40,000 people is not the D&D community or even representative of the community. The estimate of how many people actually play D&D 5e alone is in the vicinity of 10 million. This means the survey upon which decisions about the future of D&D are being made by the extreme vocal minority, about 4% of the community
That statement is not correct if you go into statistics of surveys. If you assume a population of 10,000,000 players, you get a survey result of 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 1% already with a sample size of around 16,000 to 17,000 participants in the survey.
With 39,000 participants you have a very very good idea of the general population. And with 39,000 participants you can be totally sure, that this is not just some vocal minority.
But doesn't this assume the sample being chosen by random, which the voluntary survey is far from?
Yes, there is still bias in voluntary surveys, but 39,000 is still very very good for a survey. And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes. So, if the survey would be 100% random from the population, a sample size of say 5000 would be totally enough for WotC. As it is not random, 39,000 gives still a very good result. Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
"And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes." And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included). Neither of us (nor WotC) knows how much skewed the results are, but the fact that all the responses seem to be incredibly positive is suspicious at best.
40,000 people is not the D&D community or even representative of the community. The estimate of how many people actually play D&D 5e alone is in the vicinity of 10 million. This means the survey upon which decisions about the future of D&D are being made by the extreme vocal minority, about 4% of the community
That statement is not correct if you go into statistics of surveys. If you assume a population of 10,000,000 players, you get a survey result of 99% confidence level with a margin of error of 1% already with a sample size of around 16,000 to 17,000 participants in the survey.
With 39,000 participants you have a very very good idea of the general population. And with 39,000 participants you can be totally sure, that this is not just some vocal minority.
But doesn't this assume the sample being chosen by random, which the voluntary survey is far from?
Yes, there is still bias in voluntary surveys, but 39,000 is still very very good for a survey. And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes. So, if the survey would be 100% random from the population, a sample size of say 5000 would be totally enough for WotC. As it is not random, 39,000 gives still a very good result. Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
"And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes." And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included). Neither of us (nor WotC) knows how much skewed the results are, but the fact that all the responses seem to be incredibly positive is suspicious at best.
If they can't be bothered to fill out the survey then they are only failing themselves. The surveys are what WotC is using to get feed back. If you don't like what you see and don't say so in the one place it matters, then you are just going to continue to see it change in ways that you don't like and that is no ones fault but your own.
If they can't be bothered to fill out the survey then they are only failing themselves. The surveys are what WotC is using to get feed back. If you don't like what you see and don't say so in the one place it matters, then you are just going to continue to see it change in ways that you don't like and that is no ones fault but your own.
You are not wrong but it doesn't change the fact that basing the future of D&D on the opinions of a tiny sub-set of consumers is going to result in a game design that is made for a tiny subset of users and notably users that are likely highly dedicated and committed to D&D already.. aka.. the super fans. Not a great approach for a game claiming to be "for everyone". More like, a game for the 40,000 people who filled out the survey.
Again not that I'm saying its a bad idea to have and use surveys as a consideration but its totally delusional to believe that WotC has a good grasp on what the D&D community, 10 million + strong wants based on surveying such an insignificant sub-set of the community.
There is no substitute for hard research and it doesn't even take that much effort to realize that a pretty sizeable part of the D&D community is pretty unsatisfied with the direction D&D has taken, in particular in the last year
I think this is going to bite them in the rear unless they change course. They are not making D&D for everyone, they are taking the squeaky wheel gets the grease approach on a cart with 10 million wheels.
People have been saying that since the release of Tasha's (and before), yet here we are.
And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included). Neither of us (nor WotC) knows how much skewed the results are, but the fact that all the responses seem to be incredibly positive is suspicious at best.
My experience is that the "don't like the direction WOTC is taking D&D" crowd have had no trouble or reservations about voicing their opinions, loudly and often
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is the same concern I had with Spelljammer, except now they're actively encouraging the Devs to incorporate bad ideas into the game, rather than giving permission. This isn't a case of "Linklite thinks this aspect is bad, and if everyone disagrees with him, they're all wrong", but really, there was nothing in the playtests that came back as "Yeah, no. Don't include this"? I'm worried that rather than really assessing ideas using their own expertise and experience to assess what makes for a good game, they're just going to toss it out for the crowds to judge, and run with the uncritical approval. Gamers are notoriously poor judges of what makes for a good game. They have really cool ideas, but it takes much more than that to create a good game, and often that means ignoring cool ideas and having uncool ones.
