And, again, you’re missing the point: they were not polling the community for suggestions on how to fix things, they were polling for whether or not people liked their changes.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Should they, though? Designers have a finite amount of time and energy they can spend. If option A has 65% approval, and option B has 75%, why spend time fiddling with A in the hopes of raising to 80? They have however many other projects to work on and hard deadlines. Sure, with unlimited resources, they can try and polish up a diamond on the rough idea. But since they don’t have unlimited resources, they have to work with the most realistic options for making most of the people happy most of the time.
If you're trying to solve a problem, the difference between "right track but needs work" and "wrong track" is important.
Which is hitting the nail on the head, in point of fact; there are no truly glaring problems being solved here. Yes, they’re patching up some underpowered or unpopular class features, but the foundation of 5e is solid. They’re not looking for a “tear it down to the bones and rebuild it” systemic overhaul, they’re looking for simple and popular changes that will help them move new copies, or at least that’s my read on it.
Which is hitting the nail on the head, in point of fact; there are no truly glaring problems being solved here. Yes, they’re patching up some underpowered or unpopular class features, but the foundation of 5e is solid. They’re not looking for a “tear it down to the bones and rebuild it” systemic overhaul, they’re looking for simple and popular changes that will help them move new copies, or at least that’s my read on it.
I'd go a step further. It's not really a playtest at all. It's a dressed-up marketing survey. Which is why the survey questions/answers read just like a marketing survey.
And while they are mostly just trying to shore up their already-bigger-than-every-other-ttrpg-ever-combined market, they are also nominally aligning the brand with a 50th anniversary. "Here's a cleaned up, polished version of the thing that's already working well for us" is a natural outcome of that.
And, again, you’re missing the point: they were not polling the community for suggestions on how to fix things, they were polling for whether or not people liked their changes.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Which is what the middle rating is for, assuming the designers are looking for that kind of feedback.
Really? To be honest, I haven't done all of the surveys, but to my recollection it doesn't go "Very Satisfied, Satisfied, I Enjoy the Underlying Concept but the Method by Which It Was Implemented Leaves Much to be Desired, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied." I think I probably would have noticed that.
It does not literally spell it out, but what is a neutral option for if not “I don’t hate the idea, but I think it could be much better”?
Perhaps it's for there to be an option that is between Satisfied and Dissatisfied.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
And, again, you’re missing the point: they were not polling the community for suggestions on how to fix things, they were polling for whether or not people liked their changes.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Which is what the middle rating is for, assuming the designers are looking for that kind of feedback.
Really? To be honest, I haven't done all of the surveys, but to my recollection it doesn't go "Very Satisfied, Satisfied, I Enjoy the Underlying Concept but the Method by Which It Was Implemented Leaves Much to be Desired, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied." I think I probably would have noticed that.
It does not literally spell it out, but what is a neutral option for if not “I don’t hate the idea, but I think it could be much better”?
Perhaps it's for there to be an option that is between Satisfied and Dissatisfied.
And how, pray tell, does one not describe the other?
And, again, you’re missing the point: they were not polling the community for suggestions on how to fix things, they were polling for whether or not people liked their changes.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Should they, though? Designers have a finite amount of time and energy they can spend. If option A has 65% approval, and option B has 75%, why spend time fiddling with A in the hopes of raising to 80? They have however many other projects to work on and hard deadlines. Sure, with unlimited resources, they can try and polish up a diamond on the rough idea. But since they don’t have unlimited resources, they have to work with the most realistic options for making most of the people happy most of the time.
If you're trying to solve a problem, the difference between "right track but needs work" and "wrong track" is important.
That’s true if there’s one option for solving the problem, but they have other functional solutions. The real difference has been between “needs work” and “is already ok enough” so they go with the one that’s ok enough, and move on to the next job.
Is OneD&D meant to push boundaries and grow the game's capabilities or to eliminate the barriers to adoption and usability?
None of the above really. It's supposed to fix some basic, long standing issues. Whip the lumps out of the mashed potatoes so to speak.
