A D&D YouTuber recently stated (See video below) that he believes that WoTc is surveying the "wrong" type of D&D player.
He claims that much like a certain gaming genre, the WoTC surveys only focus on the hard core gamers and ignores the casual player which he says makes up the majority of the player base. He specifically mentions lack of information and support for new DMs
Do you think his argument has any merit? As a self described member of the hardcore D&D club, I don't see it that way entirely. I think the casual gamer will come and go. I suspect that there is a lot of churn among such a player base, but the hard core folks like you and me will sustain the hobby. But obviously, I'm biased in that regard.
Dungeon Masterpiece is notoriously negative on anything that brings D&D and D&D Beyond closer together, and in another of his videos went on a frothing screed about how D&D is catering to the "Fortnite generation" and how VTTs will ruin the hobby because they appeal to "video gamers." I don't pay him any mind and I suggest you don't either.
Regarding the current phase of the playtest - they've long said they're starting with core mechanical character options (classes, feats, backgrounds etc) before they get into the broader topics like how to DM and how to play. We'll get surveys on that stuff when it is part of the playtest. The important thing to start with right now is the class and rules glossary redesign, as that will take the most time between now and 2024 to get right.
I watched that one. While he does make an important point about interpreting data, I don't think it applies in this case as much as he does.
For one, I don't think that there are millions of new players who are not online in some fashion. Every day there are posts on this forum from new players and DMs asking for help. Even the most casual players are probably watching some DnD content on YouTube. Or going to forums for information. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say players that started in the last 5 years are actually more likely to be consuming DnD online than older players. Stranger Things might have sparked interest in DnD for a lot of people, but I think that it was widely available online content (and a worldwide pandemic keeping people at home) that really got so many people hooked on it.
Next, I don't know how you could reach other players better than this survey is. You can't go door to door asking if someone plays DnD but also doesn't use the internet. He says to hire a company to reach out to 'hardcore' players first and then use them to reach the others. But speaking for myself, I am DMing playtest games for my group. And I am basing my survey responses on their responses to me. So that's exactly what is already happening. It would be so weird for me not to consider my players in my responses.
Thirdly, the actual UA material and videos show that WotC constantly has new players in mind. They are redesigning classes to make it easier to make and play characters, while still providing new interesting content for more experienced players. I honestly question whether he has watched these videos explaining their decisions.
I do agree with him that DnD has never been great at helping new DMs get started in the game. It was rough in the 1st edition and it's still rough now (though way better than 1e). But by doing things like giving characters sample spells, they are making the DMs job easier too. And they say they will be releasing new rules for better encounter building. And all of the clarification of fuzzy rules helps every DM. We haven't even seen what the DMG will look like. But it's clear that WotC has improvements in mind.
Overall, I think he missed the mark. He uses some good advice to come to some bad conclusions. I don't know what inspired the video, and I won't make any assumptions as to why he chose to do it (I have some guesses). But he does seem misinformed, or overly worried, at the very least.
5e was widely lauded for making the system simple and easy to get into (especially compared to the heavier rules-based systems around) and so far, this playtest is looking to remove some of the confusing text, even up the balance, simplify spell lists, give easier character creation options and generally make it better. To think that this push to refine the existing system will not make causal players happy is strange.
You also have WoTC saying there will be all 3 core books redone (monster manual, DM guide and Players handbook). We don't know how the DMG will be improved, but it's getting an overhaul to make it better organised, clearer and include updated versions of tables and rules. So, any claim that DMs are getting left out is ignoring the obvious work to improve this area.
When I see someone making such videos, I'm left thinking he's doing it to cause controversy and generate clicks on his video. Trolling for views.
The premise of the video assumes that the OneD&D survey is the only way they are getting data when he has no idea if this is actually true. D&D Beyond supplies much user data, they did regular surveys previous to the OneD&D playtests and it would actually surprise me that they have no internal or externally contracted source that scours social media for trends as well as whatever other tools they have to gather data.
