D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!

[Charlaquin]

You are so focused on defending the rules involved with resting and recovery that you overlooked the point

What am I defending? And what point did I miss? Literally all I’m saying is short rests work fine for me, but if people have a problem with them, making them shorter would be better than screwing the Warlock over.

 

[Maxperson]

You said the exact thing I said, which then caused you and Mamba to constantly harrass me about how I think all companies are perfect and without error. If when I said it, that's what it meant, why doesn't it mean that when you say it?

I didn't say the exact same thing as you.

See, this is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. I didn't say they have to be "absolutely identical" that is a vicious strawman meant to make it easy to knock over what I said. I said they have obvious differences, and make bad comparisons. You could try and compare a train and a car, because both are land vehicles with wheels, but if you want to say that your driver's license allows you to crew a train you would be being ridiculous.

You said, "Why yes, you can compare apples and fish. But generally when two things have obvious differences, they don't make for good comparisons."

So let's dissect that. First, talking about "apples and fish" says that a thing is not comparable. Apples and oranges, both fruit, is a saying used to say a thing is not comparable and you are modifying that saying to make something even less comparable. It's a hyperbolic version of that saying. Second, you talk about things with obvious differences generally being bad for comparisons. Well, a train and a car have obvious differences. If you need to have things so close to identical that you have to dig to find a difference, you are effectively saying that a thing has to be identical to be compared.

It wasn't a Strawman. It was what you said, even if perhaps you didn't intend it to be that way. In any case, I was comparing apples(blunders) to apples(blunders).

Hmmm, interesting. Why then do you say it was a mistake if it was selling well and only a loud minority hated it?

Squeaky wheels get the grease and it was pretty obvious that such a product would cause wheels to squeak very loudly and cost them money when they had to pull it.

By asking a question you answered with "because Luck" I'M the one who brought luck into the discussion?

Yes, but asking a question you are bringing in the answer. The answer "luck" would not have entered the discussion but for your question. When you go fishing and catch a fish, it's you who brought the fish onto the boat, even though the fish is a different entity and had the choice to bite or not.

Meanwhile, when I asked the question, your answer was SOLELY referencing luck. If I asked you "how did John Brown become such a good football player" and you said "Because he was scouted by the Rams"... well, you didn't state "the only reason is because he was scouted by the Rams"... but you certainly gave that as the only reason with nothing else being considered.

Because in the case of blockbuster without the luck of right place, right time, it would never had made it past being a local business, if it even stayed in business.

A better analogy would be a singer who gets discovered because the music producer got hungry and randomly picked that restaurant to have dinner in. She had skill, but without right place, right time, nobody would ever have heard of her.

FGHEWASVDBFDGNJYRHTERDSBFGNDFJRTHERSGDBFDNHTERGEASRHE

Goonygoogoo!

 

[Chaosmancer]

I understand that, go back and read what I wrote if you have doubts. After that you dropped three paragraphs about Coke that I did not care about and then you wondered why I did not follow up on them...

No, I know why you refused to follow up. The question is why you then used your misinterpret ion of what you think I said, that you then ignored the clarifying of, as an assault upon my position about WoTC. You know, since you keep using that "I don't know" as a bludgeon to show that I haven't considered WoTC at all.

It is, good thing I never did that then... Remember when I said you always draw the wrong conclusions? This is one more of those.

I said it should be your answer for WotC as well because of your replies to my questions, not because you said this about Coke.

Right, you have decided regardless of evidence to the contrary, that I do not know anything about WoTC, their design process, or DnD 5e. All because I won't fall into your rhetorical traps and say the precise words you want me to say, to dismiss my points.

Or maybe you think I know nothing of their surveys, because after responding to just about every single survey they've put out over the last ten years, I clearly have never considered any aspect of how and why they do it the way they do it.

Agreed, which is what I was saying, 'good design' here equals 'a large percentage of the people answering the survey like it'

Which is equating popular design with good design. I shouldn't have to explain those are different things.

No, I am using the same metric to determine good design that WotC is using.

You for some reason seem to insist that there is one that no one is using but that more objectively would measure that. Even if that existed, since no one is using that, it is irrelevant to what WotC is doing and explains nothing.

Okay, maybe I do need to explain it. I have seen people bring "better" designs to aspects of the game that WoTC has ignored. Something like the crafting system, or a mass battle system. Those things are better than what WoTC has designed. They would likely poll poorly, and get cut, if put on the surveys, because they are not popular ideas.

