PDA

View Full Version : A Question About 5e



Chainsaw Hobbit
2014-06-18, 04:30 PM
Each edition of D&D seems to encourage a different aesthetic in terms of the world the characters inhabit and how they interact with it.

Early editions like OD&D and BECMI seem to support a sort of harsh, gritty setting where magic scares peasants and monsters are truly terrifying. Player characters are killed very easily, and the rules support approaching every obstacle with the utmost caution. The enviroments are very raw and haphazard, due to being partially randomly generated.

AD&D and Third Edition seem to take a more epic approach, where the PCs are Heroes and their foes are Evil. The game is still pretty lethal at earlier levels, but characters quickly amass power and resources and become very potent. The emphasis is taken off of exploration and conquest, and is redirected towards altruisim.

Fourth Edition makes the game sort of mythic, where the PCs are superheroes, magic is the norm, and scary monsters are no less common than rabbits or cattle. The world is still dangerous, but characters can leap into the fray and take on their foes toe-to-toe without being slaughtered.

This is a generalization, of course, but I believe that different rules and presentation will still naturally lead to different styles of play. With that in mind, what kind of aesthetic do you think Fifth Edition encourages based on what we have seen so far?

SpacemanSpif
2014-06-18, 04:49 PM
They're putting a lot of emphasis on optional rules modules for 5e. So if your playgroup wants a gritty game, use these rules for limited healing, but if they want a high fantasy game, use these magic items. You can use figures and a grid or theater of the mind, you can focus on combat or have a lot of politics or intrigue. At the very least, these are the stated goals for the system.


The things that will probably effect most games in the system are the math changes they're putting in. Advantage and disadvantage should lead to less bonus adding arithmetic, and bonded accuracy will tend to make large numbers of weak enemies less insignificant than they have been in some older editions.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-18, 04:52 PM
This is a generalization, of course, but I believe that different rules and presentation will still naturally lead to different styles of play. With that in mind, what kind of aesthetic do you think Fifth Edition encourages based on what we have seen so far?

So far it appears to be gritty (because characters start with low hit points and not a lot of defense) and remains low power throughout (because the difference between a level-5 and a level-15 character is very small, other than in hit points). For example, by default you don't learn new skills as you level up, and you can expect your existing skills, attack bonus, and saving throws to improve by two or three points total over the scope of an entire campaign.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2014-06-18, 05:02 PM
I'm assembling a group of friends from my high school, and I want to run a game that has a lot of emphasis on problem solving and unforgiving combat that still keeps up a fast pace. It should be unforgiving, but if a PC dies, I want the player to feel like it is their fault. The world is a pretty scary place.

Do you think 5e would support this?

captpike
2014-06-18, 05:07 PM
They're putting a lot of emphasis on optional rules modules for 5e. So if your playgroup wants a gritty game, use these rules for limited healing, but if they want a high fantasy game, use these magic items. You can use figures and a grid or theater of the mind, you can focus on combat or have a lot of politics or intrigue. At the very least, these are the stated goals for the system.


goals I doubt they will fulfill. they did not release even one mod during playtesting. and from what they said will only support only one style of magic, the three magic item style, no more no less.

were they serious about making the game modular they would have been testing and making them with the rest of the game so the math would work out. its not like you could just slap a tactical hero mod on the game without alot of thought and testing

Kurald Galain
2014-06-18, 05:14 PM
I'm assembling a group of friends from my high school, and I want to run a game that has a lot of emphasis on problem solving
We haven't seen enough of the non-combat side of 5E yet to answer that.


if a PC dies, I want the player to feel like it is their fault.
However, this doesn't appear to be supported. If a PC dies, it's likely the result of a random die roll that they didn't have much influence over. This is because PCs can't improve their saving throws by more than one or two points on a d20 roll, and can randomly end up with only two or three hit points per level.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2014-06-18, 05:16 PM
However, this doesn't appear to be supported. If a PC dies, it's likely the result of a random die roll that they didn't have much influence over. This is because PCs can't improve their saving throws by more than one or two points on a d20 roll, and can randomly end up with only two or three hit points per level.

