Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9115589" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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.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.Which is equating popular design with good design. I shouldn't have to explain those are different things.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.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.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"?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.</blockquote>

Verification