WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."


log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Legend
I'm not asking to make the game more complex... just to introduce a class that is similar to a full caster worth of complexity on a weapon wielder.
Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see that happening. WotC decided a while back that fighter was the simple class, and their research seems to indicate that the majority agree with them on that. They don't see it as a problem, so they won't fix it.
 



TwoSix

Unserious gamer
I'm not asking to make the game more complex... just to introduce a class that is similar to a full caster worth of complexity on a weapon wielder.
Personally, I'd love to see the ranger take on that role of "complex martial". Give them dozens of selectable abilities that represent secret monster knowledge, ancient lore, and weapon techniques they've encountered on their wanderings.
 



Parmandur

Book-Friend
no but I think that without evidence to the contrary I am not willing to call out AL players as against the norm... by the time you get to 2-3 thousand players and they are spread across the country, I think they are a pretty good slice of many different players
That's really out how sampling works.
 


Jahydin

Adventurer
Everything about how Essentials was presented pointed to them thinking of it as a new edition, even it wasn't by their previous standards.
I don't know about that.

Just pulling up the first interview I found with the creators:
Rich: It’s perfectly ok if, at the same table, Joe is playing a Fighter straight out of the Players Handbook, with all of the power selections that he would ordinarily have had, and Dave, sitting next to him, is playing a Slayer, out of Essentials. Those Characters, essentially, are built the same, and are transparent to each other – they have the same sorts of stats and same sorts of defenses. The only difference, really, is that the guy playing the Players Handbook Fighter is thinking in terms of power usage, and what his encounter powers, daily powers, and at will powers are doing, while the guy playing the Essentials Fighter is taking a step back and saying, ‘you know, I don’t want to manage that level of decision-making, and I’m going to concentrate on doing what I think my guy should do – which is trying to wale on people with my sword, and be the tough guy for the party!’
Mike: And that’s one of the nice things too for Players just coming in [to D&D], they only have to deal with one book to start with. And then, at the right point, when they want to start adding in more options, they can maybe buy a Martial Powers or a Players Hand Book 1, and they are slowly adding more options.
Interviewer: "So it really became clear to me that the main purpose of the D&D Essentials was not to create a new version of the game, but to provide a way to get new Players into 4E, whether they had no experience with D&D or if they had not played since a previous version"
 



That's really out how sampling works.
citation needed...

nelson ratings aren't "Take every person that watches TV" its "Take a sample of each and every type and then interpret"

When we poll for political reasons, we don't need to call all 100% of voters, but a subset.

IMDB uses self selected people to rate movies and so does Rotten tomatoes...

if YOU want to prove that people that play at cons and at AL and at game stores is not representative then YOU have to show what makes the people that play in public different then those that play at home.

Most new Players I have interacted with have NOT been on tic tok or this page or twitter... the ones I have seen to go on to run home games, I met at stores, cons and AL events.

Not every player I know goes to or plays public games (although I did know a couple that had a gaming store so we did try to support them) but I would say about 2 out of the 15 of us did somewhat pre covid (and we are starting to get back to it)

Back during the big schism when some of us went to 4e, and some went to PF and some went to different non D20 games, there was at least 1 from each group that was going to 1+ con a year and at least some playing some form of organized play.
 

It could be, absolutely. I just don't think WotC is sufficiently motivated to make such a class. Are their shiny new fans demanding a complex martial? If they're not, they won't make one.
I think they are (kind of) I don't think there is a big "Bring back the warlord" or "Bring back the swordsage" movement... but I am seeing more and more talk on social media (even new players that have never played pre 5e) and at stores about dissatisfaction with caster to non caster abilities.

Back in 3e we called it LFQW, and I even see many old timers trying to shout down the new kids with "It used to be worse so don't complain"
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
citation needed...

nelson ratings aren't "Take every person that watches TV" its "Take a sample of each and every type and then interpret"

When we poll for political reasons, we don't need to call all 100% of voters, but a subset.

IMDB uses self selected people to rate movies and so does Rotten tomatoes...

if YOU want to prove that people that play at cons and at AL and at game stores is not representative then YOU have to show what makes the people that play in public different then those that play at home.

Most new Players I have interacted with have NOT been on tic tok or this page or twitter... the ones I have seen to go on to run home games, I met at stores, cons and AL events.

Not every player I know goes to or plays public games (although I did know a couple that had a gaming store so we did try to support them) but I would say about 2 out of the 15 of us did somewhat pre covid (and we are starting to get back to it)

Back during the big schism when some of us went to 4e, and some went to PF and some went to different non D20 games, there was at least 1 from each group that was going to 1+ con a year and at least some playing some form of organized play.
Your experience is with the organized play world, sure. Thst doesn't mean that it is representative. I've known tons of people who play, none of whom ever touched convention or in-store play. And even thosewho have, how many are going to pay attention to AL rules in their home game, at any rate...?

