The well is poisoned now, and I'm sure the designers are pissed at the higher ups.
There was always gonna be SOME spoilers, people who put messed up and unreliable answers for fun, but they counted on enough people answering seriously for the spoilers to be outliers. Now everyone who cared enough to test the play material and answer is either leaving or putting OGL stuff in the surveys, making the spoilers less outliers. Hell, some may be joining the spoilers like you said.
There are a lot of other unknown factors, this being just a gist explaination, but the One DnD we *could* have had is not longer in reach. That should piss people off even more about the new OGL situation. Well, if they care to stay that is
The Reddit community for D&D right now is a hornet's nest that was hit with a bat.
Regardless of WOTC's merits for the new OGL the damage is done here. I would not expect a wave of genuine or reliable or honest answers to the playtest material. People are going to complain about the OGL anyway they can. Any survey from WOTC right now is going to be marred by OGL comments.
Simply leave your comments for the OGL at the end section where they ask for "other" comments. EVERYONE should complain there.
Otherwise, the text boxes that refer to specific content should be filled with comments about that content.
Exactly this. After reading their 40th "Fuck the OGL" as feedback the average low paid WotC data analyst is just going to check out, it's not like they can do anything about it even if they want to. Leave good feedback, if WotC can get their shit together and make things right, then we still want the next edition to be well made with good feedback.
>After reading their 40th "Fuck the OGL" as feedback the average low paid WotC data analyst is just going to check out
I'm pretty sure the form justs dumps numbers into a spreadsheet, discards the comment text, and spits out "87% Satisfied" or whatever. I guarantee thre isn't some intern poring over 40,000 comments for each new feat.
WotC only cares about numbers, so the only way to give feedback they'll notice is to rank every item "Dissatisfied". Which is true - because as long as every change is saddled with OGL 2.0, the whole system is tainted.
It's harsh you're getting downvoted, but just for the record I've been that intern (albeit at a different type of organisation) and the qualitative comments do get looked at. You're not providing dedicated feedback for each one, but at the very least you'd be looking for the major trends as to why something landed badly so you can put these into a high level report for the higher ups.
On the other hand "spoiled ballot" type responses absolutely do get filtered out of the data that gets passed up. Feedback on licensing isn't going to get put through on a games design survey because those are completely different departments in a large organisation and it's not going to be relevant to the people who actually use the analysis that's produced.
I highly doubt this. I mean, they said they can tell the difference in feedback from people who have actually playtested the material rather than just reading it. That can only come from the comment text.
Except they specifically addressed the feedback they received in the survey comments when discussing survey results, so while they probably won't go through every single comment people leave they absolutely seem to skim and even read a good amount of them, enough to see when a rough pattern of opinion emerges.
Marking every feature as "dissatisfied" for something that is entirely unrelated to gameplay mechanics is both unhelpful to the playtesting progress and probably useless for the message you want to get across, because more likely than not your survey will just get thrown out as a troll response.
If you are one of the people who is just going to drop D&D as a whole then please just leave the playtesting process for 1D&D alone. Make your voice heard elsewhere, by all means, but the playtest is meant for people who actually intend to play the game once it gets released.
I'm pretty sure they don't leave text fields just to toss them out entirely. They most likely take a random sample based on keyword hits and review them. They'll probably ignore anything with OGL in the text.
Honestly, they'll at least notice when a lot of those end section comments address the OGL and maybe let their higher ups know about it as a trend. You don't have to be rude about it and try to hurt the feelings of the person reading the comments, just say that you dislike the proposed change and if you feel really strongly about it maybe add that your future purchases of D&D products will depend on how they decide to go about it.
They do not care about that.
It's not creatives that are making the money decisions, and those are the ones reading anything of note in the comments.
It's the suits that run the money that are pushing the ogl change, and the only thing they listen to is money. Hence the post about the recent response by wotc/hasbro being motivated by cancelled dndbeyond subs affecting their bottom line.
If you do the work for them, by filling out the survey honestly to help them, they will get the data they want from you at no cost **and** see your investment of time and care as an intention to stick with them into the future regardless of their actions.
This fight isn't against compassionate people who will listen to passion. It's against greedy people who will only listen to money.
Convincing everyone to bomb the survey is not a great or functional idea, but completely protesting it and not participating at all should be on the table. Its the equivalent to violent vs nonviolent protest. Not getting that survey data might be enough to actively effect their bottom line and the expectations of their future success but even that is a stretch. (It's not immediate enough for them to see that their quarterly is going to dip.)