But it’s also creating new problems
like sorcerer and clerics are basically ruined from level 3 subclasses. Domains and especially domain spells are very important cause they help differentiate different clerics and help different clerics fill different party roles. That way the trickery cleric of Loki is not the same as a life cleric of Lathander
Same case with sorcerer. How am I supposed to be the party healer/support as a “divine soul” sorcerer without having access to healing spells?
not to mention one dnd changes are becoming way to wargamey and in some cases actively harm narrative and flavor (bastion system for example)
Considering a lot of DM’s favor starting at level 3, with 5-10 currently representing the “Goldilocks Zone” for adventures, I don’t think it’s quite so crippling as all that. It does hurt flavor a bit, but que sera. And I fail to see how a system that primarily produces economic, social, or knowledge benefits is making the game more “wargamey”.
Is OneD&D meant to push boundaries and grow the game's capabilities or to eliminate the barriers to adoption and usability?
None of the above really. It's supposed to fix some basic, long standing issues. Whip the lumps out of the mashed potatoes so to speak.
But it’s also creating new problems
like sorcerer and clerics are basically ruined from level 3 subclasses. Domains and especially domain spells are very important cause they help differentiate different clerics and help different clerics fill different party roles. That way the trickery cleric of Loki is not the same as a life cleric of Lathander
Same case with sorcerer. How am I supposed to be the party healer/support as a “divine soul” sorcerer without having access to healing spells?
not to mention one dnd changes are becoming way to wargamey and in some cases actively harm narrative and flavor (bastion system for example)
yes and no. Yes it creates some narrative problems. I've been very vocal about not liking this change for this reason. That said, it also tries to use that delay to solve 1 level dip issues. I think it fails on this point in many cases, but it's clear what they are trying to do. At the end of the day, it's a change I dislike, but it doesn't RUIN anything. It's just a shot that imo, misses the mark.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Is OneD&D meant to push boundaries and grow the game's capabilities or to eliminate the barriers to adoption and usability?
None of the above really. It's supposed to fix some basic, long standing issues. Whip the lumps out of the mashed potatoes so to speak.
But it’s also creating new problems
like sorcerer and clerics are basically ruined from level 3 subclasses. Domains and especially domain spells are very important cause they help differentiate different clerics and help different clerics fill different party roles. That way the trickery cleric of Loki is not the same as a life cleric of Lathander
Same case with sorcerer. How am I supposed to be the party healer/support as a “divine soul” sorcerer without having access to healing spells?
not to mention one dnd changes are becoming way to wargamey and in some cases actively harm narrative and flavor (bastion system for example)
Considering a lot of DM’s favor starting at level 3, with 5-10 currently representing the “Goldilocks Zone” for adventures, I don’t think it’s quite so crippling as all that. It does hurt flavor a bit, but que sera. And I fail to see how a system that primarily produces economic, social, or knowledge benefits is making the game more “wargamey”.
It is crippling as all that. Just because some tables start at level 3, let's not pretend that many or even most do. There's a lot of concepts that are simply a no-go with these rules. I've played both a celestial warlock and 2 divine soul sorcs who healed for the party starting at level 1, and now, that's not an option without wasting my starter feat on a spell that I will only need for a few levels until I get it from the subclass.
That's poor design no matter how you slice it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
It is crippling as all that. Just because some tables start at level 3, let's not pretend that many or even most do. There's a lot of concepts that are simply a no-go with these rules. I've played both a celestial warlock and 2 divine soul sorcs who healed for the party starting at level 1, and now, that's not an option without wasting my starter feat on a spell that I will only need for a few levels until I get it from the subclass.
That's poor design no matter how you slice it.
Frankly, any subclass that is so character defining that you need it at level 1... should probably not be a subclass. That said, magic initiate lets you change the spell you gain on level-up, just switch it to a different useful spell (or take healing word at level 1 and never switch it).
Is OneD&D meant to push boundaries and grow the game's capabilities or to eliminate the barriers to adoption and usability?
None of the above really. It's supposed to fix some basic, long standing issues. Whip the lumps out of the mashed potatoes so to speak.
