Will You Immediately Switch to One D&D or Wait?

I saw this poll from a google. I moved my games to cypher system because I got tired of wizards antics lately with with a bleak looking future. We're finding it fits our specific style of game better. There is no harm in experimenting around for what fits your table using small adventures in 1-4 shots and if 5e still fits best the it's still good to know. One D&D and wizards recent antics was just enough to motivate us to experiment. 

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

I do not think a poll with biased language on a site with a handful of active posters, some of whom are disgruntled busy bodies that have no problem skewing a poll for lulz, is going to be representative of the D&D population or their behaviors. The UA surveys, which have a staggeringly large n, is a much better measure of who will be playing and the feedback in those surveys are what WotC is betting on.

 Okay its not only biased people who join this and vote. The question isnt beconing only biased people. Its asking what anyone who hopes on thinks.

Are you sure you are addressing the content of my post?

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

I do not think a poll with biased language on a site with a handful of active posters, some of whom are disgruntled busy bodies that have no problem skewing a poll for lulz, is going to be representative of the D&D population or their behaviors. The UA surveys, which have a staggeringly large n, is a much better measure of who will be playing and the feedback in those surveys are what WotC is betting on.

 Okay its not only biased people who join this and vote. The question isnt beconing only biased people. Its asking what anyone who hopes on thinks.

 It doesn’t have to only be biased people, it only takes a few (or even just one) to skew the results, particularly with this small of a sample size.  In addition to how easy it is for one person to vote multiple times, internet polls are all pretty much universally meaningless. The response group is self-selecting, the numbers are unweighted, and there are a number of other technical issues compared to an actual poll. It can be fun to look at, but it’s nothing more than fun.

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

I do not think a poll with biased language on a site with a handful of active posters, some of whom are disgruntled busy bodies that have no problem skewing a poll for lulz, is going to be representative of the D&D population or their behaviors. The UA surveys, which have a staggeringly large n, is a much better measure of who will be playing and the feedback in those surveys are what WotC is betting on.

The ultimate gauge of its success or failure will be the sales figures themselves.

I've stuck to "if" in this thread when talking about that poll.

If this year has taught us anything it's that neither pure speculation nor outright dismissal of it is particularly wise.

Quote from Xalthu >>

 It doesn’t have to only be biased people, it only takes a few (or even just one) to skew the results, particularly with this small of a sample size.  In addition to how easy it is for one person to vote multiple times, internet polls are all pretty much universally meaningless. The response group is self-selecting, the numbers are unweighted, and there are a number of other technical issues compared to an actual poll. It can be fun to look at, but it’s nothing more than fun.

What you say here is true.

Again: I've stuck to "if" in this thread when talking about that poll. There's really no knowing if those results accurately capture what most feel or think about making that switch.

But you have to wonder if those quick to dismiss those poll results would be so eager to do so if those results went in the other direction. Speaking of bias.

Quote from sunwinksoutforever >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

 It doesn’t have to only be biased people, it only takes a few (or even just one) to skew the results, particularly with this small of a sample size.  In addition to how easy it is for one person to vote multiple times, internet polls are all pretty much universally meaningless. The response group is self-selecting, the numbers are unweighted, and there are a number of other technical issues compared to an actual poll. It can be fun to look at, but it’s nothing more than fun.

 

What you say here is true.

Again: I've stuck to "if" in this thread when talking about that poll. There's really no knowing if those results accurately capture what most feel or think about making that switch.

 

But you have to wonder if those quick to dismiss those poll results would be so eager to do so if those results went in the other direction. Speaking of bias.

 Mmm I voted to sit this one out, but I do agree that open internet polls are at best a possible indicator of how part of a community or group thinks, feels or behaves. And this at a specific point in time. 

I take online polls for exactly what they are: generally flawed and occasionally fun. Nothing more.

Most do. Some however are so mired in bias they will take them much more seriously when the results skew their way.

I believe that this can happen, there are very silly people out there. However, there is a button to view the results without voting.

On the other hand, regarding the failure or not of sales, it cannot be done in comparison with other companies if not with respect to their own expectations.

I mean, if WoTC wants to sell 100, and it sells 80, it will be a flop even if the immediate competitor sells 40. So the very notion of losing customers, even if not en masse, terrifies them. And that's why they change things in the playtest that were going in the right direction simply because some people have complained. I think his idea is that anything even slightly controversial has to be redone as it was in the 2014 edition. A cowardly idea, and also, IMO, wrong.