He claims that much like a certain gaming genre, the WoTC surveys only focus on the hard core gamers and ignores the casual player which he says makes up the majority of the player base.
I'm not watching that, but in regards to your description:
You can't get anyone but the hardcore players to playtest. Casual players just don't want to read all the changing rules, schedule separate sessions outside of their regular games, then fill out a survey. Nor should they.
He specifically mentions lack of information and support for new DMs
That's mostly not something to playtest. (Though they're promising us improved encounter-balancing, which is definitely something that will need testing.) Playtesting is for mechanics, both to make sure they work, and to get a feel for whether the player base likes them better than the old versions. What you're talking about is much more in the realm of advice, probably supported by well-designed canned adventures.
I mean, think about it. Only a minority of players frequent these forums. Of those, only the most outspoken will be interested in doing a survey request. Of those, only the most zealous will follow through after having actually playtested the material. There are multiple filters there that favour a certain kind of player. Opinionated, engaged, has time to sit around messing about with surveys, and so forth. That's a pretty constrained picture being painted - I daresay that is no where near the average player. That will give quite a different preference profile than the true average gamer.
Still, that's viewing it the wrong way. The alternative is to rely on the opinions of those in the office, and the profile of those is going to dial those traits up to 11.
The surveys are most likely a good thing. I'm somewhat reserved about how reliable the data will be , but at least the Devs are looking outside of their own bubble to find what is good and what isn't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
It seems to me WoTC are driven entirely by marketing, putting absolutely anything to print that they think they can find a market for. So I think they're definitely, primarily, marketing for casual gamers, as they are in the vast, vast majority.
But are casual gamers really particularly interested in a 'beginner's guide'? No. Hell no. What they want is a world with more dragons than leaves on a tree.
The un-casual gamer wants ... maybe 'gritty realism' or 'detailed mechanics' or maybe even 'optimization'. The casual gamer just wants genasi, and dragonborn, and eladrin, and harengons, and .. so on. Sorry, I have a thing about all those new races.
So no. It's rather quite the opposite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Survey from new or casual players is biased in all sorts of other ways. I would argue that the games should be developed around the passionate hardcore gamers who actually understand how the intricate mechanics affect each other… I do not say casual gamers should be totally ignored, but they should not have the main say either. As for the new DMs, it will always be hard to be a new DM. Best case scenario is when an experienced player who was exposed to several DMs starts their own campaign. Otherwise you can watch now people play on-line. And then, you need to try it and make your own mistakes and learn from those. Just having the forums here helps immensely, basically new DMs need a community where they can ask for advice.
No matter how good the books are written and how well designed the intro adventures are, TTRPGs are great by giving players enough room to think of something else which will confuse the new DMs. The books and rules can be always improved, but I think they are already really good. The help new DMs need is not in the form of different improved rules, but in the form of a living, supportive community.
Every single survey has bias; every single competent person who puts surveys together knows that the surveys have bias and seeks to mitigate that bias as best as they can. For example, a recent post on Mark Rosewater’s blog indicates that Magic: the Gathering’s staff looks not only to their own (similarly flawed with response biases) surveys, but also at social media posting and trends, as well as at sales figures which can give an indication of popular support or dislike.
D&D’s team is not quite as transparent as Magic and Rosewater are, but both being WotC properties, we can likely assume Wizards uses the same multi-source approach when analysing D&D that they do with Magic.
So, are the surveys flawed, and do they skew toward more experienced players who are more likely to sit down and take the (sometimes oppressively long) D&D surveys? Yes. Does that mean other voices are being lost? Nope - it just means Wizards is aware of their surveys’ fault and tried to find the other data where it can.
The survey goes out to just about anyone who wants to join the survey, whether the people joining are casual players, or a bit more competitive. It's kinda hard to ask the wrong people for their answers, if the question's going out to all the people, as far as I can tell.
