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

[Lanefan]

Okay. The problem is, people are not making claims of the form: Fighters are popular relative to their accessibility.

Instead, people are making claims of the form: The Fighter is universally popular, therefore this specific implementation is why it is popular.

Both the premise and the conclusion are suspect. The former depends on questions we can't answer, assuming that frequency of use on DDB is equivalent to being popular, which doesn't hold (after all, many of these characters are NPCs!) Hence, we don't know Fighter is universally popular, and why I've repeatedly said people make far too strident claims for the data. The only thing the data unequivocally says is that many people who use DDB create Fighters, and relatively fewer create Wizards. It does not tell us that Fighters are universally popular.

Moreover, even if it DID tell us that, it would NOT follow that these mechanics are why. I've said, repeatedly, the Fighter is always popular. AFAIK, in every edition, it's been either #1 or at least top 3. Why? We know the quality is uneven--consensus is the 3e Fighter was really quite bad--yet even when it's been bad, it has remained "popular," that is, chosen and played frequently. How to explain that? Well, per Occam's razor, the Fighter's popularity is orthogonal to whether it is good or not! (Same argument applies to humans. Humans are ALWAYS popular. Yet the 3e human kinda sucks! But it was still much more popular than better alternatives.)

Both Humans and Fighters are and always have been popular for one very simple reason: of all the options they're the most easily-relatable to any player. We can all relate to what a Human is; and we can all relate at least to some extent to a warrior or soldier or person-at-arms. Couple that with Fighters generally being the mechanically simplest class to play in any edition (which alone makes their mechanics popular regardless of other considerations!) and the only surprise becomes that they've not been even more frequently played than the numbers tend to show.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Both Humans and Fighters are and always have been popular for one very simple reason: of all the options they're the most easily-relatable to any player. We can all relate to what a Human is; and we can all relate at least to some extent to a warrior or soldier or person-at-arms.

This, I agree with, 100%.

Couple that with Fighters generally being the mechanically simplest class to play in any edition (which alone makes their mechanics popular regardless of other considerations!) and the only surprise becomes that they've not been even more frequently played than the numbers tend to show.

This, however, I do not.

People as a whole do not value "simple" any more than they value "complex" in the abstract, as a necessary go-to principle. Because "simple" can mean a bunch of good things, like straightforward, approachable, low-maintenance, etc., but it can also mean a bunch of bad things, like trivial, shallow, boring, etc.

It is those good things that simplicity can, but does not always, produce--those are what people value. Something can in fact be quite complex at the highest echelons, but if its introduction is straightforward and approachable, then it will likely be popular. Likewise, if its default state is low-maintenance, but you can opt into higher-engagement methods or styles if you fancy that, you'll almost certainly find a lot of interested people.

Consider Elden Ring. Intentionally NOT an easy game. Intentionally quite difficult, in fact, with a deep and complex action RPG system. And yet it was a runaway success, even moreso than other games of its style--in part because while it is hard, it has several of the virtues that simplicity can provide. There are more and less approachable methods and tools (e.g. Sorcery is very approachable as I am given to understand; I have no interest in games of this style so I have never played it myself.) Each of the bosses, while difficult, is always fair: there are signs and telegraphs for their mechanics, and results are consistent from one attempt to the next.

And Elden Ring has apparently sold over 20 million copies (20.5M as of March, from what I'm seeing). Even if we allow for some 10% of those to be duplicates, you're still looking at bare minimum 18 million people who intentionally bought a hard game with lots of detail and many options--that's more people than the D&D fandom now, as I understand it, even with its explosive growth.

People do not want simplistic. But a well-made simple thing can be really really good! The problem is that making a simple thing good is just as hard as making a complex thing good. Sometimes it's harder, even, because you have to force yourself to use fewer, more-restrictive, less-flexible tools to do so.

