D&D General Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe!

But you also have to view it from the other perspective. Look at this thread- here we have a thread about actual user data. What people choose to play.

And whenever this happens, and we see (again) that people choose to play this type of fighter, we get people who tell us that these choices, these revealed preferences, can't possibly be correct. Not only is the data wrong, but the statements of other people expressing their preferences is wrong as well.

On the other hand, when some of us suggest that people draw conclusions from that which are not shown by the data, that's not the same as saying the data is wrong. As noted before, there's no question that a lot of people like fighters. The question is, in any given version of D&D is that because of, or despite the mechanical support? And that whole question gets immense pushback even when either answer works with the data at hand.

Edit: And to make it clear, I am in no way saying there aren't people who like any version just the way it is. My point is simply that concluding from data like this that's the majority is not supported, and acting like it is is projecting one's own desires on the data. It says that a very high percentage of people creating a character create a fighter (but as I noted besides liking fighters, if you're just testing the program out it can seem like the simplest way to see the basics, so the numbers may or may not be entirely indicative), and that's all it really tells you. Anything further is interpretation.

 

[MockingBird]

Yeah my comment was made more to the "possibly can't be correct" posts. I always try to add the "in my experience" cause I know it's limited.

 

[Incenjucar]

There is no way any class will satisfy everyone. You see complaints on any social media about just about anything. There's an entire reddit forum for people that hate dogs, yet they are quite popular as pets. The fact that some people dislike fighters, or dogs, does not mean that many people like fighters. Or dogs.

Say that you actually like the fighter and you get dogpiled on and note how often people go out of their way to qualify that they personally like the fighter and people they know like the fighter. If you say that based on the evidence we have that the most straightforward conclusion is that fighters are liked well enough and you get dog piled on.

People with complaints are generally more vociferous and likely to continue to post about something than people who are satisfied with the status quo. That, and people who are actively involved in social media on RPGs are not particularly representative of gamers in general.

People who like the 5E fighter are not persecuted. While I'm sure other locations online have similar hand-wringing, this is the only forum I frequent where this kind of emotional attachment and sniping crops up. There's just an overall need to chill.

Usually I see things more like "Wow the 5E fighter sure is a bad design lol anyway let me tell you a funny story about my level 12 5E fighter".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

On the other hand, when some of us suggest that people draw conclusions from that which are not shown by the data, that's not the same as saying the data is wrong. As noted before, there's no question that a lot of people like fighters. The question is, in any given version of D&D is that because of, or despite the mechanical support? And that whole question gets immense pushback even when either answer works with the data at hand.

Edit: And to make it clear, I am in no way saying there aren't people who like any version just the way it is. My point is simply that concluding from data like this that's the majority is not supported, and acting like it is is projecting one's own desires on the data. It says that a very high percentage of people creating a character create a fighter (but as I noted besides liking fighters, if you're just testing the program out it can seem like the simplest way to see the basics, so the numbers may or may not be entirely indicative), and that's all it really tells you. Anything further is interpretation.

Sure. At a certain point you can simply say that all data is meaningless. And that all the things people tell you about their own experiences are meaningless.

And that the design decisions that WoTC makes that are informed by surveying their user base are also meaningless, because they aren’t taking into account … things.

Or, you know, you can actually try and ascertain what might be a common thread with all of this.

shrug As Hussar correctly noted, the avalanche has begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote. But if you want, you can always deny the existence of the avalanche.

 

[Incenjucar]

Hopefully they can cross-reference the survey data with the character creation data so it's not all assumptions and confirmation bias.

 

[Mistwell]

I, too, can look things up in dictionaries--and did so before I made that post, just to make sure I wasn't talking out of the wrong orifice.

Merriam-webster


Dictionary.com


Collins Dictionary


I was "aggressive" because I genuinely believe, or at least believed, you meant something other than the word you were using. Since you have doubled down on asserting a contradiction, fine. I take you at your word. Using "simplistic" as merely a synonym for "simple" is, as these and other dictionaries note, borderline misuse--but if you want to do that, fine. Don't let me stop you.

Yes, what this player wants matches fine with most of these definitions. None of which matches "More simple then they actually want" like you were trying to spin earlier. He wants complex ideas distilled down to oversimplification - not just simple but so simple it's fair to say it's misrepresenting what it is simplifying in how reductively simple it is. That's an accurate statement.


Most people are fine with this concept when it comes to hit points, for instance. Hit points are said to represent so many different possible things that they're not just a simplification by are overly simplifying the concept. They misrepresent the basket of things it is supposed to represent by reducing it down to a single number like that - but most of us remain fine with it.

You were and are aggressive about this, in a weird way. I have no idea why you care this much about this stupid linguistic argument. That is what this player likes. You can call me a liar, but you can't change my statement to be something it's not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. At a certain point you can simply say that all data is meaningless. And that all the things people tell you about their own experiences are meaningless.

If that's the takeaway you got from that post, I don't expect there's any point in continuing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If that's the takeaway you got from that post, I don't expect there's any point in continuing.

See, here's the thing. Sometimes, the so-called argument isn't about the thing really being argued about.

