# Character Origins Playtest Poll



## OB1 (Aug 29, 2022)

Simple question, but feel free to expand on what you have play tested in a gaming session below!

I've had 2 sessions with the material from the Rules Glossary, including Nat20/Crit rules and Unarmed Strikes, but have yet to test Character Race, Background, or Feats.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 29, 2022)

Nope.  But I've argued about them online; that's worth something isn't it?

Joking aside, I asked my gaming group if they would be interested in a one-shot to test out the rules.  Most of them had never heard of One D&D, much less of the playtest.  When I described it to them, one of them began lecturing me about "switching editions again."  So it might take us a while to try them out.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 29, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Nope.  But I've argued about them online; that's worth something isn't it?
> 
> Joking aside, I asked my gaming group if they would be interested in a one-shot to test out the rules.  Most of them had never heard of One D&D, much less of the playtest.  When I described it to them, one of them began lecturing me about "switching editions again."  So it might take us a while to try them out.



yep, I'm pretty much in the same boat. My table is tired of me switching from a system to another mid-campaign, so they are kinda reticent to listen to me, and they dont really bother with rules anyway. When I told them the rules seems to be heading toward a simpler system, they were enthusiastic though.

So far the changes are so small that they would probably not notice, apart from Feats since we dont use them in our games. I'll see if there's a way to use the new rules without Feats, that'd be great.


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

Yup. I’ve also ran a session in public play at an FLGS.

Some friends joined that I haven’t gamed  with in a long time.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> yep, I'm pretty much in the same boat. My table is tired of me switching from a system to another mid-campaign, so they are kinda reticent to listen to me, and they dont really bother with rules anyway. When I told them the rules seems to be heading toward a simpler system, they were enthusiastic though.
> 
> So far the changes are so small that they would probably not notice, apart from Feats since we dont use them in our games. I'll see if there's a way to use the new rules without Feats, that'd be great.



Well, the Nat20/Crit/Inspiration rules can be tested on their own.  Was surprised that I got an enthusiastic yes to playtest them with my group and even more so that they asked to permanently adopt them after a single session.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> Yup. I’ve also ran a session in public play at an FLGS.
> 
> Some friends joined that I haven’t games with in a long time.



Did the table explode with insane rule contradictions?? Did any fistfight break out about autosuccess on 20 or skill rolls being allowed or not?


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Did the table explode with insane rule contradictions?? Did any fistfight break out about autosuccess on 20 or skill rolls being allowed or not?



No. It was fine. Fun! I found out that inspiration as stated in the rules of One D&D actually works.

For ex Players used inspiration on their own accord and we decided to use before any roll. There was an actual  inspiration ecosystem at work!


----------



## Reynard (Aug 30, 2022)

Some of my Iron Gods 5E Conversion PCs have rebuilt their characters with the playtest doc (except the vhuman druid who refuses to give up his feat) and we are using the new crit and 20 rules.


----------



## Vael (Aug 30, 2022)

No, but I haven't DMed and I've only even played DnD once since the packet dropped.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> No. It was fine. Fun! I found out that inspiration as stated in the rules of One D&D actually works.
> 
> For ex Players used inspiration on their own accord and we decided to use before any roll. There was an actual  inspiration ecosystem at work!



You had _fun_?!?? Playing D&D is too serious for fun! WotC has gone _too fsr_ this time!

But, yeah, I haven't had the chance to build new PCs yet but the new Inspiration seems legit.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> There was an actual  inspiration ecosystem at work!



I was fascinated by the way the table started leaning into that ecosystem in the second session and how aware everyone was of each other's inspiration status.  And so far the loss of monster crits is far outweighing the loss of non weapon crits from the PCs in their minds (even though the fights have been just as tough).


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

OB1 said:


> I was fascinated by the way the table started leaning into that ecosystem in the second session and how aware everyone was of each other's inspiration status.  And so far the loss of monster crits is far outweighing the loss of non weapon crits from the PCs in their minds (even though the fights have been just as tough).



I rolled six crits in that session and I didn’t miss em. I will say I think I unconsciously made the combats harder and played them more cut throat. It was kinda freeing. Like more how I feel running tier 4.

Also one time a player dropped to zero another asked “do you have inspiration?” and when he said no the table was like “oh no”.


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

Oh but I must say one player did miss DM crits and made a point about saying so, as a player, he rarely DMs.

Also I got a sense that the combats could be on the verge of slogs, if the monsters had a bit more HP.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> I rolled six crits in that session and I didn’t miss em. I will say I think I unconsciously made the combats harder and played them more cut throat. It was kinda freeing. Like more how I feel running tier 4.



Yes!  That's it exactly.  I don't think I realized how often I was pulling punches for fear of a random monster crit in early tier combats before this test.