Shame. I really hate it when a character dies for reasons other than poor strategy, recklessness, or lack of observation. The game should be difficult, but fair.

lee7pwnage
2014-06-18, 05:19 PM
goals I doubt they will fulfill. they did not release even one mod during playtesting. and from what they said will only support only one style of magic, the three magic item style, no more no less.

were they serious about making the game modular they would have been testing and making them with the rest of the game so the math would work out. its not like you could just slap a tactical hero mod on the game without alot of thought and testing

The point of the (limited) playtest is to lock down the core mechanics. They've got to release a solid foundation to base any of these offshoot mechanics off of. It wouldn't make sense to bog down the test of the core game with non-essential rules - they can playtest those once the main product is released. Mods'll come, but they've got to publish the main game first.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2014-06-18, 05:56 PM
Does alignment have any mechanical effect, or can it be ignored without reworking the system? I really loathe alignment.

da_chicken
2014-06-18, 07:18 PM
Does alignment have any mechanical effect, or can it be ignored without reworking the system? I really loathe alignment.

I do not recall any mechanical limitations imposed by alignment. Detect good and evil and protection from evil only work on outsider types and undead. Holy word and holy aura do more against outsider types and undead, but otherwise affect anybody the caster designates. In all cases your average human target is affected the same whether he's good or evil. Animate dead says its something only evil casters do often, but I think that's about the only canonical alignment affecting spell.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2014-06-18, 07:40 PM
I do not recall any mechanical limitations imposed by alignment. Detect good and evil and protection from evil only work on outsider types and undead. Holy word and holy aura do more against outsider types and undead, but otherwise affect anybody the caster designates. In all cases your average human target is affected the same whether he's good or evil. Animate dead says its something only evil casters do often, but I think that's about the only canonical alignment affecting spell.

Okay. Thanks.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 01:59 AM
Each edition of D&D seems to encourage a different aesthetic in terms of the world the characters inhabit and how they interact with it.

Early editions like OD&D and BECMI seem to support a sort of harsh, gritty setting where magic scares peasants and monsters are truly terrifying. Player characters are killed very easily, and the rules support approaching every obstacle with the utmost caution. The environments are very raw and haphazard, due to being partially randomly generated.

AD&D and Third Edition seem to take a more epic approach, where the PCs are Heroes and their foes are Evil. The game is still pretty lethal at earlier levels, but characters quickly amass power and resources and become very potent. The emphasis is taken off of exploration and conquest, and is redirected towards altruism.

Fourth Edition makes the game sort of mythic, where the PCs are superheroes, magic is the norm, and scary monsters are no less common than rabbits or cattle. The world is still dangerous, but characters can leap into the fray and take on their foes toe-to-toe without being slaughtered.

This is a generalization, of course, but I believe that different rules and presentation will still naturally lead to different styles of play. With that in mind, what kind of aesthetic do you think Fifth Edition encourages based on what we have seen so far?

It'll be a mix between the bolded with a lean toward the top one.


I'm assembling a group of friends from my high school, and I want to run a game that has a lot of emphasis on problem solving and unforgiving combat that still keeps up a fast pace. It should be unforgiving, but if a PC dies, I want the player to feel like it is their fault. The world is a pretty scary place.

Do you think 5e would support this?

Problem solving can be put into any edition of D&D through riddles and physical puzzles (think zelda games). However the other part is just not going to happen. 5E is all about the die roll. What dice say is what happens to your character, no matter what choice you made. The only choice that matters is to avoid die rolls at all costs.

Envyus
2014-06-19, 06:15 AM
I
Problem solving can be put into any edition of D&D through riddles and physical puzzles (think zelda games). However the other part is just not going to happen. 5E is all about the die roll. What dice say is what happens to your character, no matter what choice you made. The only choice that matters is to avoid die rolls at all costs.

This is just as true if not more true in other editions.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-19, 06:38 AM
I'm assembling a group of friends from my high school, and I want to run a game that has a lot of emphasis on problem solving and unforgiving combat that still keeps up a fast pace. It should be unforgiving, but if a PC dies, I want the player to feel like it is their fault. The world is a pretty scary place.

It largely depends on what you and your group feel is "the player's fault". If it's choosing the right class abilities on your character sheet for a series of inescapable and unavoidable encounters, then the answer is mostly no. On the other hand, if it's things like "you probably shouldn't have decided to charge the room of kobolds" or "you really shouldn't have engaged the assasins with cover, concealment and the high ground from the open ground" then the answer is mostly yes. With what we've seen of the core system, 5e caters towards the idea that you should be making choices to minimize the number of times you're rolling the dice, and beyond that to stack the deck in your favor when you do roll the dice.

Millennium
2014-06-19, 07:14 AM
This is just as true if not more true in other editions.

