D&D 5E (2024) GenCon 2023 - D&D Rules Revision panel

[Parmandur]

I just wish it would be more, rather than 'some'

See Qindowa Vista for when user concerns are not taken unto account.

 

[Minigiant]

There are people on these boards who literally say they won't be playing 5E24, because other games/variants already do what they want better, and they get to have their voice heard.

They can't "let people in" or "leave people out" based on whether a person is going to play the game or not. Inclusivity is important. Variance of opinion is important. Everyone who wants to have their opinion heard in the survey, gets to share their opinion via the survey, and that information is important for the designers to see. The designers may be able to learn what is it that is keeping those players from being interested. Even if those people are in a minority, it's good data to have to see people's preferences. And sometimes the data can surprise you.

My point is that with the way they analyzed data, they let fans who would not play 5e many times dictate the course of 5e over fans who do play 5e.

For example, the 5e 2014 ranger was designed for a type of game which isn't the most popular amongst 5e plays. The 5e 2014 ranger fits other types of existing games better.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Concerns about the testing and surveying process are legitimate but I feel overstated. Two things stand out as being under-represented in this discussion.

First, in addition to being a a playtest, it is also marketing. We'd be fools not to remember that. Surveys are creating investment in the brand among the clientele, and the discussion in this thread shows that the sense of "ownership" (= investment in the IP) exists regardless of what you think if the individual playtest packets.

Second, they are under no obligation to share their numbers with us, or to adhere to their own public statements. Even things like the 70% threshold do not need to be followed if there are reasons not to (and I can think of many). This is true regardless of what they say in public (see point 1).

We know the company is going to monetize the game aggressively, and that Hasbro is willing to burn goodwill in that effort. At the same time, I think we've seen that there is a design team that wants the game to be good. Are they perfect? Of course not, but I believe the goodwill is there, and that it can survive the corporate marketing push.

A final point: the survey procedure is pretty limited, but it does mark clearly what isn't working. It may not clearly be indicating why it isn't working (failing to distinguish "too weak" "too strong" "too niche" and "bad idea", unless that information is volunteered), but it's possible that doesn't matter.

I recently came across this discussion of writing from comedian Bill Hader. The takeaway: "When people give you notes on something... when they tell you it's wrong, they're usually right. When they tell you how to fix it, they're usually wrong." The surveys are really good at telling the design team what's wrong. It may be that they're not interested in our ideas about how to fix it. And while they are getting the information they need, they are also successfully keeping the game that had its reputation so tarnished only 8 months ago in the conversation. That's good marketing.

 

[Reynard]

The 5e DMG is go at what it is for.

The issue is that it assumes you already know how to DM. What the DMG does is teah some one how to take their DMings skills and apply and convert them to how 5e works.

If you lack DM skills, it is useless for anything but raw dungeon crawl.

That is what starter sets are for.

 

[Minigiant]

That is what starter sets are for.

Starter sets don't teach you DM skills either. They give examples and hope you figure it out.

 

[mamba]

70% is a c grade, barely passing: 69% means a D and is not enough to pass a class. 90% would be A. WotC is only asking options to be C level in reception, not A.

I stand corrected.

In any case, replacing something that got 25% approval should not require 70% approval, at least not the way you earlier (days ago, different thread) thought these were used, i.e. as absolutes. If they were used as relatives, i.e. comparing whether you like the proposal better than what we have, then it does make sense

 

[mamba]

They can't "let people in" or "leave people out" based on whether a person is going to play the game or not. Inclusivity is important. Variance of opinion is important. Everyone who wants to have their opinion heard in the survey, gets to share their opinion via the survey, and that information is important for the designers to see.

esp. if you want to grow your customer base, not just avoid existing ones jumping ship

 

[mamba]

See Qindowa Vista for when user concerns are not taken unto account.

my concerns are not being taken into account

 

[mamba]

They aren't testing as a comparison: the questions are a sliding scale of satisfaction with an option as presented, from 1-5. For WotC, they want the average to be closer to 4 than to 3 for it to be meeting design goals.

well, then 50% should beat 24%, by a mile, it does not

 

[Reynard]

Starter sets don't teach you DM skills either. They give examples and how you figure it out.

Good starter sets do.