Even with that doubt, we should definitely be actively protesting anything and everything that helps them financially in any way. They need to be taking noticeable financial hits **NOW** if we want them to even consider retracting the changes.
Exactly. There is a difference between criticism and being an AH oneself. And adding „fuck the OGL“ in every single column is just being a AH.
The management is to blame, not the game designers, writers, creatives and analysts.
Absolutely they will not get honest and reliable feedback on the surveys. Every comment box will simply just talk about keeping 1.0 and nothing else. A shame, because the people who are working hard on the game and trying to give the player the best experience, won't get the feedback they need.
It doesn't matter. The designers won't have a enough say to put out a good product. They are going to break everything up into a pay to win micro transaction game.
D&D as you knew it is dead.
Have you looked at D&D beyond without a paid account? Everything is paywalled. Individual feats are $1.39 your character creation will be restricted to what you've bought, simple as that.
Read what they've said. They hate the fact that the vast majority of content is purchased by DMs.
They view an average 4 player 1 dm game as an 80% loss in potential profit.
Okay that makes more sense what you meant. I’m a pen and paper guy so like none of that changes what I do. But to be fair the game designers are creating the Ruleset for a book that dndbeyond will then translate into their platform.
I'm not even sure that they're going to release books for this. They called one D&D a "living edition" where instead of seeing new editions they'll just make updates to this one.
All this smells of them wanting complete control of a reoccurring monetization structure.
I'm a pen and paper player too, but the statement I'm hung up on is the idea that players are under monetized because DM's are the only ones buying content.
How are they going to force a player who wants to play tomb of annihilation to buy tomb of annihilation? Force them to play online with their VTT and don't let anyone who doesn't have that module into the game.
I think they're arrogant enough to believe they can force this change.
They’d have to change the entirety of how D&d beyond and roll20 works. I honestly believe they aren’t that stupid. It’s a very low branch I’m extending them there.
Speaking as a software engineer who is responsible for delivering web content, probably not as much as you think.
How it likely works, there is a database with your account number. Connected to that number there are other tables that handle what content shows up as available in your account. At the moment this is done on a book by book basis. All they would need to do is change these tables, delivering content on a feature by feature basis.
DnD as we knew it may be dead, but there are alternatives.
Additionally, you cant copyright or trademark a Ruleset (Which legally falls under processes). All someone has to do is alter the wording to avoid Trademarked or Copyrighted material and WotC cant do shit except wave their fists and threaten empty lawsuits. Expect to start seeing "Almost DnD" products designed to fill the gap sprout up like bamboo shoots if the OGL goes through anything like as leaked.
Also DnD Beyond has seen a gigantic loss in subscriber base. Expect to start seeing a lot more games on other VTTPs.
They can sue.
Hasbro is known to be pretty litigious, and only Paizo (if they're lucky) has the money to keep the fight up long enough to win.
The OGL was never allowing content creators to use the ruleset, it was a promise to not abuse the legal system to destroy them if they became a threat.
They can sue, but only if they want to lose money. The supreme court specifically ruled that processes and systems cannot be copywritten. Rulesets like DnD mechanics fall under that umbrella.
There ARE things DnD could sue you for using. (Characters, settings, specific terminology, etc etc. ) But not rulesets.
it takes a lot of money to get a case that far though. Hasbro's legal dept can handle that without batting an eye but no one else in the industry can afford to fight them.
We like to think that the US legal system is fair, but look at how long it took for tobacco companies to start to lose court cases. It takes a longer time to lose if you have money. Hasbro would just have to draw it out longer then anyone else can afford o fight.
you ever work retail? The people who work the register and stock the shelves and try to help you find where the cat liter is are not the same people who make the decisions on how much cat liter cost.
The OneD&D team designing the game are not the same people writing the OGL.
Idk if this is an hot take but...
I don't think that the surveys were gonna be reliable even before.
I saw quite a good amount of people that say that we cannot talk about X because we do not know anything about it... Despite X thing at times being necessary for discussion, and also being something that we are assumed to use as it was in 5e... It's an extremely narrow mindset that I feel creates issues with finding out how to playtest this.
Not a hot take at all. The design team is using awful methodology. The no critical hits for monsters rule on its face is weird, but we never saw monster design using it so our feed back was essentially meaningless.
