.

I hadn't looked at playtest material in years and went to try. AFAIK it's D&Dbeyond only now so missed it.

They're polling their most hard core fans in effect. They're missing the dead tree majority users.

May not bite them in the ass but it could.

I recall do you like thus material type polls no hard questions like do you want a revision or does this make the game easier to run.
So if 5.5 bubble pops within 3 years boomers are gonna be claiming I told you so.

Another landmine is 5E peaked post 2017. Lots of newer playersmay not be willing to move on.

Everyone with an axe to grind will be claiming it's because of xyz pet gripe.

6E brings back half elf lol.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's just it - while we know our opinions are being collected, we can't trust that some of those opinions aren't immediately being discarded as irrelevant due to some arbitrary "we don't want to hear from these people" limits.

For example, they might decide to toss out any responses from people who have never played 5e.
Or toss out any responses from people older than 35 (which is exactly what they did* in 1999).
Or toss out any responses from people who spend less than $50 per year on WotC products.

Or they might not do this. The point is that we can't trust them when it comes to massaging the data they use to arrive at their conclusions.

* - if you don't believe me, click on "Features" at the top of this page then click on "Adventure Game Industry..." (second selection down) then read section 1 carefully.

And yet they use those less-than-1% surveys to extrapolate what they think the player base wants in the game.

If that is so, and I assume this applies to @Micah Sweet and, to a lesser extent, @Zardnaar, then I must ask a follow-up question:
Why wasn't this a problem before? Essentially nothing about how they collect data has changed, and we had clear, direct signs that their "surveys" were badly constructed even during the "D&D Next" days. (E.g., multiple polls where you literally couldn't answer no, you had to give something between "I'm in wait and see mode" and enthusiastic support.)

It's a little frustrating. Untrustworthy surveys are only a problem when they don't support what a given person likes. When they confirm that person's natural biases, however, complaints are nowhere to be found.

 

[Zardnaar]

If that is so, and I assume this applies to @Micah Sweet and, to a lesser extent, @Zardnaar, then I must ask a follow-up question:
Why wasn't this a problem before? Essentially nothing about how they collect data has changed, and we had clear, direct signs that their "surveys" were badly constructed even during the "D&D Next" days. (E.g., multiple polls where you literally couldn't answer no, you had to give something between "I'm in wait and see mode" and enthusiastic support.)

It's a little frustrating. Untrustworthy surveys are only a problem when they don't support what a given person likes. When they confirm that person's natural biases, however, complaints are nowhere to be found.

Basically I dont care to much about there polling. Most of their D&D is great type comments are pure spin to the point they're useless. I don't think they're directly lying just spinning things a lot. They've been doing that for years though nothing new (pre 5E and 4E).

Their polls and data on how people play I do find more interesting. Eg what levels people play, most popular classes, races or whatever.

For example 2024 has outsold 2014 at launch 3-1. Markets ten times bigger no crap. Took them 4 years to ramp up according to hype they were saying from 2018 or so.

If 5.5 goes out of print in 2027 or 2034 it also says something.

 

[Reynard]

The playtest was marketing.

 

[payn]

If that is so, and I assume this applies to @Micah Sweet and, to a lesser extent, @Zardnaar, then I must ask a follow-up question:
Why wasn't this a problem before? Essentially nothing about how they collect data has changed, and we had clear, direct signs that their "surveys" were badly constructed even during the "D&D Next" days. (E.g., multiple polls where you literally couldn't answer no, you had to give something between "I'm in wait and see mode" and enthusiastic support.)

It's a little frustrating. Untrustworthy surveys are only a problem when they don't support what a given person likes. When they confirm that person's natural biases, however, complaints are nowhere to be found.

Right. There is also conspirital thinking that all the people like you are being ignored when the truth is hardly anyone actually wants what you want in some of these cases.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If that is so, and I assume this applies to @Micah Sweet and, to a lesser extent, @Zardnaar, then I must ask a follow-up question:
Why wasn't this a problem before? Essentially nothing about how they collect data has changed, and we had clear, direct signs that their "surveys" were badly constructed even during the "D&D Next" days. (E.g., multiple polls where you literally couldn't answer no, you had to give something between "I'm in wait and see mode" and enthusiastic support.)

It's a little frustrating. Untrustworthy surveys are only a problem when they don't support what a given person likes. When they confirm that person's natural biases, however, complaints are nowhere to be found.

Are you expecting people to complain about methodology that doesn't affect them in a negative way?

 

[ezo]

Right. There is also conspirital thinking that all the people like you are being ignored when the truth is hardly anyone actually wants what you want in some of these cases.

Likely the case there aren't enough who want what you want for WotC to care. They know they can't please everyone, so they do what they think will be most successful, popular, and in line with (at least a bit) what they want.