Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui

WotC's Mike Mearls has reported on the latest D&D survey results. "In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics." Additionally, there's a new survey up asking about DMs Guld as well as the last Unearthed Arcana (which featured the Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, and Revenant).

Find the survey results here. The most requested extra content is more feats, followed by classes, spells and races, in that order.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

This is disappointing...WOTC has proven that feat design is perhaps the trickiest design space to get 'right' as demonstrated by the last two editions. For every one that wants a "linguist" feat, there seems to be 10 more, IME, that want the moar damage Power Attacking/blitzkrieg/whatever feat that adds little depth to the character, but rather demonstrates the system mastery of the player. Despite my misgivings, I realize that this is a play style many enjoy, so bully for them I guess.

I think one of the best things WOTC did was throw up their hands and dump the whole feat system in the 'optional' bin and be done with it. Perhaps there is a way to tie the lighter feats like linguist to backgrounds instead?

Aye. Let's be honest. We can survey any number of folks on 'Which direction should Bio Engineering take?' and we would no doubt discount the opinions of many contributers, unless they had rather impressive credentials relating to Bio Engineering.

Likewise, how much credibility do we place within an survey's results, one that relates to game design, from an audience who are, by large, poorly educated with regards to game design?

Just because we play a game does not mean we are fit to comment on the design of a game. I can happily watch a movie, but unless I have seriously studied narrative, characterization, plot, metaphor, framing and so forth, I am poorly equipped - and thus my opinion can largely be ignored - with regards to matters relating to movies, outside of 'I like it/I don't like it'.

The survey is, at best, a way of establishing what the majority of participants believe they should get, with regards to 5E D&D.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I detect what Kant might have called a "non-universalizable maxim". You do realize that players buy books too, right?

LOL! Yeah..."players buying books". ... ...heheh... ermm... You're serious? Really? No way! Are you sure? ... Hey, can anyone confirm this?



All sarcasm aside... Yes. Players buy books. They buy books they want to use something found there in (other than those players who like to just read RPG stuff, and don't care if stuff gets used out of it or not). They do this until they realize that their DM isn't going to just "cave in" and let them use it simply because they bought it. One of my players tried this with PF when we were trying that a few years ago. He picked up some "Mage Book of Wowzerness" or something. He was slightly annoyed when I didn't let him use any spells, feats or classes from it. He picked up that "Equipment" book next. Was even more annoyed when I didn't let him use most of the equipment that was...er...well, that I felt was "stupid" or primarily there to get around/over/under or otherwise circumvent a rule or balance in the system. I'm sure he picked up on of the other bestiaries...and attempted to use monsters/animals out of it for Summoning, Polymorphing, illusions, etc. I didn't let him get away with that either. ... He stopped buying PF books after that. And...our game was better for it. During that 6'ish month period buying spree, there was argument upon argument upon argument at the table every time he tried to 'use' something...even from other players, and for other players. When it was clear that buying a book didn't automatically mean it would be included as an option...the arguments stopped and we actually had more fun. Go figure...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[TheCosmicKid]

All sarcasm aside... Yes. Players buy books. They buy books they want to use something found there in (other than those players who like to just read RPG stuff, and don't care if stuff gets used out of it or not). They do this until they realize that their DM isn't going to just "cave in" and let them use it simply because they bought it. One of my players tried this with PF when we were trying that a few years ago. He picked up some "Mage Book of Wowzerness" or something. He was slightly annoyed when I didn't let him use any spells, feats or classes from it. He picked up that "Equipment" book next. Was even more annoyed when I didn't let him use most of the equipment that was...er...well, that I felt was "stupid" or primarily there to get around/over/under or otherwise circumvent a rule or balance in the system. I'm sure he picked up on of the other bestiaries...and attempted to use monsters/animals out of it for Summoning, Polymorphing, illusions, etc. I didn't let him get away with that either. ... He stopped buying PF books after that. And...our game was better for it. During that 6'ish month period buying spree, there was argument upon argument upon argument at the table every time he tried to 'use' something...even from other players, and for other players. When it was clear that buying a book didn't automatically mean it would be included as an option...the arguments stopped and we actually had more fun. Go figure...