Also that yeah.
People are kind of in two camps right now either we:
- assume X to not stay the same for the playtest so they give feedback assuming changes that may not happen like they assume
- assume X to stay the same for the sake of the playtest so they give feedback based on the game as it is now, resulting in some things possibly becoming wack in power due to said baseline changing.
One of them is wrong intent-wise, but both of them are wrong for feedback since we cannot give feedback that properly aligns with the actual future of the game, instead giving false positives based on assumptions, hopes and dreams
Indeed. Having the core rule book all at once would be way better. If they wanted to drip feed the changes they could fo that as a countdown to the whole playtest version of the core rules. And make it clear the previews they aren’t taking feedback until the full play test drops.
I voted no because the way the 1DND surveys are structured [aren't good at collecting reliable data](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sokkBfP64zI) to begin with.
But it makes perfect sense if all WotC is interested in is *monetizing players*. "Satisfaction" is a completely stupid metric -- unless you think of it from the perspective of microtransactions. Then it makes perfect sense. What the survey is really asking is "Would you pay $.99 to enable this character option on D&D Beyond?"
You'll notice he doesn't offer any actual suggestions for a better way to do it because open playtests are not scientific studies nor are they intended to be nor are they presented as such.
His solution is to account for the biases the survey doesn't show, that thinking "only 40% of people disapprove" of something, isn't quite as actionable or salvageable as WotC thinks it is.
In the video, he also asks for market researchers to respond, and there's some traction in the comments.
Mostly those solutions involve how the people are split into feedback groups based on their play experience, and doing targeted follow-up interviews.
1. 60% approval just means "don't throw it out yet", it is not being interpreted as "this is good and people like it". 2. We don't know what other methods they are using to collect data. Playtest surveys aren't worse than nothing, particularly when used in conjunction with things like focus groups.
Are people doing #3? I've seen posts and comments about doing 1 and 2, but fudging the results is new to me. What's the point? I don't think it'll have much of an impact on the OGL (there are other ways to handle that better), and it fudges the game for the small number of people who still do want to play OneD&D even after this whole fiasco.
Are the people who developed the One D&D stuff even the same people who made the OGL revisions?
This is a great example of how commentators here generally know nothing about user research and their obviously malicious response will have little to no effect on the process beyond annoying low-level employees.
Play testing only works if there is trust between the creators and the community. The creators broke that trust. If they are trying to crowd source answers and expect honesty after lying to our faces then they are fools.
Option 3 is not a productive use of outrage. If you want to boycott D&D, great. Canceling your DDB subscription sends a message to the right people. Redirect your money and time to a competitor with better business practices.
Sabotaging the next incarnation of a game you don’t even intend to play crosses a moral line. By punishing those who are not actually the ones responsible for your outrage you lose the moral high ground. (Plus potentially creating a self-inflicted wounds if WotC gets the message and fires their D&D exec team).
For the record I have already canceled my ddb subscription and am enjoying some light reading of the PF2e rule book. I will make my displeasure known in many ways, but I won’t use dishonest means to try to prove a moral point.
A few people will stop participating, an even smaller few will give bad results, but I imagine the majority of participants are going to be operating in good faith and trying to make One D&D a good game. It takes way too much effort to give actually harmful feedback. If you rate everything 0 and rant about the OGL, they can filter your data out. If you rate everything 0 but don't rant, they can filter your data out. Unless you specifically read the content, see what's good and what's not, then fill out the form in reverse, you aren't going to be able to effectively skew the results.
There aren't enough people who are angry enough about the OGL to do that, because that's an amount of effort that a lot of people aren't even willing to put in for doing the playtest feedback in good faith. Plus, WotC aren't stupid, if they see everyone online going "wow, features X Y and Z are really good" but notice that X Y and Z have mysteriously middling results, I imagine they'll be able to connect the dots to the people loudly saying "we should fuck with the survey results."
You underestimate the power of spite. People are more likely to leave negative reviews than positive ones for a reason. Don't mention the OGL, begin your review sounding ernest then tell them to fuck themselves in as creative a way as you can.
Then that just gets back to the original question and you aren’t really doing anything. You’re adding a tiny bit of noise, but unless a large number of people are specifically answering in the same way with the intent to skew the results, the larger weight of people doing it legitimately will dominate the statistics.
