D&D 5E So... what happened during the playtests?

[jayoungr]

I too had to look it up, I think it's damage on a miss

Ohhhhhh! Yeah, I can see how that would have been controversial.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's an understatement lol. TLDR version:

"It's great! The PCs are supposed to be heroes, so they can do things like this."
"But it's a miss! It makes no sense!"
"HP are abstract anyway!"
"But it's a miss! And yeah, HP are abstract, that's why you don't die from one max hit from a battle axe. But you shouldn't lose them on a miss!"

rinse and repeat.

 

[Gnarl45]

One would have thought.

You confused yourself.

I beg to differ. As I've taken the painstaking time to point out repeatedly, the first handful of post contributions from you in this thread made it very clear what you said. Again, I'm glad you've stepped away from such obvious folly in later posts and are now taking a much more reasonable stance.

And you're wrong. You misinterpreted what I was saying.

Here are the posts with the explanations. I haven't change my stance, I only explained my position in my last posts because you and some other posters misinterpreted the first ones.

Post #7: "There was a lot of online discussion during the playtest that Wizards of the Coast pretty much ignored. I think they collected everybody's opinion in the surveys. I don't think they read what we said in the online discussions. If they didn't read the online discussions, then they ignored the online discussions. That's why I wrote this in my first post. Maybe I'm wrong and they actually bothered to read what we were writing but I don't see anything to support that claim.

They started with a lightweight version of D&D with streamlined rules, few character options, no tactical combat, and average math and the polls told them that was good enough to make petty much every happy except a few vocal minorities on the Internet. They decided to ignore the edition warriors and refined the original system. In this sentence, I'm not saying the edition warriors didn't get to give their opinion. They ignored the edition warriors because the surveys showed that the majority of D&D fans had a different opinion. They weren't a large enough group to make a difference.

What really changed was Wizards of the Coast's official statements."

Post #20: "I can see why it doesn't make sense to you . I wasn't exactly clear and I made a few assumptions.

Mr Mearls justified every one of his decisions with the survey results. I assumed it was clear that this was the only data he was interested in. In other words, he ignored what people were saying online and ignored the edition warriors. Here, I'm saying that Mr Mearls used the survey data to decide what to change and what to keep. Nothing more. And as I explained before, I have no evidence that they bothered to read what we were saying online and that's why I think they ignored the online discussions.

Morrus compiled every single piece of information on D&D Next he could find. I assumed he agreed that the official statements changed.

I assumed he disagreed that each iteration was only a refinement of the first one. In my opinion, major design choices are things like simple combat, few character options, streamlined rules, and not to worry too much about the math. There was quite a bit of tinkering throughout the iterations but none of them changed these fundamentals or the overall experience so that's why I call them refinements.

For example, we never had a playtest version with slower but more tactical combats. Most of us liked how it was in the first playtest (according to the survey) and they kept it. They could have tried something different to see if they couldn't get a higher approval rating. I don't think Mr Mearls is stupid. When the 4e fans were asking for more tactical options in the forums, Mr Mearls knew they wanted more than flanking! They didn't challenge their fundamentals nor did they listen to what people were saying online. This is one of the reasons I think the game designers didn't read the online discussions. The tactical module isn't what the 4e crowd was asking for online.

Anyways, that's just my perception of the playtest."

Post #45: "You're absolutely right. I clearly remember he said he preferred skill dice but he had to ditch them (and that they would be an optional module in the DMG).

I'm not saying Mr Mearls got what he wanted! I'm just saying that he only used the surveys to make his decisions and that the online discussions ended up not mattering. You thought I was accusing Mr. Mearls of ignoring what the fans were saying when I was saying the exact contrary. You misunderstood. I think Mr Mearls read the feedback they collected in the surveys but I don't think he read the online discussions."

Post #61: "I don't really understand what gave you the impression that I was saying that the internet voices were ignored or that some peoples' opinions should matter more.

In my opinion, the only thing that influenced the game designers' decisions were the survey results. I don't think any of the discussions we had online ever made them change their minds, and to the best of my knowledge, none of the ideas posted in their forums ever made it to the playtest. The same explanation as always. Mr Mearls used the surveys to make his decisions. I still don't think he read what we said online."


Are there any posts you want me to explain or is this enough?

Unless you had WotC insider access, I don't see how you could know that the ideas people posted on internet forums did not also find inclusion in feedback survey submissions.

I don't have insider access, I'm giving my opinion. I was a very active forum member during the playtest and none of the ideas I read ever made it to the playtests. If you have an example of an idea they borrowed from the forums, I'll change my mind.

I don't think they read their own forums. I don't understand why it's such a big issue for you that I believe this.

That's an odd way to phrase a question you already know is not what you want an answer to. How about this instead:

Obviously . I was actually asking you if you thought that the online discussions influenced the game designers' decisions.

Since you seem to disagree that they didn't read the online discussions, I was hoping you could give me a few examples to support that they did.

You: "Do you think anything posted in online discussions made it into the feedback surveys to subsequently influence the game designers' decisions?"

Me: "Yes. Most assuredly."

Better? Yeah, I think definitely better.

Which is exactly my point.

They didn't read the online discussions because they read peoples' opinions in the surveys. That was my opinion in post 7, 20, 45, 61, and every other one of my posts. I'm sorry but you put words in my mouth and you were wrong to do so.

 

[Gnarl45]

DoaM? Remember, it got it's own discussion forum?

They may not have consistently gone with what people 'wanted' by on-line consensus, but they may have avoided things that seemed 'too controversial?'

I suppose you could add hit points, tactical combats, "freak" races, and warlords to this list.

I think you're right. They probably identified what was "too controversial" in the online discussions. I remember Emerikol pestering Mr. Mearls about hit points on twitter over and over again .

 

[Tony Vargas]

I suppose you could add hit points, tactical combats, "freak" races, and warlords to this list.

I think you're right. They probably identified what was "too controversial" in the online discussions. I remember Emerikol pestering Mr. Mearls about hit points on twitter over and over again .

Of course 'controversy,' as Jester Canuck pointed out upthread, could just be 4 guys freaking out on the internet. And, yeah, coming out of the edition war as the community was at the time, some controversy was inevitable.

 

[Jester David]

I suppose you could add hit points, tactical combats, "freak" races, and warlords to this list.

I think you're right. They probably identified what was "too controversial" in the online discussions. I remember Emerikol pestering Mr. Mearls about hit points on twitter over and over again .

Maybe.
But the online forums tended to become enflamed with regular arguments de jour that quickly petered out as new things to nerd rage over were released.
Very likely the D&D team payed little to no attention to the dozen message board posters having arguments over hit points, DoaM, freak races, warlords, etc.

 

[TarionzCousin]

So... what happened during the playtests?

Everybody* suddenly quit playing Pathfinder.










*Not "everybody," obviously. But it felt that way.

 

[Eubani]

Unfortunately removal of DOAM was caused by the casting of the Grognard appeasement ritual. One of the main effects of said ritual is to remove nice things from fighters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"How much Residuum did that ritual consume?"

"All of it."

 

[Rhenny]

I'm late to this thread, but here's my take.

There were a lot of passionate people in both the general and the alpha test groups who played, studied, and commented upon the material WoTC gave us. It was a terrific experience that re-energized me and got me much more involved in the WoTC community. I made a bunch of online friends and enjoyed sharing ideas and experiences.

The amount of time and the scale of the playtest was massive and I appreciate what WoTC did.