Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Class spell lists and pact magic are back!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9130255" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>So... let me get this straight. </p><p></p><p>You think the survey is sloppy and giving poor results. And that, combined with some of the things you like scoring well in the survey, but not making it into the game, has led to this discussion. </p><p></p><p>But you don't know what specific things scored well that won't make it into the 2024 books. You are just assuming it will be things you liked, because you think he said most things reached 70%. The article didn't actually say that, it said "many of the bigger changes" reached the threshold. That isn't most of them. That isn't even most of the changes at all. They were essentially saying "more of the big changes than expected were well received" which doesn't support your assertion at all.</p><p></p><p>And I assume you are ignoring the part of the article where he says this "<em>As for some of the other proposed changes that tested well, Crawford noted that there was still a chance that they might appear in a future book as optional rules. "Some of the other things that scored well but then had a mixed reception in terms of people's commentary on it, all of those things still have a chance to appear as optional rules in a future book."</em>" Because that means that even those big changes, that reached 70%, that won't be in the PHB will still be put into the game, just later. And the reason for that is because of the community discourse.</p><p></p><p>And, you are assuming there was a problem with sloppy survey testing and poor survey results, because they looked beyond the survey, read comments, and followed the community discourse over the rules changes. And that is bad because it shows the survey didn't capture every single facet of people's opinions on the subject? </p><p></p><p>...</p><p></p><p>So you either misunderstood or misrepresented the article, to present a problem that doesn't exist, ignored the actual context, and used all of that to justify this assertion that the survey is sloppy and bad based off the expectation that maybe things you like won't make it in, because they took in more information than just the survey. </p><p></p><p>...</p><p></p><p>And somehow this will yet again be turned into me being a scummy person who is too stupid to realize that you are actually correct.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9130255, member: 6801228"] So... let me get this straight. You think the survey is sloppy and giving poor results. And that, combined with some of the things you like scoring well in the survey, but not making it into the game, has led to this discussion. But you don't know what specific things scored well that won't make it into the 2024 books. You are just assuming it will be things you liked, because you think he said most things reached 70%. The article didn't actually say that, it said "many of the bigger changes" reached the threshold. That isn't most of them. That isn't even most of the changes at all. They were essentially saying "more of the big changes than expected were well received" which doesn't support your assertion at all. And I assume you are ignoring the part of the article where he says this "[I]As for some of the other proposed changes that tested well, Crawford noted that there was still a chance that they might appear in a future book as optional rules. "Some of the other things that scored well but then had a mixed reception in terms of people's commentary on it, all of those things still have a chance to appear as optional rules in a future book."[/I]" Because that means that even those big changes, that reached 70%, that won't be in the PHB will still be put into the game, just later. And the reason for that is because of the community discourse. And, you are assuming there was a problem with sloppy survey testing and poor survey results, because they looked beyond the survey, read comments, and followed the community discourse over the rules changes. And that is bad because it shows the survey didn't capture every single facet of people's opinions on the subject? ... So you either misunderstood or misrepresented the article, to present a problem that doesn't exist, ignored the actual context, and used all of that to justify this assertion that the survey is sloppy and bad based off the expectation that maybe things you like won't make it in, because they took in more information than just the survey. ... And somehow this will yet again be turned into me being a scummy person who is too stupid to realize that you are actually correct. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Class spell lists and pact magic are back!
Top