----------



## Shiroiken (Aug 30, 2022)

I haven't playtested yet, as I feel what's been released isn't enough to properly test. I figure the next set will include classes, which should give us enough to start looking at the desired goals. I plan to run a playtest adventure for each future packet.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> I haven't playtested yet, as I feel what's been released isn't enough to properly test. I figure the next set will include classes, which should give us enough to start looking at the desired goals. I plan to run a playtest adventure for each future packet.



Probably only one Class a packet, based on the schedule laid out.


----------



## payn (Aug 30, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Well, the Nat20/Crit/Inspiration rules can be tested on their own.  Was surprised that I got an enthusiastic yes to playtest them with my group and even more so that they asked to permanently adopt them after a single session.



Do you also use the monster recharge rules? I dont see much value in it without them myself.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

I have played through 2/3 of a short campaign with 2 new players and 2 old foggies.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

payn said:


> Do you also use the monster recharge rules? I dont see much value in it without them myself.



When did we get the new recharge rules?


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> When did we get the new recharge rules?



We haven’t


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> When did we get the new recharge rules?



I mean, recharges are already in Monsters. They haven't explicated any new rules, but future mobsters may have more of them.


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

I only had one monster so far in my public tests with recharge abilities.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, recharges are already in Monsters. They haven't explicated any new rules, but future mobsters may have more of them.



Well if they don’t add something what was the point of calling out recharge as the replacement.


----------



## CrashFiend82 (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Well if they don’t add something what was the point of calling out recharge as the replacement.



I think this was an odd misunderstanding of what Jeremy Crawford said. It was that they (the designers) viewed recharge abilities as the monsters "critical hit". Those large attacks like the Dragon's Breath Attack is where it does it's big "punch" of damage. They are not intending to add recharge abilities or any other mechanic as a replacement (so far as they've stated). Now if they changed the recharge to allow more DM discretion, I feel like that would be great (I don't think that's happening)


----------



## CrashFiend82 (Aug 30, 2022)

Here is the rub for myself. Based on the build a monster rules in the DMG that is calculated into the damage of the CR. I hope they retool and expand those rules but sadly I don't think they'll be playtested... So having to wait for the new DMG is frustrating. To be honest those rules should be moved to the Monster Manual along with quick and dirty templates to increase a monster.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

CrashFiend82 said:


> I think this was an odd misunderstanding of what Jeremy Crawford said. It was that they (the designers) viewed recharge abilities as the monsters "critical hit". Those large attacks like the Dragon's Breath Attack is where it does it's big "punch" of damage. They are not intending to add recharge abilities or any other mechanic as a replacement (so far as they've stated). Now if they changed the recharge to allow more DM discretion, I feel like that would be great (I don't think that's happening)



The new Monster Manual will probably use the feature more often.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Well if they don’t add something what was the point of calling out recharge as the replacement.



That's going to be part of the internal playtest, probably, nailing down the math for the Monster Manual refresh. For the public playtest, making the PCs a little supercharged is probably in WotC interest for gaugijg other mechanics attraction in play.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Well if they don’t add something what was the point of calling out recharge as the replacement.



The most straightforward solution (to this completely invented non-problem) would be to have a monster rolling a nat20 recharge any unrecharged recharge abilities.

But, at the end of the day, I think they are more interested in just straight-up nerfing monsters lest a fluke early death turn-off any new player from the game.


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

I’d love some options for monsters with a crit other than double damage dice.

Something tunable for low levels and higher.

Maybe provide a list of options for monsters that don’t have them built in.


----------



## Baumi (Aug 30, 2022)

Played with the new rules, but not the Character Options. So far we didn't have much of a difference, now player rolled a 1 or 20 and no one grappled. One Human got Inspiration after a long Rest and a monster-crit was denied, but this wouldn't have made much of a difference in the situation.

I hope we will see more 1's and 20's in my next adventures 

Btw. I just realiced that I can now attack unconscious Characters, since monsters dont crit .. so they dont give two death failures with one strike anymore.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Aug 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Nope.  But I've argued about them online; that's worth something isn't it?
> 
> Joking aside, I asked my gaming group if they would be interested in a one-shot to test out the rules.  Most of them had never heard of One D&D, much less of the playtest.  When I described it to them, one of them began lecturing me about "switching editions again."  So it might take us a while to try them out.



Yeah same. My DM even said he probably plans to stay with 5e indefinitely and not even move to ODD at all.

I'd love to test the new content, and have even done some single player test builds with it. But it looks like I just don't have the group to do it legit.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

CrashFiend82 said:


> I think this was an odd misunderstanding of what Jeremy Crawford said. It was that they (the designers) viewed recharge abilities as the monsters "critical hit".