But it’s also creating new problems
like sorcerer and clerics are basically ruined from level 3 subclasses. Domains and especially domain spells are very important cause they help differentiate different clerics and help different clerics fill different party roles. That way the trickery cleric of Loki is not the same as a life cleric of Lathander
There is absolutely nothing about that, that is unique to Sorcerers & Clerics. Swords Bard fundamentally changes how Bard plays and what role you fill in the party, same with Bladesinger, Moon Druid, Hexblade Warlock, Swashbuckler Rogue, Celestial Warlock and Valor Bard. Many have fundament RP consequences (as well as different build preferences): e.g. Redemption vs Vengeance Paladin, Inquisitive vs Swashbuckler Rogue, Swords Bard vs Lore Bard, Spore Druid vs Dream Druid, Celestial Warlock vs Fiend Warlock, Beserker Barbarian vs Ancestral Guardian, Beastmaster Ranger vs Fey Wanderer, Shadow Monk vs Sun Soul Monk
Regardless of when you think subclass should be awarded, it's obvious it should be uniform for all classes - make EVERY subclass start at first level or make them all start at 3rd level, but the patchwork we have in current 5e doesn't make any sense at all.
Is OneD&D meant to push boundaries and grow the game's capabilities or to eliminate the barriers to adoption and usability?
None of the above really. It's supposed to fix some basic, long standing issues. Whip the lumps out of the mashed potatoes so to speak.
But it’s also creating new problems
like sorcerer and clerics are basically ruined from level 3 subclasses. Domains and especially domain spells are very important cause they help differentiate different clerics and help different clerics fill different party roles. That way the trickery cleric of Loki is not the same as a life cleric of Lathander
Same case with sorcerer. How am I supposed to be the party healer/support as a “divine soul” sorcerer without having access to healing spells?
not to mention one dnd changes are becoming way to wargamey and in some cases actively harm narrative and flavor (bastion system for example)
Considering a lot of DM’s favor starting at level 3, with 5-10 currently representing the “Goldilocks Zone” for adventures, I don’t think it’s quite so crippling as all that. It does hurt flavor a bit, but que sera. And I fail to see how a system that primarily produces economic, social, or knowledge benefits is making the game more “wargamey”.
It is crippling as all that. Just because some tables start at level 3, let's not pretend that many or even most do. There's a lot of concepts that are simply a no-go with these rules. I've played both a celestial warlock and 2 divine soul sorcs who healed for the party starting at level 1, and now, that's not an option without wasting my starter feat on a spell that I will only need for a few levels until I get it from the subclass.
That's poor design no matter how you slice it.
Its a design choice, id say it was poor design that some subclasses existed at one and others at 3. Many would say its a poor design choice to have new players decide how to specialize at level 1. And there is no inherent better answer. There are valid reasons to choose either design solution, and it isnt the end of the world at all. Especially with starter feats existing. Magic initiate Essentially solves any magic issues, Non mechanically, your character can be whatever it wants at level 1, it just won't have any consistent player controlled subclass abilities from level 1.
This is the case for everyone else, not sure why some subclasses had different rules.
battlesmith artificers
elements monks
eldritch knights
any/many subclass could argue they need to be born with some mechanical ability to make a concept work, and all could work without having it for 3 in game days.
And, again, you’re missing the point: they were not polling the community for suggestions on how to fix things, they were polling for whether or not people liked their changes.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Which is what the middle rating is for, assuming the designers are looking for that kind of feedback.
Really? To be honest, I haven't done all of the surveys, but to my recollection it doesn't go "Very Satisfied, Satisfied, I Enjoy the Underlying Concept but the Method by Which It Was Implemented Leaves Much to be Desired, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied." I think I probably would have noticed that.
It does not literally spell it out, but what is a neutral option for if not “I don’t hate the idea, but I think it could be much better”?
I wish it said that somewhere on the survey, unless I missed it. To me, neutral was “I am indifferent to the change. I neither like or dislike it” which, again for me, doesn’t mean ”I like the concept but not the implementation”. I liked Druid WS templates but not the implementation so I put dissatisfied.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Which could very easily be the difference between "Dissatisfied" and "Very Dissatisfied".