Unless you can munchkin your scores so high that the die roll no longer matters. This seems to be what Lokiare is lamenting: the inability to Rambo your way through dangerous situations at no actual risk.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 08:56 AM
Unless you can munchkin your scores so high that the die roll no longer matters. This seems to be what Lokiare is lamenting: the inability to Rambo your way through dangerous situations at no actual risk.

I agree with this analysis of Lokiare's lament. .oO( ooooh, I like the sound of this )

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 10:39 AM
Unless you can munchkin your scores so high that the die roll no longer matters. This seems to be what Lokiare is lamenting: the inability to Rambo your way through dangerous situations at no actual risk.


I agree with this analysis of Lokiare's lament. .oO( ooooh, I like the sound of this )

Wow, I think I'll start dictating everyone's opinions to them. You people aren't even close.

I enjoy the type of fun that comes from players choices mattering more than random dice. I enjoy playing the dark souls games (which are extremely hard) for this exact reason. While hard what the player does matters more than the randomness of enemies and what you choose to level up and what you choose to wear and use matter more than some random creatures luck.

I like my TTRPGs the same way. Its called the Obstacle Course type of fun. Now 5E is being made in a way that this doesn't matter. No matter what if you have to roll dice, you have a chance of dieing. This happens at low levels from a lack of hit points and a few lucky shots from enemies can take your character down. At higher levels its the save or die or the save or suck effects that are based on a binary roll that doesn't get better with levels. This is fine if you like the Fantasy Vietnam play style. Personally I don't.

In my post I was giving an unbiased look at how 5E plays. If you have to roll the dice there is a pretty good chance your character will die.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-19, 11:06 AM
Wow, I think I'll start dictating everyone's opinions to them. You people aren't even close.

I enjoy the type of fun that comes from players choices mattering more than random dice. I enjoy playing the dark souls games (which are extremely hard) for this exact reason. While hard what the player does matters more than the randomness of enemies and what you choose to level up and what you choose to wear and use matter more than some random creatures luck.

I like my TTRPGs the same way. Its called the Obstacle Course type of fun. Now 5E is being made in a way that this doesn't matter. No matter what if you have to roll dice, you have a chance of dieing. This happens at low levels from a lack of hit points and a few lucky shots from enemies can take your character down. At higher levels its the save or die or the save or suck effects that are based on a binary roll that doesn't get better with levels. This is fine if you like the Fantasy Vietnam play style. Personally I don't.

In my post I was giving an unbiased look at how 5E plays. If you have to roll the dice there is a pretty good chance your character will die.

The problem is, you describe wanting player choices to matter, but you only seem to be concerned with choices made after the dice start rolling. It's not the 5e doesn't allow player choices to matter, its that those choices must be made outside the combat mechanics. In other words, where 90% of 4e choices are made in combat, 5e expects 90% of the choices to be made before combat (or even better, made to avoid combat). That isn't removing the importance of player choices, it's moving where those choices need to be made.

Now to be completely fair here, the problem with 5e moving to a "outside combat" choices model is that the core advancement mechanic still requires "defeating" enemies, which most of the time translates to "killing" enemies and therefore combat. Sadly in their push back into the old versions of D&D, they didn't bring GP=XP forward.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 04:22 PM
The problem is, you describe wanting player choices to matter, but you only seem to be concerned with choices made after the dice start rolling. It's not the 5e doesn't allow player choices to matter, its that those choices must be made outside the combat mechanics. In other words, where 90% of 4e choices are made in combat, 5e expects 90% of the choices to be made before combat (or even better, made to avoid combat). That isn't removing the importance of player choices, it's moving where those choices need to be made.

Now to be completely fair here, the problem with 5e moving to a "outside combat" choices model is that the core advancement mechanic still requires "defeating" enemies, which most of the time translates to "killing" enemies and therefore combat. Sadly in their push back into the old versions of D&D, they didn't bring GP=XP forward.

A trap option is not a play choice. Its ivory tower design and its really bad for the Obstacle Course fun type. Part of that fun type is having clear win conditions. If it takes two rolls and a lot of math to figure out a feat is bad in combination with certain spell types, then that's not a clear win condition for the feats usage.

4E had a new power, feat, or ability score increase at each level. You also bought and sold gear between combats. 90% tactical choices in combat is incorrect. Not only that you could do the same thinking ahead in 4E and plan ambushes research enemies and do all the things you could do in older editions. It just added a layer of combat tactics on top. Also in 4E you get XP if you survive a run in with enemies. You don't have to fight them, just encounter them. Then there are clear quest xp and skill challenge (no matter how bad you thought it was) xp so no, combat tactics was not 90% of the choices in the game.