This scares me.  I never in a million years would have thought Crawford would have such little understanding of the system.  If this is true 5.5 maybe almost unplayable to some.  
Monsters once the party hits 5th level NOW with CRITs AND the current recharges are not seen as credible threats.  If they take away crits and replace it with nothing they will make levels 1 and 2 better by making ing levels 5+ worse.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> But, at the end of the day, I think they are more interested in just straight-up nerfing monsters lest a fluke early death turn-off any new player from the game.



Turning off level 1 and 2 then layers firing due to 1 bad roll is great… making encounters already seen as too easy for the rest of the game easier seems like a bad move


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

Baumi said:


> I hope we will see more 1's and 20's in my next adventures



My playtest was too low level to test that.  No one could hit the DCs on a 1 anyway and no DC was high enough that an 18+ would miss it anyway


----------



## kapars (Aug 30, 2022)

I've been playtesting One D&D with a brand new group of players (my wife and kids) and it has been a blast. We're playing Dragons of Stormwreck Isle. A few things I've noticed so far:

1. It is good that Feats include passive bonuses because they would forget to use any active ones
2. So far none of the natural 1's being automatic failures would've changed anything. The closest we got was the Rogue trying to steal the Cleric's holy symbol using Slight of Hand expertise but that was still only a 1 +  7 = 8
3. The lack of DnDBeyond and other tools support is making things a little harder than it could be. I forgot to give the extra language for example because I generated the characters with DnDBeyond and then did a pass to make any necessary changes due to the differences in Background. When I did remember, it delighted my daughter that she could take Common Sign Language.
4. Since this party has a Monk as its tank it feels good that I was able to give them the extra 2 HP from Tough and that monster crits at level 1 are not a worry. You still wince when a level 1 character gets hit though.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 30, 2022)

No. My next 5e game is scheduled for September the 9th and I haven't played it since the end of July.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> The most straightforward solution (to this completely invented non-problem) would be to have a monster rolling a nat20 recharge any unrecharged recharge abilities.
> 
> But, at the end of the day, I think they are more interested in just straight-up nerfing monsters lest a fluke early death turn-off any new player from the game.



4 out of the 5 combats we've had with the new rules were against monsters in the new MotM style (in this case from Boo's Astral Menagerie) and I found the combats themselves to be much more in line with the encounter builder guidelines.  For example, the toughest combat so far I had at about 130% deadly level.  With monster Crits, I would have TPKd the party.  Without them, it took some solid tactics and some luck on the players side to make it through without a character death, and even then I had all 4 level 5 characters in single digits.

My ultimate feeling is that instead of which side critting more in any given combat being the deciding factor, the new crit rules lead to more tactical play.  Randomness is still a factor, but doesn't cause as large of swings in momentum, giving the tactics of both sides more importance.  

I haven't used any monsters with recharge abilities as of yet, but I wouldn't mind a monster getting an auto recharge after a Nat20.


----------



## payn (Aug 30, 2022)

Thats a shame, I prefer strategic play over tactical.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 30, 2022)

We use bonus feat at 1st level for years now.
without limit.
so limiting 1st level feats is just waste of time.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2022)

payn said:


> Thats a shame, I prefer strategic play over tactical.



It helps with strategic play as well.


----------



## payn (Aug 30, 2022)

OB1 said:


> It helps with strategic play as well.



If the cost is increased tactical play, its not worth it. To me, of course.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2022)

payn said:


> If the cost is increased tactical play, its not worth it. To me, of course.



I'm using the term 'tactical' very loosely.  What I meant was that I've seen players using more of the options at their disposal, rather than just go with the biggest damage dealer and hope for a crit on top of it.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 30, 2022)

I haven’t yet, and probably won’t before the poll drops. But I would definitely like to try out some of the changes between now and 2024. In the meantime, I appreciate accounts from anyone who has tried them.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

Man this is depressing. 2 to 1 people here talking about it have not tried it.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Man this is depressing. 2 to 1 people here talking about it have not tried it.



Two weeks is a fast turnaround, man, some of us don't make new characters that often.


----------



## darjr (Aug 30, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Two weeks is a fast turnaround, man, some of us don't make new characters that often.



I’ve got a dozen!


----------



## payn (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Man this is depressing. 2 to 1 people here talking about it have not tried it.



Hi, welcome.


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 30, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Two weeks is a fast turnaround, man, some of us don't make new characters that often.



But how can you give real feed back if you don’t try them?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Man this is depressing. 2 to 1 people here talking about it have not tried it.



yeah that gives me a REAL bad feeling about how the feedback is going to go.


----------



## payn (Aug 30, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah that gives me a REAL bad feeling about how the feedback is going to go.



I wouldn't be surprised if this round is a gut check, and later these items will get actual playtest material to try them out in. 2 weeks is no time at all for this kind of thing.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Man this is depressing. 2 to 1 people here talking about it have not tried it.





GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah that gives me a REAL bad feeling about how the feedback is going to go.



And this poll is probably a high estimate...we have no way of proving whether people who claim to have run a playtest have actually done so, or done so adequately.  But even as a measure of general interest, the poll results are pretty lackluster here on ENWorld.


----------



## OB1 (Aug 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> And this poll is probably a high estimate...we have no way of proving whether people who claim to have run a playtest have actually done so, or done so adequately.  But even as a measure of general interest, the poll results are pretty lackluster here on ENWorld.



Just curious, is it clear that to answer true you need not have playtested ALL of the material in the packet, just some?  I'm wondering if my wording had people choosing false even if they only playtested some of the more general rules (like me).  I get that playtesting the entire doc is a commitment, but trying out the new Nat20/Crit rules and the Unarmed Strike rules is pretty easy to put into an existing session (and probably important to see for backward compatibility).


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> But how can you give real feed back if you don’t try them?



They will ask in the survey if I playestes it, and I will say "no." Thst gives them good data on how people who just read the material feel about it. And recall, UA and this whole playtest are not about the hard numbers, it's about the feelings and responses. Hard number plautesting theybhave a private network that takes care of it.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

payn said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if this round is a gut check, and later these items will get actual playtest material to try them out in. 2 weeks is no time at all for this kind of thing.



Every UA is a gut check. After they get a gut check on these changes, they will know what to prioritize for the internal playtest, and give us some more options to gutcheck. Stuff that is well received by gutcheck will move forward, that which doesn't will get cut. Same as other UA.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 30, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Just curious, is it clear that to answer true you need not have playtested ALL of the material in the packet, just some?  I'm wondering if my wording had people choosing false even if they only playtested some of the more general rules (like me).  I get that playtesting the entire doc is a commitment, but trying out the new Nat20/Crit rules and the Unarmed Strike rules is pretty easy to put into an existing session (and probably important to see for backward compatibility).



Maybe a little nuance about "creatng characters" and "playing with the rules."


----------



## kapars (Aug 31, 2022)

Playtest report:

1. Had the natural 1 rule come up tonight on a survival check. The character wouldn’t have much of a modifier but it felt almost natural to say that it was a failure and that we wouldn’t have to look up the modifier. For better or worse it does speed things up a bit.
2. Both the player and I keep forgetting to use Lucky. I’ve never taken it in 5e before so I’m not practiced at it. In this instance a new player picked it for RP reasons but keeps forgetting to use it, I’m sure more practiced players will find good value.
3. No natural 20s in 3 hours of playtesting! More RP than rolls though.


----------



## Baumi (Aug 31, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> My playtest was too low level to test that.  No one could hit the DCs on a 1 anyway and no DC was high enough that an 18+ would miss it anyway



With bonded Accuracy I don't think that the 1/20 Rule will change the outcome up more then once or twice per Campaign.

Heck I playtestet twice now and only one player rolled a 20, which was an attack so this would also hit with a crit in the old rules. We also had one 1, but this would have been a Failure either way.

The only real change with the 1/20 Rule that I see is that monsters no longer crit, but I like that. It makes low level Encounters less swingy, but I can also attack downed players to increase the tension, without making it to harsh (no crit means only one failed death save).

So far the changes in Inspiration (no longer forgotten and used quite frequently) and Grapple (made Combats dynamic and is sooo easy) had a far greater (and quite positive) impact. 8D


----------



## Vael (Aug 31, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Man this is depressing. 2 to 1 people here talking about it have not tried it.




It's summer. I've literally only played once (and it was an ongoing campaign) since the packet dropped.


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 31, 2022)

WotC isn’t requesting us not to respond if we’ve only theory crafted the playtests. 

They haven’t done that with UA for years now. They know that a lot of people with strong feelings about UA don’t necessarily have time to actually run a game with rules that aren’t finalized just to give feedback. They welcome feedback from theorycrafters.

I don’t appreciate that this poll is trying to split those hairs.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 31, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> WotC isn’t requesting us not to respond if we’ve only theory crafted the playtests.
> 
> They haven’t done that with UA for years now. They know that a lot of people with strong feelings about UA don’t necessarily have time to actually run a game with rules that aren’t finalized just to give feedback. They welcome feedback from theorycrafters.



Yes, time is always short on this UA playtests and they have internal and external groups doing actual playtests. They care about the sentiment of the general public, much more than to know what DPR your character had against a CR 7 monster.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 31, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> WotC isn’t requesting us not to respond if we’ve only theory crafted the playtests.
> 
> They haven’t done that with UA for years now. They know that a lot of people with strong feelings about UA don’t necessarily have time to actually run a game with rules that aren’t finalized just to give feedback. They welcome feedback from theorycrafters.
> 
> I don’t appreciate that this poll is trying to split those hairs.