Or what about the Mystic? It failed, repeatedly, despite actually having a rather solid design principle behind it. Because it isn't popular. The idea of psychic characters in DnD is not popular enough to support a full class. The most they could do was subclasses, because that was less offensive to those that don't like the concept. Not because that is better design.

So let's cut to the chase here, because you keep dancing around this. Is the survey feedback used by WotC to determine whether to keep something and include it in 2024, whether to improve it and try again, and whether to abandon the idea altogether? A simple 'yes' or 'no' is all that is needed.

Everyone knows that is exactly what they are using the data for, that is exactly what I told you they are using the data for. But that would still be true if they decided to keep every idea that scored a 10% and work to "improve" any idea that got over 70% to lower the percentage. You've boiled it down to a point that is undeniable, but that does not prove that WoTC misled you about what your votes meant.

No, it is a logical conclusion about how WotC determines good design. Tell me what other metric WotC uses to determine whether something is 'well designed'. Also, does the player feedback override that imaginary metric? As I said, if the survey says 85% like it and WotC's non-existent metric that you insist is real says the design is garbage, which one wins?

LOL, non-existent metric? You seriously think DESIGNERS have no metric to measure if their design is good? Do you think they just throw random words and numbers at a wall and then ask people if it is good?

As to the answer to your question, depends on what you mean by "garbage". We already know the original Moon Druid Wildshape design is being thrown out regardless of popularity, so if that is "garbage" then the answer to your question is "their design metric, and we have literal evidence of that". But is every piece of design they have asked community feedback for "garbage"?

Isn't that your answer then right here as to what the metric is that WotC uses to determine 'good design'? The metric is the percentage it got in the survey, as I insisted all along. That percentage tells WotC what to keep, what to improve and what to abandon, just like Crawford (and I) said. You are still contradicting yourself.

We can also drop the whole ‘good design’ thing, I am not sure why you bring this up in the first place.

My question simply was does WotC decide what to keep / improve / abandon based on player feedback (percentages). Good design is not really an explicit factor here, regardless of whether we agree on how WotC measures that.

I am still curious what other metric you think they are using to determine good design, but it is not relevant to the question I am asking.

You keep trying to flatten this. It is like asking someone "Whose taste do you consider when bringing food to a family meal, your grandfather or your mother?" Then demanding to know why you completely ignore whichever one wasn't answered and insisting that single opinion is the only one that matters, and therefore everything can be measured by that one person's perspective.

When, in reality, it is both. Things. Are. Complicated. There isn't a simple binary here. It isn't 100% public opinion or 100% design goals or 100% Corporate Pressure. There are multiple factors at play here. And more you you try and make it all ONE or the OTHER, the more you are going to continue missing the point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't say the exact same thing as you.

Yes you did.

You said, "Why yes, you can compare apples and fish. But generally when two things have obvious differences, they don't make for good comparisons."

So let's dissect that. First, talking about "apples and fish" says that a thing is not comparable. Apples and oranges, both fruit, is a saying used to say a thing is not comparable and you are modifying that saying to make something even less comparable. It's a hyperbolic version of that saying. Second, you talk about things with obvious differences generally being bad for comparisons. Well, a train and a car have obvious differences. If you need to have things so close to identical that you have to dig to find a difference, you are effectively saying that a thing has to be identical to be compared.

It wasn't a Strawman. It was what you said, even if perhaps you didn't intend it to be that way. In any case, I was comparing apples(blunders) to apples(blunders).

It was hyperbolic, because the two things you were describing WERE that different. This isn't about something being absolutely identical before you can compare them, this is about needing to recognize when obvious differences negate the comparison.

You were comparing a release of an unpopular product, pulled within two to three months, to a decades long, hidden and secret failure of information gathering that is still undetected and ongoing.

Sure, you can say a blunder is a blunder, because calling someone by the wrong name and offending them is the same as driving drunk and killing three people. Both are blunders right? And in this case you are comparing a product release to gathering data, and a mistake realized and corrected in months to something that has gone unseen and uncorrected for 10 years. The only similiarities are they are both large companies, and they both would be considered blunders. But, in fact, the existence of things like the New Coke blunder DISPROVE your claim about WoTC. Because things like New Coke happen because of misreading the data and missing the mark with public approval. And WoTC has not released a product that has been reviled like New Coke was. Meaning their data has been ACCURATE.