Millennium
2014-06-19, 05:19 PM
I enjoy the type of fun that comes from players choices mattering more than random dice.
Then I think I actually am pretty close to your opinion. You want a large, clearly labeled "I Win" button that you can push, and if pushed, it will never fail.

Lokiare
2014-06-20, 07:10 AM
Then I think I actually am pretty close to your opinion. You want a large, clearly labeled "I Win" button that you can push, and if pushed, it will never fail.

Nope. That would be 3.X spells.

What I want is options to be clearly labeled as to what they do. If an option says in its description "you imbue ammo with spells which you then use on your enemies both hitting with the ammo and the spell." Then it should do what it says. Instead it actually does "You imbue ammo with spells which you then use on your enemies, and if you are extremely lucky you hit with the ammo and the spell (instead of just with the ammo)."

And other similar trap options. I want the potential path to victory to be clearly spelled out. Its called having a clear idea of what the win conditions are. With the Arcane Archer feat, you don't have any clue what the win condition is or worse yet from reading it you get the wrong idea of what the winning condition is. For instance:

Win condition from reading Arcane Archer feat:
If you hit with your arrow the magic takes effect.

Actual win condition of Arcane Archer feat:
If you hit with your arrow with a spell that doesn't require a save the magic takes effect.
If you hit with your arrow with a spell that does require a save the target has to fail the save for the magic to take effect. This chance is extremely low being calculated by multiplying the percent chance of missing by the percent chance of the target succeeding at its save and then subtracting that number from 100%.

Do you see what we are saying now?

1337 b4k4
2014-06-20, 07:54 AM
What I want is options to be clearly labeled as to what they do. If an option says in its description "you imbue ammo with spells which you then use on your enemies both hitting with the ammo and the spell." Then it should do what it says.

Then it's a good thing that isn't what the feat says isn't it. The feat does exactly what it says on the tin.

Person_Man
2014-06-20, 08:04 AM
Early editions like OD&D and BECMI seem to support a sort of harsh, gritty setting where magic scares peasants and monsters are truly terrifying. Player characters are killed very easily, and the rules support approaching every obstacle with the utmost caution. The enviroments are very raw and haphazard, due to being partially randomly generated.

Keep in mind that Chainmail->1st edition D&D were huge innovative steps forward from the dominant tabletop games at the time it was created, which was fantasy and historical miniature army combat games and board games. Chainmail/D&D basically started out as a castle penetration game. Instead of just trying to overtake a castle's walls, you had to go through an underground maze to take the castle (ie, the castle's dungeon). This led to smaller armies (which was great, because then you could play with a much smaller investment in figures), which in turn led to a greater focus on each individual figure, which led to giving individuals figures experience and levels, which led to roleplaying, and so on. The dungeons inevitably become more and more elaborate, and filled with treasures, monsters, traps, NPCs, etc.

How you used your randomly created characters to penetrate the random crazy dungeons was the whole point of the game. Roleplaying, and even the very idea of creating a character and getting attached to his or her survival so that they could gain experience and become more powerful, were basically brand new concepts that developed after the fact.


5E appears to be moving back in the direction of old school D&D in many ways, with it's randomly generated attributes and hit points, quick and deadly and randomly swingy combat. And that would make sense if they wanted D&D to become about penetrating random dungeons again. But I'm not sure why, since most of it's current players (who mostly play 3.0/3.5/PF or 4E) usually see D&D as a character creation, world building, roleplaying, and/or tactical combat game, and the whole random dungeon hack and slash fest thing is generally better done on video games.

Envyus
2014-06-20, 02:32 PM
Win condition from reading Arcane Archer feat:
If you hit with your arrow the magic takes effect.

Actual win condition of Arcane Archer feat:
If you hit with your arrow with a spell that doesn't require a save the magic takes effect.
If you hit with your arrow with a spell that does require a save the target has to fail the save for the magic to take effect. This chance is extremely low being calculated by multiplying the percent chance of missing by the percent chance of the target succeeding at its save and then subtracting that number from 100%.

Do you see what we are saying now?

