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

[Staffan]

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. .....

It's in the DMG, page 82, the section named The Adventuring Day. It starts by saying "most adventuring parties can handle six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day.", then it elaborates a bit and gives suggested total XP/adventuring day, and then says "over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will generally need to take two short rests, about one-third and two-thirds of the way through the day."

 

[Mercurius]

I basically agree with the gist of what the OP says, and would say this holds true in other contexts. For instance, if you read Board Game Geek, you're going to find all sorts of "major issues" with games that aren't an issue for the casual player. What is "broken" t a diehard might not be noticed by a casual player.

That said, I would add a twist. Maybe developers shouldn't try to cater to diehard players, but they can and should glean ideas from them and incorporate them in updates, new editions, and supplements. So if I were a game company I'd have at least one person 'troling the forums to gather ideas and even giving a report at staff meetings.

I think a subtle aspect of WotC's transition to a light product schedule is that it makes them less beholden to the diehard gamer. In the past they relied upon diehards to buy everything; now they don't need completists to buy Volo's Dissertation on the Difference Between Ring and Chain Mail.

 

[Zardnaar]

I basically agree with the gist of what the OP says, and would say this holds true in other contexts. For instance, if you read Board Game Geek, you're going to find all sorts of "major issues" with games that aren't an issue for the casual player. What is "broken" t a diehard might not be noticed by a casual player.

That said, I would add a twist. Maybe developers shouldn't try to cater to diehard players, but they can and should glean ideas from them and incorporate them in updates, new editions, and supplements. So if I were a game company I'd have at least one person 'troling the forums to gather ideas and even giving a report at staff meetings.

I think a subtle aspect of WotC's transition to a light product schedule is that it makes them less beholden to the diehard gamer. In the past they relied upon diehards to buy everything; now they don't need completists to buy Volo's Dissertation on the Difference Between Ring and Chain Mail.

That was one of my favourite 3.5 books along with Underwater Basket Weaving for Dummies.

 

[Gadget]

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".

I think this has been the prevailing wisdom for some time now, whether or not it is still true. I also think this was more true in the 3.x days; Morrus recently posted some data that tended to debunk the prevailing notion that visitors to enworld are all hard core greybeard grognards and that younger players actually visit the site quite frequently (though I don't think the data was limited to posters, just site visitors).

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.

This seems to have been the case, though I don't have the data and quotes to back it up. They certainly did not seem to invest in the market and customer research that they did w/ the 5e play test (I say that as someone who has nothing, or very little, against 4e and enjoyed it). But even slightly before that time, the luminaries of the RPG design had drawn way back with their online posting presence; especially compared to the days when Monte Cook and such would post fairly regularly and openly on the forums. During the 4e days, only the Brand Manager (Scott Russ?) and his assistant would post openly and semi-regularly on the forums and even that dwindled as time went by. I think it is all part of the online digital cultural evolution that is happening around us every day. Companies and brands have learned that it is better to use broad, official social media accounts to address the masses directly rather than risk 'rolling in the mud' (as can happen frequently) in online forums.

I still think online forums would be useful in 'stress testing' your system, as it were, if such feedback could be taken and applied properly, so I agree there about 'tweeks'. But I also suspect that the so called disparity between forums (at least certain forums) and 'regular play' is not as great as it once was as well.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think this has been the prevailing wisdom for some time now, whether or not it is still true. I also think this was more true in the 3.x days; Morrus recently posted some data that tended to debunk the prevailing notion that visitors to enworld are all hard core greybeard grognards and that younger players actually visit the site quite frequently (though I don't think the data was limited to posters, just site visitors).



This seems to have been the case, though I don't have the data and quotes to back it up. They certainly did not seem to invest in the market and customer research that they did w/ the 5e play test (I say that as someone who has nothing, or very little, against 4e and enjoyed it). But even slightly before that time, the luminaries of the RPG design had drawn way back with their online posting presence; especially compared to the days when Monte Cook and such would post fairly regularly and openly on the forums. During the 4e days, only the Brand Manager (Scott Russ?) and his assistant would post openly and semi-regularly on the forums and even that dwindled as time went by. I think it is all part of the online digital cultural evolution that is happening around us every day. Companies and brands have learned that it is better to use broad, official social media accounts to address the masses directly rather than risk 'rolling in the mud' (as can happen frequently) in online forums.

I still think online forums would be useful in 'stress testing' your system, as it were, if such feedback could be taken and applied properly, so I agree there about 'tweeks'. But I also suspect that the so called disparity between forums (at least certain forums) and 'regular play' is not as great as it once was as well.

Hardcore vs casual is not how long you have been playing.

I have played 5E with AD&D veterans I would count as casuals. A new player can become hardcore very fast.

 

[Uchawi]

By ignoring something you are doomed to repeat the past, so I doubt the forums or any other type of media or surveys will be ignored. All of those just represent the minority in regards to the big picture. But as a developer you do have to be more guarded on how you respond so keeping a low profile does not hurt. I believe WOTC has learned the hard way not to shoot themselves in the foot in regards to public presence, but it is better overall.

 

[Flamestrike]

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?

Yes it is.

The game explicitly suggests in the encounter design section of the DMG that you (the DM) should average around 2-3 short rests per long rest, and long rest resources should last around 6-8 medium-hard encounters (give or take).

The game doesnt force multiple encounters on you, but it does discuss 'the adventuring day', what it is, and set this as a recommendation (plus Xp per adventuring day etc).

You dont have to follow these guidelines, but if you do the game balance (between classes, encounter difficulty etc) changes.

The positives are that you can mix and match your adventuring days, in order to tweak class and encounter balance during game play by dialing up (or down) the number of encounters and/or rests.

The negatives are that it requires a bit of extra work on behalf of the DM. You cant just design encounters in isolation, you have to design them in context of the adventuring day, and you have to turn your mind to time constraints when you design your encounters.

 

[Harzel]

That was one of my favourite 3.5 books along with Underwater Basket Weaving for Mummies.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Um.. generally they do anyway. I can only speak for a few large games companies but yeah. At least with regards to design. In relation to PR tho? Depends on the company.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

From what I can tell, most here are (or would be, if they could be) both.

Result: the voice of players-only isn't heard much here, which is a shame as (anecdotally) the player-only sees the game quite a bit differently than the player-DM or just-DM.

Lanefan

An interesting thought that came to me is that WotC should probably cater to choosy DMs over laid-back players, because the players will play whatever the DMs do, but the DMs might take their business elsewhere.