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

[FitzTheRuke]

I can imagine. Because they are reading a lot of written feedback - this forum is not even a rounding error on the amount of written feedback they are getting, especially on contentious issues. And they are running focus groups, doing their own playtests, etc. This forum is mostly just a small group (including me) preaching to the choir. They are getting far more diverse perspectives.

That works both ways though - the written feedback they're getting is (very likely) a rounding error compared to the number of people filling out the surveys.

I gave very specific feedback on templates: I hate them, and I explained why at length. I made it very clear that for me it wasn't those particular templates, it's the whole template approach, which I think homogenizes the key feature of being a druid and replaces fun with efficiency.

I guess it worked out for you then!

I'll ask you this: Why would WotC's current survey method produce better results than, say, asking the questions they want to know the answers to directly. IE: "Do you like the concept of Druids using Templates for Wild Shape?" Yes/No/Undecided. Or "Do you think Warlocks are better using the half-caster chassis?" Yes/No/Undecided.

Or something like that, but written by a better survey writer than me. I just never (in every day life, far or less here) understand why people ask questions that skirt around the issues being discussed, when they can just speak plainly. Maybe that's where my problem with it lies.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My issue is that in debates like these we all start arguing like we are experts, as if we all have degrees in data science and know the "real way" to generate survey data.

I think that's an illusion based on the nature and limitations of message board discussions. For example, while I've been questioning their survey methodology, I have never once intended to give the impression that I think that I know better than THEY do. No, I've just been expressing that I don't understand why they are doing it the way that they are. I might illustrate WHY I think it's bad, or illustrate an example of what I think makes more sense, but I don't believe that I'm necessarily right, and I shouldn't have to type "IMO" every time I post an opinion. That caveat should go without saying, on every single post that every single one of us makes. (IMO, naturally!)

But we don't, and so we are just compounding bad facts with even more "bad facts".

Again, only if anyone takes this discussion and decides to draw firm conclusions from it. Which would always be a mistake. Here's a rule I use: Assume that everyone here is casually discussing ideas without any firm conviction to those ideas. Even when they "sound" like it's chiselled in stone. This is an idle place, made for idle chatter. It can get passionate and heated, sure, but I guarantee you, no one is as worked up about anything as they can "sound". It's just the nature of the beast.

 

[Stalker0]

Again, only if anyone takes this discussion and decides to draw firm conclusions from it.

Though if we agree that we aren't experts, and your saying not to take any real conclusions from it....what is the point of the discussion?

Do we think WOTC has experts listening in to this thread that are going to report back and say "yeah the Enworlders think our survey system is garbage....probably time for a rethink". I certainly don't.

So, your note suggests the words typed here are literally dust in the wind, they serve no actual purpose. And....maybe that's true....

 

[Parmandur]

Though if we agree that we aren't experts, and your saying not to take any real conclusions from it....what is the point of the discussion?

Do we think WOTC has experts listening in to this thread that are going to report back and say "yeah the Enworlders think our survey system is garbage....probably time for a rethink". I certainly don't.

So, your note suggests the words typed here are literally dust in the wind, they serve no actual purpose. And....maybe that's true....

I hear what you are saying, but we're juat talking here.

 

[Stalker0]

I hear what you are saying, but we're juat talking here.

well by talking we have hijacked the thread that was about giving people updates on a panel, and turned it into an apparently meaningless debate about survey techniques.

So...maybe we should just stop talking about this, and let people get back to their panel discussions.

 

[Parmandur]

well by talking we have hijacked the thread that was about giving people updates on a panel, and turned it into an apparently meaningless debate about survey techniques.

So...maybe we should just stop talking about this, and let people get back to their panel discussions.

Nature of the beast.

 

[mamba]

How do you measure "poor," as far as WotC's track record of gauging customer satisfaction?