That the way it is written looks fine but your being very nitpicky about it. Unless your stupid it's not hard to know how this works. If you hit with a arrow the magic takes effect that's what happens the saves are part of the effect. Also the percent chance does not multiply once the arrow hits they make the save nothing changes. Also the spell is not used up if the arrow does not hit.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-20, 02:36 PM
5E appears to be moving back in the direction of old school D&D in many ways, with it's randomly generated attributes and hit points, quick and deadly and randomly swingy combat. And that would make sense if they wanted D&D to become about penetrating random dungeons again. But I'm not sure why, since most of it's current players (who mostly play 3.0/3.5/PF or 4E) usually see D&D as a character creation, world building, roleplaying, and/or tactical combat game, and the whole random dungeon hack and slash fest thing is generally better done on video games.

You wouldn't happen to be implying that WotC/Hasbro doesn't know their own target audience after a very looong public playtest now would you?:smalltongue:

Lokiare
2014-06-20, 05:18 PM
That the way it is written looks fine but your being very nitpicky about it. Unless your stupid it's not hard to know how this works. If you hit with a arrow the magic takes effect that's what happens the saves are part of the effect. Also the percent chance does not multiply once the arrow hits they make the save nothing changes. Also the spell is not used up if the arrow does not hit.


Then it's a good thing that isn't what the feat says isn't it. The feat does exactly what it says on the tin.

It only says it on the tin to people that have experience with probability statistics. For everyone else it says 'spices' and means 'MSGs'

Felhammer
2014-06-20, 05:32 PM
You wouldn't happen to be implying that WotC/Hasbro doesn't know their own target audience after a very looong public playtest now would you?:smalltongue:

I think it is the opposite. The silent majority of respondents wanted an old school feel. WotC is giving the masses the game they wanted.

Lokiare
2014-06-20, 05:35 PM
I think it is the opposite. The silent majority of respondents wanted an old school feel. WotC is giving the masses the game they wanted.

Or.... it could have been a self selecting survey where people that didn't like a packet, failed to respond and those that did picked up the play test and began to respond. Like most surveys of this nature.

Felhammer
2014-06-20, 05:42 PM
Or.... it could have been a self selecting survey where people that didn't like a packet, failed to respond and those that did picked up the play test and began to respond. Like most surveys of this nature.

I play in two IRL games and know people in three others very well. Of those 20 people, I can safelty say I am the only one who actually posts on D&D forums and filled out all of the surveys for Next. If we assume the 1:20 ratio holds true, then a majority of a tiny minority likes old schools games and railroaded their opinion through to Mike Mearls' desk for approval.

At the same time, those who did fill out the surveys are most likely the most heavily involved in the minutia of the game and are thus some of the most well equipped and well informed people to decide the fate of the game.

Lokiare
2014-06-20, 05:53 PM
I play in two IRL games and know people in three others very well. Of those 20 people, I can safelty say I am the only one who actually posts on D&D forums and filled out all of the surveys for Next. If we assume the 1:20 ratio holds true, then a majority of a tiny minority likes old schools games and railroaded their opinion through to Mike Mearls' desk for approval.

At the same time, those who did fill out the surveys are most likely the most heavily involved in the minutia of the game and are thus some of the most well equipped and well informed people to decide the fate of the game.

Or we could assume (rightly) that you can't get statistics from a forum. We could be the loud majority, the loud minority, or a good representation of the fan base. Without two surveys (one on forums and one not on forums) we cannot know. This is just an assumption on your part.

We could also assume that since there was no obligation on the part of play testers that as soon as they saw something they didn't like they dropped out of the play test. Then those that did like things told their friends and got them to join the play test. This is generally how it goes if you can drop out of a play test at any time.

Felhammer
2014-06-20, 06:13 PM
Or we could assume (rightly) that you can't get statistics from a forum. We could be the loud majority, the loud minority, or a good representation of the fan base. Without two surveys (one on forums and one not on forums) we cannot know. This is just an assumption on your part.

We could also assume that since there was no obligation on the part of play testers that as soon as they saw something they didn't like they dropped out of the play test. Then those that did like things told their friends and got them to join the play test. This is generally how it goes if you can drop out of a play test at any time.

Which brings us back to what I said originally. The majority of respondents like this kind of grim and gritty game. Their voices were the ones that counted. WotC did all it could to spread the word far and wide. There is little more WotC could have done to push the news of the playtest any more than they did. If you did not respond to the surveys, then you missed out on the opportunity to affect the game when it mattered most.