I don't actually think that there is a real and serious debate about a desire for a simple martial option. If you played 5e (I know that you're not a 5e player) you know that a simple martial option is incredibly popular, especially for new players. It is not "confirmation bias" when the data repeatedly shows the same things that we all see in games. For that matter, we all know that WoTC designs things based on popularity, so the continued existence of a relatively simple martial class- both one that came out of the extensive Next testing, as well as being reiterated in this design phase, is indicative of player demand- unless you subscribe to the whole, "WoTC is lying to us! They are just discarding all the data and designing something people hate, which resulted in a popular game, because lizard people. Also? Just imagine how much more popular the game would be if they designed based on my personal preferences!"

If there was a good-faith belief in this (as opposed to trying to discount the extant, extensive, and readily available evidence), people would instead be stating something like the following- Hey, I know people want more complex options for martials because the Battlemaster is actually the most popular fighter subclass! Which we aren't seeing, because ... that's not the case.

So what is this really about? Well, there are people who want D&D to be more "tactically interesting." That is their right! I hope they get what they want. But this has been a constant refrain since ... well, let's just say it's been going on for a decade. 5e went in a different direction. At a certain point, it would seem quite clear that there is a high demand for a simple martial class, and that WoTC is designing for that demand.

Instead of arguing with this, it might be better to actually advocate for a NON-FIGHTER, complex martial class. Or something else. Because arguing with the data doesn't seem overly productive. But I won't (and can't!) stop you. At a certain point, however, you have to understand that people get tired of hearing, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes? And the lying stats? And the lying people creating the game based on the surveys?"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See, here's the thing. Sometimes, the so-called argument isn't about the thing really being argued about.

I don't actually think that there is a real and serious debate about a desire for a simple martial option. If you played 5e (I know that you're not a 5e player) you know that a simple martial option is incredibly popular, especially for new players. It is not "confirmation bias" when the data repeatedly shows the same things that we all see in games. For that matter, we all know that WoTC designs things based on popularity, so the continued existence of a relatively simple martial class- both one that came out of the extensive Next testing, as well as being reiterated in this design phase, is indicative of player demand- unless you subscribe to the whole, "WoTC is lying to us! They are just discarding all the data and designing something people hate, which resulted in a popular game, because lizard people. Also? Just imagine how much more popular the game would be if they designed based on my personal preferences!"

So...instead of listening to anything someone who disagrees with you might say, you would prefer to dismiss all disagreement as bad faith or worse? That's kind of counter to the very concept of discussion.

If there was a good-faith belief in this (as opposed to trying to discount the extant, extensive, and readily available evidence), people would instead be stating something like the following- Hey, I know people want more complex options for martials because the Battlemaster is actually the most popular fighter subclass! Which we aren't seeing, because ... that's not the case.

I made the argument I did because it is logically valid. People turn weak evidence, or even no evidence at all, into extremely strong claims, and then use them to completely dismiss anyone who disagrees with those strong claims that just so happen to confirm all of their biases.

So what is this really about? Well, there are people who want D&D to be more "tactically interesting." That is their right! I hope they get what they want. But this has been a constant refrain since ... well, let's just say it's been going on for a decade. 5e went in a different direction. At a certain point, it would seem quite clear that there is a high demand for a simple martial class, and that WoTC is designing for that demand.

Presuming a subversive conspiracy rather than taking a person at their word is not a great discussion tactic.

Also, can't really say I actually believe you when you say, "I hope they get what they want." See below.

Instead of arguing with this, it might be better to actually advocate for a NON-FIGHTER, complex martial class. Or something else. Because arguing with the data doesn't seem overly productive. But I won't (and can't!) stop you. At a certain point, however, you have to understand that people get tired of hearing, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes? And the lying stats? And the lying people creating the game based on the surveys?"

Your absolutely unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric aside, I TRIED THAT. For years!

Guess what all those attempts ever got me was?

How dare I try to add excess classes. Classes are sooo bloated. So excessive. Look at how we already have Fighter AND Barbarian AND Ranger AND Paladin. There should only be six classes. No, only four! Really we could have just gotten away with one but okay, four is a huge concession apparently.

So...yeah. Want to talk about bad-faith, disingenuous argumentation? Nobody is allowed to want the thing you're claiming to allow space for here. If we ask to change the Fighter, we get your argument here, which boils down to "how DARE you try to take away what people like." So then we say, "Okay. How about a new class?" Which leads to what I said above. Adding classes is absolutely unacceptable. That was literally the core argument behind excluding the Warlord, remember? "Don't add new classes, just make better use of the ones we have." A whole class was unnecessary, it should just be folded into the Fighter. Look how well that turned out for Warlord fans. So we turn to the final, narrow, barely-effective space of subclasses. And no prizes for guessing what we're already seeing: "there are too many subclasses" "this is bloat" "you don't need this many" etc., etc.

For all your condescending talk, we're the ones who have been dismissed, ignored, and put into a never-ending conga line of "no don't do that, do something else. Stop having even the tiniest effect on my fun so you can beg for scraps from the table!"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So...instead of listening to anything someone who disagrees with you might say, you would prefer to dismiss all disagreement as bad faith or worse? That's kind of counter to the very concept of discussion.

....

For all your condescending talk, we're the ones who have been dismissed, ignored, and put into a never-ending conga line of "no don't do that, do something else. Stop having even the tiniest effect on my fun so you can beg for scraps from the table!"

Thank you for your reply; it speaks for itself.