Let me see if I understand this. You complain about books that have only thirty pages which might be useful to you, then describe your ideal book as one which has maybe thirty pages useful to others. And when called on the self-centered perspective inherent in this, you attempt to defend yourself with an anecdote in which the player-useful material is not useful at your table... because you have decided to shut it all down by fiat. That does not exactly refute the accusation, to say the least. You didn't even try the material. You say you had "more fun" when the players acquiesced and did things your way, but your point of comparison is to your own stonewalling and the resulting arguments, not to a good-faith attempt to play the game another way. What's that supposed to prove?

And on top of all that, you don't even try to hide your patronizing, "DM Knows Best" attitude towards your own players. Here's a tip. I realize it's probably coming decades too late, but here it is anyway: Respect your players. You're there for them. When they tell you they want to use something, consider the possibility that they actually do have some idea about what they would find fun, and are asking you to help make that a reality. You don't always have to say yes, but when you don't, you should be able to give a clear and specific reason why not, rather than an openly contemptuous dismissal of the " 'Mage Book of Wowzerness' or something". And maybe if something is unusable in its published state, you can still modify it to preserve what the player finds fun about it while removing whatever it was that made it unusable.

 

[snooggums]

That's kind of what I want as well. Having to dip into rogue on my barbarian so I can have expertise in athletics to be the world wide wrestling champion of the world is irritating. Or if you are playing a ranger and despite it not working with other class abilities you want a different weapon style or a weapon style on the barbarian. Yeah you can do a one level dip but maybe you don't like what else comes with that.

Changing the existing grappling feat to give expertise to grapple checks would almost be worth it on its own.

 

[Shasarak]

It will certainly be good to see a new book and more feats are always a nice welcome addition. I just hope they throw in a few must haves into the mix to sweeten the pot so to speak.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Let me see if I understand this. You complain about books that have only thirty pages which might be useful to you, then describe your ideal book as one which has maybe thirty pages useful to others.

No, but I can see why you may have inferred that. My bad for not being clear enough or explaining myself more. The jist of it is this: A "campaign-oriented book" is going to be useful for everyone at the table because if it is in use, by the DM in particular, then (one would assume) the things being used are...well, useful for everyone. Feats, spells, rules, skills, whatever. If the DM says "Yes, all Feats other than the Water Delver one are in use". However, if a DM says "Nothing other than just the rules for the DM stuff is in use"...then yes, that would suck for players (and they would have every right to complain about it...or at least be given the reasons why the Feats, spells, etc aren't being used).

Now, what I *did* say, was I'd prefer books to be "focused". I have no problem with a "Book of Amazing Feats". If I don't want to use Feats in my game (which I don't), I don't have to buy the book. I have no problem with a "Book of In-Depth Skills". Again, I can just not buy it. However, MY ideal book wouldn't be one that focuses primarily on "player stuff"...but one that focuses on a "theme" (e.g., Dungeoneers Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, etc). But, I will admit, I am bias as I have only DM'ed 5e. I'm a DM, not a Player.

And when called on the self-centered perspective inherent in this, you attempt to defend yourself with an anecdote in which the player-useful material is not useful at your table... because you have decided to shut it all down by fiat. That does not exactly refute the accusation, to say the least. You didn't even try the material. You say you had "more fun" when the players acquiesced and did things your way, but your point of comparison is to your own stonewalling and the resulting arguments, not to a good-faith attempt to play the game another way. What's that supposed to prove?

I'm not sure I'm really following you here. I didn't "just decide by fiat"...at least in the "arbitrary" aspect of what that word means. Our first 5e 'campaign' was Starter Set, with no feats. This was a group decision. Next campaign was with the PHB. I tried to say "lets use feats this time"...but was actually 'out voted' by the players. So...no Feats. Next campaign, I did decide "Lets use Feats, MC'ing, and most of the other 'optional stuff' presented in the system". Everyone agreed. We didn't like it. I didn't like it. My players didn't like it. Next campaign was much the same, but slightly modified (you had to take an ASI/Feat, then the next time you were eligible you had to take the opposite of what you did last time...so Feat/ASI...etc). Last few mini-campaigns? No Feats no MC'ing because I don't like them at all...and my players pretty much agree with me, so no harm, no foul.

Now, as for "try the material"...if you are referring to the PF stuff I was talking about? I guess I'm guilty as charged. However, I know what I like and I know what I don't like. I also know RPG's, "well". I am pretty damn good at looking at an RPG's design and seeing stuff I think is just out right 'bad', and definitely stuff I'm not likely to enjoy.

