[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.

 

[barasawa]

I can't say my experience mirrors what he said even slightly.

 

[Gammadoodler]

First, this doesn't seem to actually fall into the category of an Appeal to Authority, as it's not dependent on the opinion of some "expert". Jeremy Crawford isn't an "industry expert"—he's the lead designer of WotC for D&D products. WotC does research on what is popular among their customers to help determine what sort of products to produce (so they can maximize their profits). Crawford's job is directly impacted by the data that WotC obtains (in that his job is to design what WotC thinks, based on the research that they do and the data that they collect, will sell).

Yes, he does not describe his data, but is there any question that WotC collects data. So, it comes down to either suggesting that WotC doesn't have the data (which is rather silly), or that the lead designer is misrepresenting the data (and what would be gained from this?).

A few things..

1. “Industry expert” and “lead designer for WotC D&D products” are not mutually exclusive, unless you believe JC can only ever work on WotC D&D products and otherwise has no industry expertise. Besides that, changing the title of the authority you are appealing to does not change that it is an appeal to authority.
2. I have no doubt JC has data which WotC has analyzed somehow, and I, personally, find the conclusions plausible, however, that data has neither been presented nor described.
3. Fundamentally, both parties have basically said, “I have data, it says this” (The “anecdotal evidence” is still data after all). Mr. “Anecdotal” is at least clear in what data he’s using, and while JC has no obligation to prove his statements, people with conflicting experiences aren’t acting irrationally by trusting the only data at their disposal.

 

[Gammadoodler]

And you're still assuming the source without evidence.

Maybe he is, but...aren’t you assuming the evidence without the evidence?

 

[jgsugden]

You realize, by calling a massively large set of data "sketchy" and refuting it with a massively smaller set of data (8 groups total), you've made a complete farce of what is and isn't considered "sketchy" right? I mean, you have to seen some irony in that, I hope? I know some groups who have only played with Basic rules. Since their personal experience is only with Basic rules, does that mean they should conclude your data is "sketchy" because their personal experience differs?...

Majority = More than 50%.
8 distinct groups, almost entirely independent.
We're saying that I experienced the unlikely situation in each of these 8 groups.
If each group had the normal probability of following the, well, 'norm', you'd expect there to be less than a 0.4% chance (one in 250) chance of my experience. Less than, because they're saying most - more than 50%... If they think there is a 60/40 split, the number drops to 0.0065%....

So, yeah, I'll call the data sketchy.

 

[Morrus]

Majority = More than 50%.
8 distinct groups, almost entirely independent.
We're saying that I experienced the unlikely situation in each of these 8 groups.
If each group had the normal probability of following the, well, 'norm', you'd expect there to be less than a 0.4% chance (one in 250) chance of my experience. Less than, because they're saying most - more than 50%... If they think there is a 60/40 split, the number drops to 0.0065%....

So, yeah, I'll call the data sketchy.

That’s not how statistical samples work.

 

[Shasarak]

There is another possibility for those surprised with this information: As large as it is, the Enworld community (at least many members posting in this thread) is an aberration. The great unwashed, unenlighted riff-raff that don’t hang out online with hyper-fans must be legion, and play differently than many here. ;-)

Maybe there really is a silent majority after all.

 

[Shasarak]

I never played 2e but I've got 35+ years of more-or-less-modified 1e under my belt; along with a whack of 3e. And yes, mechanical build was both way more important and way more emphasized in 3e than in 1e.

Oh, I see. So 3e did not actually introduce "character build", it just emphasized it more?

 

[Shasarak]

"This assertion doesn't match my preconceived notion—therefor, it must be a lie!"

Sounds like US politics.

Ah, so just more fake news then?

 

[lkj]

Majority = More than 50%.
8 distinct groups, almost entirely independent.
We're saying that I experienced the unlikely situation in each of these 8 groups.
If each group had the normal probability of following the, well, 'norm', you'd expect there to be less than a 0.4% chance (one in 250) chance of my experience. Less than, because they're saying most - more than 50%... If they think there is a 60/40 split, the number drops to 0.0065%....

So, yeah, I'll call the data sketchy.

So, I hesitate to get embroiled in this-- But 8 non-independent samples would be considered a very, very small sample size from which to make inferences. Put another way, even if only 40% of groups didn't use feats, it would not be hard to find 8 such groups of the presumably thousands of existing groups. Also, Jeremy's data appears to be about individuals rather than groups. And it sounds like there were individuals in your groups that did not use feats and that over half were humans. That seems like it isn't too far into the tail of whatever the actual distribution might be.

And I think you had requested some DDB info. Adam Bradford actually did post some:

https://twitter.com/BadEyeAdam/status/969435420676231169

Which removes free-only and inactive characters and provides by-level information.

But probably a better point is this-- We don't have the data. We probably aren't going to get all the data. So we can argue about factors and hypothetical distributions if we like. Hey, it's fun! (I'm not kidding. I'm a stat nerd). However, in the end you are just deciding whether or not you trust Jeremy Crawford to give us a meaningful summary of that data. And that's mostly just going to come down to a personal opinion.

Cheers,
AD

 

[Yunru]

So the actual data shows that "most" was an exaggeration- only technically true, ecepting at low levels. Nice!