WotC Jeremy Crawford Interview: Playtests from experimental to focused. By Christian Hoffer at GenCon.

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s a great design decision. It helps make sure they don’t waste their time as much chasing stuff that will never be popular, and don’t change the game for no reason.

No, it isn't, and wasn't.

It's the reason they dithered forever on the Sorcerer and Warlock--and why both classes came out half-baked and significantly under-power compared to where they should have been. Which then directly led to awkward(/badly-made) subclasses attempting to patch over the problem, creating even more problems in the process (the one- or two-level Hexblade dip, for example.) They canned perfectly good, interesting, worthwhile options because of an arbitrary design threshold (seriously, 70% of fans liking anything?) and it forced them into a corner when they couldn't come up with a good replacement after nearly two years of faffing about.

It's also why we'll almost certainly never see real psionics rules for 5e. Because none of the options they generate can pass that arbitrary stupidly-high threshold. We're left with everyone pissed off and demanding action and nothing changing. Again.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If McDonalds started giving you half the fries they normally do for the same price, should customers just "take it"?

Egregiously unlike cases to be comparing.

At best, we are talking about McDonald’s recent raising the number fries, and then later going back to a state that is still more than before the initial increase but also less than the apex, and people are acting like they took food out of customer’s mouths.

WOTC has opened up customer interaction to a new level with 5e and the initial playtests, and now have opened the door again with a new round of playtests. So I think people have a fair expectation that their feedback is going to factor into the final product.

At the end of the day, our marketplace driven economy is built on the notion that customers have free choices and included in that is....the right to complain.

And others have an equal right to criticize the nature of the complaining.

And of course, companies are free to hear or ignore those complaints. At the end of the day, its money that will talk. Maybe WOTC handling (or botching depending on POV) of the survey will be a factor in your purchasing decisions, maybe it won't matter in the slightest. Part of the difficulty of the modern company who has so many channels of communication with their customers is sifting through the legitimate criticism from idle whining. Companies operate at their peril if they don't listen to customers at all, but sometimes customers don't really know what they want until they see it.

No matter how the surveys go, I'm going to take a look at the final product. My suspicion (perhaps my hope) is that they are changing a lot more under the hood than the surveys are letting on, and once we see the final product I will be much more inspired to spend money on new books. I can say that if the amount of change the current surveys are suggesting is the whole of the changes made, that probably would not be enough to part me with my money. I don't think the changes are "bad", I just don't think its worth both paying money and retaining my players on slightly new rules.

Eh just the art, or the backgrounds, erewmmsz

No, it isn't, and wasn't.

It's the reason they dithered forever on the Sorcerer and Warlock--and why both classes came out half-baked and significantly under-power compared to where they should have been. Which then directly led to awkward(/badly-made) subclasses attempting to patch over the problem, creating even more problems in the process (the one- or two-level Hexblade dip, for example.) They canned perfectly good, interesting, worthwhile options because of an arbitrary design threshold (seriously, 70% of fans liking anything?) and it forced them into a corner when they couldn't come up with a good replacement after nearly two years of faffing about.

It's also why we'll almost certainly never see real psionics rules for 5e. Because none of the options they generate can pass that arbitrary stupidly-high threshold. We're left with everyone pissed off and demanding action and nothing changing. Again.

If you’re still made about the Next playtest, the rational target is the decision to spend as long as they did on wild ideas if they had such a hard time limit.

The 70% threshold is why there wasn’t time to test and fine tune what they ended up publishing, which in both cases is a great class that powergamers like to cry about, and which don’t have that poor satisfaction outside of a couple pain points that the playtest is addressing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Egregiously unlike cases to be comparing.

At best, we are talking about McDonald’s recent raising the number fries, and then later going back to a state that is still more than before the initial increase but also less than the apex, and people are acting like they took food out of customer’s mouths.


And others have an equal right to criticize the nature of the complaining.

Eh just the art, or the backgrounds, erewmmsz

If you’re still made about the Next playtest, the rational target is the decision to spend as long as they did on wild ideas if they had such a hard time limit.

The 70% threshold is why there wasn’t time to test and fine tune what they ended up publishing, which in both cases is a great class that powergamers like to cry about, and which don’t have that poor satisfaction outside of a couple pain points that the playtest is addressing.

What you dismiss as "a couple of pain points" is exactly the problem.

Meaning, you agree with me. You just want to Stormwind fallacy it.

 

[Maxperson]

I feel so VINDICATED RIGHT NOW. SO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM TOLD ME THAT OUR VIEWS WERE MINORITY!!! Hahahhaahah.

Defcon, @Charlaquin and all the rest — all that nonsense about this playtest process being healthy, good, or effective can go straight to the trash. This playtest was sabotaged just like the DND Next playtest was. Incredible. Just incredible.

Yeah. Sucks when the designers sabotage their own playtest.

 

[Maxperson]

EDIT: If anything, the fact that this shows they’re willing to make decisions based on more than just the satisfaction numbers is a positive thing in my opinion. That means it’s not pure design-by-committee, and they are actually willing to make decisions based on their own design goals and sensibilities. Good for them.

The thing is, since they do this than they are essentially telling us, "Hey, we will put in stuff that you really like provided we were already going to do something like this, because if it doesn't meet our design goals, tough cookies to you." I agree with you that it's a good thing that they aren't designing by committee, but they shouldn't bother to have us vote on things if it's not going to matter unless they agree with us.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What you dismiss as "a couple of pain points" is exactly the problem.

Meaning, you agree with me. You just want to Stormwind fallacy it.

No, I don’t. Do not try to twist my words.

There is an enormous difference between a couple of design elements that need tuned up, and the hyperbolic claims you’re making about how terrible the two classes are, and how the playtest process is to blame.

The warlock and sorcerer are better for the change, and just need more access to what makes them special, which a different playtest process wouldn’t have determined given the same time constraints.

They canned design that wasn’t working, and instead made two classes that most players like, and at worst want to have a little more punch, because they didn’t give themselves enough time using the playtest process on options with a real chance of working. (I’m sure you remember having to set up sneak attack as an action, making attacking with SA a two round process).