Edit:
Note that this applies in both directions. Complexity brings benefits when it's done well, and detriments when it's done poorly. Neither thing is valuable in and of itself. They are only valuable if they are successfully used toward a specific, desirable end. And every single part of that process is difficult! Determining what is desirable in the first place, picking a specific end within that space, and successfully reaching that desired end...every single one of those things is a challenge in design.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If you are asking the question - What are the preferences for the few players who have access to all the available WOTC books (or worse all the WOTC and 3rd party material)? Then yes if that is the question then the default is necessarily overepresented, but that is a different question and one which is representative of a very small portion of the actual player base.

I'm talking about the default options, such as the suggested gear per class. There are plenty of build choices to make even if you only have access to the free content.

Does stuff like default gear mean the player liked it, or simply haven't bothered making a choice in that category? Keep in mind a lot of these characters may be build experiments and not mean to be played.

 

[Hussar]

Am I the only one who finds that format of chart/graph nearly impossible to decipher?

Still, I appreciate the work that went into making it.

One request, if this is ever re-done: make the line colours a time-based rainbow going from blue (oldest) to red (newest) so we can see if there's any pattern changes over time.

Thank you for saying this. I was looking at that and I really wasn't sure what it was saying. Additionally, for those of us who are color blind, color coded graphs are less useful.

 

[xaosseed]

Additionally, for those of us who are color blind, color coded graphs are less useful.

Am I the only one who finds that format of chart/graph nearly impossible to decipher? [...] One request, if this is ever re-done: make the line colours a time-based rainbow going from blue (oldest) to red (newest) so we can see if there's any pattern changes over time.

Happy to take a suggestion on a format that would work for this.

I recognise this multi-colour star-plot it not great but after a lot of fiddling so far the only thing I have found is putting in multiple different graphs to look at each angle

• this star plot to show the difference between the two sets
• average of both sets to give a clearer view on the differences
• time sequence for each of the sets on a different graph

 

[Oofta]

Okay. The problem is, people are not making claims of the form: Fighters are popular relative to their accessibility.

Instead, people are making claims of the form: The Fighter is universally popular, therefore this specific implementation is why it is popular.

Both the premise and the conclusion are suspect. The former depends on questions we can't answer, assuming that frequency of use on DDB is equivalent to being popular, which doesn't hold (after all, many of these characters are NPCs!) Hence, we don't know Fighter is universally popular, and why I've repeatedly said people make far too strident claims for the data. The only thing the data unequivocally says is that many people who use DDB create Fighters, and relatively fewer create Wizards. It does not tell us that Fighters are universally popular.

Moreover, even if it DID tell us that, it would NOT follow that these mechanics are why. I've said, repeatedly, the Fighter is always popular. AFAIK, in every edition, it's been either #1 or at least top 3. Why? We know the quality is uneven--consensus is the 3e Fighter was really quite bad--yet even when it's been bad, it has remained "popular," that is, chosen and played frequently. How to explain that? Well, per Occam's razor, the Fighter's popularity is orthogonal to whether it is good or not! (Same argument applies to humans. Humans are ALWAYS popular. Yet the 3e human kinda sucks! But it was still much more popular than better alternatives.)

D&D players pick based on theme. It's not that they do not at all care about mechanics, though they may not strictly be able to identify what they like mechanically or why. Instead, it's that their picks usually occur before they even look at the mechanics of something. Hence, whether it is good or bad is irrelevant to what people choose to play--unless it is so egregiously, unconscionably bad they can't excuse it. That's why I quoted the Declaration of Independence, because it so neatly summarizes this situation.

So you are basically saying that while fighters are popular they aren't actually popular? Because you personally don't like them? Personally I enjoy playing fighters and I like the implementation they've come up with. If I want bog standard I can do champion and it's what I multi-classed into for a game that's on hiatus. If I want a bit of supernatural I played a rune caster in my previous game.

No class ever would qualify as being popular for the right reasons by your logic because we will never know if a class could be even more popular if it had a different design. All we can say is that there are several variations of D&D style fantasy characters and from all of those options and subtypes the fighter remains popular. Even if you personally don't care for them.

