D&D General A video called "Don't Survey Your Players"

[Lanefan]

They absolutely shouldn't waste time asking and tallying responses to 'what specific tweaks should we make in this game' to people who have never even played the game. Someone who hasn't touched the current version of the game will not have a remotely useful answer to questions like 'should we handle wild shape by using creatures from the monster manual or templates' or 'how should we change beastmaster ranger to make it better', to use two examples of things that are often mentioned in regards to surveys.

Except we're not talking about simple tweaks to existing mechanics. We're talking about - at least in 2012 - a rewrite and reconstruction of the entire game from the ground up; and in 2023 a potentially direction and philosophy-changing overhaul. Both of these are relevant to people currently on the outside, as the resulting changes might bring them back into the fold.

As someone who currently plays and enjoys other editions and systems, it would be rather odd for me to offer an opinion on what they should care about if part of that was 'they shouldn't care about my opinion', it's fairly self-contradictory. That's why I never said anything remotely like 'they shouldn't take responses from people who play and enjoy other editions and-or systems', and I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid attributing positions to me that are definitely not ones I've taken.

I can't see any other way to parse what you're posting here.

I have no idea how you could be on a gaming forum and think that surveying people about 'should we make this change' will get only agreement with the proposed change, limiting a survey to only people who play a game does not mean that everyone will agree with it. Even things like 'is it OK for a DM to limit what game races are allowed in their game' generated a huge back and forth a while back, and there is current threads with ongoing discussion about 'is shocking grasp generally underrated' with multiple differig opinions even though it's an incredibly minor point.

That's a trivially minor tweak, as you say; and as a non-player of 5e I really couldn't give a rat's behind about it. That said, if the result made a difference to whether 5e would be more or less attractive to me I should still be able to throw my vote in and have it count.

Some questions, however, are edition-agnostic; and you give a perfect example: the question of whether a DM should be able to limit what species are PC-playable is applicable to every edition the game has had. As such, my opinion as a current 1e DM/player and a past 3e player is every bit as valid as that of a 5e player.

Calling it 'dodging' to limit a survey about game mechanics changes to people who have experience with said game mechanics is silly, as is calling a survey that limits responses to people who have relevant experience with the thing being surveyed 'bogus'.

A survey that's open to the public has to, IMO, a) accept every response given and b) treat every response equally and impartially. Further, there's also an unspoken and yet frequently violated c) it has to allow for the full range of obvious responses.

An example of violation of 'a' above are surveys where an arbitrary segment of the responses are excluded,

As an easy example of a violation of 'c': a few years ago here in BC there was a public survey around whether to keep changing the clocks twice a year. We were given two choices:

--- permanent daylight time
--- continuation of the status quo

Permanent daylight time won something like 93 to 7 in percentage. People were and are tired of changing the clocks.

However: there was no way to vote for permanent standard time as that wasn't given as an option; had there been, a significant minority and maybe even a majority would have chosen it over permanent daylight time. The daylight-time decision was made before ever putting it to a vote, and that's just garbage.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, at some point you need to recognise those who are never going to be part of your market, and discount their opinions.

Bollocks. Those responses tell me as a corporation why they're not my customers and maybe provide me some insight as to how to make them my customers. Those responses also give me some vague idea of how many with similar views are out there and whether I should pay some attention or not.

There are things WotC could do that would result in me being interested in 6e, but those things would likely drive away much of their current audience. This being the case, my input would have little value, unless there are enough of me to eclipse that current audience.

And there'll never be enough of you to eclipse the current audience if you and everyone who agrees with you keeps thinking like that.

An attempt to include some stuff I might like, without burning everything to the ground and starting again, is not going to make me a customer -- and if those things aren't appreciated by those who are customers, it's just a losing proposition all round.

That's a rather self-defeating approach, methinks.

 

[SableWyvern]

That's a rather self-defeating approach, methinks.

In what way am I being defeated? You seem to be assuming I need WotC to offer a game I like or that I should be fighting for such a thing.

Is it a defeat every time a product is created that isn't for me? Personally, I think it's good that things exist that serve the needs of people who aren't me.

 

[Lanefan]

In what way am I being defeated? You seem to be assuming I need WotC to offer a game I like or that I should be fighting for such a thing.

Yes, I am assuming that if you want something you're ready and willing to go to bat for it.

Whhy? Because if you want it it's ironclad guaranteed you're not alone in wanting it, and while one voice might be ultimately meaningless that one voice joined with more voices can end up making a difference.

And you'll never know how many other agreeing voices there are until at least one of you speaks up.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yes, I am assuming that if you want something you're ready and willing to go to bat for it.

Whhy? Because if you want it it's ironclad guaranteed you're not alone in wanting it, and while one voice might be ultimately meaningless that one voice joined with more voices can end up making a difference.

And you'll never know how many other agreeing voices there are until at least one of you speaks up.