Based on the latest changes to AL (reeeeeaaaallly loosening up), it's likely to be used to beat the "OneD&D" in the future anyways, so I wouldn't be surprised if AL goes out of their way to accommodate mixing to help ease in amybody.
 

Your experience is with the organized play world, sure. Thst doesn't mean that it is representative.
okay so just simply explain what is different. What is it about the sub section of people playing in public that makes it not representative?

If I am trying to argue who has better burgers Mcdonalds or Burger King then polling people at a mall is 100% diffrent then polling people at Mcdonalds... I can SHOW the difference. can you show such a difference here?
I've known tons of people who play, none of whom ever touched convention or in-store play. And even thosewho have, how many are going to pay attention to AL rules in their home game, at any rate...?
okay, so what you JUST said is that the people who DO go to conventions, or in store, or AL... ALSO play in home games. So, in your experience what is the difference?

in my game tonight we have a group of 5 right now (me DM 4 players) right now NONE of us are playing at in store BUT pre covid 2 of us were, and 2 of us (with 1 overlap) regularly (at least 1 every other year) went to cons... All 5 of us (including the 2 that don't do store games, or COns) play and DM... what differences do you expect the 3 that DO fall into one category to have form the 2 that don't?
Based on the latest changes to AL (reeeeeaaaallly loosening up), it's likely to be used to beat the "OneD&D" in the future anyways, so I wouldn't be surprised if AL goes out of their way to accommodate mixing to help ease in amybody.
maybe maybe not... none of us know the future
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
citation needed...

nelson ratings aren't "Take every person that watches TV" its "Take a sample of each and every type and then interpret"

When we poll for political reasons, we don't need to call all 100% of voters, but a subset.
Indeed, but there are a lot of techniques used to build those subsets so that they weed out selection biases as much as they can. And even then we've seen political polls to awry in recent years because of things that we're still learning (the tendency of supporters to avoid polls if they perceive their candidate is getting beat, thus undercounting the support) and changes in the electorate (fewer land lines for telephone polls, etc)

IMDB uses self selected people to rate movies and so does Rotten tomatoes...

Welcome to a significant problem with their ratings system. They are subject to things like rating bombings because of that self-selection power of participants.

if YOU want to prove that people that play at cons and at AL and at game stores is not representative then YOU have to show what makes the people that play in public different then those that play at home.

No, that's putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion that the AL group is actually representative of the broader D&D playing community rather than is subject to massive amounts of selection bias. The presumption is that they really are NOT and thus any generalization derived from them has a higher error value than a good random sample.
 

Deadstop

Explorer
no but I think that without evidence to the contrary I am not willing to call out AL players as against the norm... by the time you get to 2-3 thousand players and they are spread across the country, I think they are a pretty good slice of many different players

Sure, they are a slice of different players, but they play the AL way, with all its rules and restrictions beyond what the rulebooks say, because that’s what AL requires. What evidence do we have that a significant number of them play with AL restrictions at home?

The argument is whether “what’s allowed in AL” is a good metric for what people will do in D&D at large when it comes to mixing 2014 and 2024 options.
 

Indeed, but there are a lot of techniques used to build those subsets so that they weed out selection biases as much as they can. And even then we've seen political polls to awry in recent years because of things that we're still learning (the tendency of supporters to avoid polls if they perceive their candidate is getting beat, thus undercounting the support) and changes in the electorate (fewer land lines for telephone polls, etc)
okay, but again, you can SHOW what the difference is. It isn't just "These people are abnormal cause I say so"
if someone (anyone) can show a difference that we can test for (and plenty of us know both people that do and don't attend cons/organized play/store games) what we would expect to be different between the two, I will relent... but not "Trust me it's different"
Welcome to a significant problem with their ratings system. They are subject to things like rating bombings because of that self-selection power of participants.
and if you point out "Hey, most of those down votes are X Y Z people little to none of them are type A or type B or type C" then you have an argument... so far the argument is "I don't want to tell you the difference"
No, that's putting the burden of proof on the wrong side.
wait... no that's my argument, that HE is putting the burden of proof on the wrong side.
The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion that the AL group is actually representative of the broader D&D playing community rather than is subject to massive amounts of selection bias.
except that isn't what happened.. HE IS MAKING THE ASSERTION that they are not in fact representative... he is providing 0 evidence. just "Trust me they don't count"
The presumption is that they really are NOT and thus any generalization derived from them has a higher error value than a good random sample.
why is that the presumption (other then cause you say so, or it would hurt your argument if that wasn't true)
 

Sure, they are a slice of different players, but they play the AL way, with all its rules and restrictions beyond what the rulebooks say, because that’s what AL requires.
that is what I started by saying... so yeah I agree.
What evidence do we have that a significant number of them play with AL restrictions at home?
0, nor did I ever say that. Infact I dare you to find that statement in any post i have made since 2014 when 5e came out... my only argument is you can't use something I said prior to 2014.
The argument is whether “what’s allowed in AL” is a good metric for what people will do in D&D at large when it comes to mixing 2014 and 2024 options.
no it isn't
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top