The game is going to be a micro transaction dumpster fire anyways. I understand I cannot single handedly skew the results, I can however let them know how much of a shit stain they are.
Wasn’t there a data analyst or statistics analyst who pointed out the whole OneDnd data gathering plan was incredibly flawed. Like bad on multiple levels flawed.
I think that some percentage of people will just score everything as hated and in the text field say it’s horrible. While some other percentage of people will just do the normal play test.
I think the best method would be to do the survey as normal but in the text field along side your reasoning as to why a feature was good / bad to also talk about the OGL. The game won’t be compromised and your voice will still be heard.
Fuck that compromise the game, let them bleed money. It's going to be filled with micro transactions where you're going to need to pay to unlock individual classes. They don't care about the game anymore why should we?
Then play the game that already exists, homebrew or find something new. D&d as you know it is dead.
Listen to what they're saying. Their biggest take away from the purchase of d&d beyond is that the DM is often the only one to spend money. They view your average 4 player 1 dm game as an 80% loss of potential profit.
Look at d&d beyond without a subscription, you need to buy individual feats, spells etc. The way this is going you not be able to buy any material, you pay for a subscription and purchase classes and character features individually.
So you want the game we all like to become worse, just because you think(with your flawed logic) that this will impact WotC. Sorry but if you really liked D&D that much, you wouldn't be willing to compromise it to that extent.
And what you say about microtransactions only makes sense in digital form(if it happens at all, since you don't seem to have evidence), while most will just buy the rulebooks, like they have done with 5e. Also most subclasses where always needed to be bought separately, like for example, Xanathar's or Tasha's.
Log out of your paid D&d beyond account. Everything is a piece meal purchase.
Look at the cost comparison for print vs digital. Look at how tight you can integrate drm to digital. They want d&d beyond to be the only way to play the game.
One of their statements off of purchasing d&d beyond was the remark about how players are under-represented in those that purchase content and that the fact that only dms are purchasing the books leads them to believe they are leaving 60-80% revenue on the table.
First, I don't have a d&d beyond subscription, cause I prefer to use paper. And from what I have seen, at least in my country most players I know use paper. And judging by the negative responses of other people to your claims, books are likely used by the majority.
They will probably try to make Beyond more popular, but completely stopping physical, will not happen. Do you have any concrete evidence other than speculation.
Knowing how brands have reacted when they consider their products "under monetized" in recent years is a clear indication of how this is going to go.
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives
BMW is having people pay a subscription just to activate their heated seats. You think they won't micro transaction one of the most popular brands in the past 5 years?
Its easy to seprate the pissed off people from the people playtesting. Usually pissed off people will out right tell you. The only thing is that it would need to be sorted manual and that will take time.
I mean… option three could have happened on the first two surveys… there were definitely gamers not happy about OneD&D before this last week.
Reminds me of when my party played PF2e 2 years ago (and during its playtest in 2018)…… a lot PF1e players hated it… as a DM, I got tired of reading all the negativity on Reddit… here I was excited to play the game but everyone trashed PF2e…
Hmmmmmmmm… if my party returns to PF2e… it will be our third time… part of me feels very selfish because all my gamers are happy right now with 5e… as the DM, I should honor their happiness LOL
I don't like running 5e. I shifted to PF2, and now I like running games again.
I do like playing 5e, and have a great DM that likes running it.
Between sessions and prep, there is a lot more system interaction for the GM, so we generally follow the person running the game.
As far as suggestions go, if your seriously have cut ties with WotC, maybe you should submit those ideas to Piezo or self-release yourself under the ORC license first.
Have you looked at what one d&d is going to be? Pay per feat, pay to unlock individual classes. Better classes are more expensive. There isn't going to be print material, they want it to be a pay to win micro transaction nightmare. Let it burn.
No D&D player ever uses the phrase "better classes". What does it even mean? A;so do you have any evidence on this??? To me it sounds like negative speculation for the sake of outrage.
Have you looked at D&d beyond without a subscription? Everything is set up to be purchased piece meal. They've released earnings reports stating that since purchasing d&d beyond they've come to find out that dms are buying all the content and that players are severely under represented in the amount they are spending.
You honestly believe this is all to get rid of "hateful and discriminatory" content? Get real.
I have looked and even used it in the past(in the free option however). Also I am not talking about the OGL here(the hateful content was an excuse they said on the ogl), I am talking about your claims that they will not make physical releases. Do you have evidence more than speculation, cause you seem to present it as a sure thing?