Well their process seems to be, we design it and then ask you what you think, so whatever design skills and methods they think are good for the game are the only ones being offered for judgment. It's not like they are asking the community "hey how would you design this, give us some ideas", its more like... "we designed something, do you like it, yes or no?".
I think that method is quite good and should result in a game designed... well by designers. It's just that designs people don't like being rejected by the community, so if they think its awesome, but players don't, it gets cut anyway, which I think is a good way to do it.
Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
No it doesn't. There are 12 million people using DND Beyond. It's even a smaller sample of users than the official numbers about players. Quite literally there are more people using DnD Beyond than there are people playing D&D.
This sample size is really small. I'm not trying to discredit the effort, surveys are good and should be done but right now, given how much weight WotC is giving the survey in terms of direction, 40,000 of the most vocal D&D fans are deciding how D&D will be for the 10,000,000 million players out there. I don't know if you spend much time outside of the forums, listening and watching the opinions about D&D in general but I assure you that the opinions of the large portion of D&D players is not that "everything WotC doing is 90% awesome". If the survey was more varied, if the results where more challenging of their effort, I would buy that as a representation of what I see in the D&D community on a global scale, but when everyone is just nodding their heads in agreement.. I know that this does not represent the sentiments of the D&D community at large.
Much more intersting are the actual active user numbers, 12 million accounts does not say a lot here. For the froum these numbers would be at the moment
Most users online: 135,901 (Aug 18, 2021)
Online Users: 17,983 (8,956 members and 9,027 guests)
And even less of these are regularly posting at all. DDB has 3.25 million active post, so that would be less than 0.3 posts per registered user.
I do not have numbers for other forums, discussing D&D, however, from active online users 39,000 for the survey are still really good. Most analysts would be really glad to have that many samples for a ~10M population.
Yes, there is still bias in voluntary surveys, but 39,000 is still very very good for a survey. And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes. So, if the survey would be 100% random from the population, a sample size of say 5000 would be totally enough for WotC. As it is not random, 39,000 gives still a very good result. Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
"And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes." And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included). Neither of us (nor WotC) knows how much skewed the results are, but the fact that all the responses seem to be incredibly positive is suspicious at best.
The direction is generally set. The playtest and surveys are about details. The people who absolutely hate the direction D&D has been going are not the target audience. The goal doesn't have to be to bring them back in, because that's likely to dissatisfy the people who are generally happy with D&D as it is now, and there's more of them. They can't satisfy everyone, and trying shift course on the fly based on playtest surveys would not lead to an improvement in the game.
Even if the feedback is generally positive, there's still a lot of information to be extracted from how positive it is. They're trying multiple versions of some things, which give plenty of options to differentiate among "they're fine with vX, like vY, and love vZ". There's also the freeform comments to look at if they have doubts.
Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
No it doesn't. There are 12 million people using DND Beyond. It's even a smaller sample of users than the official numbers about players. Quite literally there are more people using DnD Beyond than there are people playing D&D.
This sample size is really small. I'm not trying to discredit the effort, surveys are good and should be done but right now, given how much weight WotC is giving the survey in terms of direction, 40,000 of the most vocal D&D fans are deciding how D&D will be for the 10,000,000 million players out there. I don't know if you spend much time outside of the forums, listening and watching the opinions about D&D in general but I assure you that the opinions of the large portion of D&D players is not that "everything WotC doing is 90% awesome". If the survey was more varied, if the results where more challenging of their effort, I would buy that as a representation of what I see in the D&D community on a global scale, but when everyone is just nodding their heads in agreement.. I know that this does not represent the sentiments of the D&D community at large.
As people have said, it's a quite large sample size, though inevitably self-selecting. I find it hard to believe that it's not significantly larger than your (also self-selecting) sample of people who are unhappy.
"And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes." And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included).