Squeaky wheels get the grease and it was pretty obvious that such a product would cause wheels to squeak very loudly and cost them money when they had to pull it.

Pretty obvious in what way? Also, if the majority liked it, then the minority wouldn't matter?

Yes, but asking a question you are bringing in the answer. The answer "luck" would not have entered the discussion but for your question. When you go fishing and catch a fish, it's you who brought the fish onto the boat, even though the fish is a different entity and had the choice to bite or not.

Wow. That is a disgusting level of deflection. You aren't responsible for your own answers to questions that other people ask, it is their fault for asking. You know the question had at least two different correct answers, right? And you chose which one to use. That isn't on me for asking the question.

Because in the case of blockbuster without the luck of right place, right time, it would never had made it past being a local business, if it even stayed in business.

A better analogy would be a singer who gets discovered because the music producer got hungry and randomly picked that restaurant to have dinner in. She had skill, but without right place, right time, nobody would ever have heard of her

You are right, the singer is the better analogy. Because if the singer has no skill, then luck is meaningless. Family Video existed before Blockbuster. Whatever time Blockbuster claimed to get so lucky to be successful... Family Video also existed in that time frame. So, are we saying that it was the place? That only a video rental store started in Dallas, Texas could have possibly been as successful as Blockbuster while one in Springfield Illinois never could have been?

Or... is it because of the skill of the people who ran the company? Did they play a part in why each company performed as it did?

 

[Maxperson]

It was hyperbolic, because the two things you were describing WERE that different. This isn't about something being absolutely identical before you can compare them, this is about needing to recognize when obvious differences negate the comparison.

You were comparing a release of an unpopular product, pulled within two to three months, to a decades long, hidden and secret failure of information gathering that is still undetected and ongoing.

Sure, you can say a blunder is a blunder, because calling someone by the wrong name and offending them is the same as driving drunk and killing three people. Both are blunders right? And in this case you are comparing a product release to gathering data, and a mistake realized and corrected in months to something that has gone unseen and uncorrected for 10 years. The only similiarities are they are both large companies, and they both would be considered blunders. But, in fact, the existence of things like the New Coke blunder DISPROVE your claim about WoTC. Because things like New Coke happen because of misreading the data and missing the mark with public approval. And WoTC has not released a product that has been reviled like New Coke was. Meaning their data has been ACCURATE.

A blunder is a blunder when pointing out that corporations are fairly often involved in rather large blunders that are months or years in the making. Those meth figures didn't happen overnight. The OGL debacle took a long time to develop. Corporations move fairly slowly when making decisions about things.

Pretty obvious in what way? Also, if the majority liked it, then the minority wouldn't matter?

If you can't see how selling a figure to kids that has a bag of cash to buy meth with is bad, then an explanation from me isn't going to help.

Wow. That is a disgusting level of deflection. You aren't responsible for your own answers to questions that other people ask, it is their fault for asking. You know the question had at least two different correct answers, right? And you chose which one to use. That isn't on me for asking the question.

Woah! Woah! Dial it back a bit. let's say you and are in a car having a discussion and you drive me to a motel to ask me my opinion of it. Yes when I answer that I think this motel is pretty cheap and disgusting I am responsible for my words, but you still drove us to that point and asked the question, necessitating my answer. You brought us to that point.

Nobody is deflecting or claiming lack of responsibility.

You are right, the singer is the better analogy. Because if the singer has no skill, then luck is meaningless. Family Video existed before Blockbuster. Whatever time Blockbuster claimed to get so lucky to be successful... Family Video also existed in that time frame. So, are we saying that it was the place? That only a video rental store started in Dallas, Texas could have possibly been as successful as Blockbuster while one in Springfield Illinois never could have been?

Yep! Just like I said, luck is a major component of most great corporations. Note that I never said that skill wasn't involved anywhere. Skill isn't absolute, though. Corporations often blunder badly.

Or... is it because of the skill of the people who ran the company? Did they play a part in why each company performed as it did?

So you do understand that corporations shift people all the time, right? Even if Blockbuster had tremendous cosmic skill beyond all other companies that ever existed when succeeded, and it didn't, turnover still means that decades later the people in charge could be mediocre folks who make can make a large mistake.

 

[mamba]

No, I know why you refused to follow up.