Envyus
2014-06-20, 06:22 PM
It only says it on the tin to people that have experience with probability statistics. For everyone else it says 'spices' and means 'MSGs'

And here is were your argument falls apart. I have no experience with probability statistics I think most of the people you are talking to have little experience with probability statistics. Probability has nothing to do with it it's just not that hard to understand.

Jigawatts
2014-06-20, 08:23 PM
I play in two IRL games and know people in three others very well. Of those 20 people, I can safelty say I am the only one who actually posts on D&D forums
This is pretty accurate for me as well. I am one of the only people out of the two groups I play in (one Pathfinder, one Star Wars) that regularly gets on RPG forums.

Its like it is with anything, the delvers and diehards are always the minority.

Eten
2014-06-20, 09:35 PM
I do agree that 4th edition promoted a different kind of setting than the other editions, but the setting is always ultimately up to the DM. You could also make any of the editions more or less lethal, and more or less about problem solving or consequences that you wanted. However, some of my players have noted that things feel far more lethal and the need for greater caution, and their behavior reflects that.

Lokiare
2014-06-21, 05:41 AM
Which brings us back to what I said originally. The majority of respondents like this kind of grim and gritty game.

Sure, this part is true (the rest is assumptions based on this, but have no logic or facts to back them up) but that doesn't mean anything. Most respondents liked the game, but they are in no way a representative of the market because the survey was self selecting (meaning only people that liked the game would respond). So the first survey might have got quite a few negative responses (or those that didn't like it didn't bother to respond) and then the ones that didn't like it dropped out of the play test.


This is pretty accurate for me as well. I am one of the only people out of the two groups I play in (one Pathfinder, one Star Wars) that regularly gets on RPG forums.

Its like it is with anything, the delvers and diehards are always the minority.

Nope. More false logic. Delvers and diehards can be a correct representative of the community at large, they can also be a minority, we can't know which it is without quite a bit of survey information that would cost lots of money. There are even instances where forum goers opinions predicted the outcome of products and services. For instance Essentials was lambasted on the WotC forums shortly after release, it did not do well in the market. Perfect correlation between forum goers being an accurate representative of the community at large. There are also instances where the opposite is true, like some WoW expansions where the forum goers flame the ideas presented and the WoW expansion goes on to sell record breaking numbers. The fact is you and I cannot know which it is.

Felhammer
2014-06-21, 04:28 PM
Sure, this part is true (the rest is assumptions based on this, but have no logic or facts to back them up) but that doesn't mean anything. Most respondents liked the game, but they are in no way a representative of the market because the survey was self selecting (meaning only people that liked the game would respond). So the first survey might have got quite a few negative responses (or those that didn't like it didn't bother to respond) and then the ones that didn't like it dropped out of the play test.

The designers want to make a game that would appeal to as many people as possible. They created the playtest to gauge public reaction (or at least a segment there of). Why would they both with the public playtest if they were simply going to willfully ignore all the feedback about tone, numbers and feel, especially when WoTC went to great pains to add such questions to the surveys? If the most of the respondents wanted something more akin to a swashbuckling fantasy adventure, then WotC would have responded by making Next less lethal and less gritty.

It does not matter that the respondents were self selected or only represented a segment of the market because there is no other method to getting the masses to try your product and give feedback. Even people who played the game at cons were self selected. The people who responded had their voices heard, which is far more than what happened with the nascent beginnings of other editions.

Jigawatts
2014-06-21, 06:25 PM
Nope. More false logic. Delvers and diehards can be a correct representative of the community at large, they can also be a minority, we can't know which it is without quite a bit of survey information that would cost lots of money. There are even instances where forum goers opinions predicted the outcome of products and services. For instance Essentials was lambasted on the WotC forums shortly after release, it did not do well in the market. Perfect correlation between forum goers being an accurate representative of the community at large. There are also instances where the opposite is true, like some WoW expansions where the forum goers flame the ideas presented and the WoW expansion goes on to sell record breaking numbers. The fact is you and I cannot know which it is.
Let me give you another example. I used to be a big wrestling fan, especially back in the heyday of The Rock and Stone Cold when I was in my late teens. Within wrestling there exist websites dedicated to finding out all the backstage, behind-the-scenes news going on with the wrestlers, storylines, and the company, they are called "dirt sheets". There are also wrestling related forums people go on to delve into and discuss the product with like-minded individuals. As a whole, these hardcore fans that frequent the dirt sheets and forums are colloquially referred to as the "Internet Wrestling Community" or the IWC for short.