It seems very illogical to me that people who "don't like the general direction of" the game would ignore their opportunity to get it where they deem to be back on track. But you do you I guess.
Neither of us (nor WotC) knows how much skewed the results are, but the fact that all the responses seem to be incredibly positive is suspicious at best.
You never know exactly how skewed the results are with data, that's just how it works. But as other users have said, 40,000 people is a massive amount of people, and we can make a solid conclusion about how the general fan-base feels about 1DD and it's content from this data.
We will play test something but not use it in our campaign.
If they combined all the new stuff into a PHB2 and guarantied it all worked with the original PHB then I would possibly buy it. But I am not buying 4 new books just for a few options someone thought were great and will only play once.
My philosophy is one core rule set, one core world and one campaign at a time. I will not bring in stuff from other worlds or other campaigns.
And by my opinion if something is added in and a huge amount of people love it then its more than likely over powered.
Yes, there is still bias in voluntary surveys, but 39,000 is still very very good for a survey. And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes. So, if the survey would be 100% random from the population, a sample size of say 5000 would be totally enough for WotC. As it is not random, 39,000 gives still a very good result. Also, 39,000 means that much more people than the typical forum lurker participated.
"And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes." And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included). Neither of us (nor WotC) knows how much skewed the results are, but the fact that all the responses seem to be incredibly positive is suspicious at best.
The direction is generally set. The playtest and surveys are about details. The people who absolutely hate the direction D&D has been going are not the target audience. The goal doesn't have to be to bring them back in, because that's likely to dissatisfy the people who are generally happy with D&D as it is now, and there's more of them. They can't satisfy everyone, and trying shift course on the fly based on playtest surveys would not lead to an improvement in the game.
"And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes." And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included).
It seems very illogical to me that people who "don't like the general direction of" the game would ignore their opportunity to get it where they deem to be back on track. But you do you I guess.
See the quote above, the surveys are about details and I don't see enough value (and tbh. kinda stopped caring for the future of DnD) in filling them compared to the time required to fill them. As for me I'll stick to the 5e for now (and house rule most of the stuff I dislike (like Tasha and newer stuff) in the games I DM). When there are not enough people playing 5E (not 1DD), I'll switch to other systems.
See the quote above, the surveys are about details and I don't see enough value (and tbh. kinda stopped caring for the future of DnD) in filling them compared to the time required to fill them. As for me I'll stick to the 5e for now (and house rule most of the stuff I dislike (like Tasha and newer stuff) in the games I DM). When there are not enough people playing 5E (not 1DD), I'll switch to other systems.
If you don't care about the future of DnD, then why are you here complaining about the future of DnD on DnDbeyond? I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. What is your goal?
See the quote above, the surveys are about details and I don't see enough value (and tbh. kinda stopped caring for the future of DnD) in filling them compared to the time required to fill them. As for me I'll stick to the 5e for now (and house rule most of the stuff I dislike (like Tasha and newer stuff) in the games I DM). When there are not enough people playing 5E (not 1DD), I'll switch to other systems.
If you don't care about the future of DnD, then why are you here whining about the future of DnD on DnDbeyond? I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. What is your goal?
A) I am no whining and you should learn a bit of politeness
B) Why should I have a goal?
C) I was just pointing out, that the earlier post dealing with the sample size being large enough is not necessarily true.
See the quote above, the surveys are about details and I don't see enough value (and tbh. kinda stopped caring for the future of DnD) in filling them compared to the time required to fill them. As for me I'll stick to the 5e for now (and house rule most of the stuff I dislike (like Tasha and newer stuff) in the games I DM). When there are not enough people playing 5E (not 1DD), I'll switch to other systems.
If you don't care about the future of DnD, then why are you here whining about the future of DnD on DnDbeyond? I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. What is your goal?
A) I am no whining and you should learn a bit of politeness
B) Why should I have a goal?
C) I was just pointing out, that the earlier post dealing with the sample size being large enough is not necessarily true.
I was not attempting to be rude and made a poor word choice.
Having a goal means that you are attempting to be constructive
WotC can't force people to participate. People that are willing to take the time and use the tools provided get to influence the outcome (that is just how voting works). If you are unwilling to do that (as you have stated more than once) then don't be surprised when your voice isn't heard and the game continues to move away from your desired style.
