Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Survey Results | Druid & Paladin | Unearthed Arcana | D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 9023919" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>Actually, that's a pretty good point. That makes me somewhat more hopeful than I was previously.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I don't think it's reasonable to ask players to evaluate designs and then also expect them not to evaluate them from a power-level perspective too. Like it's a <em>player survey</em> (including DMs as players) not a survey of a game designer group. If WotC needs more game designer feedback, they need to hire more game designers. A feedback survey is not an appropriate source of unfiltered feedback.</p><p></p><p>A significant number of players only care about balance or power level. A certain group of players are going to respond selfishly, or will uphold archaic design ideas, or only care about their one pet character build. I've read Warlock playtest threads where someone "playtested" it and gave it a low mark because it couldn't literally do <em>exactly</em> what the 2014 Warlock could in literally every scenario.</p><p></p><p>WotC <em>has </em>to know that players will have bad ideas and are much more likely to evaluate things on the basis of power level or balance. That's what many players think game design <em>is</em>, and if you look at the survey questions, they're not directing people to respond to the design. The survey questions just say, "On a scale of <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😭" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f62d.png" title="Loudly crying face :sob:" data-shortname=":sob:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> to <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60d.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":love:" title="Love :love:" data-smilie="16"data-shortname=":love:" /> how satisfied are you with X?" And then they just ask for comments.</p><p></p><p>I think WotC is <em>definitely interested</em> in hearing design-level feedback from DMs and players. I think they're very happy to get something like, "I love the template idea but this power level is way off." But I also think they are also interested in those reactionary knee-jerk responses to the change or to the power level. I think they want to know how many players have Pact Magic or spam Smite or Monster stat block Polymorph as a watershed design issue. I think WotC already knows which design is smart and which is stupid, and they know why they're suggesting the changes they are. But I think WotC also knows that designing a 50-year-old game is hard, and sometimes you keep the design stupid because that's what the customers want, and sometimes you fix the stupid design even if you lose some customers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 9023919, member: 6777737"] Actually, that's a pretty good point. That makes me somewhat more hopeful than I was previously. No, I don't think it's reasonable to ask players to evaluate designs and then also expect them not to evaluate them from a power-level perspective too. Like it's a [I]player survey[/I] (including DMs as players) not a survey of a game designer group. If WotC needs more game designer feedback, they need to hire more game designers. A feedback survey is not an appropriate source of unfiltered feedback. A significant number of players only care about balance or power level. A certain group of players are going to respond selfishly, or will uphold archaic design ideas, or only care about their one pet character build. I've read Warlock playtest threads where someone "playtested" it and gave it a low mark because it couldn't literally do [I]exactly[/I] what the 2014 Warlock could in literally every scenario. WotC [I]has [/I]to know that players will have bad ideas and are much more likely to evaluate things on the basis of power level or balance. That's what many players think game design [I]is[/I], and if you look at the survey questions, they're not directing people to respond to the design. The survey questions just say, "On a scale of 😭 to :love: how satisfied are you with X?" And then they just ask for comments. I think WotC is [I]definitely interested[/I] in hearing design-level feedback from DMs and players. I think they're very happy to get something like, "I love the template idea but this power level is way off." But I also think they are also interested in those reactionary knee-jerk responses to the change or to the power level. I think they want to know how many players have Pact Magic or spam Smite or Monster stat block Polymorph as a watershed design issue. I think WotC already knows which design is smart and which is stupid, and they know why they're suggesting the changes they are. But I think WotC also knows that designing a 50-year-old game is hard, and sometimes you keep the design stupid because that's what the customers want, and sometimes you fix the stupid design even if you lose some customers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Survey Results | Druid & Paladin | Unearthed Arcana | D&D
Top