 

[bedir than]

Which is fine, but I think even simpler than that is good. Ideally this class won't need to even look at the spell list because of a class feature.

Besides 1d8 HD, simple weapons, light armor, they should get within the first two levels:

1) Choice of stat mod for attacks between Int, Wis, and Cha. Possibly tie a ribbon feature to the choice, but nothing mechanically important.

2) A ranged attack of 2d6+stat mod, 60' range. Energy type of player choice (not force, possibly not psychic), default fire. Attack deals 1d6 extra damage every odd level (up to 11d6 at 19th).

3) Bonus action at-will utility, strength roughly equivalent to BA help at range. (Give advantage, give one enemy disadvantage, etc.) Small menu of options (3-4) to allow for customization.

4) Small defensive ability, preferably something simple and active, to push the class close to fighter level defensiveness, but through "magic". Maybe a magic ward that lowers damage taken by 1d4 per attack?

I'd love it if you spin this out from the conversation. I'm intrigued by this, but it seems that the basics of damage dealing would be greater than a Wizard.

Maybe the concept should exist as a Wizard template that is meant to be used from levels 1-4, showing the basics of a magic user in D&D? This would be similar to a pre-built character but it would explain the choice points and reasoning behind certain decisions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you are basically saying that while fighters are popular they aren't actually popular?

No.

I am saying, "There are many Fighters on DDB" is not the same as "People absolutely love the Fighter and every single element and aspect of how it was designed."

Because you personally don't like them?

That is part of why I am motivated to speak, yes. It is not the argument, however, which is that none the following statements are logically equivalent, and none of them can be simply substituted for one another:

There are many Fighter characters on DDB.
The Fighter class is the most well-liked class in 5e.
The Fighter class would be hated if anything whatsoever were changed about its design.

The first of these three statements is inarguable from the data. The other two are not. Yet people have repeatedly treated these statements as though they are logically equivalent, and that is incorrect.

No class ever would qualify as being popular for the right reasons by your logic because we will never know if a class could be even more popular if it had a different design.

Incorrect. If we actually got a real, properly designed survey, meaning one actually designed by someone with training in the field of survey design, it would be quite possible to investigate how people feel about different aspects and what their level of satisfaction is with implementation vs thematics. I am saying that people make their choices completely orthogonally to design quality or power unless those things are so hideously out of alignment that it simply cannot be ignored, whether by being much too great or much too small. That is absolutely a falsifiable claim.

All we can say is that there are several variations of D&D style fantasy characters and from all of those options and subtypes the fighter remains popular. Even if you personally don't care for them.

Yes...and why is it popular, even when most folks agree the design really is bad (e.g. 3e, which literally not one person has thus far come along to dispute)? Why has every single version of the Fighter been among the most widely-used classes in D&D, no matter what edition you consider? (It is possible one of the early editions breaks this pattern, I haven't actually seen data about them. But for all WotC editions it is true. Fighter is always in the top 3 and usually #1.)

There could be some complex reason involving the evolution of game design or what have you, but Occam's razor tells us to keep it simple. The simple explanation is that people will choose to play Fighters regardless of quality or power. That the reason it remains one of the most widely played classes regardless of the rules it uses is that the rules it uses aren't why people choose to play it in the first place. Thus, even if they ARE popular, it isn't because of their design. It's because of their theme.

But note the difference between "the rules aren't why people choose to play it" and "the rules are irrelevant to the people who play it." The latter is again non-equivalent to the former, because it makes the incorrect assumption that if people play something they must be absolutely, blissfully happy with 100% of its rules content. That is generally going to be a false assumption.

It would be equally false to argue that the implementation is absolutely hated and endured solely with clenched teeth simply to get at that sweet sweet Fighter theme. Instead, I am saying that the implementation is imperfect and could be better. Which, at the very least, the playtest has shown that that is completely true. They have changed parts of the Fighter, and yet miraculously people have not instantly hated it and rejected it wholesale.