"I was not attempting to be rude and made a poor word choice." Fair enough.
As for the rest of the post: As I've mentioned earlier, my initial post was just trying to point out that by its nature, the survey is skewed towards being done by a people more on the "die hard fan" of the spectrum and thus is quite understandably positive. Several people then asked about NOT filling the survey by the people "on the other side", to which I've just tried to explain my personal point of view and reasoning.
I think I've stated all I wanted regarding my original point and would just repeat myself from now on.
Statistically a 40k sample size, self selected and skewed or random is huge, most of the public opinion polls we get the results of would love to have sample sizes that big - for a population of 300 million + here in the US. If you know a sample is skewed there are ways to measure that and adjust for it. I’m not really surprised at the fact that most folks responding are at least somewhat positive about everything, but realize that if 60% are satisfied to very happy that also means that 40% are less than satisfied to hate it. So using 60%- as a signal to scrap and redo or totally delete is not bad. If you stop to think about it, most of us not hugely dissatisfied about most of 5e - if we were then wouldn’t be using it, yes, we each have our pet peeves and things we think could be improved, sometimes substantially, but we don’t hate any of it really so why would most of our responses be highly negative in the first place.
Statistically a 40k sample size, self selected and skewed or random is huge, most of the public opinion polls we get the results of would love to have sample sizes that big - for a population of 300 million + here in the US. If you know a sample is skewed there are ways to measure that and adjust for it. I’m not really surprised at the fact that most folks responding are at least somewhat positive about everything, but realize that if 60% are satisfied to very happy that also means that 40% are less than satisfied to hate it. So using 60%- as a signal to scrap and redo or totally delete is not bad. If you stop to think about it, most of us not hugely dissatisfied about most of 5e - if we were then wouldn’t be using it, yes, we each have our pet peeves and things we think could be improved, sometimes substantially, but we don’t hate any of it really so why would most of our responses be highly negative in the first place.
I wouldn't expect the responses to be highly negative, but when you take a vote and a person wins with a 90%+ ratio, the election is rigged. That is not a real statistic that is possible to achieve.
Besides the survey results really aren't the issue here, it's the design approach to how those results are being used that is. D&D 6e is destined to be whatever these surveys decide, there is no other input being taken into consideration and that is quite clear from Crawford's depiction of their process... survey approves, it's in, the survey does not approve, it's out. 6e is being designed by a democracy of users and I'm sure that sounds like a nice and fair way to do it, but realize that the vast majority of this community are crap game designers and their opinions aren't coming from a place of understanding good game design or even what makes a good game, it's coming from a place of "what they want"....
More importantly, however, they are ignoring the entire history of D&D game design, things that worked in the past, things that were eliminated because they didn't work. Feats for example have been historically a total catastrophe, really a plague on the game that we keep adding because players want them and removing because they completely destroy the game. I don't know how many more times they need to learn this lesson before it sinks in.
WotC needs to do what WotC needs to do, I mean it's their game, they can design it however they like, but right now from what I'm seeing there are three things that are abundantly clear.
First, this game already in its current UA form is not backwards compatible with 5e. This is super clear to me at this point, 5e and 6e have about as much in common as 3e did with 3.5... plenty of commonalities but take 3e content and run it under 3.5 rules and it's broken.
Second, they are scaling the power levels waaaay up. 5e is already mostly a power fantasy but at this stage, the power levels are going to be like 4e where there is no such thing as low-level play or alternatives to high-powered fantasy.
Third and unquestionably most problematic is that they are spending way too much effort making politically driven decisions rather than making good design decisions. They are so afraid of the social justice warriors threatening them on a daily basis, they have completely lost control of the game. The culture experts are making all of the decisions for them and cultural experts make for poor game designers.
At this stage I have very little confidence that 6e will retain what made 5e a decent version of D&D, they are tossing out the baby with the bath water but doing it with microscopic changes that are going unnoticed and will only come into focus when everything is put together in a complete rules volume.