Now, the WWE has actually conducted studies where they have determined that the IWC only comprises of between 5-10% of their entire audience. The IWC are generally the types that cheer for most of the "bad guys" and boo most of the "good guys". In fact, the WWE's biggest current star and face of the company, John Cena, is almost universally reviled by the IWC, because he plays the role of the cheesy but tough good guy who always overcomes the odds whilst smiling at the kids. The IWC sardonically refers to him as "Super Cena". But the WWE doesnt care if the IWC hates Cena and if they feel like he is being pushed down their throats, because they are just a minority of the fanbase. Most of the other 90-95% are the casuals, who bring their 10 year old to the show, buy him John Cena t-shirts, and hats, and wrist bands, and towels, and...you get the point (kids and women love Cena, adult males hate him).

Based on this, one could logically assume that it is similar within any product.

How many people are baseball fans?

Millions.

Now, how many of those people get on baseball forums, know all the players, all the stats, this pitchers ERA, that outfielders batting average, etc?

A fraction of that number.

Actually I would say somewhere around 5-10%. :smallwink:

Fwiffo86
2014-06-21, 07:55 PM
Just to be sure I'm on the same page, you are saying forum posters comprise a small percentage of the full community. Roughly 10% based on a similar study.

And that at least some of the sites used for comparison by the posters are called "dirt sheets" with no indication of their authenticity (no claims of truth one way or the other).

This is the wording I have been looking for. It perfectly explains the thought processes I have when reading certain debates and the cites used to prove them.

You sir, are my new hero. Thanks!

Felhammer
2014-06-21, 08:55 PM
10% would probably be about right.

da_chicken
2014-06-22, 08:20 AM
As I recall both WoW and D2 had even lower forum participation than that. Those games essentially have captive populations, too.

rlc
2014-06-22, 09:20 AM
I play in two IRL games and know people in three others very well. Of those 20 people, I can safelty say I am the only one who actually posts on D&D forums and filled out all of the surveys for Next. If we assume the 1:20 ratio holds true, then a majority of a tiny minority likes old schools games and railroaded their opinion through to Mike Mearls' desk for approval.

At the same time, those who did fill out the surveys are most likely the most heavily involved in the minutia of the game and are thus some of the most well equipped and well informed people to decide the fate of the game.
This sounds a lot like something a politician would say.
The truth is, people are more likely to be vocal about something if they don't like it than if they do. That, and your sample size is insufficient data anyway.

Felhammer
2014-06-22, 10:29 AM
This sounds a lot like something a politician would say.
The truth is, people are more likely to be vocal about something if they don't like it than if they do. That, and your sample size is insufficient data anyway.

Forum goers are like old people - always there to voice an opinion.

Lokiare
2014-06-23, 08:51 PM
The designers want to make a game that would appeal to as many people as possible. They created the playtest to gauge public reaction (or at least a segment there of). Why would they both with the public playtest if they were simply going to willfully ignore all the feedback about tone, numbers and feel, especially when WoTC went to great pains to add such questions to the surveys? If the most of the respondents wanted something more akin to a swashbuckling fantasy adventure, then WotC would have responded by making Next less lethal and less gritty.

It does not matter that the respondents were self selected or only represented a segment of the market because there is no other method to getting the masses to try your product and give feedback. Even people who played the game at cons were self selected. The people who responded had their voices heard, which is far more than what happened with the nascent beginnings of other editions.


Let me give you another example. I used to be a big wrestling fan, especially back in the heyday of The Rock and Stone Cold when I was in my late teens. Within wrestling there exist websites dedicated to finding out all the backstage, behind-the-scenes news going on with the wrestlers, storylines, and the company, they are called "dirt sheets". There are also wrestling related forums people go on to delve into and discuss the product with like-minded individuals. As a whole, these hardcore fans that frequent the dirt sheets and forums are colloquially referred to as the "Internet Wrestling Community" or the IWC for short.

Now, the WWE has actually conducted studies where they have determined that the IWC only comprises of between 5-10% of their entire audience. The IWC are generally the types that cheer for most of the "bad guys" and boo most of the "good guys". In fact, the WWE's biggest current star and face of the company, John Cena, is almost universally reviled by the IWC, because he plays the role of the cheesy but tough good guy who always overcomes the odds whilst smiling at the kids. The IWC sardonically refers to him as "Super Cena". But the WWE doesnt care if the IWC hates Cena and if they feel like he is being pushed down their throats, because they are just a minority of the fanbase. Most of the other 90-95% are the casuals, who bring their 10 year old to the show, buy him John Cena t-shirts, and hats, and wrist bands, and towels, and...you get the point (kids and women love Cena, adult males hate him).