But, as I've already said, I literally don't need a game from WotC and I don't care what they choose to release. I have no reason to waste time and effort trying to convince WotC to make a new game I might like when there are already plenty of games out there I want to run, and new, interesting games being released regularly. I'd rather use my energy and resources supporting things I like, than fighting against things that are of no interest to me.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The most of UA articles are PC species and subclasses. Almost all PC species have been approved. And I have trouble remembering when a subclass has been dismissed.
Teorically surveys are for players could find some error that could break the power balance.

The game designers can fix any possible error but the "brand power" or level of popularity of a new subclass or PC specie is too subjetive and here the surveys could be more useful to test the level of acceptance. Here the troubles is when "everybody has her own way to cook the same recipe". Some players have got some idea about the lore of background of a new PC subclass but others could show a different point of view. It is worse when the PC specie is from the lore from a previous IP, for example Magic: the Gathering. The viashino, reptilian humanoids, didn't get the approval and I doubt seriously somebody may miss them. Their racial traits were mainly Bite, a laishing tail and proficiency in Acrobatic or Stealth skill. If ardlings or glithclings were D&D: LEGO minifigures some child wanted to buy nobody wants a viashino when dragonborns are coolers, would anybody? Can you understand what I mean?

* WotC knows the possible speculations about future sourcebooks when a new UA is published.

 

[Distracted DM]

I remember a quote, I think it was Matt Colville that I heard it from, and I've found it to be true over time- players know what they don't like, but it's much harder for them to be accurate about what will fix that problem; that's on the designer's head (or in this case, the GM's head).

I can see some aspects of this idea from the video being applicable to running TTRPG games; there can be an element of theater on the GM's part, lots of smoke and mirrors which enhance enjoyment.. and if you lift the veil and show the gears and cogs behind the scenes, or in this case if you survey the wrong aspects, or take the wrong feedback, you can certainly do more damage than if you hadn't.

But also, this makes me think of the lowest common denominator- this is more about game design and less about a TTRPG table, but it could possibly apply there: trying to please the most amount of people can result in you sacrificing your vision and opinions to appease the masses. It's like other kinds of art- it's your work, it's your passion, it's your opinion. That is what makes it special. Taken to extremes, following feedback can turn your vision into a formless mass that offends no one, but which pleases few. It's changing what you do to appeal to more people, vs just trying to find the right audience/market for what you do. I like it when TTRPGs are "opinionated" in their design- even if I don't agree with everything in the design, I appreciate the artist/designer's vision.
Or maybe I'll just think they're dumb, and that I can do it better

 

[SableWyvern]

I remember a quote, I think it was Matt Colville that I heard it from, and I've found it to be true over time- players know what they don't like, but it's much harder for them to be accurate about what will fix that problem; that's on the designer's head (or in this case, the GM's head).

I can see some aspects of this idea from the video being applicable to running TTRPG games; there can be an element of theater on the GM's part, lots of smoke and mirrors which enhance enjoyment.. and if you lift the veil and show the gears and cogs behind the scenes, or in this case if you survey the wrong aspects, or take the wrong feedback, you can certainly do more damage than if you hadn't.

But also, this makes me think of the lowest common denominator- this is more about game design and less about a TTRPG table, but it could possibly apply there: trying to please the most amount of people can result in you sacrificing your vision and opinions to appease the masses. It's like other kinds of art- it's your work, it's your passion, it's your opinion. That is what makes it special. Taken to extremes, following feedback can turn your vision into a formless mass that offends no one, but which pleases few. It's changing what you do to appeal to more people, vs just trying to find the right audience/market for what you do. I like it when TTRPGs are "opinionated" in their design- even if I don't agree with everything in the design, I appreciate the artist/designer's vision.
Or maybe I'll just think they're dumb, and that I can do it better

I'm absolutely convinced the best games will always be true passion projects, where the designer is free to to work to their vision. Some feedback and support may be of use, but a game designed by committee, or to meet market needs, will never be one of the best.

Note: This doesn't mean any given passion project will be any good, nor does it mean a committee (or survey-conscious designer) can't make a reasonably decent game.

 

[Morrus]

The surveys should be to allow any failure in the system could be used by munchkins in the future, for example a combo of a class feature with certain feat.

That’s playtesting, not surveys.

 

[Remathilis]

Again, you're making my point for me only in reverse: if they got a bunch of survey results in 2012/2023 that said "bring back Thac0" and were legitimately willing to listen to said surveys then they should have seriously considered bringing back Thac0; and if they then decided not to, explained to the public why it was up for question (i.e. released the survey results unedited) and why that decision was made.

If you're not willing to listen to the results of your own survey - and also to be transparent with said results - then don't waste our time with it.

This doesn't just go for WotC. It applies to surveys everywhere.

You've crossed from "gather input from community" and went into "design by committee" territory.