D&D 5E Why Forums Should Be Ignored By Game Developers

[Zardnaar]

IN general I think there is a vast disparity between the way members of forums play D&D and how the majority of players actually play D&D. If you are posting on a D&D forums that more or less automatically makes one a hard core player with he exception o the occasional post that is along the lines of "Help I am new to D&D".

This is also nothing new going back at least 15 years to the early days of 3.0.

On the forums for example we all make assumptions about how D&D is played due to the hivemind nature of them even if we bicker over things like DPR or whatever. The average D&D player probably doesn't know what DPR means let alone terms like LFQW and various other D&Disms we use online.

A most basic example of this is in 5E would the the 6-8 encounters and 2 short rest assumption the game makes. One not everyone is going to remember every detail from the rules books in regards to the 6-8 encounters per day.

The assumed 2 short rest thing is not in the core rules but we all know it due to the hivemind. IIRC it came form one of the game developers on a twitter post. How many D&D players follow the developers on Twitter?

Going back even further wand of CLW in 3E. We started using them in late 3.0 but they were technically a custom magic item. 3.5 or Pathfinder added them to the core book but there is nothing in the rules indicating that you should use them. As late as 2014 I saw Pathfinder groups not using them because they do not really know about it. IN effect they are almost playing Pathfinder like AD&D except you can buy magic items still. IRL my group was almost the only group I saw using the wands in 3.x.

I think the designers of 4E made decisions on the game based on forum feedback and the problems of 3.5. Problems most of the player base did not know or care about, this is why I think the designers of 5E used surveys and 280 000 people responding is better than the relative small amount of hard core players on the forums.

If you wanted to tweak an edition forums might be a bit more useful.

 

[Morrus]

IN general I think there is a vast disparity between the way members of forums play D&D and how the majority of players actually play D&D.

I've played with forum goers and non forum goers. I've not noticed any difference between the way they play. The biggest difference in the way people play that I've noticed has been (a) age and (b) what game they're playing.

 

[Jester David]

Agreed.

Looking at the top of the page, there are 1,300 people online right now, here at ENWorld. So of the million D&D players worldwide, roughly 0.13% are posting here. That's a pretty small sample size, and it makes it pretty easy for one or two nonrepresentative voices to skew the conversation.

 

[Jester David]

double post

 

[Satyrn]

IN general I think there is a vast disparity between the way members of forums play D&D and how the majority of players actually play D&D.

I rather think there's a distinct difference between the way members of forums talk about D&D and how they actually play D&D.


That is, when we get discussing any part of the game beyond what happened in last night's session, we start talking in ideals, engaging in theorycrafting, or however else you want to put it, to the point that what we are discussing does not reflect the vast majority of what we actually do at the table.

 

[Rhenny]

Sure, Zard.

That's one of the reasons why there may be more threads that criticize 5e as being "too easy" or monsters not being challenging enough. I think, the playtest feedback probably showed that most people who play D&D 5e, like when their PCs do cool things and "win" most of the time, so the core game is built upon that premise. Bounded Accuracy gives more chances for success against a wider variety of foes. Magic items plain up make it easier for PCs to do things be more powerful. Hit points are completely regained after 8 hour long rest. All these features and more, may not appeal to "hardcore" optimizers, but they must appeal to the aggregate playtest audience.

Something that Mike Mearls said during the playtest has always stuck with me. He mentioned that often, people didn't even know what they liked and didn't like about D&D. They could not articulate it clearly, but when he and the staff examined playtest feedback, they saw patterns and trends that helped to reveal preferences that were not stated.

Cool stuff.

 

[steeldragons]

repeat post

 

[steeldragons]

IN general I think there is a vast disparity between the way members of forums play D&D and how the majority of players actually play D&D.

Why? Why do you think this?

What is this "vast disparity"of play style between forum-goers and "the majority of players"?

Where are you getting your numbers? On what data are you [fairly consistently these days, I've noticed] making such sweeping generalities?

 

[Satyrn]

Also:

Why Good Game Developers Should Ignore Forums

 

[Morrus]

Agreed.

Looking at the top of the page, there are 1,300 people online right now, here at ENWorld. So of the million D&D players worldwide, roughly 0.13% are posting here. That's a pretty small sample size, and it makes it pretty easy for one or two nonrepresentative voices to skew the conversation.

How is the number of people online on one single website at 7.31pm on a Sunday night the sample size?

And where do you get one million from? It's significantly more than that. Heck, the annual traffic on just this one little website is significantly more that that, let alone all D&D forum traffic on the web.

I get your point, and it's probably right, but the numbers you are using for both the sample size and the full population are way off. Probably best just leave numbers out if it.

Besides, a statistically significant sample of a population to 95% certainty is a surprisingly small amount.