I predict before 6e is released, most of the design team and especially Jeremy Crawford are all getting fired and those that follow are going to rewrite this entire script. I suspect One D&D is going to be our next 4e.... I suppose it makes sense, it seems like D&D is only good every other edition. 1e was awesome, 2e not so much, 3e was awesome, 4e not so much.. 5e is awsome... 6e.. doomed? Seems like it to me.
We'll see how it turns out but, right now, I don't think things are looking particularly great.
As far as the survey goes I believe JC said that even stuff in the 80% range they take it as people like so they will keep it but they can still scale it for balance. So it’s not quite mob rule, but do you think if people like it they should cut it just to show they aren’t being overly influenced by the results?
And for feats, sometimes things take several iterations before you can absolutely tell if it can work or not. It looks like they are trying to balance feats via their power and level restrictions. Are they still too much? We will have to see. But they are nice to give variety to characters. I played 1E in the early 80’s and as bland as some think fighters are now, there was basically nothing to distinguish one fighter from another in 1E except ability scores.
Compatibility depends on how you wish to define it. And I think WotC needs to explain what they mean when they say backwards compatible. Does it mean you follow the regular game mechanics of 1DD for play, but individual classes use their own rules, so having two clerics in the party (one a 5E cleric the other a 1DD cleric) each follows their class rules, but things like long rests, conditions like exhausted or slowed from 1DD are used. Or does it mean, as some take it, that somehow you can port over your Tempest 5E cleric subclass into the 1DD cleric base cleric design (which appears it just doesn’t line up). But it needs clarification.
I think they’ve been using pretty specific wording about their definition of backwards compatible. They’ve said the it will be compatible with the adventures. So they’ll keep the fundamental math the same and not touch bounded accuracy. Then you can pick up Rime of the Frostmaiden and run 2024 characters through it, possibly with some tweaking, maybe using updated versions of the monsters, (2024 goblins vs 2024 PCs, and 2014 goblins vs 2014 PCs) maybe not, only time will tell. They’ve never said that a 2014 character and a 2024 character will be able to play at the same table.
I think they’ve been using pretty specific wording about their definition of backwards compatible. They’ve said the it will be compatible with the adventures. So they’ll keep the fundamental math the same and not touch bounded accuracy. Then you can pick up Rime of the Frostmaiden and run 2024 characters through it, possibly with some tweaking, maybe using updated versions of the monsters, (2024 goblins vs 2024 PCs, and 2014 goblins vs 2014 PCs) maybe not, only time will tell. They’ve never said that a 2014 character and a 2024 character will be able to play at the same table.
From the FAQ
What does backward compatible mean?
It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.
The and supplements part is the only sticking point that would suggest that more than the Adventures are backwards compatible. The fact that people are still confused on what WotC considers backward compatible shows that they need to better define their intent.
Special Note: I don't care if it is backwards compatible or not, I just want to point out where part of the confusion is coming from.
I think they’ve been using pretty specific wording about their definition of backwards compatible. They’ve said the it will be compatible with the adventures. So they’ll keep the fundamental math the same and not touch bounded accuracy. Then you can pick up Rime of the Frostmaiden and run 2024 characters through it, possibly with some tweaking, maybe using updated versions of the monsters, (2024 goblins vs 2024 PCs, and 2014 goblins vs 2014 PCs) maybe not, only time will tell. They’ve never said that a 2014 character and a 2024 character will be able to play at the same table.
From the FAQ
What does backward compatible mean?
It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks. Our goal is for you to keep enjoying the content you already have and make it even better. You’ll see this in action through the playtest materials, which you will be able to provide feedback on.
The and supplements part is the only sticking point that would suggest that more than the Adventures are backwards compatible. The fact that people are still confused on what WotC considers backward compatible shows that they need to better define their intent.
Special Note: I don't care if it is backwards compatible or not, I just want to point out where part of the confusion is coming from.
I appreciate it, thank you for clarifying. As you say, it comes down to what is a “supplement.” (Imagine that, a poorly defined term in D&D) As I see it, there are adventures and sourcebooks. For non-adventures, it seems like a setting book should work, generally, as they are mostly fluff, except for subclasses. So things like xanathar’s and Tasha will be hit or miss. Xanathar’s crafting rules or Tasha’s sidekicks would be fine, but the subclasses not so much. Personally, I also don’t care about backwards compatibility, probably because I’ve been through every other edition change, and they’re never as awful as they seem like they’re going to be. But I appreciate you helping me understand the confusion.
