Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9094648" data-attributes="member: 93670">No it would not be certain to contribute to positive if the responder doesn't feel confident in what wotc is wanting feedback on and after several years of 5e druids still being punished for codzilla they don't have faith in wotc correcting a set of numbers such an obvious pants on head failure of design that should have been caught by even the barest most cursory skim through by anyone along the chain at wotc.&nbsp; That is an entirely reasonable pov for a responder to have because Wotc never bothered to clarify anything wrt intent no matter how heated the debate got.Even beyond that this touches on well documented polling science.&nbsp; There are lots of areas where research has been done on the phenomena of respondents answering wildly different depending on the question asked and if the thing is summarized or the individual components of the thing are asked going both ways depending on issue and question wording.&nbsp; edit: There are a lot of flavors that fall under that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias" target="_blank">response bias</a> &amp; given how badly the process is handled on a technical level most or all of them could be applied.&nbsp; I'd not be surprised if the milgram experiment also demonstrates an impact* created by the assumption of polling experts&nbsp; versed in d&amp;d/ttrpgs running the show with the 70% threshold marketed do heavily*[ispoiler]maybe now, but definitely used as a shield to fight GM efforts later should the GM want to make houserule(s) that could result in a nerf or reduction in power for a PC somewhere in play.[/ispoiler]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9094648, member: 93670"] No it would not be certain to contribute to positive if the responder doesn't feel confident in what wotc is wanting feedback on and after several years of 5e druids still being punished for codzilla they don't have faith in wotc correcting a set of numbers such an obvious pants on head failure of design that should have been caught by even the barest most cursory skim through by anyone along the chain at wotc. That is an entirely reasonable pov for a responder to have because Wotc never bothered to clarify anything wrt intent no matter how heated the debate got. Even beyond that this touches on well documented polling science. There are lots of areas where research has been done on the phenomena of respondents answering wildly different depending on the question asked and if the thing is summarized or the individual components of the thing are asked going both ways depending on issue and question wording. edit: There are a lot of flavors that fall under that [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias']response bias[/URL] & given how badly the process is handled on a technical level most or all of them could be applied. I'd not be surprised if the milgram experiment also demonstrates an impact* created by the assumption of polling experts versed in d&d/ttrpgs running the show with the 70% threshold marketed do heavily *[ispoiler][I]maybe[/I] now, but [I]definitely[/I] used as a shield to fight GM efforts later should the GM want to make houserule(s) that could result in a nerf or reduction in power for a PC somewhere in play.[/ispoiler] [/QUOTE]

Verification