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

[mamba]

What a weird take. Nothing in that statement says what you are saying it says.

actually it spells it out directly, not sure what you are missing. It got past the threshold for an iteration, WotC threw it out instead. Tell me how that is not what was described here

 

[doctorbadwolf]

actually it spells it out directly, not sure what you are missing. It got past the threshold for an iteration, WotC threw it out instead. Tell me how that is not what was described here

they said nothing about whether they iterated on it internally or not, nor did they say anything remotely to the effect of having “instead threw them out because there were some loud naysayers”, or having caved to a minority.

They have said repeatedly that the written feedback can overcome the math. If it’s a fairly indifferent acceptance, they don’t put it in. Why would they? The point of this process is to make each changed element of the game more enthusiastically satisfying for the majority of players, not to just make a product people are indifferent to or would be “fine” with. Especially when changing something that didn’t even score poorly in the big PHB survey.

That is a completely different thing from “instead threw them out because there were some loud naysayers”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Not actually anything like that, but it’s not like evidence or rational argument means anything anymore so go off I guess.

 

[mamba]

they said nothing about whether they iterated on it internally or not,

Who cares, they did not offer a different version in the next playtest, that is what matters.

nor did they say anything remotely to the effect of having “instead threw them out because there were some loud naysayers”, or having caved to a minority.

Absolutely they did, just not with those exact words

They have said repeatedly that the written feedback can overcome the math. If it’s a fairly indifferent acceptance, they don’t put it in. Why would they? The point of this process is to make each changed element of the game more enthusiastically satisfying for the majority of players

They failed at that, hard. If the majority prefers something, which the 70% threshold is for, and then gets the opposite, do you think they will consider that 'enthusiastically satisfying'? I sure do not.

They failed the methodology, they failed the participants, they failed the game.

 

[Pedantic]

As I feel it is necessary to point out-

This once again shows that the Monk got shafted because they didn't even bother having it in one of the early playtests. It's great to talk about the experimentation with other classes (and what was accepted and dropped), but it just shows that they still have no good ideas for the Monk.

Anyway, it's unfortunate that when it was first announced, so many people complained that this was just a cash grab to get people to buy new books by changing up the rules.

Unfortunately, WoTC listened, and now we are getting a new release that is less exotic than Tasha's. Seriously, if they released all the changes in a single Options book (Rary's Guide to Enhancers), people would complain about how boring it was.

I don't see how this project, with its stated "don't be a new edition, not even a 5.5" could be anything more than an options book by another name, maybe with a nice collection of errata.

 

[Scribe]

I don't see how this project, with its stated "don't be a new edition, not even a 5.5" could be anything more than an options book by another name, maybe with a nice collection of errata.

Essentially.

When its a big tent you have a lot of voices, and a lot of those voices are in direct opposition.

I dont have anything positive to say about things, maybe the weapon abilities, and the Berzerker subclass, but yeah. Its an options book level at this point.

 

[mamba]

I don't see how this project, with its stated "don't be a new edition, not even a 5.5" could be anything more than an options book by another name, maybe with a nice collection of errata.

Maybe, but then either do not offer us anything more than that in the playtest, or stick to the votes you get. Given that Crawford said that everything could have made it into the 2024 version, they failed the playtest. This playtest is a sham.

 

[Stalker0]

The CON Save to keep concentration would be one of those, since I don't ever remember that being in the playtest for 2014 PHB or even being asked about.

If there was one thing I really wanted to see a playtest on but haven’t it was concentration. I get the concept of it, I know why it exists, but man is it tedious and throughly unfun.

I really wanted to see some experimentation here, to try and get our cake and eat it too

 

[MGibster]

I'm not on the "WotC sucks" bandwagon or anything, but what an awkward boondoggle this has all been. But then you can't reasonable expect big meaningful changes if everything is supposed to be backwards compatible. It's not like it's a new edition of the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Who cares, they did not offer a different version in the next playtest, that is what matters.

Lol you made a completely misleading statement about what happened.

Absolutely they did, just not with those exact words

No, they didn’t. At all. You’re making a false claim.

They failed at that, hard. If the majority prefers something, which the 70% threshold is for, and then gets the opposite, do you think they will consider that 'enthusiastically satisfying'? I sure do not.

You don’t read what you’re replying to, do you?

If the feedback isn’t enthusiastic, it getting 70% doesn’t automatically mean it’s in. 70% just means it isn’t automatically either out or in need of revision. 70% with largely “sure, fine” written feedback isn’t good enough. They’ve said that since at least the first playtest video after the OGL fiasco when they were accused of not reading written feedback. That you chose to ignore that is on you, not them.

They failed the methodology, they failed the participants, they failed the game.

Hyperbolic, overwrought, nonsense. You just dislike the result, that’s it. They didn’t fail anything but your personal expectations that weren’t even based in what they said and had been doing from the start.