1) the Next playtest was essentially aborted because they ran out of time and WotC then mostly did what they wanted, untested (by the playtest)

2) look at the satisfaction ratings in the slide that was posted, a class being in the 20s is not a sign that a process that should result in 70% approval is working

3) the methodology from my perspective is full of holes, and if the only way WotC knows what my rating actually means is me writing an explanation, then the whole thing is reading tea leaves because most people don’t do that

None of these are signs of doing a good job with it

5e has been immensely successful, with outstanding sales growth, so this in itself suggests that they have done a good job

ha, the argument from the result backwards that I used a few posts up.

My talisman against bear attacks must be working, because I was never attacked by a bear.

No, sales can be great despite the surveys doing a poor job, to me that is what we are seeing

Unfortunately, as individuals we tend to remember failures more than successes

no we don’t, that is why there is such a thing as the good old times

There is no objective right or wrong when it comes to measuring customer satisfaction

no, but there is good or bad

 

[mamba]

.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Though if we agree that we aren't experts, and your saying not to take any real conclusions from it....what is the point of the discussion?

Well, to straighten our own thoughts out in our heads, get some feedback from other like-minded (or unlike-minded) peers, and maybe - just maybe - on our best days, learn something.

Do we think WOTC has experts listening in to this thread that are going to report back and say "yeah the Enworlders think our survey system is garbage....probably time for a rethink". I certainly don't.

Not a chance!

So, your note suggests the words typed here are literally dust in the wind, they serve no actual purpose. And....maybe that's true....

Sort of. See above for purpose. It's not everything, but it's not nothing. I enjoy it, obviously, or I wouldn't bother.

well by talking we have hijacked the thread that was about giving people updates on a panel, and turned it into an apparently meaningless debate about survey techniques.

Threads wander where they wander, really. I'm not sure that it's necessary to always create a new thread when the conversation moves along a tangent. Sometimes it's worth it. Usually, we don't expect the back-and-forth to go very far. Sometimes it does. Personally, I don't think it derails a thread much, because we could go back to discussing panel updates in an instant, if something came up on the subject that spiked an interest to do so. I think we're capable of discussing more than one thing at a time. YMMV, of course!

So...maybe we should just stop talking about this, and let people get back to their panel discussions.

I mean... if you really want to. I'm easy. But I'm not sure much is being discussed on the panel (and I don't think that the tangent drowned it out - I think it naturally ebbed.)

Speaking of which: I didn't really see what I would consider much news from GenCon, really. Can anyone point me to a place where there might be some highlights that I missed?

 

[Clint_L]

That works both ways though - the written feedback they're getting is (very likely) a rounding error compared to the number of people filling out the surveys.

Doubtful. They are getting thousands of thousands of responses to this surveys, as opposed to a few dozen posters on a given topic on these forums.

I guess it worked out for you then!

I'll ask you this: Why would WotC's current survey method produce better results than, say, asking the questions they want to know the answers to directly. IE: "Do you like the concept of Druids using Templates for Wild Shape?" Yes/No/Undecided. Or "Do you think Warlocks are better using the half-caster chassis?" Yes/No/Undecided.

Yes, it 100% will produce a better result than a completely undefined question such as "do you like the concept of druids using templates for wildshape?" What does that even mean to an average respondent? Which kind of template? You can't get meaningful data from an undefined question. And most respondents won't understand what is meant by "half-caster chassis," so that question is problematic as well.

However, there was room to write your response. So if you are a proponent of some form of template, you should make that case. I explained precisely what I think would be a better way of doing wildshape for moon druids.

Or something like that, but written by a better survey writer than me. I just never (in every day life, far or less here) understand why people ask questions that skirt around the issues being discussed, when they can just speak plainly. Maybe that's where my problem with it lies.

I found the questions perfectly plain, and was allowed to give written feedback when I wanted to explain my perspective. You cannot design survey questions that please every respondent, so allowing people to add their own words is the best solution to that problem. I've taken part in collating such surveys, and while it takes a fairly long time to collate written responses, they pretty much always are dominated by a relatively few key ideas.