Nikosandros said:


> Yes, time is always short on this UA playtests and they have internal and external groups doing actual playtests. They care about the sentiment of the general public, much more than to know what DPR your character had against a CR 7 monster.



the problem is there are 30ish people here that care enough to post about it, and have not tried it... and some of them are arguing with people that have tested it... so if right now today all 50 people here respond, 36 of them are responding about something they don't really know... and drown out the 14 that HAVE tried it... imagine that on a larger scale... multiply it by 300... so instead of 50 responses they get 15.000 responses (I bet they would call that a good showing) but if 10,800 people didn't try it, and 700 did try it... look how the 10,800 out weight the 700


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 31, 2022)

In a couple of weeks, you can't really do proper testing anyway. For crunching numbers they use other methods. That's what WotC has been doing ever since they started dropping UAs. They shouldn't really call them playtests, IMO, but it's not up to me...


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 31, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the problem is there are 30ish people here that care enough to post about it, and have not tried it... and some of them are arguing with people that have tested it... so if right now today all 50 people here respond, 36 of them are responding about something they don't really know... and drown out the 14 that HAVE tried it... imagine that on a larger scale... multiply it by 300... so instead of 50 responses they get 15.000 responses (I bet they would call that a good showing) but if 10,800 people didn't try it, and 700 did try it... look how the 10,800 out weight the 700



The only actual plays I have seen reported were "hey, we had fun, and these changes worked well in practice." Haven't really seen any arguing...?


----------



## OB1 (Aug 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The only actual plays I have seen reported were "hey, we had fun, and these changes worked well in practice." Haven't really seen any arguing...?



Which could either be a self-selction bias, or could point to the rules feeling different in actual play than how they seem from reading them.  In my group 3 of the 5 players weren't thrilled about the new nat20/Crit rules before trying them in game.  Afterwards, it was unanimous and enthusiastic consent to keep them. 

I almost suspect that WotC may be more interested in using the playtest to gently introduce some changing concepts that they expect to get blowback on, so that in 2 years when One comes out, people are already used to the changes and have their house-rules ready to go for the things they don't like


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 31, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the problem is there are 30ish people here that care enough to post about it, and have not tried it... and some of them are arguing with people that have tested it... so if right now today all 50 people here respond, 36 of them are responding about something they don't really know... and drown out the 14 that HAVE tried it... imagine that on a larger scale... multiply it by 300... so instead of 50 responses they get 15.000 responses (I bet they would call that a good showing) but if 10,800 people didn't try it, and 700 did try it... look how the 10,800 out weight the 700




Enworld is not a representative sample of the people who respond to UA surveys. We’re a fraction; a tiny, if vocal, minority.

Don’t worry about people who might be wrong on the internet. Have fun with the game. Give your own feedback. Other people will give feedback based on how they experienced it, whether theorycrafted or skimmed or played with. It’s all good. WotC know how to account for what you’re worried about.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 31, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Man this is depressing. 2 to 1 people here talking about it have not tried it.



I doubt anyone has really tried it enough to have a reasonable sample-size of experiences with it to judge any better than a thorough reader of the materials who hasn't actually tried it.

WotC clearly isn't looking for the feedback of people who have actually tried it enough to learn much from the experience, or they would have had a longer survey turn around.


----------



## Marandahir (Aug 31, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I doubt anyone has really tried it enough to have a reasonable sample-size of experiences with it to judge any better than a thorough reader of the materials who hasn't actually tried it.
> 
> WotC clearly isn't looking for the feedback of people who have actually tried it enough to learn much from the experience, or they would have had a longer survey turn around.



This. Law of Large Numbers. D&D players seem to often share a misunderstanding with gamblers about the sample sizes needed to actually overcome the anecdotal. 

Everyone’s experience here is close enough, statistically speaking, to be considered equally valid.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 31, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Which could either be a self-selction bias, or could point to the rules feeling different in actual play than how they seem from reading them.  In my group 3 of the 5 players weren't thrilled about the new nat20/Crit rules before trying them in game.  Afterwards, it was unanimous and enthusiastic consent to keep them.
> 
> I almost suspect that WotC may be more interested in using the playtest to gently introduce some changing concepts that they expect to get blowback on, so that in 2 years when One comes out, people are already used to the changes and have their house-rules ready to go for the things they don't like



Yeah, they will ask if people actually played with the rules, and probably weigh the opinions of people who did try more strongly.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, they will ask if people actually played with the rules, and probably weigh the opinions of people who did try more strongly.



They might. They also might weigh them the same but take that as an independent variable for their statistical analysis.
They've certainly got at least one full-time statistician on the payroll working with UA and survey data.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> They might. They also might weigh them the same but take that as an independent variable for their statistical analysis.
> They've certainly got at least one full-time statistician on the payroll working with UA and survey data.