Except we know that's not how it works; they boil the numbers down to a single pass/fail score such that any distinction between the options is lost entirely. And that's after immediately losing any indication of intent by the respondent, because people will choose satisfied/neutral/dissatisfied for different reasons, or potentially choose different options for the same reason, because the way it's framed doesn't allow for any kind of clarity.
I'm finding it incredibly weird to see the number of people crawling out of the woodwork to defend a reductive survey format that gives bad results. A proposed feature is either good as-is, needs to be improved, or needs to be abandoned, that's the information that's actually needed to make it properly useful, but the survey does not allow for that middle result except via optional guesswork, which the video interviews suggest isn't being done, they treat it as pass/fail only.
Wizards of the Coast are not psychic, they cannot reliably infer information they haven't actually gathered, and in the responses to surveys they haven't mentioned anything about looking at "middle" results, i.e- looking at a feature more closely because most respondents gave one of the three middle options with low numbers giving the two extremes, or anything that suggests treating it as anything other than pass/fail only. But because of the way the survey is setup those types of numbers are only statistically interesting, they don't actually tell us anything because they can't; they're just a number.
Fact is they could put out the surveys with the 5 option scale replaced with a pass/fail choice of two, and it'd serve the same purpose, because if they're only measuring the numbers of people that are positive/negative then they'd get essentially the same result (people who are leaning towards satisfied are more likely to put "pass" rather than "fail" etc.). That's the level of information they're working with either way. If they want more useful results they need to give clearer options that explicitly state what they cover.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Which could very easily be the difference between "Dissatisfied" and "Very Dissatisfied".
I'm finding it incredibly weird to see the number of people crawling out of the woodwork to defend a reductive survey format that gives bad results. ...
Wizards of the Coast are not psychic, they cannot reliably infer information they haven't actually gathered, and in the responses to surveys they haven't mentioned anything about looking at "middle" results, i.e- looking at a feature more closely because most respondents gave one of the three middle options with low numbers giving the two extremes, or anything that suggests treating it as anything other than pass/fail only.
That isn't a problem with the survey format, but a problem with how they are choosing to use the results. They absolutely could look at the distribution of middle results vs extremes, they simply choose not to, which seems to be a common... non-statistician .. approach but means that valuable data they are collecting is wasted. They needed have 4 variable responses if all they want is pass fail, just put two options: like / dislike.
That isn't a problem with the survey format, but a problem with how they are choosing to use the results. They absolutely could look at the distribution of middle results vs extremes, they simply choose not to, which seems to be a common... non-statistician .. approach but means that valuable data they are collecting is wasted. They needed have 4 variable responses if all they want is pass fail, just put two options: like / dislike.
Even if they did use the middle results better, those results still don't really give them actionable information; just in this thread there's confusion about which is the correct option for a feature you like the idea of, but not the execution, this means the middle results don't mean any kind of consistent thing.
Again, the results WotC really need for play-testing is "works well", "needs improving" or "drop it", but the 5 option scale can't reliably give that information, as at best you'd only be guessing that a lot of middle results means "needs improving", as those three options in the middle could be used to mean all kinds of things.
Dissatisfied could mean "I don't currently like it, but I'd like to see it improved", "I don't personally like it, but but would tolerate its inclusion", or just "I don't like it, but don't hate it", neutral can be "I both like and dislike it" or "I don't care either way", or "there are parts I dislike and want to see improved", satisfied could mean "I like it but don't love it" or "I'm fine with it being included", "I like the idea but it could be better" and so-on.
Point is these options don't give a clear picture of anything except a lack of extreme feelings; any intention from the respondents is lost because for the "like the idea, dislike the execution" crowd you could pick any of the three, but there are also a bunch other reasons you might pick them.