Based on this, one could logically assume that it is similar within any product.

How many people are baseball fans?

Millions.

Now, how many of those people get on baseball forums, know all the players, all the stats, this pitchers ERA, that outfielders batting average, etc?

A fraction of that number.

Actually I would say somewhere around 5-10%. :smallwink:

All I see is people trying to justify their opinions of the vocal minority theory (which I've blasted to pieces with basic facts known by any statistician) using anecdotes that either don't apply or are based on single instances of things happening. If you can't show me some actual studies that show that in general forum goers have differing opinions than casual fans or something like that, then you are basically wasting text space. I change my opinions when presented with facts, math, and quotes nothing else.

Felhammer
2014-06-23, 09:25 PM
All I see is people trying to justify their opinions of the vocal minority theory (which I've blasted to pieces with basic facts known by any statistician) using anecdotes that either don't apply or are based on single instances of things happening. If you can't show me some actual studies that show that in general forum goers have differing opinions than casual fans or something like that, then you are basically wasting text space. I change my opinions when presented with facts, math, and quotes nothing else.

And yet you are not providing evidence to back your own opinions up.

obryn
2014-06-23, 10:14 PM
I'm assembling a group of friends from my high school, and I want to run a game that has a lot of emphasis on problem solving and unforgiving combat that still keeps up a fast pace. It should be unforgiving, but if a PC dies, I want the player to feel like it is their fault. The world is a pretty scary place.

Do you think 5e would support this?
I know I'm a few days past this question, but I think it absolutely would ... at low levels, anyway. Others have mentioned coin-flips, and while this isn't totally right, your goal at low levels should be to pick smart fights. It's a call-back to pre-3e D&D in that way.

Even as a guy who's not sold on Next at all, there's no other D&D I'd recommend to a new player right now.

Lokiare
2014-06-24, 05:50 AM
And yet you are not providing evidence to back your own opinions up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_assumption

Its really basic and considered common knowledge to statisticians.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 06:44 AM
I know I'm a few days past this question, but I think it absolutely would ... at low levels, anyway. Others have mentioned coin-flips, and while this isn't totally right, your goal at low levels should be to pick smart fights. It's a call-back to pre-3e D&D in that way.

Even as a guy who's not sold on Next at all, there's no other D&D I'd recommend to a new player right now.

So really, if you don't like pre 3e, don't play low levels.

You could get the notion that starting at low levels is the beginning of your character/character's life and throw it out the window.

Based on how simple the classes look so far, there shouldn't be a problem with starting at higher levels if you don't want the coin-flip or high mortality rate.

Hmm

Kurald Galain
2014-06-24, 06:55 AM
You could get the notion that starting at low levels is the beginning of your character/character's life and throw it out the window.

Based on how simple the classes look so far, there shouldn't be a problem with starting at higher levels if you don't want the coin-flip or high mortality rate.

Judged by the playtest, starting at level five won't make a big difference in lethality, because your defenses and saving throws don't really change over the first five levels. Perhaps starting at level 10 or 12 would work, but we'd have to see the basic set to be sure about that.

obryn
2014-06-24, 06:55 AM
So really, if you don't like pre 3e, don't play low levels.

You could get the notion that starting at low levels is the beginning of your character/character's life and throw it out the window.

Based on how simple the classes look so far, there shouldn't be a problem with starting at higher levels if you don't want the coin-flip or high mortality rate.

Hmm
Also, most classes seem pretty easy to toss together at 1st level, so there's that, too. It's not BECMI/RC levels of "just roll some dice and go," but it's as close as D&D has been in a few decades.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 07:17 AM
Judged by the playtest, starting at level five won't make a big difference in lethality, because your defenses and saving throws don't really change over the first five levels. Perhaps starting at level 10 or 12 would work, but we'd have to see the basic set to be sure about that.


Also, most classes seem pretty easy to toss together at 1st level, so there's that, too. It's not BECMI/RC levels of "just roll some dice and go," but it's as close as D&D has been in a few decades.


I could actually see more groups consistently start at say, level 10, for their adventures instead of level 1.

I haven't wanted to play (but have) high levels in quite a while, I wonder if I can get the ambiance of high levels without all the troublesome crap like from earlier editions.