D&D 5E Basic already surprising us.

[Mistwell]

I deliberately and specifically did not quote the part of your post about fun. To reiterate:

This is the bit that's the opposite of the truth. I won't say that it's a lie, because a lie implies malice. But it's not true.

The issue is not a numerical one. It's not a wash in actual game play.

Show me your data that in actual play it's not a wash for the players playing it, or stop calling it "not true, but somehow not a lie even though I am saying it with clear intent".

Fighters are not in the same ballpark as Wizards, and my posts explain how and why.

All your post does is say it in theory, not in practice, and not with play report data to support the actual claim. Show me the data, or cut the crap on the accusations.

I have lots of play experience at this point, and I have read tons and tons of other play experience reports - enough to calculate a representative sample from it and extrapolate some fair claims, particularly claims from the game designers who tell us the data is coming out that way from all the playtest reports on a very consistent and highly quantifiable basis. All of that data says in actual play it's not an issue. Show me your play-based data that proves me wrong.

 

[Capricia]

Show me your data that in actual play it's not a wash for the players playing it, or stop calling it "not true, but somehow not a lie even though I am saying it with clear intent".



All your post does is say it in theory, not in practice, and not with play report data to support the actual claim. Show me the data, or cut the crap on the accusations.

I dunno about Jack, but I've asked some friends if they'd like to join a 5e game I'm running, and they said no because when they looked at the rules, it seemed really unbalanced and unfun. So there you go. I don't know what more proof you would need.

 

[Mistwell]

There's a positive correlation between "likes the idea of unbalanced fighters and wizards" and "enjoys 5e". There's a negative correlation between "likes the idea of balanced characters" and "enjoys 5e".

Even that is not the case. From the most recent interview:

"It was also a relief to see that the concept of edition wars really didn’t play out with the staggering majority of D&D players. We never had a situation where people who liked one edition preferred option A. and everyone else preferred option B. The support for any particular change or new concept was fairly consistent across editions."

People actually playing the game, regardless of their preconceived notions from preferences for other versions of the game with a variety of balance levels, universally still liked 5e as it played. There is no negative correlation that came up from people actually playing the game who also liked balanced characters that they found in the playtest.

Show me data supporting negative correlations from actual playtest reporting.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Here is the genuine scientific proof: thousands and thousands of people found that the game is fun to play, as it is, without these issues detracting from the fun of the game.

Thousands of people out of billions isn't exactly compelling. After 40 years, you can expect D&Ders to be a pretty thoroughly winnowed population. That there's anyone like Capricia, still sticking around, trying to champion the game or the broader hobby, is really rather remarkable. I think it speaks to the unrealized potential of RPGs.

 

[Capricia]

Even that is not the case. From the most recent interview:

"It was also a relief to see that the concept of edition wars really didn’t play out with the staggering majority of D&D players. We never had a situation where people who liked one edition preferred option A. and everyone else preferred option B. The support for any particular change or new concept was fairly consistent across editions."

People actually playing the game, regardless of their preconceived notions from preferences for other versions of the game with a variety of balance levels, universally still liked 5e as it played. There is no negative correlation that came up from people actually playing the game who also liked balanced characters that they found in the playtest.

Show me data supporting negative correlations from actual playtest reporting.

Well, as far as I know, that information isn't available to the public. If you want to see where large communities are largely against 5e though, you can try 4chan or Something Awful or other sites. Both are full of players sharing their own, highly negative experiences with the playtests as well as analysis of the rules.

 

[Mistwell]

I dunno about Jack, but I've asked some friends if they'd like to join a 5e game I'm running, and they said no because when they looked at the rules, it seemed really unbalanced and unfun. So there you go. I don't know what more proof you would need.

I am pitting thousands and thousands of playtest reports, from people who went in with a large variety of biases for favored editions, who a "staggering majority" said it played very well; all against your anecdote.

That's the sort of data I am asking for, REAL representative sampling of data backing up this claim to counter the real representative data WOTC is working with that says your wrong.

 

[Boarstorm]

(T)hey said no because when they looked at the rules, it seemed really unbalanced and unfun. So there you go.

My reading of the rules is that this is the second most balanced edition we've ever had.

And yet I acknowledge that my interpretation of the rules may not stand up to actual play experience. You can never (well, rarely) know how things will actually shake out until you've played. I think your friends are probably missing out on a lot of good things because of initial impressions.

ETA: Also... Something Awful and 4chan are rather infamous for hating everything, though, aren't they?

 

[Mistwell]

Well, as far as I know, that information isn't available to the public. If you want to see where large communities are largely against 5e though, you can try 4chan or Something Awful or other sites. Both are full of players sharing their own, highly negative experiences with the playtests as well as analysis of the rules.

LOL wow. Yeah, 4chan and SA, that's a good source for "people don't like it in general"!

I will ask again, show me your objective data, based on representative sampling of playtest reporting, that backs up your claim that in actual play the game doesn't play well because of this issue. If you don't have that, then all you have is your personal opinion that you don't like that aspect of the game. Which is fine - so stop telling others your opinion on this is objective truth when the actual objective data goes against your opinion. You have a burden of proof you're not upholding when you make those claims that go beyond your personal opinion.

 

[billd91]

I dunno about Jack, but I've asked some friends if they'd like to join a 5e game I'm running, and they said no because when they looked at the rules, it seemed really unbalanced and unfun. So there you go. I don't know what more proof you would need.

Well, my friends seem pretty enthusiastic and think it will be a lot of fun. So there you go. I don't know what more proof you would need.

 

[Capricia]

I am pitting thousands and thousands of playtest reports, from people who went in with a large variety of biases for favored editions, who a "staggering majority" said it played very well; all against your anecdote.

That's the sort of data I am asking for, REAL representative sampling of data backing up this claim to counter the real representative data WOTC is working with that says your wrong.

You're not presenting data though. You're taking Mearls's word for it. If you want data, look at the hobby as a whole. DnD is nothing to Hasbro, just a brand name they can use to market video games. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the market share compared to what wotc makes from its card game. The market share of Dungeons and Dragons in general has been on a downward slide as the hobby keeps shrinking.

Games are realizing that you can ignore sacred cows, and games like Fate Core are gaining ground.

I realize you can't argue on the merits so you insist on people producing data that's impossible to get a hold of to try and claim some sort of empty victory. It really is the same kind of cognitive dissonance that leads to "Well, can you PROVE that god doesn't exist? Checkmate." You can't prove a negative, and the burden of proof doesn't lie with me. I'm not arguing that people can't have fun with 5e.

What I'm saying is that it would have a lot more broad appeal--and be more fun for me personally--if they had made more of an effort to make sure that all classes could contribute in meaningful ways outside of the combat minigame.