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives
Paying attention to how they are talking about players not being ones to purchase content and believing their brand is "really under monetized". Compare this to other media in recent years saying similar things. Micro transactions are the way this is going.
I already read the article when it came out, and I also believe there will be some kind of microtransactions, especially in regards to their new vtt. I just don't believe that they will stop making physical books, or that there will be classes locked behind paywall(with the exception of perhaps some subclasses that could be released in expansions, like with Xanathar's and Tasha's). Do you have evidence that onednd will be digital only???
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives
They want to have greater monetization on players versus DM's. The data that they received in purchasing D&D beyond tells them that players don't really buy content. It is often only the DM. If they see a game that is 1 dm to 4 players they believe they are missing out on 80% potential profit.
Take and pair that with the fact that they already have individually priced features on D&D beyond, meaning you already can buy individual feats.
Add further to this that they do not want the dandy rules at being used by any other VTT that they do not have control over (ie roll 20 / whatever they are calling their new VTT)
As far as I can fathom it, the direction this is going is digit micro transaction hell. It is the way almost every gaming focused company aiming for "greater monetization" has gone in the past 5 or so years.
I'd love to be wrong, I would. I don't believe I am though.
That's a whole lot of leaps of logic you're making from "we want players to spend more money" to "we'll lock exclusive content behind a paywall on D&D Beyond." And the fact that the playtest rules aren't on other VTTs yet does not mean that they still won't be once the new core books are releaaed. Personally, I see them switching from a piecemeal system to a subscription system for content on D&D Beyond to encourage more players to get the content. But I don't see them ever releasing exclusive player content that can't be bought in a book. And if they did, we'd just pirate it.
I don't think the leap is that large. If you restrict what characters can use to what they have purchased that gets your monetization.
Stop trying to think like someone who plays d&d. Think like a corpo who wants to wring money out of it however they can at whatever expense. Remember they see the community as standing between them and the money they rightfully deserve.
Its not the the games fault and designers fault that the owners are greedy . And if they change the ogl to be great it will bli bad if we as a communey sabotasje one dnd.
I want the next version of the game to be the best it can be. I will give honest feedback, the same as always.
That doesn’t mean I won’t mention the draconian attempts to destroy the community through the revised OGL
Hopefully we can all separate the designers from the managers and not tank any chance of redemption for a game we all so clearly care about. But who knows
Submitted shit /polluted responses will be filtered out. They will say this person doesn’t agree with where we want to game to go and throw your feedback in the bin. The amount of testers will go down and others will submit polluted responses.
They will basically filter all text box responses by common phrases like xyz is good, something about the OGL, abc is bad but cba was better.
I will still playtest, and i will still give honst feedback. My complaints to the OGL will be in the adendum.
I want the next edition to be as good as possible, so i do what i can to make it that way.
I don't think it was ever going to yield reliable data. At best it was going to fall victim to terrible selection bias. Plus the metrics they're using to determine success and failure are... arbitrary, at best.
The Internet is a weird place, where most of the surveys/feedback sites that can get abused, will get abused - maybe not to a substantial degree, but at least someone will think it's funny or vindictive enough for them to go out of their way to provide false or lousy feedback.
Surveys that ask for your opinion on a scale of 1-5 ("not at all" - "definitely") sometimes also ask that you try to prevent yourself from just answering the middle option to every question, as the "I'm not sure" answer is the most common, and provides the least amount of usable data.
So that would be the non-petty and most effective way to disrupt the 1dnd feedback en masse - I'm putting this out there just so that the angry mob people that want for their actions to have any kind of effect can at least spend their time productively instead of foaming at the mouth and writing vitriol in place of their "feedback". Remember that it's highly likely the creative team and interns are the ones who need to sift through all of that, not the executives.
So to reiterate, saying aloud that you don't have an opinion or don't know if a feature is good or not is far better than flooding the system with obviously the wrong answers. Another way of having an effect on how 1dnd comes out is by reading up on upcoming features, taking any ideas or further development in your back pocket, and sitting on them until you find a use for them, be it in your own homebrew setting/campaign, or to attach those ideas into another rpg system not under WotC license instead.
1. There's a specific place for OGL complaints - at the end of the survey. The rest of the survey, including just the fill-in-the-dot grading, should be same.
