Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
news scoop: insider account of how the statement was drafted, and the fear-based culture in Wizards offices
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="Yaarel" data-source="post: 8904928" data-attributes="member: 58172"><p>I am only now coming across this. Here is the claimed leak by <a href="https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615806825198194708" target="_blank">D&D Shorts</a> on his Twitter account:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]273024[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p><strong>Quick Thoughts</strong></p><p></p><p>• The surveys are "just a temperature test" on whether people like something.</p><p></p><p>Is that so difficult to believe?</p><p></p><p>Regarding the playtest back for 2014 to create the 5e version of the game, we hear from the 5e designers themselves, they cared deeply about the unprecedentedly massive playtest and its feedback. We know, the D&D staff read every single comment on every single survey. 5e is the result.</p><p></p><p>But even then, the designers described the survey process. They would make a proposal in a playtest. If it gained sufficient approval in surveys (varied from 80% to 60%), they would stick with the proposal. If the approval was insufficient, they would read the commentary and work on a revision in a future playtest.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the surveys also functioned as a "temperature test" even back then in 2014.</p><p></p><p></p><p>• We dont want to know what armchair gamers think would be better rules.</p><p></p><p>Now for the upcoming 2024, the designers are seeking "backward compatibility". In other words, they arent seeking significantly new mechanics. The surveys are mostly a "temperature test". They dont want "better rules" for a new version. They seek to polish up the old 5e version. This mood suggests 5.5 rather than 6e.</p><p></p><p>The source of D&D Shorts sounds plausible on this point.</p><p></p><p>(Personally, I suspect the shift into a digital experience is inherently a gamechanger, and it will be 6e after all. But I can believe the designers are finetuning the mechanical engine for a 5.5.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>• You ever fill out those surveys. Nobody reads anything you type in those. Nobody.</p><p></p><p>I would have expected the following process. Playtest → Survey → High Approval → Ignore comments in Survey. But otherwise: Playtest → Survey → Low Approval → Read comments in Survey.</p><p></p><p>The claim is surprising that nobody is on staff to read the survey comments for playtests that received low approval.</p><p></p><p>But if the goal is backward compatible with what already exists in 5e, is it implausible that there is no staff dedicated to read the survey comments? I would still think the designers themselves would peruse the commentary for any significant disapproval. So there is some eyebrow raising.</p><p></p><p></p><p>• A senior designer said ... : Were making the next version of the rules, not our customers.</p><p>• Surveys have a written component ... because ... we channel them to not be disruptive.</p><p></p><p>Such a stance is disappointing − aggressive and disregarding. But is it implausible that at least one of the senior designers feels this way?</p><p></p><p>Generally, the designers want backward compatibility. They dont want a new variation of D&D. They have a clear view of what they themselves feel needs to be fixed in 5e.</p><p></p><p>Maybe the 5e designers dont want feedback on ideas?</p><p></p><p>But they do want to doublecheck if their new fixes meet a sufficient approval.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[Edit]: <a href="https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615859213347037184" target="_blank">D&D Shorts</a> himself is aware of conflicting accounts about this source, suggesting the source is incorrect on certain points. He now tweets:</p><p></p><p>"Others can confirm the sources I'm in contact with. But, it seems that these insiders were incorrect on this unless more information comes to light. I'm still at a loss how two such conflicting accounts came to be. I'll keep you updated on this story, and the whole story."</p><p></p><p></p><p>If the designers actually do have staff to check comments for items that received low approvals (a low temperature), I can believe that.</p><p></p><p>But if they ignore comments for items that receive high approval, I can also believe that.</p><p></p><p>In the future, time and money permitting, I suspect staff will eventually go thru all of the comments to hunt for any gems. But this wont be for 2024, it would be for supplements or other products.</p><p></p><p></p><p>D&D Shorts notes, "everyone" speaks well of Winninger the president during 2014 and Crawford a lead designer during it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 8904928, member: 58172"] I am only now coming across this. Here is the claimed leak by [URL='https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615806825198194708']D&D Shorts[/URL] on his Twitter account: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1674084676346.png"]273024[/ATTACH] [B]Quick Thoughts[/B] • The surveys are "just a temperature test" on whether people like something. Is that so difficult to believe? Regarding the playtest back for 2014 to create the 5e version of the game, we hear from the 5e designers themselves, they cared deeply about the unprecedentedly massive playtest and its feedback. We know, the D&D staff read every single comment on every single survey. 5e is the result. But even then, the designers described the survey process. They would make a proposal in a playtest. If it gained sufficient approval in surveys (varied from 80% to 60%), they would stick with the proposal. If the approval was insufficient, they would read the commentary and work on a revision in a future playtest. In other words, the surveys also functioned as a "temperature test" even back then in 2014. • We dont want to know what armchair gamers think would be better rules. Now for the upcoming 2024, the designers are seeking "backward compatibility". In other words, they arent seeking significantly new mechanics. The surveys are mostly a "temperature test". They dont want "better rules" for a new version. They seek to polish up the old 5e version. This mood suggests 5.5 rather than 6e. The source of D&D Shorts sounds plausible on this point. (Personally, I suspect the shift into a digital experience is inherently a gamechanger, and it will be 6e after all. But I can believe the designers are finetuning the mechanical engine for a 5.5.) • You ever fill out those surveys. Nobody reads anything you type in those. Nobody. I would have expected the following process. Playtest → Survey → High Approval → Ignore comments in Survey. But otherwise: Playtest → Survey → Low Approval → Read comments in Survey. The claim is surprising that nobody is on staff to read the survey comments for playtests that received low approval. But if the goal is backward compatible with what already exists in 5e, is it implausible that there is no staff dedicated to read the survey comments? I would still think the designers themselves would peruse the commentary for any significant disapproval. So there is some eyebrow raising. • A senior designer said ... : Were making the next version of the rules, not our customers. • Surveys have a written component ... because ... we channel them to not be disruptive. Such a stance is disappointing − aggressive and disregarding. But is it implausible that at least one of the senior designers feels this way? Generally, the designers want backward compatibility. They dont want a new variation of D&D. They have a clear view of what they themselves feel needs to be fixed in 5e. Maybe the 5e designers dont want feedback on ideas? But they do want to doublecheck if their new fixes meet a sufficient approval. [Edit]: [URL='https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1615859213347037184']D&D Shorts[/URL] himself is aware of conflicting accounts about this source, suggesting the source is incorrect on certain points. He now tweets: "Others can confirm the sources I'm in contact with. But, it seems that these insiders were incorrect on this unless more information comes to light. I'm still at a loss how two such conflicting accounts came to be. I'll keep you updated on this story, and the whole story." If the designers actually do have staff to check comments for items that received low approvals (a low temperature), I can believe that. But if they ignore comments for items that receive high approval, I can also believe that. In the future, time and money permitting, I suspect staff will eventually go thru all of the comments to hunt for any gems. But this wont be for 2024, it would be for supplements or other products. D&D Shorts notes, "everyone" speaks well of Winninger the president during 2014 and Crawford a lead designer during it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
news scoop: insider account of how the statement was drafted, and the fear-based culture in Wizards offices
Top