Vaalingrade
Legend
5.5 content is like a rescue cat. You can't make any sudden movements or show any disapproval. You must approach slowly, palms facing up and avoiding eye contact. Avoid eye contact or it will flee under the couch.
But we don't need to know-know exactly what is going on... we just have to listen to what they say and take from it a logical result.
They've made it clear that they want to see something at least 70% acceptance (basically 4-point and 5-point votes) for them to continue to pursue it. We know this. Which means if there's anything introduced that we like the basics of (but not necessarily the specifics) and we don't want to see it shat-canned... we should vote at least an acceptable rating so that we can contribute to getting it to 70% at minimum. And then give all our issues in the write-ups so then they can see what needs to be amended.
But if you go straight to 1-point votes because you don't like the specifics (even if you think the foundation is sound) and you want to get your disdain and displeasure out for WotC for whatever reason (even though nobody else cares one way or the other what you think of it)... you're going to just contribute to not getting it to 70. And you will see the thing binned, rather than worked on and pushed forward. Which goes against precisely what you were hoping to see happen.
Are there any guarantees to any of this? Well, no, of course not. But nothing I've said here should be a surprise to anyone, because it's an exceedingly easy reasoning to come to based on what Jeremy et. al. have made clear about he surveys in the past. So even if we don't know precisely the rules, we can still play the game they have laid out before us.
I mean, I agree with your reasoning, but it's not really what the survey is asking. So you're left with: Do you answer the survey as it is asked, or do you try to game the system? You're clearly advocating gaming the system, and I don't disagree, but it's pretty counter-intuitive.But we don't need to know-know exactly what is going on... we just have to listen to what they say and take from it a logical result.
They've made it clear that they want to see something at least 70% acceptance (basically 4-point and 5-point votes) for them to continue to pursue it. We know this. Which means if there's anything introduced that we like the basics of (but not necessarily the specifics) and we don't want to see it shat-canned... we should vote at least an acceptable rating so that we can contribute to getting it to 70% at minimum. And then give all our issues in the write-ups so then they can see what needs to be amended.
But if you go straight to 1-point votes because you don't like the specifics (even if you think the foundation is sound) and you want to get your disdain and displeasure out for WotC for whatever reason (even though nobody else cares one way or the other what you think of it)... you're going to just contribute to not getting it to 70. And you will see the thing binned, rather than worked on and pushed forward. Which goes against precisely what you were hoping to see happen.
Are there any guarantees to any of this? Well, no, of course not. But nothing I've said here should be a surprise to anyone, because it's an exceedingly easy reasoning to come to based on what Jeremy et. al. have made clear about he surveys in the past. So even if we don't know precisely the rules, we can still play the game they have laid out before us.
The problem with that is:But we don't need to know-know exactly what is going on... we just have to listen to what they say and take from it a logical result.
They've made it clear that they want to see something at least 70% acceptance (basically 4-point and 5-point votes) for them to continue to pursue it. We know this. Which means if there's anything introduced that we like the basics of (but not necessarily the specifics) and we don't want to see it shat-canned... we should vote at least an acceptable rating so that we can contribute to getting it to 70% at minimum. And then give all our issues in the write-ups so then they can see what needs to be amended.
Of course you can. You write all your critique in the comments section.The problem with that is:
If something is a good idea, but needs work, you are just SOL.
Giving something a "4" means the item in question gets significantly above the approval threshold, and it's shipped as is.
On the flip side, giving something a "3" translates into "throw the idea into the shredder, then throw the shredder into a burning bin."
You effectively cannot say that you like the idea but the execution is flawed.
I rated most with satisfied to counter your negative responses.I lambasted the implementation and not the concept and included specific advice in each text field on how to make a system that would work for me. Of course, if they just look at all the "Highly Unsatisfied" ratings I and others gave and then conclude "Well, that didn't spark joy. Bin it!" that is really on them and their survey methodology than on the players who took the time to read, playtest and grok 23 pages of fairly dense game rules and fill out a survey on it.
two can play that game, so now I need to fill it out too to counter youI rated most with satisfied to counter your negative responses.
Overall the bastion system is not that bad, but it still needs work.
I think we need more people to fill it out.two can play that game, so now I need to fill it out too to counter you
Add a "0" to the end of those numbers.I think we need more people to fill it out.
20. With 13 writing in positive responses and 7 negative.
Why? We need 65%... Do you think there are more people besides us on ENworld that fill out those surveys?Add a "0" to the end of those numbers.