I will say that they need to heavily buff Rogue though. Once they nerfed Sneak Attack into the dirt, they took away one of the main reasons to play Rogue in the first place.
Dungeon Masterpiece does amazing essays on geopolitical histories on various fantasy realms, primarily those in D&D. IT's a great watch, but it's obvious he has a bias against the anything that achieves popularity in the community. He hates the "casual masses" that have come to the game, insults Critical Role cast members personally, criticizes any popular media based on D&D. As stated, he is a salty guy looking for clicks and trolling in this case.
It's a shame, because he brings big brain energy to his other videos, but i guess content creators do what they gotta do generate those "like and subscribes"
It's a shame that people are "forced" to do such biased content in order to get clicks. It's not cool to put a false spin on things to make others look worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
The survey goes out to just about anyone who wants to join the survey, whether the people joining are casual players, or a bit more competitive. It's kinda hard to ask the wrong people for their answers, if the question's going out to all the people, as far as I can tell.
I will say that they need to heavily buff Rogue though. Once they nerfed Sneak Attack into the dirt, they took away one of the main reasons to play Rogue in the first place.
The surveys are generally of a length that the only truly "casual" players who would take it are the sorts who really really like taking surveys. Also the surveys seem more geared to people with a in depth understanding of the game. So I think the surveys probably do "over represent" more invested gamers.
However, to pretend, as this video essayist seems to be doing, that the surveys are the only feedback channel or proactive gesture WotC does for market research, and likening it to a historical anecdote that's quite literally a textbook example of bad feedback research during WWII, is laughable. To pretend the D&D design team is unaware of thoughts and opinions of D&D beyond the survey, or what other companies in both the D&D and broader TTRPG spaces are doing well with, or that One D&D isn't being play tested or analyzed through any channel besides their survey feedback, I've seen this YouTuber before and wasn't impressed and this vid blows any credibility. One can be erudite, or be impressed by erudition, while being entirely in error in whatever it is to which you're trying to apply your erudition (I wonder when advertisers on YouTube will have a "he's popular but his viewers/believers are morons and unlikely to prosper in life" metric to assess their own ad targeting).
A D&D YouTuber recently stated (See video below) that he believes that WoTc is surveying the "wrong" type of D&D player.
He claims that much like a certain gaming genre, the WoTC surveys only focus on the hard core gamers and ignores the casual player which he says makes up the majority of the player base. He specifically mentions lack of information and support for new DMs
Do you think his argument has any merit? As a self described member of the hardcore D&D club, I don't see it that way entirely. I think the casual gamer will come and go. I suspect that there is a lot of churn among such a player base, but the hard core folks like you and me will sustain the hobby. But obviously, I'm biased in that regard.
What are your thoughts?
Dungeon Masterpiece is notoriously negative on anything that brings D&D and D&D Beyond closer together, and in another of his videos went on a frothing screed about how D&D is catering to the "Fortnite generation" and how VTTs will ruin the hobby because they appeal to "video gamers." I don't pay him any mind and I suggest you don't either.
Regarding the current phase of the playtest - they've long said they're starting with core mechanical character options (classes, feats, backgrounds etc) before they get into the broader topics like how to DM and how to play. We'll get surveys on that stuff when it is part of the playtest. The important thing to start with right now is the class and rules glossary redesign, as that will take the most time between now and 2024 to get right.
I watched that one. While he does make an important point about interpreting data, I don't think it applies in this case as much as he does.
For one, I don't think that there are millions of new players who are not online in some fashion. Every day there are posts on this forum from new players and DMs asking for help. Even the most casual players are probably watching some DnD content on YouTube. Or going to forums for information. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say players that started in the last 5 years are actually more likely to be consuming DnD online than older players. Stranger Things might have sparked interest in DnD for a lot of people, but I think that it was widely available online content (and a worldwide pandemic keeping people at home) that really got so many people hooked on it.