Last I recall them talking about it, they actually have access to an independent statistician service through Hasbro: thst was how they built up the Next testing apparatus, and get their market data.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Last I recall them talking about it, they actually have access to an independent statistician service through Hasbro: thst was how they built up the Next testing apparatus, and get their market data.



That also makes a lot of sense. Contract out those things to focus staff on creative and marketing things.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The only actual plays I have seen reported were "hey, we had fun, and these changes worked well in practice." Haven't really seen any arguing...?



I personally got told that my experience with inspiration was wrong...


----------



## the Jester (Sep 1, 2022)

Not yet, but I'll probably start playtesting the new grapple rules in my game next time I run it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Enworld is not a representative sample



THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!


Marandahir said:


> Don’t worry about people who might be wrong on the internet. Have fun with the game. Give your own feedback.



well I was actually told here that I shouldn't give feed back on things we don't like because others did like it... so thank you for at least saying I can give my feedback


Marandahir said:


> Other people will give feedback based on how they experienced it, whether theorycrafted or skimmed or played with. It’s all good. WotC know how to account for what you’re worried about.



I am worried that no they do not


----------



## CrashFiend82 (Sep 1, 2022)

This might seem counterintuitive but I don't think they care as much if you've playtested this first packet. I think it is more meant to serve a dual function. Firstly as a quick gut check, verifying that they haven't lost touch with their fans. They likely believe which way things will go but want to make sure something big hasn't been missed, for example Crit rules. Secondly to set a baseline for new changes, depending on this intial reaction (with a few controversial changes) they can better determine what level of changes people want or will at the least accommodate.


----------



## darjr (Sep 1, 2022)

Still, the ideal is to have people play it.

Yes commentary without direct play of these rules is welcome, I’m sure, and will be a part of the survey no matter what. How could they not be even if they gate it with a “did you play this” question?

So play it if you can. Don’t fret if you can’t. Just be cognizant that actual play can change opinions of them. They have mine.


----------



## darjr (Sep 1, 2022)

Though I do agree more time with them would be better.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The only actual plays I have seen reported were "hey, we had fun, and these changes worked well in practice." Haven't really seen any arguing...?



I've talked about the rules with my group.  Only one player thought the no crit rule sounded good. Then he thought about it for a bit and said, "But it is fun to crit as a DM."  Going with both yes and no is no surprise, though, since it takes him weeks to settle on a class and announce to us what he's playing, and then I kid you not, 7 times out of 10 he shows up at the first game with a PC of a different class.  Quick decision making is not a strong suit.


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!!!!!!!



Sorry for misunderstanding. I understood that when you multiplied out what was going on here out to much bigger numbers, you were using Enworld's posts as a sample size of the larger UA survey responder base. Please elucidate what you meant since I'm not sure what you were trying to get at if not using Enworld as a representative sample to project outwards from. 



> well I was actually told here that I shouldn't give feed back on things we don't like because others did like it... so thank you for at least saying I can give my feedback



Whomever told that to you is wrong. If you're silent on something that means you're giving placid approval of it. You MAY NOT GET WHAT YOU WANT. …BUT… if they only ever hear yes-person responses, the content won't be nearly as good in the end as it could have been. Outcry is just as important as enthusiastic support.



> I am worried that no they do not



This is their job. Their business is riding on making this content the best it can be. The way they're looking at the data they'll be able to piece apart what's necessary to piece apart. And most of the data won't be necessary to pull apart, anyway.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 1, 2022)

I will say, that after they started asking "did you actually play with this material?" questions, which I believe was after Winninger started, the UA has been more likely to go-to print...


----------



## HammerMan (Sep 1, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I doubt anyone has really tried it enough to have a reasonable sample-size of experiences with it to judge any better than a thorough reader of the materials who hasn't actually tried it.
> 
> WotC clearly isn't looking for the feedback of people who have actually tried it enough to learn much from the experience, or they would have had a longer survey turn around.



That doesn’t reassure me


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 1, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> That doesn’t reassure me



If it makes you feel better, for actual balance purposes WotC has a large private playtest network that does in-deph playtesting.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 1, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Sorry for misunderstanding. I understood that when you multiplied out what was going on here out to much bigger numbers, you were using Enworld's posts as a sample size of the larger UA survey responder base. Please elucidate what you meant since I'm not sure what you were trying to get at if not using Enworld as a representative sample to project outwards from.