I sure hope so, because I flat out told you why I did it. Your need to contradict everything, including me telling you why I do something rather than just what I am saying, is a bit weird though

The question is why you then used your misinterpret ion of what you think I said, that you then ignored the clarifying of, as an assault upon my position about WoTC.

I did not do that because of your Coke statement, as I had said. I said it because your position is a combination of unfounded claims, contradictions and plain nonsense

Right, you have decided regardless of evidence to the contrary, that I do not know anything about WoTC,

or rather, you provided nothing that rises to the level of evidence and therefore I summarized it as 'I do not know' for you. Would have saved you hundreds of words and still be accurate.

Your position is 'WotC is a large company. Large companies know what they are doing and would have considered all concerns being raised here. Therefore WotC conducting the survey the way they do shows that there is no issue with it', which as far as evidence goes I find quite a bit lacking. I summarized your position earlier as 'I got nothing, but I am not convinced by your claims', and this is still all it is, you just needed a lot more words to get there

Which is equating popular design with good design. I shouldn't have to explain those are different things.

I would differentiate between the two if WotC did. As it stands, there is no need for that. If you want to insist on there being a difference, then you have to show 1) that WotC has defined ‘good design’ differently from ‘popular design’ and 2) is using a different metric for this, that wins out over the popular vote. If you do neither, then WotC is equating the two, just like me. So far you have not been able to show either and have agreed with me that the popular vote wins out even if there were a second metric, so....

Okay, maybe I do need to explain it. I have seen people bring "better" designs to aspects of the game that WoTC has ignored. Something like the crafting system, or a mass battle system. Those things are better than what WoTC has designed. They would likely poll poorly, and get cut, if put on the surveys, because they are not popular ideas.

This does not show that WotC is using some other metric for good design, in fact it reinforces that they do not.

Everyone knows that is exactly what they are using the data for, that is exactly what I told you they are using the data for.

Nice to hear, so we finally agree that they use the percentages to decide what to include / improve / abandon. Until now you claimed that this is not what they are looking for and that is why they are not asking for it explicitly.

I disagree that that is what they seem to be looking for. They especially do not seem to be asking us if they should improve their ideas or not.

So now we should be back to 'are the questions they are asking the best way to get to the answers they are seeking', and my answer to that is still 'no', and you still have not explained why it is a good way.

LOL, non-existent metric? You seriously think DESIGNERS have no metric to measure if their design is good?

good = popular. Until you provide WotC’s definition for good design and that is different, you have nothing to counter with, as usual. All you do is express your incredulity, that is not an argument, let alone evidence.

They have metrics for balanced, but not for good design, which is why they ask us about the latter, not the former

Do you think they just throw random words and numbers at a wall and then ask people if it is good?

they have some ideas, so it is not entirely random like you pretend is the only alternative, and numbers are about balance more than design. If they were so good at this, 4e would never have happened and 5e wouldn’t have subclasses rated in the 20s.... this already shows you wrong

 

[Chaosmancer]

A blunder is a blunder when pointing out that corporations are fairly often involved in rather large blunders that are months or years in the making. Those meth figures didn't happen overnight. The OGL debacle took a long time to develop. Corporations move fairly slowly when making decisions about things.

1) I NEVER SAID COMPANIES ARE INCAPABLE OF MAKING MISTAKES. Stop acting like proving that means anything in this conversation. It is a strawman.

2) Corporations may move slow in making an initial release, or talking about a plan, but those things DON'T take that long to resolve. That OGL debacle was intense... but it lasted like three months? Again, that is not the same as saying that for the last DECADE WOTC has been making a continous, blatant mistake with their surveys by having a massive lack of quality control and no concept of the questions they are asking. These two things are working on completely different time scales.

If you can't see how selling a figure to kids that has a bag of cash to buy meth with is bad, then an explanation from me isn't going to help.

What about selling a figure to kids that has them eating that figure's poop? Not only a real product, but MULTIPLE real and ongoing products.

What about selling clothes about how sexually appealing your baby is? Those have been highly popular for years. Same is true for the exact same clothes for toddlers.

How about guns for kids? Those are super popular as well, even as they get children killed and injured.

If you are telling me that only a minority of people hated the product, then knowing that these other fairly disgusting products are commercially successful... then I have to wonder how "obvious" it was that this was a product that was going to sell poorly. Maybe like the "my baby is a sex icon" shirts, people would just laugh it off like it is a joke and not be offended.