Next, I don't know how you could reach other players better than this survey is. You can't go door to door asking if someone plays DnD but also doesn't use the internet. He says to hire a company to reach out to 'hardcore' players first and then use them to reach the others. But speaking for myself, I am DMing playtest games for my group. And I am basing my survey responses on their responses to me. So that's exactly what is already happening. It would be so weird for me not to consider my players in my responses.
Thirdly, the actual UA material and videos show that WotC constantly has new players in mind. They are redesigning classes to make it easier to make and play characters, while still providing new interesting content for more experienced players. I honestly question whether he has watched these videos explaining their decisions.
I do agree with him that DnD has never been great at helping new DMs get started in the game. It was rough in the 1st edition and it's still rough now (though way better than 1e). But by doing things like giving characters sample spells, they are making the DMs job easier too. And they say they will be releasing new rules for better encounter building. And all of the clarification of fuzzy rules helps every DM. We haven't even seen what the DMG will look like. But it's clear that WotC has improvements in mind.
Overall, I think he missed the mark. He uses some good advice to come to some bad conclusions. I don't know what inspired the video, and I won't make any assumptions as to why he chose to do it (I have some guesses). But he does seem misinformed, or overly worried, at the very least.
5e was widely lauded for making the system simple and easy to get into (especially compared to the heavier rules-based systems around) and so far, this playtest is looking to remove some of the confusing text, even up the balance, simplify spell lists, give easier character creation options and generally make it better. To think that this push to refine the existing system will not make causal players happy is strange.
You also have WoTC saying there will be all 3 core books redone (monster manual, DM guide and Players handbook). We don't know how the DMG will be improved, but it's getting an overhaul to make it better organised, clearer and include updated versions of tables and rules. So, any claim that DMs are getting left out is ignoring the obvious work to improve this area.
When I see someone making such videos, I'm left thinking he's doing it to cause controversy and generate clicks on his video. Trolling for views.
Salty Youtube guy is upset that WotC is paying attention to opinions other than his. Film at 11.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The premise of the video assumes that the OneD&D survey is the only way they are getting data when he has no idea if this is actually true. D&D Beyond supplies much user data, they did regular surveys previous to the OneD&D playtests and it would actually surprise me that they have no internal or externally contracted source that scours social media for trends as well as whatever other tools they have to gather data.
I'm not watching that, but in regards to your description:
You can't get anyone but the hardcore players to playtest. Casual players just don't want to read all the changing rules, schedule separate sessions outside of their regular games, then fill out a survey. Nor should they.
That's mostly not something to playtest. (Though they're promising us improved encounter-balancing, which is definitely something that will need testing.) Playtesting is for mechanics, both to make sure they work, and to get a feel for whether the player base likes them better than the old versions. What you're talking about is much more in the realm of advice, probably supported by well-designed canned adventures.
Is the claim correct? Sure.
I mean, think about it. Only a minority of players frequent these forums. Of those, only the most outspoken will be interested in doing a survey request. Of those, only the most zealous will follow through after having actually playtested the material. There are multiple filters there that favour a certain kind of player. Opinionated, engaged, has time to sit around messing about with surveys, and so forth. That's a pretty constrained picture being painted - I daresay that is no where near the average player. That will give quite a different preference profile than the true average gamer.
Still, that's viewing it the wrong way. The alternative is to rely on the opinions of those in the office, and the profile of those is going to dial those traits up to 11.
The surveys are most likely a good thing. I'm somewhat reserved about how reliable the data will be , but at least the Devs are looking outside of their own bubble to find what is good and what isn't.
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.
I seriously doubt it.
It seems to me WoTC are driven entirely by marketing, putting absolutely anything to print that they think they can find a market for. So I think they're definitely, primarily, marketing for casual gamers, as they are in the vast, vast majority.
But are casual gamers really particularly interested in a 'beginner's guide'? No. Hell no. What they want is a world with more dragons than leaves on a tree.