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

Quote from Irrelevant_guy >>

I believe that this can happen, there are very silly people out there. However, there is a button to view the results without voting.

On the other hand, regarding the failure or not of sales, it cannot be done in comparison with other companies if not with respect to their own expectations.

I mean, if WoTC wants to sell 100, and it sells 80, it will be a flop even if the immediate competitor sells 40. So the very notion of losing customers, even if not en masse, terrifies them. And that's why they change things in the playtest that were going in the right direction simply because some people have complained. I think his idea is that anything even slightly controversial has to be redone as it was in the 2014 edition. A cowardly idea, and also, IMO, wrong.

 

 but it seems impossible to please EVERYONE. theres always gonna be some people who arent gonna buy im sure.

Sure and they have calculated that into their expected sales numbers.  If they miss their mark by 20% that's a pretty big drop.

i will join a one dnd game when it comes out, but i will try to keep most my games 5e

the way they have been talking in the videos is that is 20% of the people hate it, that is a B grade for them, which they think is a win.

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

i think their biggest issue with us is that a lot of us dont support their VTT. Not just by not using it but the fact that we would discourage others from using VTTs. (if they cannot play in person then i a VTT is fine) and we just dont like the way a VTT will take the hobby.

Dude, there is nothing wrong with Wizards making a VTT. You've repeatedly said that people should be discouraged from using a VTT and should only play on one if they have no other way to do so. However, what if someone likes a VTT more than physical D&D? What if it's more convenient or enjoyable for them, even though they do have other feasible options?

Should people be "discouraged" from playing pen and paper D&D just because that means it might be slightly harder for those who use Virtual Tabletops to find groups? No, of course not, there's room for everyone to play D&D how they want and no one should be told otherwise. Just like this philosophy doesn't work, the reverse of it - discouraging people from playing on VTTs for the benefit of those who play in person - is also a flawed belief that penalizes some for the gain of others.

Not switching. I'm sticking to 5e; One D&D isn't fixing any of 5e's fundamental issues, so I'm not buying fancy new books. I already have the 5e ones, and they were damned expensive! Books as a whole are a conundrum, unlike a video game you can't simply just make patches without charging people again and again for the "latest book" (which people nope out of pretty quick), so official changes have to be taken into a new version or online, which creates a whole new issue of "by the book" vs "official", when the book is generally conceived to be official. Thankfully, we have DMs to make all of these rulings for us... Unless you're the DM, then good luck 

Depends on what my group chooses, but my hope is running with the 5.5 rules rather than the 5.0 rules.

No idea at this point. I'm going to have to actually get and read the new PHB and get my group's feedback as well.

I have a strong feeling we'll likely end up running a hybrid/heavily houseruled game.

Odds are I'll continue with my hybrid of house rules and the playtest material I like. I'll wait and see if I buy the books. Some of the art makes me feel like they are leaning more into MtG Fantasy Superheroes than traditional fantasy gaming. I already tone things down in 5E, so I'm not inclined to buy something that goes even farther into power creep.

Quote from JonROsborne >>

Odds are I'll continue with my hybrid of house rules and the playtest material I like. I'll wait and see if I buy the books. Some of the art makes me feel like they are leaning more into MtG Fantasy Superheroes than traditional fantasy gaming. I already tone things down in 5E, so I'm not inclined to buy something that goes even farther into power creep.

 100% agree.

With every single change all it is is power creep.

They need to make a Superheros edition, an Anime edition, a space scify edition the psionics fans could push to have psionics instead of magic in those.

And then try to get D&D back to middle ages fantasy gaming.
Bring back the gods and their meddling in their followers lives. Give us real write ups for the history of the races and their gods. That is a supplement that people would buy.

If your worried about stepping on the toes of other culture let those other cultures do those supplements. If in the end they chose to not do it that is their loss. World wide their are enough people and players to do it.

And as for adding third party content to this sight. Do not like it. I like some of the content yes.
But is all the third party content they place here now cannon and official? Is it RAW?

The moment they changed spiritual weapon  to have concentration was the moment I was like, "Nope this isn't for me."!  Add in the whole "Race" to "Species"? Yeah no want!

I like how the last 2 posts is one person complaining about power creep and the next complaining about adding concentration to spiritual weapon.