But lets step back here for a second, and review. Firstly, whether or not Toys R Us made a mistake is immaterial to WoTC's survey. Secondly, you seem to only know "they released this product. I find it obviously bad, and it did badly, and that should have been obvious." You don't seem to know anything about the development, research, literally anything else about the product. You just have the postion that it was obviously bad and anyone who disagrees with you was stupid. But, again, I've literally seen kids toys sold where the entire premise is the toy will poop something, and the kid is supposed to eat it. I'd have told that was an obviously terrible idea... but it seems to sell well enough that there are MULTIPLE toys that have this "gimmick". So, if you (general) can't rely on "common sense" for what is commercially viable... then all you (specific) really have to prove Toys R Us "made a blunder" is that the product did poorly and they pulled it.... which would have been non-obvious before it was actually released.

Woah! Woah! Dial it back a bit. let's say you and are in a car having a discussion and you drive me to a motel to ask me my opinion of it. Yes when I answer that I think this motel is pretty cheap and disgusting I am responsible for my words, but you still drove us to that point and asked the question, necessitating my answer. You brought us to that point.

Nobody is deflecting or claiming lack of responsibility.

I didn't drive you anywhere. I picked a successful business (sure, past tense) and asked a question. If you then want to force me to be responsible for you answer, because my question "necessitated" that answer, then you are deflecting that responsibility onto me. I didn't bring luck into the equation, my question didn't "necessitate" the answer of "luck". You did that.

The fact you keep trying to blame me for your answer is just ridiculous.

Yep! Just like I said, luck is a major component of most great corporations. Note that I never said that skill wasn't involved anywhere. Skill isn't absolute, though. Corporations often blunder badly.

Great, so once again you have answered the question. Skill plays a large part in the success of corporation. Corporations that have lasted a long time, or that are highly successful, likely have a lot of skilled people involved in them. More skilled perhaps than a layman who doesn't know the business.

And, while corporations CAN blunder, they do not do it "often". Your New Coke example is nearly 40 years old, and you are going to struggle to find Coca-Cola making a major blunder every year, or even every three years. They wouldn't be the global force they are if they made mistakes that often.

So, taking us back to my original point. If the best evidence we have of WoTCs failed quality control standards on their survey is one guy on the internet saying he misunderstood it, and a few vague grumbles that it is "bad" despite the survey process not having led to a single commercial flop... why should I believe that WoTC has failed in the quality control of their survey? Because it is possible to make mistakes? Sure, but by that logic I should believe my doctor is going to kill me and my mechanic is going to ruin my car, because both things are "possible". The evidence is lacking, especially when faced with a successful company continuing to use these surveys to make successful products.

So you do understand that corporations shift people all the time, right? Even if Blockbuster had tremendous cosmic skill beyond all other companies that ever existed when succeeded, and it didn't, turnover still means that decades later the people in charge could be mediocre folks who make can make a large mistake.

You do understand that not everyone who gets promoted inside a company is a mediocre person, and additionally you understand that mediocre people are not guaranteed to make mistakes and thirdly, not every mistake is a large mistake, right?

Seriously, this has nothing to do with this strawman of "can a company make a mistake". Of course they can make a mistake. EVERYONE can make mistakes. But if you don't have EVIDENCE of a mistake, why should I believe a mistake has happened? And if you want me to believe it has been an ongoing mistake for a DECADE that only randos on the internet have caught.... you are going to need stronger evidence than "because we said so and companies aren't perfect."

 

[Chaosmancer]

I sure hope so, because I flat out told you why I did it. Your need to contradict everything, including me telling you why I do something rather than just what I am saying, is a bit weird though

I did not do that because of your Coke statement, as I had said. I said it because your position is a combination of unfounded claims, contradictions and plain nonsense

Most of which is just your insistence that I'm speaking nonsense and your refusal to take anything I say seriously, instead resorting to strawmen and personal attacks.

or rather, you provided nothing that rises to the level of evidence and therefore I summarized it as 'I do not know' for you. Would have saved you hundreds of words and still be accurate.

For example, you don't like my answers, therefor you have used your crystal ball to scy and determine that I must not have examined anything, because you don't like that I disagree with you.

Your position is 'WotC is a large company. Large companies know what they are doing and would have considered all concerns being raised here. Therefore WotC conducting the survey the way they do shows that there is no issue with it', which as far as evidence goes I find quite a bit lacking. I summarized your position earlier as 'I got nothing, but I am not convinced by your claims', and this is still all it is, you just needed a lot more words to get there

And your position is "one person out of 40,000 said there was a problem, so a decade of survey research done by professionals must be horribly flawed!"