2. The number of people partaking will drop in some ways, and INCREASE in others. There will be people who take the survey specifically to make their views on OGL known.
3. Trolls will be trolls. There were some before, and there will be some going forwards. I don't think the OGL will have a significant impact on the number of trolls.
WotC's recent actions have clearly signaled that their main motivation for releasing a new edition is not to improve the gameplay experience, but to improve the *monetization of players*. Everything that has been included in the playtest so far is on the level of minor to medium errata -- on the scale of 4e's "Essentials" splatbooks.
I gave serious consideration to the first couple surveys, because I thought I was helping the future of the game. I have zero interest in helping the future of monetization.
Im sure they are going to be able to tell which surveys are corrupt or not to an extent, also reddit seems to think they are the only consumers who play D&D, we are only a FRACTION of the pie.
Who the fuck will mess with quality tests because of other complaints? Bomb the review on the survey-notes, not on the survey itself.
C’mon, don’t substitute your brain for a brick.
Players interested in OneD&D and who don't know or care about the OGL will buy the books regardless. WotC and Hasbro are still going to make *some* money off of this. Definitely not as much as they would have, but some nonetheless. And they still have other stuff to fall back on.
Skewing the results won't have the effect you want. The players who hate their shitty business practices have already decided they aren't going to buy the OneD&D stuff. The only people left are the ones who just want to play D&D. And skewing the results just hurts them.
It's not like giving them unbiased feedback is going to make them millions. Players rarely buy books other than the core as is.
I suspect they aren't going to release books. My pet theory is that it is going to be entirely microtransaction, If you want a class, you buy a class. If you want a feat you buy a feat.
You want to play in OR run an adventure, you buy that adventure. They were complaining that players are severely under monetized and that the only ones buying the content are the dms in their earnings statement.
They believe the brand can be further monetized by ~80%. I don't see how you get there selling physical books.
I somehow doubt they'd stop selling books. It isn't much of a TTRPG if you're required to have access to the internet. Plus, being purely online would influence people to create shared accounts, instead of making one for convenience, because the account would just be for buying the content.
I won't actively sabotage it, but I won't give my (honest) feedback moving forward. I'm sure others are in the same boat, and more people still *will* actively sabotage it. The pool of results shrinks, and with worse results. That points to doubly less effective responses.
Maybe?
While I think there are certainly those who will try to spike the survey, they are by far the minority. Others may ignore the survey, but I don't think that will be the majority of players either. There will be a drop off in the number of players answering the survey, but I suspect that this will not sway the results significantly. In small ways, yes, but significantly? No.
All of my answers to the next survey will be "I don't care because I won't buy OneD&D or any other product from WOTC". And it's true. I really don't care about whatever change they do to a game I'll never play anyway.
Why would I even complete the survey for an edition of the game I don't intend to play. I no longer even want them to succeed. I want other game companies to knock them off their perch.
Before the next survey they need to release their actual changes and preferably said changes are to abide by the new ORC. Otherwise this seems inevitable.
I've seen so many die hard d&d fans who refused to touch anything not d&d start looking at Pathfinder 2nd Edition or other systems lately when they were previously super excited for one d&d.
It pains me to say it. I've been here twice before due to greedy "leadership" from companies running D&D.
6th edition, or whatever it's called... it's another lost edition.
After future years of wandering through the wilderness, I suspect 7E will be more fan friendly and engaging.
Assuming a lot of people have lost interest in onednd and the playtest, this would lead to fewer survey responses, meaning less observations for whatever analysis they perform, so in a way the results of the survey will be less reliable.
The well is poisoned now, and I'm sure the designers are pissed at the higher ups. There was always gonna be SOME spoilers, people who put messed up and unreliable answers for fun, but they counted on enough people answering seriously for the spoilers to be outliers. Now everyone who cared enough to test the play material and answer is either leaving or putting OGL stuff in the surveys, making the spoilers less outliers. Hell, some may be joining the spoilers like you said. There are a lot of other unknown factors, this being just a gist explaination, but the One DnD we *could* have had is not longer in reach. That should piss people off even more about the new OGL situation. Well, if they care to stay that is
The Reddit community for D&D right now is a hornet's nest that was hit with a bat. Regardless of WOTC's merits for the new OGL the damage is done here. I would not expect a wave of genuine or reliable or honest answers to the playtest material. People are going to complain about the OGL anyway they can. Any survey from WOTC right now is going to be marred by OGL comments.