Perhaps they should answer the following questions:
What qualifies as being "backwards compatible"? Like, is it plug and play, or is bodging like they did with the subclasses in the first Playtest acceptable?
Give an explicit list of what will be kept compatible, and what won't.
How much can you mix and match content?
My thoughts on each are this:
I'd like it to be plug and play, but I imagine that there will be some bodging involved.
They were pretty explicit that only the core rules (PHB, MM and DMG) will be considered inconpatible - but that was in the middle of a video, they could do with doing a central document that is well publicised.
I imagine that this will be pretty much completely mix and match other than subsets (so subclasses can only be paired with the edition version of the class they were published for, similar for species/subspecies).
The reason I doubt that 1D&D stuff won't be roughly in line with 5e is that adventures come with a substantial number of unique monsters. If things like Goblins aren't kept at roughly the same power and instead are multiplied in power in proportion to PCs, which are not bound to 5e power levels either, then adventures become problematic. For example, let's say that 1D&D stuff is 3x more powerful than 5e. Doing straight swaps works because the party is 3x.more powerful, the encounter is 3x more difficult, so they end up at the same balance. However, when you fight, say, the Frost Druid in RotFM, you'll have to use the 5e statblock, which makes encounter pathetic for you 1D&D Uber Party. The only other option is to reprint every single bestiary in 5e as part of the new MM, which is not a small undertaking. I doubt WotC will want to go to that effort, it's not like the MM is tiny as things are, never mind adding however many statblocks are in the adventures.
The simplest solution then, is to keep the Party power level roughly the same. Perhaps some tweaking to the classes to better balance them, but keeping them in the same ballpark. That will allow the monsters to remain similar in power, so they don't have to reprint or adjust the statblocks given in adventures to maintain balance. Then there'll be no fundamental reason why a 1D&D Ranger can't go tramping around with a 5e Wizard, if they so wished.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Give an explicit list of what will be kept compatible, and what won't.
This is easier said than done, as they could have a mechanic that makes something incompatible, and then they might change that mechanic and it might alter what is incompatible and what isn't. In short, the answer to this question is likely not fully set, and thusly, a clear answer to it cannot easily be given. However, I do agree with most of the rest of what you said. In particular, having a guide on how to combine aspects from 5e and 1DD and would make using them together a lot easier.
On a less related note, the definition of "backwards-compatible" is somewhat subjective, since it means different things to different people. This, and a combined poor explanation by the devs on what they might when they used this phrase has led people to make up what they think backwards compatibility means. Then, when the definition they made for themselves is inaccurate, they get upset. So, in short, we have a combination of poor explanations by WotC and people leaping to conclusions to blame for all the discussions and complaints about this part of the next edition of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"And, I am quite sure, that in these 39,000 included, is the "vocal minority" that hates everything with the new changes." And I am quite sure, that the folks that don't like the general direction of 5e/1 and aren't thus interested in the new stuff just can't be bothered to participate (me included). Neither of us (nor WotC) knows how much skewed the results are, but the fact that all the responses seem to be incredibly positive is suspicious at best.
If they can't be bothered to fill out the survey then they are only failing themselves. The surveys are what WotC is using to get feed back. If you don't like what you see and don't say so in the one place it matters, then you are just going to continue to see it change in ways that you don't like and that is no ones fault but your own.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
People have been saying that since the release of Tasha's (and before), yet here we are.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
My experience is that the "don't like the direction WOTC is taking D&D" crowd have had no trouble or reservations about voicing their opinions, loudly and often
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Much more intersting are the actual active user numbers, 12 million accounts does not say a lot here.
For the froum these numbers would be at the moment
And even less of these are regularly posting at all. DDB has 3.25 million active post, so that would be less than 0.3 posts per registered user.
I do not have numbers for other forums, discussing D&D, however, from active online users 39,000 for the survey are still really good. Most analysts would be really glad to have that many samples for a ~10M population.