I am showing how it may not look like much but IF (key word if I used it in og post too) it is even close to what we can expect from this surveys will be more didn't even try then did try... I am using the number we have (the only number) and saying it is a sad number that scares me... not "Scientifically this proves that ______" I am saying "These numbers we have are sad and IF it is even close then it will mean bad things" 

so again, I am NOTt saying that you can use an enworld poll to extrapolate scientificly how it WILL work, but as the only numbers why it makes me FEAR WHAT COULD BE...

especially with the naked backlash against anything 4e in next being made by people who didn't play 4e it is seeming to be a bit of history repeating 


Marandahir said:


> Whomever told that to you is wrong. If you're silent on something that means you're giving placid approval of it.



I agree and I said as much (but in less elegant words) in the thread about inspiration (that as of Saturday will be 4 session trial. 


Marandahir said:


> You MAY NOT GET WHAT YOU WANT. …BUT… if they only ever hear yes-person responses, the content won't be nearly as good in the end as it could have been. Outcry is just as important as enthusiastic support.



except (and not just here) I have already seen people both threatening to 'stuff the ballot boxes' and telling people NOT to put negative things about what that person disagrees with... between those people and now this showing 2-1 that here, the place I expect the MOST amount of hardcore gamers that spend time gaming, is not testing just going by gut.


Marandahir said:


> This is their job. Their business is riding on making this content the best it can be. The way they're looking at the data they'll be able to piece apart what's necessary to piece apart. And most of the data won't be necessary to pull apart, anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> If it makes you feel better, for actual balance purposes WotC has a large private playtest network that does in-deph playtesting.



there track record on balance doesn't make me feel so hot either...


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 1, 2022)

Heck, I'm still playtesting the "Giant Options" UA from last month.  I haven't had time to finish reading this material, let alone try it out with my gaming group.

(Granted, it's not a huge priority for us.  We're quite happy with 5E + Tasha's.)


----------



## OB1 (Sep 1, 2022)

Playtest survey is up!  Interestingly, they asked about whether you playtested material for races, backgrounds, and feats, but NOT if you playtested material from the rules glossary.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 1, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> there track record on balance doesn't make me feel so hot either...



Prepare for disappointment, I suppose.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 1, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Heck, I'm still playtesting the "Giant Options" UA from last month.  I haven't had time to finish reading this material, let alone try it out with my gaming group.
> 
> (Granted, it's not a huge priority for us.  We're quite happy with 5E + Tasha's.)



It's live yill 9/15, no rush.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 1, 2022)

It's curious that there was no question about the tone of certain things (orc lore, human size, half-race things, etc).


----------



## Marandahir (Sep 1, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am showing how it may not look like much but IF (key word if I used it in og post too) it is even close to what we can expect from this surveys will be more didn't even try then did try... I am using the number we have (the only number) and saying it is a sad number that scares me... not "Scientifically this proves that ______" I am saying "These numbers we have are sad and IF it is even close then it will mean bad things"
> 
> so again, I am NOTt saying that you can use an enworld poll to extrapolate scientificly how it WILL work, but as the only numbers why it makes me FEAR WHAT COULD BE...



Ahh I see now what you mean. I'd suggest that that fear should be alleviated from the publication of past statistics of how many responses they've gotten, and that the vast majority of those people are just playing the game and enjoying what they get, not arguing about things online or getting influenced by posters or YTers saying "this sucks!" or "this is awesome!" - they heard about the playtest, downloaded it, played it, and now will respond to the survey. 



> especially with the naked backlash against anything 4e in next being made by people who didn't play 4e it is seeming to be a bit of history repeating



Despite that, a Balor-full of 4e materials made it through D&D Next and into 5e. It's not the same game, nor is it presented the same way, but there's almost as much of an influence from 4e as there is from 3e in the 2014 rules. I wouldn't worry too much about how some vocal minority are talking. 



> I agree and I said as much (but in less elegant words) in the thread about inspiration (that as of Saturday will be 4 session trial.



Glad we're on the same page. This isn't Democracy in action, but it IS a chance to impact and influence the direction of the 2024 rules, and making your voice heard by the Devs in the surveys is the biggest thing you can do to influence the state of the game towards something you want, or away from something you don't want.



> except (and not just here) I have already seen people both threatening to 'stuff the ballot boxes' and telling people NOT to put negative things about what that person disagrees with... between those people and now this showing 2-1 that here, the place I expect the MOST amount of hardcore gamers that spend time gaming, is not testing just going by gut.



