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

[Stalker0]

This is purely anecdotal

And that's the problem right there. We all look at our small pools of players and our own thoughts. And if we feel like 3.5 did it better in some ways, we then start to go "well clearly 5e is just not up to par", that is simply an uninformed "feeling" not backed with any statistical rigor.

We don't have access to the large amount of data WOTC has. I mean if WOTC thought based on their polling and surveys and market research that adding in more 3.5e mechanics would make the game better they would probably be playtesting that right now..... its a win win for them, if those changes were more popular AND made more changes, that gives double incentive for people to buy the new wave of books.

So what is more likely:

That WOTC did all this market research which told them nothing, threw out the old editions, made 5e, and got "crazy lucky" with the timing of things.

OR

WOTC did that market research, used it to create a game thats resonated with a larger playerbase, and got fortunate with the timing and other factors to create the modern phenomena that we see now

 

[Maxperson]

And that's the problem right there. We all look at our small pools of players and our own thoughts. And if we feel like 3.5 did it better in some ways, we then start to go "well clearly 5e is just not up to par", that is simply an uninformed "feeling" not backed with any statistical rigor.

We don't have access to the large amount of data WOTC has. I mean if WOTC thought based on their polling and surveys and market research that adding in more 3.5e mechanics would make the game better they would probably be playtesting that right now..... its a win win for them, if those changes were more popular AND made more changes, that gives double incentive for people to buy the new wave of books.

So what is more likely:

That WOTC did all this market research which told them nothing, threw out the old editions, made 5e, and got "crazy lucky" with the timing of things.

OR

WOTC did that market research, used it to create a game thats resonated with a larger playerbase, and got fortunate with the timing and other factors to create the modern phenomena that we see now

What market research? They scrapped 3e to make more money with 4e, then scrapped 4e because it was failing. No market research was involved that I am aware of and I would think that someone would have shown it by now. The timing of critical role and all the myriad of ways that D&D entered the mainstream had ZERO to do with WotC, market research or 5e.

We have no solid evidence one way or the other that 5e would have done better than 3e or 4e had they been around when the D&D explosion happened. 5e may be the edition that would do the best, but we can't say that for certain.

As for all the WotC polling, surveys and market research, they've shown precious little ability in that regard. Their polls and interpretations have been very shoddy. I have no faith that even if they had all kinds of secret information, that they would be able to use it well.

 

[tetrasodium]

Where was any note of dismissing?

The dismissal is attributing the reference to another system or edition as a preference rather than accepting that preference doesn't need to enter into the discussion to admit the mechanical differences in that other system or edition avoids mitigates or somehow guarded against the problem. In fact attributing it to preference tacitly admits that:
A: the problem exists
and
B: the implementation of that problem despite past efforts to handle it in some fashion is so inexcusable that 5e itself lacks any tradeoff to justify the choice to create that problem if design.

And that's the problem right there. We all look at our small pools of players and our own thoughts. And if we feel like 3.5 did it better in some ways, we then start to go "well clearly 5e is just not up to par", that is simply an uninformed "feeling" not backed with any statistical rigor.

We don't have access to the large amount of data WOTC has. I mean if WOTC thought based on their polling and surveys and market research that adding in more 3.5e mechanics would make the game better they would probably be playtesting that right now..... its a win win for them, if those changes were more popular AND made more changes, that gives double incentive for people to buy the new wave of books.

So what is more likely:

That WOTC did all this market research which told them nothing, threw out the old editions, made 5e, and got "crazy lucky" with the timing of things.

OR

WOTC did that market research, used it to create a game thats resonated with a larger playerbase, and got fortunate with the timing and other factors to create the modern phenomena that we see now

Why is "I have this problem in 5e and $otherEdition solved or avoided it like so" a statement so damning of 5e that it needs to be downplayed as a merely anecdotal experience crushed under an appeal to authority of wotc's "market research"?... Is 5e without merits to defend the problem with?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e may be the edition that would do the best, but we can't say that for certain.

I really doubt either 3e or 4e would have done that well. I think it was a lucky coincidence that 5e and all the outer circumstances came together. Probably one benefited from the other.

4e did not lend itself to theater of the mind. Watching someone play a board game online more often than not would not have been fun.
Having very resteictive rules like 3e would not have helped either.

 

[Maxperson]

I really doubt either 3e or 4e would have done that well. I think it was a lucky coincidence that 5e and all the outer circumstances came together. Probably one benefited from the other.

4e did not lend itself to theater of the mind. Watching someone play a board game online more often than not would not have been fun.
Having very resteictive rules like 3e would not have helped either.

Which is fine. We all have our opinions on which would do better and why. My point is that we can't KNOW which would have done better. For myself, my opinion is that 5e is too simplistic. They went too far in the other direction and people may really have enjoyed the complexity of 3e if it happened now. I could very well be wrong.

 

[MockingBird]

I don't think 3e would've had the success 5e has had. 4e could have in certain circles but that's the dig, it wouldn't have had wide spread adoption. 5e is simple enough for wide spread adoption as has been witnessed in the past decade its been out. D&D was in the peripheral during late 3e and throughout 4e. Community had D&D episodes, Big Bang had 4e in several episodes. Those shows were either done or finishing up when 5e launched. Stranger Things is really the only show that had D&D in them. 5e isn't successful by accident. It may not be crunchy enough for you (general you), it may not be what you (general you), but for most people it's what they want.

 

[Mistwell]

The dismissal is attributing the reference to another system or edition as a preference rather than accepting that preference doesn't need to enter into the discussion to admit the mechanical differences in that other system or edition avoids mitigates or somehow guarded against the problem.

False premise. What was said was, "I am sure one of the key questions that they have tried to assess is "are old 3e/4e players happier now than they were with the older systems?" And I'm pretty sure the answer on the whole is yes."

He's right that they are definitely surveying on which system you started playing D&D and tying that to the results of surveys so this is specifically something they ask every time.

There was nothing about what he said which doesn't also encompass "that other system or edition [guards against similar problems.]" IF the player who liked system X is even more satisfied now with system Y, then it's fair to say the things system X did might in fact not be viewed as superior to system Y. It was not a dismissal, he's directly answering the challenge you posed.

Bottom line: you're talking past each other, dismissing his opinion as if it were a dismissal of yours, rather than directly answering the premise he poses with his answer.

 

[Mistwell]

Why is "I have this problem in 5e and $otherEdition solved or avoided it like so" a statement so damning of 5e that it needs to be downplayed as a merely anecdotal experience crushed under an appeal to authority of wotc's "market research"?... Is 5e without merits to defend the problem with?

Market Research as a citation for market research is not an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is "a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand" But market research IS qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand. Just tossing out "Appeal to authority" is...a false claim about logical fallacies in an attempt to be dismissive of his argument.

 

[tetrasodium]

Market Research as a citation for market research is not an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is "a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand" But market research IS qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand. Just tossing out "Appeal to authority" is...a false claim about logical fallacies in an attempt to be dismissive of his argument.

What edition did you first play is quite different from what is your preferred edition though.

 

[Parmandur]

Market Research as a citation for market research is not an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is "a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand" But market research IS qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand. Just tossing out "Appeal to authority" is...a false claim about logical fallacies in an attempt to be dismissive of his argument.

While true, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument.