D&D General Is D&D Survey Feedback Read? [UPDATED!]

If you watch a lot of YouTube videos, you may be aware that there's a narrative going around, with 'anonymous' sources that contain Machievellian quotes about how WotC ignores survey feedback, and uses it as some kind of trap to keep discussion off the internet.

We're all unhappy with WotC and its approach to the current licensing situation, and we're all concerned about the fate of the third-party D&D publishing industry which supports hundreds, if not thousands, of creators and small publishers. I'm worried, and afraid for the fate of my little company and those who rely on me to pay their rent, bills, and mortgages.

But it's important to stay factual.

Ray Winninger, who ran D&D until late 2022, said "I left after the first OneD&D feedback was arriving. I know for certain UA feedback is still read."

He went on to say "This is simply false. Before I left WotC, I personally read UA feedback. So did several others. Many, many changes were made based on UA feedback, both quantitative and written. The entire OneD&D design schedule was built around how and when we could collect feedback."

Winninger previously spoke out in support of the OGL movement, after WotC announced their plans in December.

Another WotC employee tweeted, too -- "I read nearly half a million UA comments my first year working on D&D. I was not the only one reading them. I understand the desire to share information as you get it, but this just feels like muckraking."

It's important to stay on the right side of this OGL issue -- and make no mistake, any attempt to de-authorise the OGL is ethically and legally wrong -- but just making stuff up doesn't help anybody.

Benn Riggs, author of Slaying the Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons, chimed in with his own suspicions.

Here is why I am growing more and more suspicious of @DnD_Shorts and their purported source in WoTC. Let's call that source "The Rogue."

1) Getting a source on the record takes time. DnD Shorts is getting commentary incredibly quickly. WoTC's statement came out this morning, and by this afternoon, we know "The Rogue's" thoughts. The statement talks about a survey? "The Rogue" tells us no one will read what we write to the company.

Then there is the logistics. Is "The Rogue" contacting DnD Shorts from WoTC HQ? Doing it from the bathroom? On their lunch break? All while knowing they'd be fired if found out? They don't at least wait to contact DnD Shorts from home?

2) The info provided by "The Rogue" is simply too good. They have mentioned where they work in the company, and directly quoted powerful people within the company. All that means that within WoTC, tracking down "The Rogue" and firing them should take about two hours. Frankly, if "The Rogue" exists, the best proof of it will be when they are fired.

I'm upset about the OGL too, and it's easy to cast doubt on anonymous sources. People have done it to me. So I will say upfront I could be totally wrong about this and if DnD Shorts reads this and curses me for a bastard because they're honest & good & true and I am besmirching them, well I'm sorry.

But something here just feels wrong, and I cannot keep my peace.

And of course, all this fracturing of the 'resistance' only weakens the position of those who are working against the de-authorization of the OGL. The more click-bait nonsense out there, the less seriously anybody takes the real issues which affect real people.

UPDATES! WotC designer Makenzie De Armas has weighed in to describe the survey process:

Hi, actual #WotCStaff and D&D Designer here. I am credited on several UA releases—and I’ve made edits to that content based on both qualitative and quantitative survey results. Let’s walk through what happens behind the scenes of a UA, shall we?

1. We design player-facing mechanical elements that we hope to include in a future product. We then place those mechanical elements into a UA document and release it, to see what our player base at large thinks of it.

2. We release a survey about the UA.

3. The survey information is collated by members of the team. It’s broken down into two parts: quantitative satisfaction expressed as a percentage, and a summary of qualitative feedback trends noticed in the comments.

4. That summary is reported back to the product teams. The designers on the product teams then make edits to the mechanical elements based on the feedback summary.

5. If satisfaction doesn’t meet our quality standards, we’ll rerelease mechanical content in a followup UA.

This is a proven process. Take for example the Mages of Strixhaven UA, where we tried to create subclasses that could be taken by multiple classes. (Fun fact: that was my first UA.) Did we, as studio designers, want that to work? Yes! But it didn’t.

And we learned that it didn’t BECAUSE of the UA process. We learned that it wasn’t something a majority of our players wanted; we also learned what small elements of that design DID bring joy. We salvaged those elements, redesigned them, and put that changed design in the book.

If we didn’t read or listen to feedback, we would have put those polyclass subclasses into the final book, and the product would have been worse for it. Yes, of course we want to know if you like something—we’re game designers! We’re creating something that is meant to be FUN!

And yes, sometimes we get frustrated when people tell us how to do our jobs, or use those feedback opportunities to belittle us; we’re human. But despite all that, we’re still going to listen and always strive to improve. That’s the truth.

They went on to say:

When I say ALL the comments, I mean it in the most literal sense. We have team members who have dedicated WEEKS to diligently reading through feedback. It’s honestly incredible, and I applaud my team members’ work!

Gamehome Con director Alex Kammer added:

Hey everyone. I personally know the guy at Wizards whose job in part is to read and organize all the comments from their surveys. Reasonable OGL talk and demanding action is great. Fallacious hit pieces only cause harm.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Haplo781

Legend
I'll once again share this - a mod on a Discord server I frequent has done freelance work for WotC/D&D and has contacts inside the company still.

According to them, it isn't that nobody reads the responses - it's that that data is restricted to a handful of senior employees who use it selectively to support their own biases. For instance - if a developer wants something in the game and it has 65% support, they'll point to that. If they oppose something that's popular (like the Warlord class) - they will suppress that information.

That kinda seems worse to me.

Of course, I am a rando, paraphrasing someone none of you know, paraphrasing anonymous sources. But for what it's worth, I have no reason to doubt them.
 


shadowoflameth

Adventurer
Here here. I have myself tested content and answered every survey and seen my feedback reflected in the revisions. No company will please everyone. There are too many of us with too wide a range of taste in games for everyone's desires to be fulfilled in One D&D. Even if they gave me literally everything I asked for, others wouldn't agree and give negative feedback because they listened to me. From what I can see, the game content people are working hard to please as many as they can with their product and have little or no involvement in the business decisions including the OGL.
 



In addition to what's mentioned here: WotC only using information from free text fields in aggregated form is - for a change - something that I find understandable. They get 50k responses, that's a lot of text (and based on my own experiences with surveys, a lot of it is only moderately useful, at least compared to quantitative results and direct observation of smaller groups).
 



Haplo781

Legend
Here is why I am growing more and more suspicious of @DnD_Shorts and their purported source in WoTC. Let's call that source "The Rogue."

1) Getting a source on the record takes time. DnD Shorts is getting commentary incredibly quickly. WoTC's statement came out this morning, and by this afternoon, we know "The Rogue's" thoughts. The statement talks about a survey? "The Rogue" tells us no one will read what we write to the company.

Then there is the logistics. Is "The Rogue" contacting DnD Shorts from WoTC HQ? Doing it from the bathroom? On their lunch break? All while knowing they'd be fired if found out? They don't at least wait to contact DnD Shorts from home?

2) The info provided by "The Rogue" is simply too good. They have mentioned where they work in the company, and directly quoted powerful people within the company. All that means that within WoTC, tracking down "The Rogue" and firing them should take about two hours. Frankly, if "The Rogue" exists, the best proof of it will be when they are fired.

I'm upset about the OGL too, and it's easy to cast doubt on anonymous sources. People have done it to me. So I will say upfront I could be totally wrong about this and if DnD Shorts reads this and curses me for a bastard because they're honest & good & true and I am besmirching them, well I'm sorry.

But something here just feels wrong, and I cannot keep my peace.
Ok - so if you actually watch the video and check DnD Shorts' Twitter - they were planning to release a video today, which they announced yesterday was delayed because they were still trying to vet info and ensure sources were protected.

Then this video dropped in response to the announcement, basically saying "Hey - I was going to wait for the full video - which is coming tomorrow - but I felt like I needed to respond to this statement."

That addresses the timing - they already had this information. It might also address the inaccuracy - they were still in the process of vetting it but jumped the gun in order to get an immediate response to the official statement.

Irresponsible? Yes. Warranting a walkback and an apology? Also yes. But it doesn't mean the source is fake or sketchy. Just that they're fallible.
 



grimslade

Krampus ate my d20s
Is that all you have to offer, Morrus, facts and pragmatism? This salacious bit of news just reinforced my preconceived notion that Official 5E psionics are being repressed by someone very high up in the company! It is enough that I crumpled my tinfoil hat... Now I have to make a new one.
 

I really appreciate Morrus’ digging into this, and chiming in with quotes from known sources who are no longer directly vested in WOTC.

If DnD_Shorts is legit he’s welcome to step it up with more specific proof and cross-referencing, such as by collaborating with Linda Codega.
 

My doubts of the effectiveness of writing ones thoughts on the surveys was never that I thought they were literally not read at all. My doubts were that the expressions recorded in individual surveys would be taken meaningfully into account by busy designers who all have their own ideosyncratic ideas and pet proposals about what should be in the game. I also doubted that decisions hadn't already been made about the most endemic things that bothered me. One can read suggestions all day without taking them meaningfully onboard. Frankly if you are getting suggestions from thousands of people it's all the more likely you take none of it onboard at all.

One does not need the "they won't read it" conspiracy to imagine how giving feedback is likely to be a fruitless endeavor.
 



Haplo781

Legend
Following up on my earlier post, here's a screengrab from the Discord (omitting username just in case).
Screenshot 2023-01-18 165435.jpg
Screenshot 2023-01-18 165707.jpg
 

DaveMage

Slumbering in Tsar
For me (consumer - not publisher) there is really only one issue left - WotC must not attempt to "de-authorize" OGL 1.0a and agree they will never do so. (Granted, I would never trust them again, but at least if they agree they would never de-authorize 1.0a in the future, it would be in writing.)

I love (and have always loved) the 3rd party creativity that builds on the base game, and I will not be buying any One-D&D products if they don't reverse course. I will also actively encourage others to not buy in to the new edition and/or cancel any paid subscriptions to D&D Beyond. (For context, I've bought all of the 5th edition D&D books.)
 


Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top