The direction is generally set. The playtest and surveys are about details. The people who absolutely hate the direction D&D has been going are not the target audience. The goal doesn't have to be to bring them back in, because that's likely to dissatisfy the people who are generally happy with D&D as it is now, and there's more of them. They can't satisfy everyone, and trying shift course on the fly based on playtest surveys would not lead to an improvement in the game.
Even if the feedback is generally positive, there's still a lot of information to be extracted from how positive it is. They're trying multiple versions of some things, which give plenty of options to differentiate among "they're fine with vX, like vY, and love vZ". There's also the freeform comments to look at if they have doubts.
As people have said, it's a quite large sample size, though inevitably self-selecting. I find it hard to believe that it's not significantly larger than your (also self-selecting) sample of people who are unhappy.
It seems very illogical to me that people who "don't like the general direction of" the game would ignore their opportunity to get it where they deem to be back on track. But you do you I guess.
You never know exactly how skewed the results are with data, that's just how it works. But as other users have said, 40,000 people is a massive amount of people, and we can make a solid conclusion about how the general fan-base feels about 1DD and it's content from this data.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.If its not already in the PHB I do not use it.
We will play test something but not use it in our campaign.
If they combined all the new stuff into a PHB2 and guarantied it all worked with the original PHB then I would possibly buy it. But I am not buying 4 new books just for a few options someone thought were great and will only play once.
My philosophy is one core rule set, one core world and one campaign at a time. I will not bring in stuff from other worlds or other campaigns.
And by my opinion if something is added in and a huge amount of people love it then its more than likely over powered.
See the quote above, the surveys are about details and I don't see enough value (and tbh. kinda stopped caring for the future of DnD) in filling them compared to the time required to fill them. As for me I'll stick to the 5e for now (and house rule most of the stuff I dislike (like Tasha and newer stuff) in the games I DM). When there are not enough people playing 5E (not 1DD), I'll switch to other systems.
If you don't care about the future of DnD, then why are you here complaining about the future of DnD on DnDbeyond? I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. What is your goal?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
A) I am no whining and you should learn a bit of politeness
B) Why should I have a goal?
C) I was just pointing out, that the earlier post dealing with the sample size being large enough is not necessarily true.
I was not attempting to be rude and made a poor word choice.
Having a goal means that you are attempting to be constructive
WotC can't force people to participate. People that are willing to take the time and use the tools provided get to influence the outcome (that is just how voting works). If you are unwilling to do that (as you have stated more than once) then don't be surprised when your voice isn't heard and the game continues to move away from your desired style.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
"I was not attempting to be rude and made a poor word choice." Fair enough.
As for the rest of the post: As I've mentioned earlier, my initial post was just trying to point out that by its nature, the survey is skewed towards being done by a people more on the "die hard fan" of the spectrum and thus is quite understandably positive. Several people then asked about NOT filling the survey by the people "on the other side", to which I've just tried to explain my personal point of view and reasoning.
I think I've stated all I wanted regarding my original point and would just repeat myself from now on.
Statistically a 40k sample size, self selected and skewed or random is huge, most of the public opinion polls we get the results of would love to have sample sizes that big - for a population of 300 million + here in the US. If you know a sample is skewed there are ways to measure that and adjust for it.
I’m not really surprised at the fact that most folks responding are at least somewhat positive about everything, but realize that if 60% are satisfied to very happy that also means that 40% are less than satisfied to hate it. So using 60%- as a signal to scrap and redo or totally delete is not bad. If you stop to think about it, most of us not hugely dissatisfied about most of 5e - if we were then wouldn’t be using it, yes, we each have our pet peeves and things we think could be improved, sometimes substantially, but we don’t hate any of it really so why would most of our responses be highly negative in the first place.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
As far as the survey goes I believe JC said that even stuff in the 80% range they take it as people like so they will keep it but they can still scale it for balance. So it’s not quite mob rule, but do you think if people like it they should cut it just to show they aren’t being overly influenced by the results?
And for feats, sometimes things take several iterations before you can absolutely tell if it can work or not. It looks like they are trying to balance feats via their power and level restrictions. Are they still too much? We will have to see. But they are nice to give variety to characters. I played 1E in the early 80’s and as bland as some think fighters are now, there was basically nothing to distinguish one fighter from another in 1E except ability scores.
