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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 6346634" data-attributes="member: 9053">Okay: that's what I interpreted this to mean, said by, well, you:I interpret that to mean with extensive open playtesting etc. that one direction is well represented to be: the playtest reflects what a large portion of the fans want. That is what you believe, correct? If you're trying to have an issue with the semantics of my sentence, please don't. The playtest fallacy is that the fans want, in large part, what they respond to positively in the playtest. If you don't actually playtest something publicly, the fans don't get a vote on it.Perhaps when someone says that, it would make sense to reply to it. Seriously, I make no statements that the designers are lying whatsoever. Before 5E I was a certified Mike Mearls fanboy, so I have a lot of respect for him. A ton of it. What I'm saying is that where you start the playtest and the options you don't test skew the results in a major way. We didn't get to playtest many 4E-isms. If we had, I would have been ecstatic about them. The cantrips got several positive comments from my group, for instance. One comment was "now, go and do likewise for Martial characters!"This discussion is spiraling down fast, though, and I'm not of a mind to offer more annoyance, so I'll bow out at this point. I'd just remember that if you're of the mind that Ruin Explorer is a lone voice, that's not correct. Some of us just engage in a voluntary thread-ban most of the time, which I will re-engage.</blockquote>

Verification