The un-casual gamer wants ... maybe 'gritty realism' or 'detailed mechanics' or maybe even 'optimization'. The casual gamer just wants genasi, and dragonborn, and eladrin, and harengons, and .. so on. Sorry, I have a thing about all those new races.
So no. It's rather quite the opposite.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Survey from new or casual players is biased in all sorts of other ways. I would argue that the games should be developed around the passionate hardcore gamers who actually understand how the intricate mechanics affect each other… I do not say casual gamers should be totally ignored, but they should not have the main say either.
As for the new DMs, it will always be hard to be a new DM. Best case scenario is when an experienced player who was exposed to several DMs starts their own campaign. Otherwise you can watch now people play on-line. And then, you need to try it and make your own mistakes and learn from those. Just having the forums here helps immensely, basically new DMs need a community where they can ask for advice.
No matter how good the books are written and how well designed the intro adventures are, TTRPGs are great by giving players enough room to think of something else which will confuse the new DMs. The books and rules can be always improved, but I think they are already really good. The help new DMs need is not in the form of different improved rules, but in the form of a living, supportive community.
Every single survey has bias; every single competent person who puts surveys together knows that the surveys have bias and seeks to mitigate that bias as best as they can. For example, a recent post on Mark Rosewater’s blog indicates that Magic: the Gathering’s staff looks not only to their own (similarly flawed with response biases) surveys, but also at social media posting and trends, as well as at sales figures which can give an indication of popular support or dislike.
D&D’s team is not quite as transparent as Magic and Rosewater are, but both being WotC properties, we can likely assume Wizards uses the same multi-source approach when analysing D&D that they do with Magic.
So, are the surveys flawed, and do they skew toward more experienced players who are more likely to sit down and take the (sometimes oppressively long) D&D surveys? Yes. Does that mean other voices are being lost? Nope - it just means Wizards is aware of their surveys’ fault and tried to find the other data where it can.
The survey goes out to just about anyone who wants to join the survey, whether the people joining are casual players, or a bit more competitive. It's kinda hard to ask the wrong people for their answers, if the question's going out to all the people, as far as I can tell.
I will say that they need to heavily buff Rogue though. Once they nerfed Sneak Attack into the dirt, they took away one of the main reasons to play Rogue in the first place.
Dungeon Masterpiece does amazing essays on geopolitical histories on various fantasy realms, primarily those in D&D. IT's a great watch, but it's obvious he has a bias against the anything that achieves popularity in the community. He hates the "casual masses" that have come to the game, insults Critical Role cast members personally, criticizes any popular media based on D&D. As stated, he is a salty guy looking for clicks and trolling in this case.
It's a shame, because he brings big brain energy to his other videos, but i guess content creators do what they gotta do generate those "like and subscribes"
It's a shame that people are "forced" to do such biased content in order to get clicks. It's not cool to put a false spin on things to make others look worse.
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.
The surveys are generally of a length that the only truly "casual" players who would take it are the sorts who really really like taking surveys. Also the surveys seem more geared to people with a in depth understanding of the game. So I think the surveys probably do "over represent" more invested gamers.
However, to pretend, as this video essayist seems to be doing, that the surveys are the only feedback channel or proactive gesture WotC does for market research, and likening it to a historical anecdote that's quite literally a textbook example of bad feedback research during WWII, is laughable. To pretend the D&D design team is unaware of thoughts and opinions of D&D beyond the survey, or what other companies in both the D&D and broader TTRPG spaces are doing well with, or that One D&D isn't being play tested or analyzed through any channel besides their survey feedback, I've seen this YouTuber before and wasn't impressed and this vid blows any credibility. One can be erudite, or be impressed by erudition, while being entirely in error in whatever it is to which you're trying to apply your erudition (I wonder when advertisers on YouTube will have a "he's popular but his viewers/believers are morons and unlikely to prosper in life" metric to assess their own ad targeting).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.