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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'll go as far as to say the mechanics have to be really, really, dramatically bad before the rank-and-file player who wants to play an X will not do so. I've seen players who complained about mechanical limits of particular character types in systems (some completely outside the D&D-sphere) for really long periods, but kept playing those types because those were the types they wanted to play. It can take an extremely strongly gamist player to completely abandon a type they like even when the mechanics for it are clearly subpar in an annoying way if that type is just your thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I think that's a misreading of his statement. I read it as fighters may well be popular despite their mechanics, not because of them. And while I can't say that with authority, I find it entirely credible. I've absolutely played character types in any number of games that were in that category for various reasons, and one of them is simply liking the type conceptually well beyond how I liked its execution.

 

[Oofta]

I think that's a misreading of his statement. I read it as fighters may well be popular despite their mechanics, not because of them. And while I can't say that with authority, I find it entirely credible. I've absolutely played character types in any number of games that were in that category for various reasons, and one of them is simply liking the type conceptually well beyond how I liked its execution.

I happen to like fighters, I think the mechanics work just as well as any other class. Most of the suggestions I see for improvement (e.g. making them into 4E fighters) are something that I would dislike.

There's simply no evidence that the fighter mechanics are broadly liked or disliked. Since they are, and continue to be, the most popular class the simplest explanation is that the mechanics are just fine for a lot of people.

 

[Mistwell]

I happen to like fighters, I think the mechanics work just as well as any other class. Most of the suggestions I see for improvement (e.g. making them into 4E fighters) are something that I would dislike.

There's simply no evidence that the fighter mechanics are broadly liked or disliked. Since they are, and continue to be, the most popular class the simplest explanation is that the mechanics are just fine for a lot of people.

Keep in mind the existing 2014 version was extensively playtested and other completing versions were tried. It was not chose blind, and surveys were done on variations and this is the variation most liked, specifically.

I really very much like the weapon masteries stuff for the new version and WOTC says weapon variation was something also desired going back to 2014. But this basic skeleton of the Fighter, which remains fairly consisted with the 2024 current playtest version, is specifically well liked even versus prior variations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Really? They want something actually oversimplified? That's genuinely what they want?

Color me more than a little surprised. Generally speaking, one cannot want something that is more simple than one actually wants. By definition, in fact.

Because what I suspect you mean is that this person wants something minimalist. That, for them, it is almost impossible for anything to be simplistic in the first place. If it were a quantifiable amount, e.g. this has 10 simplicity, that has 100 simplicity, etc., then for them the upper limit is a googol or something, effectively unreachable. That doesn't mean they don't have one. It means that what is satisfactorily simple for them is likely to be too simple (and, thus, oversimplified, a synonym for simplistic) for most other people. Which is fine; different people have different standards for every possible design goal.

But do not tell me people want things more simple than they would like things to be. Because that is patently ridiculous.

 

[Mistwell]

Really? They want something actually oversimplified? That's genuinely what they want?

Color me more than a little surprised. Generally speaking, one cannot want something that is more simple than one actually wants. By definition, in fact.

Yes, that is genuinely what they want, a simplistic (rather than just simple) fighter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I happen to like fighters, I think the mechanics work just as well as any other class. Most of the suggestions I see for improvement (e.g. making them into 4E fighters) are something that I would dislike.

There's simply no evidence that the fighter mechanics are broadly liked or disliked. Since they are, and continue to be, the most popular class the simplest explanation is that the mechanics are just fine for a lot of people.

Yes. Note the words you used, vs. the words almost everyone is using in this context.

The mechanics ARE JUST FINE. They aren't amazing. They aren't the most wonderful thing ever. Nor are they bad or wrong or heinous. They're (at least) tolerable to most players. Which is what I have been claiming this whole time! I literally said that's why I quoted the Declaration of Independence.

And, most crucially, again in your own words, there is no evidence that the Fighter mechanics are broadly liked or disliked. So any argument which starts from the position, "Because X is liked, absolutely no changes should be made to its mechanics" is wrongheaded. One must instead defend why either (a) this specific set of mechanics is necessary and anything else would be unacceptable, or (b) whatever alternative mechanics are proposed (note, I have not done so at all in this conversation, for several reasons!) are unacceptable, though there might be some other set that would be.

Yes, that is genuinely what they want, a simplistic (rather than just simple) fighter.

Just so I'm absolutely, 100% clear:

They want something more simple than they like.

Because that is what "simplistic" means. Not just that it is simple; that it is undesirably simple.

They desire something undesirable. You are specifically claiming they desire something that would be undesirable to them. That is what you are saying, correct?

Because I hope those sentences explain why I find that genuinely unbelievable. I can (and do!) believe that they want something extremely simple. Maximally simple, even. But I cannot believe that they desire something that they would call excessively simple. I can (and do!) believe that they might have, whether properly or simply practically, no limit for how simple something can be--if it could be made simpler, they would want it so, no matter how simple its current state.

But I cannot believe that they want something to be so simple that they wouldn't want it. Because that is a contradiction.

 

[ECMO3]

While, fair, as people point out to me when I make similar comments in other contexts, its still a drop in the bucket, and you can't count on selection bias not being a factor.

That is why I used the qualifier "I believe" before I said it.

 

[jasper]

Plot twist - It's just one campaign with a hundred thousand human fighters. They are re-enacting historical wars or something.

once more into the breach my friends. Once more into the breach or forever stack it with our sixth level dead.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

That depends entirely on how you define "univerasally".

If fighters are universally popular because they are universally available, they are still universally 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.

The definition of popular is "liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people", so yest they are 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.)

So now you claim fighters are always popular, while above you claimed we can not say that fighters are popular? While I agree with you that 5E fighters are popular, what data are you using to support this definitive claim?

I believe not only is the fighter class very popular (something I think this data supports). I also believe the mechanics are very popular and I believe you are in a minority of players who don't like them.