Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 9298939" data-attributes="member: 23484">While it's true that new and different does not in itself mean something is better, I think you are crediting the process with an efficiency it simply did not have. There may have been all sorts of reasons for a change, but they were not explained, and as a result many variables were not controlled for. As a result, we simply do not know if they made things better or not. The surveys reflected a gut-reaction from the fanbase, and there are many ways that (lack of) framing shaped the fanbase response.There also was a lack of clarity concerning what the meaning of a negative vote was: people would vote negatively if they didn't like this specific version but they did like the idea, if they didn't like the idea generally. And that understanding changed the way ideas were received over time.This may have been a good idea (or not), but it was not fully implemented, and it was easy to see initial holes:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">eroding wizards having more/better spells than all other classes</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">specialist class spells for partial subclasses came online earlier for full spellcasters, eroding their identity</li> </ul>All of that is easily solved, but we didn't see it solved clear enough at the time, and we weren't told the reasons it was suggested:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">did it make it easier for new players? Probably, but they were less likely to respond.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">did it make ancillary tools such as spell cards more viable?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">did it somehow save pages in the PHB, which could have allowed them to add Artificer into the PHB?</li> </ul>For me, the idea was rich, because it effectively tripled the number of available Bard builds (and that could have been extended to Sorcerer trivially, tripling them). And that made it (for me) a brilliant idea, as long as they would iterate improvements on the  implementation issues mentioned above.But no context was given, and as a result it was thumbed-down.   itThe process did not allow for this sort of nuanced interpretation.Backwards compatibility was a sacred cow, but cries for its importance, at least on these boards, have diminished significantly over the past 18 months. But yes, this was another icon that was held up with no clear shared understanding of what it impled.Each of these (and other things too) worked as described above: without context, and without a clear sense of how a negative vote would be interpreted, I just don't think we have the data to support these inferences, and (significantly) the designers didn't have the granularity of response needed to discriminate either.There were other factors, too: serial corporate shenanigans and missteps coloured the whole process, and part of the process was designed to create conversations and engage the fanbase: even if nothing was changed in the rules, that angle succeeded. In terms of promotion, the playtest was successful. I just don't think we can conclude that these were changes for change's sake, rightly shot down. We just don't have the dat that support that conclusion.</blockquote>

Verification