In essence they've only asked if we're satisfied or dissatisfied, but only the text boxes give any room to say why, or to break it down, and I don't believe they're looking at those in any real detail. Even a few thousand text responses add up fast for any kind of review by staff, which is why I doubt they've done that, more practical is to fire it into an algorithm, or only review random samplings of different feedback levels as required (i.e- when the results are more ambiguous). So for a feature that's well liked you might grab some text responses for those that don't like it to find out why. But I would expect a lot of the middle results don't get reviewed at all, and they still very much seem to make the judgements on the overall score.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That isn't a problem with the survey format, but a problem with how they are choosing to use the results. They absolutely could look at the distribution of middle results vs extremes, they simply choose not to, which seems to be a common... non-statistician .. approach but means that valuable data they are collecting is wasted. They needed have 4 variable responses if all they want is pass fail, just put two options: like / dislike.
Even if they did use the middle results better, those results still don't really give them actionable information; just in this thread there's confusion about which is the correct option for a feature you like the idea of, but not the execution, this means the middle results don't mean any kind of consistent thing.
Again, the results WotC really need for play-testing is "works well", "needs improving" or "drop it", but the 5 option scale can't reliably give that information, as at best you'd only be guessing that a lot of middle results means "needs improving", as those three options in the middle could be used to mean all kinds of things.
Dissatisfied could mean "I don't currently like it, but I'd like to see it improved", "I don't personally like it, but but would tolerate its inclusion", or just "I don't like it, but don't hate it", neutral can be "I both like and dislike it" or "I don't care either way", or "there are parts I dislike and want to see improved", satisfied could mean "I like it but don't love it" or "I'm fine with it being included", "I like the idea but it could be better" and so-on.
Point is these options don't give a clear picture of anything except a lack of extreme feelings; any intention from the respondents is lost because for the "like the idea, dislike the execution" crowd you could pick any of the three, but there are also a bunch other reasons you might pick them.
In essence they've only asked if we're satisfied or dissatisfied, but only the text boxes give any room to say why, or to break it down, and I don't believe they're looking at those in any real detail. Even a few thousand text responses add up fast for any kind of review by staff, which is why I doubt they've done that, more practical is to fire it into an algorithm, or only review random samplings of different feedback levels as required (i.e- when the results are more ambiguous). So for a feature that's well liked you might grab some text responses for those that don't like it to find out why. But I would expect a lot of the middle results don't get reviewed at all, and they still very much seem to make the judgements on the overall score.
I'm not saying they magically know what players mean, I'm saying they weren't interested in players opinions on what to refine and what to drop. Some one creating something can choose what type of feedback they are interested in, and what their internal process is. They decided they weren't interested in what you thought they should keep iterating on. That was a decision they would make based on their own needs and desires. The reality is, how much iteration they were willing to do on an idea was never up to survey response or democracy. Some things they dropped in one round, other things they attempted 3 times. (with little correlation to its response) Just because they want to know how much you like or dislike something, doesnt mean they want to know how much resources you think they should put into an idea.
do I love that? maybe not, but its fair for a creator to set their boundaries and their process. It doesnt mean the process was useless, it just means I would have preferred a different process for my own reasons. As the guy buying the custom artwork, I might want a true dialog with the creator, as the creator I might decide, two revisions is all I will do per work. Some artists do zero revisions.
I'm not saying they magically know what players mean, I'm saying they weren't interested in players opinions on what to refine and what to drop.
If you listen to the videos where they talk about approval percentages, they most certainly were interested in that question, as they had a range of approval values that they considered "keep it", "needs work", and "back to the drawing board".
I'm not saying they magically know what players mean, I'm saying they weren't interested in players opinions on what to refine and what to drop.
Clearly they were or they wouldn't have run the playtests or the surveys at all as there's no point if they don't want to gather feedback from it.
But once again you seem to be missing the point I've been making; they gave us a five option scale that served no truly useful purpose. It could have been a simple binary option (satisfied or dissatisfied) and obtained exactly the same results, because if you're just boiling the responses down into a "percent satisfied" score then they didn't need the other three options in the first place.