Those people threatening are being bad and inappropriate.  I believe they're also threatening to break the TOS of the playtest. And if they're actively doing this to supress your voice on the issue, I'd suggest reporting them on whatever forums you're discussing, whether here or otherwise. But I'm not a MOD so don't take me word there as Enworld TOS gospel…

Regarding this 2-1 showing, that's quite representative of the make up of people who visit Enworld, actually. While almost certainly everyone registered on this forum have played a TTRPG at some point in their life, a lot of forum goers come here to talk shop because we lack suitable gaming outlets for whatever reason. We may be between gaming groups, or may have lost the time we once had to play as often, or some other reason. But we want a connection with other folks who love the game, so we come back and discuss it. Theorycrafters are not the Target Demographic of D&D, but they are a Peripheral Demographic (as people who buy the products to think about them) that sometimes overlaps with the Target audience (people who play or may be convinced to play). It's not just that we aren't a representative sample, we're the opposite of that. We're a SPECIFIC piece of the pie and any inference made from this 2-1 response (which itself is not representative of the people who post on Enworld about D&D) should not be extrapolated to all the other slices. Maybe to other forums, but not the player-base at large. The actual proportion of people who respond to the survey and people who have played it is likely to be quite different, and as others have said above, they're actually asking if you played with these options (but interestingly only specific ones presented; those are likely the only ones they actually care about whether you played or just theorycrafted or have an opinion to share about them).


----------



## OB1 (Sep 1, 2022)

They may also have already made the decision about the changes in rules glossary being permanent regardless of feedback, and are using that part of the survey to best judge how to market the changes to those who respond negatively to them (including offering rules alternatives in the DMG), whereas the other sections still have more room for change based on playtest feedback.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 1, 2022)

People are expecting WAY too much influence from this survey...


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 1, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> People are expecting WAY too much influence from this survey...



That's psychology for you.  The public playtest and the survey work together to give us the feeling of being very heavily involved at every level. In reality, this playtest is more about advertising than actually testing out the gameplay.

Did you notice that there were no questions about the game functions or mechanics in the survey?  The questions are all asking about your level of satisfaction and your age/race demographic.  That information is most useful for marketing, but has little to do with the actual development of the game.   I suspect the final draft is already written, and any changes that come from the playtests will be very minor.


----------



## payn (Sep 1, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> People are expecting WAY too much influence from this survey...



They always do. Just wait until the decisions fall and they start point fingers at folks they dont like.


----------



## OB1 (Sep 1, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> That's psychology for you.  The public playtest and the survey work together to give us the feeling of being very heavily involved at every level. In reality, this playtest is more about advertising than actually testing out the gameplay.
> 
> Did you notice that there were no questions about the game functions or mechanics in the survey?  The questions are all asking about your level of satisfaction and your age/race demographic.  That information is most useful for marketing, but has little to do with the actual development of the game.   I suspect the final draft is already written, and any changes that come from the playtests will be very minor.



And which is also classic change management strategy in large organizations.  And it's used because generally speaking, people don't like change, but if you introduce it ahead of time, have respected leaders encouraging the change, and give people an opportunity for feedback, it's much easier and you get less resistance once the change is actually made.

I do suspect one thing that the playtest may show them are important optional rules to present in the new DMG.  I'm guessing that's where we will see the 2014 versions of the Nat20/Crit rules live.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 1, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> That's psychology for you.  The public playtest and the survey work together to give us the feeling of being very heavily involved at every level. In reality, this playtest is more about advertising than actually testing out the gameplay.
> 
> Did you notice that there were no questions about the game functions or mechanics in the survey?  The questions are all asking about your level of satisfaction and your age/race demographic.  That information is most useful for marketing, but has little to do with the actual development of the game.   I suspect the final draft is already written, and any changes that come from the playtests will be very minor.



There is a real influence, based on the past 7 years of UA: if an option bombs, they will drop it.  That's about it, but it's kept 5E to 13 Classes, among other things.


----------



## kapars (Sep 2, 2022)

Had another session today, here’s the feedback:

1. Had our first natural 20’s, promptly forgot to award inspiration. Rewarded after session after remembering.
2. If your group enjoys role playing you can go a while without testing any changes 
3. Most fun session to date but that had more to do with players settling in than any mechanics 

Nothing else from the packet came up. I think it emphasizes for me how much has not changed in terms of the minute to minute game play, despite what you might read about 5.5, 6e, death of dnd etc It’s more like playing 5e with some homebrew at this point in the play test.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 2, 2022)

kapars said:


> Had another session today, here’s the feedback:
> 
> 1. Had our first natural 20’s, promptly forgot to award inspiration. Rewarded after session after remembering.
> 2. If your group enjoys role playing you can go a while without testing any changes
> ...



Sounds about right. The final product will probably feel like that, frankly.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 2, 2022)

Everyone should NOT forget that they can playtest for another two weeks before giving their feedback.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 2, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Everyone should NOT forget that they can playtest for another two weeks before giving their feedback.



especially those that have not gotten the chance yet


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 2, 2022)

My gaming group plays weekly, but I am not disrupting our current Cthulhu campaign to test teeny-tiny changes like these.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 2, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> My gaming group plays weekly, but I am not disrupting our current Cthulhu campaign to test teeny-tiny changes like these.



Yeah, and WotC is clearly interested in non-played impressions as well, based on the survey design.


----------

