Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9606400" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The data does not support the claim made.The data supports that people still choose to play these classes. That doesn't mean they are happy with every single thing about them.Because guess what? We have other WotC data. Data that shows that...guess what! Fighter and Barbarian had some of the lowest satisfaction scores (only class with lower was Ranger). Champion and Berserker, two of the most widely-played subclasses, were some of the most unsatisfactory--with Berserker actually being underwater, with players more dissatisfied than satisfied.For God's sake, please stop using the argument that &quot;people play it, therefore they like everything about it.&quot;This instead supports exactly what [USER=6802951]@Cap'n Kobold[/USER] said: Players choose a concept first, then choose options to make that concept happen. And, as it turns out, &quot;guy who fights with a weapon and mighty thews&quot; is a very popular concept. It has, in fact, always been a very popular concept--across every single edition of D&amp;D. All data I've ever had any access to indicates that the Fighter CONCEPT is extremely popular. But that does not say one thing, not one little thing, about whether the IMPLEMENTATION is popular.Because, guess what? That implementation is often highly unpopular! Fighters in 3e were still one of the most widely-played classes...and yet it is now widely understood that it was extremely poorly designed and almost totally failed to deliver. It's been repudiated by effectively every design team that has continued the D&amp;D-and-descendants line: WotC admits it was flawed and has worked to address it, Paizo admits it was flawed and has worked to address it, Dreamscarred Press admits it was flawed and has worked to address it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9606400, member: 6790260"] The data does not support the claim made. The data supports that people still choose to play these classes. [I]That doesn't mean they are happy with every single thing about them.[/I] Because guess what? We have other WotC data. Data that shows that...guess what! Fighter and Barbarian had some of the lowest satisfaction scores (only class with lower was Ranger). Champion and Berserker, two of the most widely-played subclasses, were some of the [I]most[/I] unsatisfactory--with Berserker actually being underwater, with players more dissatisfied than satisfied. For God's sake, [I]please[/I] stop using the argument that "people play it, therefore they like everything about it." This instead supports exactly what [USER=6802951]@Cap'n Kobold[/USER] said: Players choose a concept first, then choose options to make that concept happen. And, as it turns out, "guy who fights with a weapon and mighty thews" is a very popular concept. It has, in fact, [I]always[/I] been a very popular concept--across every single edition of D&D. All data I've ever had any access to indicates that the Fighter CONCEPT is extremely popular. But that does not say one thing, [I]not one little thing[/I], about whether the IMPLEMENTATION is popular. Because, guess what? That implementation is often highly unpopular! Fighters in 3e were still one of the most widely-played classes...and yet it is now widely understood that it was extremely poorly designed and almost totally failed to deliver. It's been repudiated by effectively every design team that has continued the D&D-and-descendants line: WotC admits it was flawed and has worked to address it, Paizo admits it was flawed and has worked to address it, Dreamscarred Press admits it was flawed and has worked to address it. [/QUOTE]

Verification