Also once again, that kind of satisfied vs. dissatisfied response is only so useful, because it's pretty useless as a metric upon which to make decisions unless it's overwhelmingly one or the other, the moment you get into the middle ranges you don't have any information on which to base a decision. The purpose of any survey should be to get back useful information, but the point I tried to make in the first place is that the survey is not well structured for doing so, because they limited the usefulness of the answers from the outset.
I really do no understand why my criticism of the surveys not being very good has elicited multiple people rushing to their defence; they're not great surveys, this should not be a controversial opinion to hold. I'd like to see the style of survey changed for future playtests, because I do not think they're fit for purpose as they're either unnecessarily complicated if all they want is a yes/no score, or they're both unnecessarily complicated and unnecessarily limiting if they want more information to act upon, as a three option response can be both more useful, and simpler.
Not sure why you'd want the surveys to be both complicated and bad, but you do you.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
And, again, you’re missing the point: they were not polling the community for suggestions on how to fix things, they were polling for whether or not people liked their changes.
The point is "I like the concept but the implementation is terrible" and "I hate the concept" are both negative responses, but they should have different effects on the designer.
Should they, though? Designers have a finite amount of time and energy they can spend. If option A has 65% approval, and option B has 75%, why spend time fiddling with A in the hopes of raising to 80? They have however many other projects to work on and hard deadlines. Sure, with unlimited resources, they can try and polish up a diamond on the rough idea. But since they don’t have unlimited resources, they have to work with the most realistic options for making most of the people happy most of the time.
Yes, 100% they should
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Should they, though? Designers have a finite amount of time and energy they can spend. If option A has 65% approval, and option B has 75%, why spend time fiddling with A in the hopes of raising to 80? They have however many other projects to work on and hard deadlines. Sure, with unlimited resources, they can try and polish up a diamond on the rough idea. But since they don’t have unlimited resources, they have to work with the most realistic options for making most of the people happy most of the time.
That's a somewhat different issue. Given the reality of limited resources, it's certainly possible to decide that option B is 'good enough', but you want to make an informed decision, rather than "option A is lower rated than option B, and I have no idea why", and that means your poll should be designed to answer that question... even if down the line you choose not to use the answer.
Which is hitting the nail on the head, in point of fact; there are no truly glaring problems being solved here. Yes, they’re patching up some underpowered or unpopular class features, but the foundation of 5e is solid. They’re not looking for a “tear it down to the bones and rebuild it” systemic overhaul, they’re looking for simple and popular changes that will help them move new copies, or at least that’s my read on it.
I'd go a step further. It's not really a playtest at all. It's a dressed-up marketing survey. Which is why the survey questions/answers read just like a marketing survey.
And while they are mostly just trying to shore up their already-bigger-than-every-other-ttrpg-ever-combined market, they are also nominally aligning the brand with a 50th anniversary. "Here's a cleaned up, polished version of the thing that's already working well for us" is a natural outcome of that.
Perhaps it's for there to be an option that is between Satisfied and Dissatisfied.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
And how, pray tell, does one not describe the other?
That’s true if there’s one option for solving the problem, but they have other functional solutions. The real difference has been between “needs work” and “is already ok enough” so they go with the one that’s ok enough, and move on to the next job.
Considering a lot of DM’s favor starting at level 3, with 5-10 currently representing the “Goldilocks Zone” for adventures, I don’t think it’s quite so crippling as all that. It does hurt flavor a bit, but que sera. And I fail to see how a system that primarily produces economic, social, or knowledge benefits is making the game more “wargamey”.
yes and no. Yes it creates some narrative problems. I've been very vocal about not liking this change for this reason. That said, it also tries to use that delay to solve 1 level dip issues. I think it fails on this point in many cases, but it's clear what they are trying to do. At the end of the day, it's a change I dislike, but it doesn't RUIN anything. It's just a shot that imo, misses the mark.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It is crippling as all that. Just because some tables start at level 3, let's not pretend that many or even most do. There's a lot of concepts that are simply a no-go with these rules. I've played both a celestial warlock and 2 divine soul sorcs who healed for the party starting at level 1, and now, that's not an option without wasting my starter feat on a spell that I will only need for a few levels until I get it from the subclass.
