I wasn't trying to get into that discussion.
I am just saying that the designers put such a high level of wide satisfaction on possible new ideas that it hindered or even block many things that would or could have been beneficial to 5e.
The fact that we can add 5+ different official new kinds of elf but the designers could only get one new class concept and zero new nonMTG settings past their survey system kinda proves it.
This is addressed specifically in the next slide - turned out when people were presented with fewer out of combat options and more in combat options with actual rules, they liked the opposite due to time pressure constraints on combat and no pressure constrains on out of combat.I dont recall how this was presented back in the surveys. Though, as noted by gmforpowergamers, spells get to just do things in social and exploration pillar and don't need DM adjudication. What a missed opportunity. Clearly, most folks don't seem to care though so what can you do?
The point was some debates in the playtest were made while others weren't.The fact that the playtest for the anniversary edition had multiple kinds of elf was something we were joking about yesterday during our game session. I don't think having an elf of the week is a good thing. Whether or not more classes or options would have been beneficial is debatable.
I knew they said this at some point, just couldn't recall where. Explains a lot of what goes down in conversations here.The forums are not necessarily representative of the larger audience. There definitely is a silent majority sometimes. A lot of times people would say something is terrible on forums, that came back with 95% approval on surveys.
Wow, so actually for most people the 5E product release schedule has bern blisteringy fast.Video #5 Questions
How did they choose which playstyles to support: they wanted enough optimization to satisfy those who wanted high level customization, but not too far in that direction because that moved away from the center (majority view) of the game. They wanted it to be at least everyone's second best version of the game. Making feats an optional rule for example was a compromise they made. The DMG was intended as a tool chest for optional rules.
Question about playtesting and why it's not as sophisticated in RPGs as it is with video games. Mearls says it's about the deadlines and a continual release schedule. They found in one of their playtests how many books people would buy for expansion books. They thought it would be 20 or 30 in ten years, and it turned out to be FOUR. FOUR was the average number of expansion books people bought over ten years. That changed their release schedule. They made them to decide to scale back the number of releases and focus more on playtesting. They looked back and realized they had saturated the market with the release schedule in 3.5 and 4e. They wanted to avoid the treadmill, and that the old business model of RPG markets was outdated. Mearls compared this to the board game industry.
The playtesting method had been tried by WOTC on the Dungeon Command board game prior to 5e, as a test. They learned some process lessons from that.
[This is at 6:26 mark in the video if you want to watch the details - pretty interesting stuff].
[I had to end this viewing at the half way mark at 12:45 due to time. Will continue later.]
complex martialI'm not going to get into this argument again. You want another class, I think there are plenty of options and don't see a big enough niche you could do that isn't already covered.
the cop out is they DIDN"T listen when it came to spells just non magic characters... they (and you) cherry picked "no social rules" to mean social spells AokayListening to what the majority wants and feedback from playtests is not a cop out. You may hate the way things were done, in general I like it and it seems to work well in all the games I've been involved with.
They did the most extensive play test ever done for an RPG. Social interactions in my games rarely involve spells, there are simply too many consequences.the cop out is they DIDN"T listen when it came to spells just non magic characters... they (and you) cherry picked "no social rules" to mean social spells Aokay
I mean, I think that years of playing in the wild influenced most if the changes in OmeD&D shown so far, and in Xanathar's or Tasha's for that matter.They did the most extensive play test ever done for an RPG. Social interactions in my games rarely involve spells, there are simply too many consequences.
But this just goes back to the fact that you can't please everyone. As they state in the videos, even if something has a 95% popularity rate, that still means 1 in 20 people will be dissatisfied. That, and forums do not reflect popular opinion.
Sucks if your that 1 in 20, but to quote a great philosopher, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Of course another thing they talked about was that people can also find issues after they play a system long enough. If enough people demand changes, I suspect there will be changes. But nobody on this forum is going to influence that change any more than anyone else who participates in the playtest.
If that's true then why do they have SO many non combat spells if they are not used?They did the most extensive play test ever done for an RPG. Social interactions in my games rarely involve spells, there are simply too many consequences.
except that IS NOT what they said... they said that they OVERWHELMINGLY were told they didn't want mechanics for social pillar... but they left all the social spells alone.But this just goes back to the fact that you can't please everyone. As they state in the videos, even if something has a 95% popularity rate, that still means 1 in 20 people will be dissatisfied. That, and forums do not reflect popular opinion.
telling somoni it sucks to be them is the rudest thing I have been told today, and I have twice had crummy rude CS experences... I don't know why this sort of BULLYING is allowed on enworld but I am asking you to knock it off.Sucks if your that 1 in 20, but to quote a great philosopher, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
and yet here we are again... have the exact same argument we have had at least a dozen times this yearOf course another thing they talked about was that people can also find issues after they play a system long enough. If enough people demand changes, I suspect there will be changes. But nobody on this forum is going to influence that change any more than anyone else who participates in the playtest.
Sure, and times change. I just don't expect overall dramatic modifications to the core systems. Even things like making orcs a core race is more of a cosmetic than structural difference. Even if I never allow them as a playable race in my home campaign.I mean, I think that years of playing in the wild influenced most if the changes in OmeD&D shown so far, and in Xanathar's or Tasha's for that matter.
I'm not getting into wizards rule, fighters drool again. If you're not going to discuss the videos, I'm not going to respond.If that's true then why do they have SO many non combat spells if they are not used?
except that IS NOT what they said... they said that they OVERWHELMINGLY were told they didn't want mechanics for social pillar... but they left all the social spells alone.
telling somoni it sucks to be them is the rudest thing I have been told today, and I have twice had crummy rude CS experences... I don't know why this sort of BULLYING is allowed on enworld but I am asking you to knock it off.
and yet here we are again... have the exact same argument we have had at least a dozen times this year
this is an odd thing to say when we know races in general and backgrounds in general (linked to this is the feat at 1st level and feats not being optional) and that is just the first testSure, and times change. I just don't expect overall dramatic modifications to the core systems.
I AM talking about the video... in the video they say that an overwhelming majority wanted no rules for social and very different rules for explorations... but instead of taking that to the entire game, they excluded spell casters.I'm not getting into wizards rule, fighters drool again. If you're not going to discuss the videos, I'm not going to respond.
They listened to the feedback, employed iterative development and did the best they could. Seems to have worked.
I don't see those as particularly substantial changes to how the game plays. That, and it's just UA, no telling what the end result will be or what the next UAs will try out.this is an odd thing to say when we know races in general and backgrounds in general (linked to this is the feat at 1st level and feats not being optional) and that is just the first test