One person making a claim is not evidence, as we have discussed. And yes, a company with the size and skilled staff like WoTC probably did something as basic as implement quality control measures on their survey. That is such a basic function of running a business that uses surveys that the idea they didn't do so requires rock-solid, undeniable evidence to the contrary. Not "that guy said" and a lot of "but my opinion on their real goals is".

I would differentiate between the two if WotC did. As it stands, there is no need for that. If you want to insist on there being a difference, then you have to show 1) that WotC has defined ‘good design’ differently from ‘popular design’ and 2) is using a different metric for this, that wins out over the popular vote. If you do neither, then WotC is equating the two, just like me. So far you have not been able to show either and have agreed with me that the popular vote wins out even if there were a second metric, so....

No, you need to differentiate between them because they are different.

And, if WoTC is only planning on putting out designs that are popular, why on this green earth would I even be able to find examples of them putting out unpopular designs?!

This does not show that WotC is using some other metric for good design, in fact it reinforces that they do not.

Well designed things... that aren't popular... not getting in... ISN'T evidence that WoTC cares more about popular designs than well-made designs....

wut?

Nice to hear, so we finally agree that they use the percentages to decide what to include / improve / abandon. Until now you claimed that this is not what they are looking for and that is why they are not asking for it explicitly.

You either fundamentally misunderstand the discussion, or you don't care and are just twisting and conflating words to try and "win". I really wish I knew which, because this is exhausting.

That was not my claim, my claim and the idea that WoTC is using the data to decide what to include, what to work on, and what to abandon are not mutually exclusive. The fact you think they are shows how deeply you misunderstand my position.

So now we should be back to 'are the questions they are asking the best way to get to the answers they are seeking', and my answer to that is still 'no', and you still have not explained why it is a good way.

How about because over the past decade they have not released a commercial product using these surveys that has done poorly? How about that for evidence? Because if they weren't getting the answers to the questions they were seeking, then how have they consistently succeeded?

I've explained to you already that you are conflating this idea of "well designed" with "popular" and assuming that because they are asking for popularity, they are not getting the information they need to reach a design goal of "well designed". You just seem to refuse to even consider that you are wrong about their goals.

good = popular. Until you provide WotC’s definition for good design and that is different, you have nothing to counter with, as usual. All you do is express your incredulity, that is not an argument, let alone evidence.

No. Good does not equal popular. Not even close. That is an absurd statement. It is literally a logical fallacy. The Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

They have metrics for balanced, but not for good design, which is why they ask us about the latter, not the former

And now you want to claim a balanced design is not a good design?!

they have some ideas, so it is not entirely random like you pretend is the only alternative, and numbers are about balance more than design. If they were so good at this, 4e would never have happened and 5e wouldn’t have subclasses rated in the 20s.... this already shows you wrong

4e was an incredibly designed game with some of the best lore in the entire history of Dungeons and Dragons, it absolutely supports my points.

Also, AGAIN since the last time you brought this up, the two subclasses that were in the 20's? THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE SURVEY PROCESS! You can't claim that something that failed without going through the process is a sign that the process fails.

 

[mamba]

Most of which is just your insistence that I'm speaking nonsense and your refusal to take anything I say seriously, instead resorting to strawmen and personal attacks.

not really, you can easily fix that by providing anything that is more than an assertion or simple disbelief, I am still waiting for that

For example, you don't like my answers, therefor you have used your crystal ball to scy and determine that I must not have examined anything, because you don't like that I disagree with you.

no, I told you where they are contradictory and you have not yet resolved that, or rather you did in your last post by agreeing with me about something you insisted for days was not the case

And your position is "one person out of 40,000 said there was a problem, so a decade of survey research done by professionals must be horribly flawed!"

no, my position is the questions are not good at getting the answers they are looking for, the information we have when answering them is insufficient for our answers to accurately reflect what we want, and the terms used for the different levels are misleading by disagreeing with plain English use of them.

And then we found one person in a handful that was mislead, indicating that this could be a widespread problem, which you then wanted to ignore against all reason, because anything else does not fit your narrative.

And all you have to rebut any of this is 'WotC is big, they have considered all of this, nothing to see here'. You will have to do much better if you want me to take your posts seriously.