That's poor design no matter how you slice it.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Frankly, any subclass that is so character defining that you need it at level 1... should probably not be a subclass. That said, magic initiate lets you change the spell you gain on level-up, just switch it to a different useful spell (or take healing word at level 1 and never switch it).
There is absolutely nothing about that, that is unique to Sorcerers & Clerics. Swords Bard fundamentally changes how Bard plays and what role you fill in the party, same with Bladesinger, Moon Druid, Hexblade Warlock, Swashbuckler Rogue, Celestial Warlock and Valor Bard. Many have fundament RP consequences (as well as different build preferences): e.g. Redemption vs Vengeance Paladin, Inquisitive vs Swashbuckler Rogue, Swords Bard vs Lore Bard, Spore Druid vs Dream Druid, Celestial Warlock vs Fiend Warlock, Beserker Barbarian vs Ancestral Guardian, Beastmaster Ranger vs Fey Wanderer, Shadow Monk vs Sun Soul Monk
Regardless of when you think subclass should be awarded, it's obvious it should be uniform for all classes - make EVERY subclass start at first level or make them all start at 3rd level, but the patchwork we have in current 5e doesn't make any sense at all.
Its a design choice, id say it was poor design that some subclasses existed at one and others at 3. Many would say its a poor design choice to have new players decide how to specialize at level 1. And there is no inherent better answer. There are valid reasons to choose either design solution, and it isnt the end of the world at all. Especially with starter feats existing. Magic initiate Essentially solves any magic issues, Non mechanically, your character can be whatever it wants at level 1, it just won't have any consistent player controlled subclass abilities from level 1.
This is the case for everyone else, not sure why some subclasses had different rules.
battlesmith artificers
elements monks
eldritch knights
any/many subclass could argue they need to be born with some mechanical ability to make a concept work, and all could work without having it for 3 in game days.
I wish it said that somewhere on the survey, unless I missed it. To me, neutral was “I am indifferent to the change. I neither like or dislike it” which, again for me, doesn’t mean ”I like the concept but not the implementation”. I liked Druid WS templates but not the implementation so I put dissatisfied.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Except we know that's not how it works; they boil the numbers down to a single pass/fail score such that any distinction between the options is lost entirely. And that's after immediately losing any indication of intent by the respondent, because people will choose satisfied/neutral/dissatisfied for different reasons, or potentially choose different options for the same reason, because the way it's framed doesn't allow for any kind of clarity.
I'm finding it incredibly weird to see the number of people crawling out of the woodwork to defend a reductive survey format that gives bad results. A proposed feature is either good as-is, needs to be improved, or needs to be abandoned, that's the information that's actually needed to make it properly useful, but the survey does not allow for that middle result except via optional guesswork, which the video interviews suggest isn't being done, they treat it as pass/fail only.
Wizards of the Coast are not psychic, they cannot reliably infer information they haven't actually gathered, and in the responses to surveys they haven't mentioned anything about looking at "middle" results, i.e- looking at a feature more closely because most respondents gave one of the three middle options with low numbers giving the two extremes, or anything that suggests treating it as anything other than pass/fail only. But because of the way the survey is setup those types of numbers are only statistically interesting, they don't actually tell us anything because they can't; they're just a number.
Fact is they could put out the surveys with the 5 option scale replaced with a pass/fail choice of two, and it'd serve the same purpose, because if they're only measuring the numbers of people that are positive/negative then they'd get essentially the same result (people who are leaning towards satisfied are more likely to put "pass" rather than "fail" etc.). That's the level of information they're working with either way. If they want more useful results they need to give clearer options that explicitly state what they cover.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
That isn't a problem with the survey format, but a problem with how they are choosing to use the results. They absolutely could look at the distribution of middle results vs extremes, they simply choose not to, which seems to be a common... non-statistician .. approach but means that valuable data they are collecting is wasted. They needed have 4 variable responses if all they want is pass fail, just put two options: like / dislike.
Even if they did use the middle results better, those results still don't really give them actionable information; just in this thread there's confusion about which is the correct option for a feature you like the idea of, but not the execution, this means the middle results don't mean any kind of consistent thing.