And on top of all that, you don't even try to hide your patronizing, "DM Knows Best" attitude towards your own players. Here's a tip. I realize it's probably coming decades too late, but here it is anyway: Respect your players. You're there for them. When they tell you they want to use something, consider the possibility that they actually do have some idea about what they would find fun, and are asking you to help make that a reality. You don't always have to say yes, but when you don't, you should be able to give a clear and specific reason why not, rather than an openly contemptuous dismissal of the " 'Mage Book of Wowzerness' or something". And maybe if something is unusable in its published state, you can still modify it to preserve what the player finds fun about it while removing whatever it was that made it unusable.

But...the DM does know best. At least for his campaign. I'm not going to do something I dislike for 5 hours a week, every week, for years upon years. I am willing to compromise. And I'm hoping that's what you were getting at. I do compromise when my players really want something (or don't), and it's not completely going to ruin my enjoyment.

I respect my players...because they are all decades long friends (or my wife). I'm there, not "for" them, but "with" them. We all enjoy playing together. Even when my DM style or preference clashes with the groups. When that happens, we...compromise. They do present their case, so to speak, and I listen. I think about how it would affect the campaign world FIRST...and their "immediate gratification" SECOND. And, you know what? Nine times out of ten it works out for everyone. That other one in ten? That's where we revisit a few sessions later and I, or they, or him/her, brings up "this sucks...lets not do that", and we change/drop it. Not very democratic, but if one person in the group really really has a problem with something, we'll acquiesce to their desire almost every time.

I've been DM'ing for decades...mostly with this group. We all pretty much like the same "style" of gaming. But when someone finds something they think will be fun to try, and I'm not keen on it, we bring it up during the beginning of a session and do a quick "pro/con". Sometimes we give it a go, sometimes we just say no, other times it's on a singular "trial basis" for that one player.

Anyway, long story short...'ish... ...you don't know me or my friends. We have been playing together (more or less with each other) for somewhere between 20'ish and 30+'ish years. I/we don't play very often with others, and maybe that's narrowed our view of "what is cool/fun/acceptable" nowadays...but screw it. We're all getting long in the tooth (the baby of the group is turning 37? in a month or so), and we just don't have the energy to care. We like what we like, we all know how one another likes to play, we all accept each other...smooth beauty and ugly warts and everything in between. It works for us. Maybe not you, but us.

"Book of Feats"? Sure. I can just not buy it. "Dungeoneers Survival Guide 5e"? Hellz yeah!

Game on!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Bad Fox]

Aye. Let's be honest. We can survey any number of folks on 'Which direction should Bio Engineering take?' and we would no doubt discount the opinions of many contributers, unless they had rather impressive credentials relating to Bio Engineering.

Likewise, how much credibility do we place within an survey's results, one that relates to game design, from an audience who are, by large, poorly educated with regards to game design?

Just because we play a game does not mean we are fit to comment on the design of a game. I can happily watch a movie, but unless I have seriously studied narrative, characterization, plot, metaphor, framing and so forth, I am poorly equipped - and thus my opinion can largely be ignored - with regards to matters relating to movies, outside of 'I like it/I don't like it'.

The survey is, at best, a way of establishing what the majority of participants believe they should get, with regards to 5E D&D.

I feel like the analogies that you're using don't translate across to this situation very well.

This is polling consumers of a product for information on what they'd like to see more of. I don't see people as needing game design credentials to have a valid opinion on this. Draw data from enough people and you get a clearer idea of what is lacking in the game from the perspective of those that are playing it. That's useful information to help steer the overall direction of game design.

I mean, c'mon - this is how 5th edition was designed in the first place: a massive playtest to see what people wanted and what they didn't.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm disappointed by people demanding more feats. I hope that at most we get 10 well considered feats.

I'm also disappointed by so many people playing half-elfs. It wouldn't be so bad if a person playing a half-elf had an interesting story about their parentage, but in my experience people playing this race put the least work in defining their character.

Half Elves are a bit OP helped by very strong charisma based classes like Paladins and Lore Bards.

 

[jadrax]

Given that Unearthed Arcana has not had any useful material since When Armies Clash in March 2015, I suspect many people have stopped engaging with the surveys.

 

[dave2008]

Mmm. Some feats are great... lots are overpowered. My experience is that 4 times out of 5 a player will take a feat over the +2 ability points, which to me indicates they're too powerful.

LOL, a few post up-thread someone claimed the opposite.