Compatibility depends on how you wish to define it. And I think WotC needs to explain what they mean when they say backwards compatible. Does it mean you follow the regular game mechanics of 1DD for play, but individual classes use their own rules, so having two clerics in the party (one a 5E cleric the other a 1DD cleric) each follows their class rules, but things like long rests, conditions like exhausted or slowed from 1DD are used. Or does it mean, as some take it, that somehow you can port over your Tempest 5E cleric subclass into the 1DD cleric base cleric design (which appears it just doesn’t line up). But it needs clarification.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think they’ve been using pretty specific wording about their definition of backwards compatible. They’ve said the it will be compatible with the adventures. So they’ll keep the fundamental math the same and not touch bounded accuracy. Then you can pick up Rime of the Frostmaiden and run 2024 characters through it, possibly with some tweaking, maybe using updated versions of the monsters, (2024 goblins vs 2024 PCs, and 2014 goblins vs 2014 PCs) maybe not, only time will tell.
They’ve never said that a 2014 character and a 2024 character will be able to play at the same table.
From the FAQ
The and supplements part is the only sticking point that would suggest that more than the Adventures are backwards compatible. The fact that people are still confused on what WotC considers backward compatible shows that they need to better define their intent.
Special Note: I don't care if it is backwards compatible or not, I just want to point out where part of the confusion is coming from.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I appreciate it, thank you for clarifying.
As you say, it comes down to what is a “supplement.” (Imagine that, a poorly defined term in D&D) As I see it, there are adventures and sourcebooks. For non-adventures, it seems like a setting book should work, generally, as they are mostly fluff, except for subclasses. So things like xanathar’s and Tasha will be hit or miss. Xanathar’s crafting rules or Tasha’s sidekicks would be fine, but the subclasses not so much.
Personally, I also don’t care about backwards compatibility, probably because I’ve been through every other edition change, and they’re never as awful as they seem like they’re going to be. But I appreciate you helping me understand the confusion.
Perhaps they should answer the following questions:
My thoughts on each are this:
The reason I doubt that 1D&D stuff won't be roughly in line with 5e is that adventures come with a substantial number of unique monsters. If things like Goblins aren't kept at roughly the same power and instead are multiplied in power in proportion to PCs, which are not bound to 5e power levels either, then adventures become problematic. For example, let's say that 1D&D stuff is 3x more powerful than 5e. Doing straight swaps works because the party is 3x.more powerful, the encounter is 3x more difficult, so they end up at the same balance. However, when you fight, say, the Frost Druid in RotFM, you'll have to use the 5e statblock, which makes encounter pathetic for you 1D&D Uber Party. The only other option is to reprint every single bestiary in 5e as part of the new MM, which is not a small undertaking. I doubt WotC will want to go to that effort, it's not like the MM is tiny as things are, never mind adding however many statblocks are in the adventures.
The simplest solution then, is to keep the Party power level roughly the same. Perhaps some tweaking to the classes to better balance them, but keeping them in the same ballpark. That will allow the monsters to remain similar in power, so they don't have to reprint or adjust the statblocks given in adventures to maintain balance. Then there'll be no fundamental reason why a 1D&D Ranger can't go tramping around with a 5e Wizard, if they so wished.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is easier said than done, as they could have a mechanic that makes something incompatible, and then they might change that mechanic and it might alter what is incompatible and what isn't. In short, the answer to this question is likely not fully set, and thusly, a clear answer to it cannot easily be given. However, I do agree with most of the rest of what you said. In particular, having a guide on how to combine aspects from 5e and 1DD and would make using them together a lot easier.
On a less related note, the definition of "backwards-compatible" is somewhat subjective, since it means different things to different people. This, and a combined poor explanation by the devs on what they might when they used this phrase has led people to make up what they think backwards compatibility means. Then, when the definition they made for themselves is inaccurate, they get upset. So, in short, we have a combination of poor explanations by WotC and people leaping to conclusions to blame for all the discussions and complaints about this part of the next edition of the game.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.