Again, the results WotC really need for play-testing is "works well", "needs improving" or "drop it", but the 5 option scale can't reliably give that information, as at best you'd only be guessing that a lot of middle results means "needs improving", as those three options in the middle could be used to mean all kinds of things.
Dissatisfied could mean "I don't currently like it, but I'd like to see it improved", "I don't personally like it, but but would tolerate its inclusion", or just "I don't like it, but don't hate it", neutral can be "I both like and dislike it" or "I don't care either way", or "there are parts I dislike and want to see improved", satisfied could mean "I like it but don't love it" or "I'm fine with it being included", "I like the idea but it could be better" and so-on.
Point is these options don't give a clear picture of anything except a lack of extreme feelings; any intention from the respondents is lost because for the "like the idea, dislike the execution" crowd you could pick any of the three, but there are also a bunch other reasons you might pick them.
In essence they've only asked if we're satisfied or dissatisfied, but only the text boxes give any room to say why, or to break it down, and I don't believe they're looking at those in any real detail. Even a few thousand text responses add up fast for any kind of review by staff, which is why I doubt they've done that, more practical is to fire it into an algorithm, or only review random samplings of different feedback levels as required (i.e- when the results are more ambiguous). So for a feature that's well liked you might grab some text responses for those that don't like it to find out why. But I would expect a lot of the middle results don't get reviewed at all, and they still very much seem to make the judgements on the overall score.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm not saying they magically know what players mean, I'm saying they weren't interested in players opinions on what to refine and what to drop. Some one creating something can choose what type of feedback they are interested in, and what their internal process is. They decided they weren't interested in what you thought they should keep iterating on. That was a decision they would make based on their own needs and desires. The reality is, how much iteration they were willing to do on an idea was never up to survey response or democracy. Some things they dropped in one round, other things they attempted 3 times. (with little correlation to its response) Just because they want to know how much you like or dislike something, doesnt mean they want to know how much resources you think they should put into an idea.
do I love that? maybe not, but its fair for a creator to set their boundaries and their process. It doesnt mean the process was useless, it just means I would have preferred a different process for my own reasons. As the guy buying the custom artwork, I might want a true dialog with the creator, as the creator I might decide, two revisions is all I will do per work. Some artists do zero revisions.
If you listen to the videos where they talk about approval percentages, they most certainly were interested in that question, as they had a range of approval values that they considered "keep it", "needs work", and "back to the drawing board".
Clearly they were or they wouldn't have run the playtests or the surveys at all as there's no point if they don't want to gather feedback from it.
But once again you seem to be missing the point I've been making; they gave us a five option scale that served no truly useful purpose. It could have been a simple binary option (satisfied or dissatisfied) and obtained exactly the same results, because if you're just boiling the responses down into a "percent satisfied" score then they didn't need the other three options in the first place.
Also once again, that kind of satisfied vs. dissatisfied response is only so useful, because it's pretty useless as a metric upon which to make decisions unless it's overwhelmingly one or the other, the moment you get into the middle ranges you don't have any information on which to base a decision. The purpose of any survey should be to get back useful information, but the point I tried to make in the first place is that the survey is not well structured for doing so, because they limited the usefulness of the answers from the outset.
I really do no understand why my criticism of the surveys not being very good has elicited multiple people rushing to their defence; they're not great surveys, this should not be a controversial opinion to hold. I'd like to see the style of survey changed for future playtests, because I do not think they're fit for purpose as they're either unnecessarily complicated if all they want is a yes/no score, or they're both unnecessarily complicated and unnecessarily limiting if they want more information to act upon, as a three option response can be both more useful, and simpler.
Not sure why you'd want the surveys to be both complicated and bad, but you do you.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yes, 100% they should
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That's a somewhat different issue. Given the reality of limited resources, it's certainly possible to decide that option B is 'good enough', but you want to make an informed decision, rather than "option A is lower rated than option B, and I have no idea why", and that means your poll should be designed to answer that question... even if down the line you choose not to use the answer.