Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6346630" data-attributes="member: 996">We really don't.  We know that, this time around, there was a public playtest and a survey, and that they quoted the number of people who signed up for the playtest, in total, and the number of responses - two carefully selected statistics that shed no light on whether the playtest started strong and dropped off or gained playtesters as wit went, nor on what the composition of that self-selected population was like.  And we don't know how 'different' everything else was, because they never shared the methodology or results, just their conclusions.  When WotC came out and said there were certain fan-identified problems with 3.5 and fixed them in 4e, there was outrage from certain quarters, and relief in finally seeing those problems fixed in others.  Now, they're essentially doing the same thing, hammering on edition-war-complaints about slow combat and grid-dependence and releasing 5e as nominally-TotM with monsters and PCs all but made of glass in comparison to make combats short & deadly.  But somehow it's different? You'd have to know something about the methodology in all 3 cases to make the comparison.  We don't know anything about them.All we had, in all three cases, is boosters of the then-new ed or half-ed saying that it had to be what the fans wanted because 'market research!' I suppose I should take a page from ScottC and try to re-assure you that the general patterns I'm seeing from 2000, 2008, & 2010 recurring today are not in any way an attack on you personally.  They're not.  Please don't feel like I'm singling you out, you're just saying things that are reminiscent, not the exact same things - and you're not alone.</blockquote>

Verification