Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 9445633" data-attributes="member: 3400">Yeah, this is the red flag in this situation. Do they not have anyone actually using DDB among the decision-making team for DDB change management? And if they have any at all, are there none with an ongoing campaign likely to go past the D&D5.2024 release date? Because, if they did, this particular issue should have been a no-brainer.When I worked for my prior employer (QAer for over 20 years), we had put out a new architecture for our main products and a lot of customers weren't happy (honestly, neither was QA, too much was rushed). So we converted our internal development, bug, and testing tracking system over to the new architecture as well. As a fellow lead QAer said to me, we were being forced to eat our own crap, which would give us a better perspective on it and get us to FIX it and make better decisions. WotC's decision making team, in this case, clearly lacked the perspective of their subscribers - the ones who had made DDB such a success with the 5e.2014 rules. And they had to be corrected by public outcry. Kudos to them to listening to the outcry, but if they don't fix the initial problem - the lack of perspective of actual users of DDB - they're going to continue to fail to make the right decisions from the outset or at least fail to incorporate that perspective.</blockquote>