D&D (2024) Pulse check on 1D&D excitement level

[UngainlyTitan]

Not catering to grognards.
Giving grognards too large a say in the creation of 5e by making poll thresholds too high.

Many of the stuff 5e current fans say they wish for were shot down in the D&D playtest.

What is the basis for the belief that the UA survey feed back skews towards the grognards.

 

[Minigiant]

What is the basis for the belief that the UA survey feed back skews towards the grognards.

I didn't say it skewed to grognards.

I said the threshold to say in the game was too high. This allowed any small minority of the community to veto anything out the game. Almost every fundamentally new mechanic introduced in the playtest was removed or minimized. This allowed grognards to vote out new mechanics. This allowed edition haters to vote out stuff from the editions they didn't like.

Did you know the playtest Druid had the hound, bird, fish, and rat form and only the moon druid got bear, great cat, behemoth form? With choosable augments? Stuff people are suggesting elsewhere. Cut out in the 2012 playtest for the choose a MM beast type.

 

[Incenjucar]

It would be quite interesting to see how the feedback varies based on how long someone has been playing.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I didn't say it skewed to grognards.

I said the threshold to say in the game was too high. This allowed any small minority of the community to veto anything out the game. Almost every fundamentally new mechanic introduced in the playtest was removed or minimized. This allowed grognards to vote out new mechanics. This allowed edition haters to vote out stuff from the editions they didn't like.

Did you know the playtest Druid had the hound, bird, fish, and rat form and only the moon druid got bear, great cat, behemoth form? With choosable augments? Stuff people are suggesting elsewhere. Cut out in the 2012 playtest for the choose a MM beast type.

A couple of points, the population that responded to the UA surveys in the 2014 playtest and that responding to the current playtests is not likely to be similar. The 2014 one was much more grognard.
An 80% is a pretty high consensus and I appreciate that it makes for a conservative design. I am not too happy about it either but it has been very successful for WoTC. It does mean that only popular ideas get accepted but you have not convinced me that it is grognards that are skewing the design.
Given the rate of expansion of the game over the last 5 years or so, what exactly is the percentage of grognards?

I do know that a lot of the Youtube I watch is not too keen on the new UA material but they tend to skew old school and OSR but that might the algorithm throwing stuff at me.

 

[Clint_L]

I am going to venture what might be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but one that I think a lot of people who don't eat and breathe games might share: WotC should not tinker with the game too much.

Because so much of my play is with new players (teacher who runs new beginner campaigns all the time at my school), it is really valuable to me that the game remain consistent. I don't want to be teaching a new version of the game to different groups, and I want the kids to be able to leave my beginner campaigns and blend together to form their own campaigns. That is much easier if we are all working from a common denominator.

I think 3PP do a great job of offering variety on the 5e chassis, and I see my experienced players starting to gravitate towards some of them. There is also the option to play older editions, OSR, etc. But I want D&D to continue to work as the "vanilla" game. And I need DnDBeyond to keep functioning without the massive disruption that big changes to 5e would entail. It's a well-integrated ecosystem, and it works really well for what it is trying to do. I am very much in favour of OneD&D maintaining the status quo.

 

[Incenjucar]

You can just not use the new books.

 

[Minigiant]

A couple of points, the population that responded to the UA surveys in the 2014 playtest and that responding to the current playtests is not likely to be similar. The 2014 one was much more grognard.

That's my point.

The 2012-2014 playtest had more grognards and due to the 80% satisfactory threshold, their opinions had more sway than the groups that would eventually be the majority of 5e players.

If there were 20%+ grognards replying to surveys in 2014, anything they collectively didn't like would not make into 5e.

Orcs and Goliaths would not make it into the PHB as PC options in 2014.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's my point.

The 2012-2014 playtest had more grognards and due to the 80% satisfactory threshold, their opinions had more sway than the groups that would eventually be the majority of 5e players.

If there were 20%+ grognards replying to surveys in 2014, anything they collectively didn't like would not make into 5e.

Orcs and Goliaths would not make it into the PHB as PC options in 2014.

Another points to consider: how many non-grognards actually participated in the 2014 playtest? The type of people who are interested in replying to that sort of stuff, who are even likely to see that there is a playtest available in 2014, are more likely to be grognards and be invested in previous editions.

 

[Zaukrie]

I am going to venture what might be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but one that I think a lot of people who don't eat and breathe games might share: WotC should not tinker with the game too much.

Because so much of my play is with new players (teacher who runs new beginner campaigns all the time at my school), it is really valuable to me that the game remain consistent. I don't want to be teaching a new version of the game to different groups, and I want the kids to be able to leave my beginner campaigns and blend together to form their own campaigns. That is much easier if we are all working from a common denominator.

I think 3PP do a great job of offering variety on the 5e chassis, and I see my experienced players starting to gravitate towards some of them. There is also the option to play older editions, OSR, etc. But I want D&D to continue to work as the "vanilla" game. And I need DnDBeyond to keep functioning without the massive disruption that big changes to 5e would entail. It's a well-integrated ecosystem, and it works really well for what it is trying to do. I am very much in favour of OneD&D maintaining the status quo.

I think the chassis should be simple, with optional complexity. The more WotC does that, the more likely I'll use their VTT someday.

 

[mamba]

I don't want to be teaching a new version of the game to different groups, and I want the kids to be able to leave my beginner campaigns and blend together to form their own campaigns. That is much easier if we are all working from a common denominator.

Or you switch over to the new version, because that will be what most beginners will be using going forward