No, you need to differentiate between them because they are different.

No, I only have to do so once you have shown that WotC has a different idea of what good design is. I am saying that for WotC good = popular, there is nothing else to it (apart from balancing it, which WotC does by themselves). If you want me to make a distinction here, then you first have to show that WotC is making a distinction. As long as you cannot show that they make one, I have no reason to make one either.

And, if WoTC is only planning on putting out designs that are popular, why on this green earth would I even be able to find examples of them putting out unpopular designs?!

because planning and succeeding are not the same thing, which should be obvious.

Well designed things... that aren't popular... not getting in... ISN'T evidence that WoTC cares more about popular designs than well-made designs....

Depends on how well made the one that makes it in is, doesn't it. You still have not shown that there even is a distinction, I suggest you start with that.

You either fundamentally misunderstand the discussion, or you don't care and are just twisting and conflating words to try and "win".

I am not misunderstanding you, I am rejecting your claim since you provide zero evidence for it. If you could fix that, we would make more progress. I am not granting you things you just assert, that is all.

That was not my claim, my claim and the idea that WoTC is using the data to decide what to include, what to work on, and what to abandon are not mutually exclusive. The fact you think they are shows how deeply you misunderstand my position.

then explain your position better. I keep asking you things and you fail to answer

How about because over the past decade they have not released a commercial product using these surveys that has done poorly? How about that for evidence?

correlation is not causation, no evidence, we had that already. They are popular despite the playtest method, not because of it. Feel free to actually provide facts to the opposite, as always it is nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

Because if they weren't getting the answers to the questions they were seeking, then how have they consistently succeeded?

they had the most successful RPG for over 30 years before they even started having playtests, how is that possible? The consistent thing here is that they sell better than others, not the playtest part.

I've explained to you already that you are conflating this idea of "well designed" with "popular"

you have stated it, yes, and I explained that WotC does not distinguish between the two, and therefore neither do I. I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that WotC has a different idea of what 'good design' is from it simply being the same as 'popular design', and all you can do is repeat your statement. I did not buy it the first time, I won't buy it the second time. Come with something more or move on.

No. Good does not equal popular. Not even close.

then show that WotC differentiates between the two

That is an absurd statement. It is literally a logical fallacy. The Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

nonsense, I told you that WotC makes no such distinction, so for them good = popular and therefore I do not need to distinguish between the two either. That is not a fallacy. You will have to show that WotC actually does consider these two to be different things, and even then it still is not a fallacy, but at least by then I am wrong.

And now you want to claim a balanced design is not a good design?!

no, I am saying that 1) they do not need us for balancing and 2) a balanced design by itself is neither good nor popular

4e was an incredibly designed game with some of the best lore in the entire history of Dungeons and Dragons, it absolutely supports my points.

yeah right, it totally is not why they started having playtests right after it bombed, to ensure that they never release something like that again. That absolutely shows two things 1) that for WotC good = popular and 2) they cannot figure out popular by themselves.

Also, AGAIN since the last time you brought this up, the two subclasses that were in the 20's? THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE SURVEY PROCESS! You can't claim that something that failed without going through the process is a sign that the process fails.

I thought you said they are good at designing and do not need the playtest for this... Also, why are you then asking in this very post "And, if WoTC is only planning on putting out designs that are popular, why on this green earth would I even be able to find examples of them putting out unpopular designs?!" Sounds more like you "are just twisting and conflating words to try and "win""...


This has gone on long enough, at this point I want exactly two things from you

1) tell me what criteria WotC uses to identify and compare good designs, otherwise stop claiming that good and popular are not the same thing, because all the evidence we have points to exactly that.
You can also just move on from this, as I said this is completely irrelevant to the case I am making, so I am not even sure why you keep bringing it up

2) tell me how the way the survey is structured is a great way to get accurate answers by addressing the concerns I raised and show 1) how it is simple for the participants to communicate that they a) like the proposal enough to include it as is, b) like it but want improvements, or c) do not like it and want it thrown out, and 2) how it is easy for WotC to pick up on that (without everyone having to fill out the text box). Same here, if you cannot do that, then all the evidence we have is the problems with it that I brought up.

I assume you cannot answer this any better than you have so far (which is not at all), but then we are done, you then have nothing that is worth discussing. All you do have is unsubstantiated claims and incredulity. That is simply not enough, no matter how often you repeat it or how much of that you pile on.

 

[SkidAce]