Hence, if you're going to argue the Fighter is absolute perfection exactly the way it is and could not bear even the tiniest change, you're going to need to bring much more to the table than "a lot of them have been created on DDB."

 

[Mistwell]

This, I agree with, 100%.

This, however, I do not.

People do not want simplistic.

Some truly do. We have one player at our table who absolutely wants just that.

It always amazes me when people make a declaration about what all other players what out of D&D based on their personal experience.

There is one very safe assumption you can make about a topic like this: there will be a meaningful number of exceptions to whatever generalization you believe about the game based on your experiences. Your experiences are deeply incomplete, regardless of how much experience you have. The game is far too large, and human beings far too varied, for your experiences to inform you sufficient to make declarations about what "People" want.

 

[Oofta]

No.

I am saying, "There are many Fighters on DDB" is not the same as "People absolutely love the Fighter and every single element and aspect of how it was designed."

Right. You're setting an impossible standard, one that no class could live up to.

That is part of why I am motivated to speak, yes. It is not the argument, however, which is that none the following statements are logically equivalent, and none of them can be simply substituted for one another:

There are many Fighter characters on DDB.
The Fighter class is the most well-liked class in 5e.
The Fighter class would be hated if anything whatsoever were changed about its design.

The first of these three statements is inarguable from the data. The other two are not. Yet people have repeatedly treated these statements as though they are logically equivalent, and that is incorrect.

There are a lot of options out there if you want to play a martial character. Fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers and arguably rogues. The fact that fighter is at the top speaks to the fact that people like playing fighters even if you do not.

Incorrect. If we actually got a real, properly designed survey, meaning one actually designed by someone with training in the field of survey design, it would be quite possible to investigate how people feel about different aspects and what their level of satisfaction is with implementation vs thematics. I am saying that people make their choices completely orthogonally to design quality or power unless those things are so hideously out of alignment that it simply cannot be ignored, whether by being much too great or much too small. That is absolutely a falsifiable claim.

That's never going to happen ... a survey that you think is good enough isn't going to happen and likely wouldn't change anything in any case.

Yes...and why is it popular, even when most folks agree the design really is bad (e.g. 3e, which literally not one person has thus far come along to dispute)? Why has every single version of the Fighter been among the most widely-used classes in D&D, no matter what edition you consider? (It is possible one of the early editions breaks this pattern, I haven't actually seen data about them. But for all WotC editions it is true. Fighter is always in the top 3 and usually #1.)

You have 0 evidence that most people do not agree that the fighter is "terribly designed". I like the design, fighters in this edition are one of my favorite classes to play.

There could be some complex reason involving the evolution of game design or what have you, but Occam's razor tells us to keep it simple. The simple explanation is that people will choose to play Fighters regardless of quality or power. That the reason it remains one of the most widely played classes regardless of the rules it uses is that the rules it uses aren't why people choose to play it in the first place. Thus, even if they ARE popular, it isn't because of their design. It's because of their theme.

Right. Keep it simple. A lot of people are happy to play fighters when there are many alternatives. Simplest conclusion? Fighters are well designed for their target audience.

But note the difference between "the rules aren't why people choose to play it" and "the rules are irrelevant to the people who play it." The latter is again non-equivalent to the former, because it makes the incorrect assumption that if people play something they must be absolutely, blissfully happy with 100% of its rules content. That is generally going to be a false assumption.

It would be equally false to argue that the implementation is absolutely hated and endured solely with clenched teeth simply to get at that sweet sweet Fighter theme. Instead, I am saying that the implementation is imperfect and could be better. Which, at the very least, the playtest has shown that that is completely true. They have changed parts of the Fighter, and yet miraculously people have not instantly hated it and rejected it wholesale.

Hence, if you're going to argue the Fighter is absolute perfection exactly the way it is and could not bear even the tiniest change, you're going to need to bring much more to the table than "a lot of them have been created on DDB."

Nobody is arguing that the fighter is absolutely perfect. There's no such thing. No design is going to be perfect for millions of people. Yet millions of people choose fighters over all the other alternatives.