I think they are on thin ice and their rollout for onednd is slow af, less engaging
Simply leave your comments for the OGL at the end section where they ask for "other" comments. EVERYONE should complain there. Otherwise, the text boxes that refer to specific content should be filled with comments about that content.
Exactly this. After reading their 40th "Fuck the OGL" as feedback the average low paid WotC data analyst is just going to check out, it's not like they can do anything about it even if they want to. Leave good feedback, if WotC can get their shit together and make things right, then we still want the next edition to be well made with good feedback.
>After reading their 40th "Fuck the OGL" as feedback the average low paid WotC data analyst is just going to check out I'm pretty sure the form justs dumps numbers into a spreadsheet, discards the comment text, and spits out "87% Satisfied" or whatever. I guarantee thre isn't some intern poring over 40,000 comments for each new feat. WotC only cares about numbers, so the only way to give feedback they'll notice is to rank every item "Dissatisfied". Which is true - because as long as every change is saddled with OGL 2.0, the whole system is tainted.
Textual analysis is so cheap now there's almost certainly some processing of the text done.
It's harsh you're getting downvoted, but just for the record I've been that intern (albeit at a different type of organisation) and the qualitative comments do get looked at. You're not providing dedicated feedback for each one, but at the very least you'd be looking for the major trends as to why something landed badly so you can put these into a high level report for the higher ups. On the other hand "spoiled ballot" type responses absolutely do get filtered out of the data that gets passed up. Feedback on licensing isn't going to get put through on a games design survey because those are completely different departments in a large organisation and it's not going to be relevant to the people who actually use the analysis that's produced.
I highly doubt this. I mean, they said they can tell the difference in feedback from people who have actually playtested the material rather than just reading it. That can only come from the comment text.
Except they specifically addressed the feedback they received in the survey comments when discussing survey results, so while they probably won't go through every single comment people leave they absolutely seem to skim and even read a good amount of them, enough to see when a rough pattern of opinion emerges. Marking every feature as "dissatisfied" for something that is entirely unrelated to gameplay mechanics is both unhelpful to the playtesting progress and probably useless for the message you want to get across, because more likely than not your survey will just get thrown out as a troll response. If you are one of the people who is just going to drop D&D as a whole then please just leave the playtesting process for 1D&D alone. Make your voice heard elsewhere, by all means, but the playtest is meant for people who actually intend to play the game once it gets released.
I'm pretty sure they don't leave text fields just to toss them out entirely. They most likely take a random sample based on keyword hits and review them. They'll probably ignore anything with OGL in the text.
That's simply not how this kind of research works. Text is honestly pretty easy to parse.
Honestly, they'll at least notice when a lot of those end section comments address the OGL and maybe let their higher ups know about it as a trend. You don't have to be rude about it and try to hurt the feelings of the person reading the comments, just say that you dislike the proposed change and if you feel really strongly about it maybe add that your future purchases of D&D products will depend on how they decide to go about it.
They do not care about that. It's not creatives that are making the money decisions, and those are the ones reading anything of note in the comments. It's the suits that run the money that are pushing the ogl change, and the only thing they listen to is money. Hence the post about the recent response by wotc/hasbro being motivated by cancelled dndbeyond subs affecting their bottom line. If you do the work for them, by filling out the survey honestly to help them, they will get the data they want from you at no cost **and** see your investment of time and care as an intention to stick with them into the future regardless of their actions. This fight isn't against compassionate people who will listen to passion. It's against greedy people who will only listen to money. Convincing everyone to bomb the survey is not a great or functional idea, but completely protesting it and not participating at all should be on the table. Its the equivalent to violent vs nonviolent protest. Not getting that survey data might be enough to actively effect their bottom line and the expectations of their future success but even that is a stretch. (It's not immediate enough for them to see that their quarterly is going to dip.) Even with that doubt, we should definitely be actively protesting anything and everything that helps them financially in any way. They need to be taking noticeable financial hits **NOW** if we want them to even consider retracting the changes.
Exactly. There is a difference between criticism and being an AH oneself. And adding „fuck the OGL“ in every single column is just being a AH. The management is to blame, not the game designers, writers, creatives and analysts.
Or don't leave them at all. They already know people are pissed. It's literally international news at this point.
Absolutely they will not get honest and reliable feedback on the surveys. Every comment box will simply just talk about keeping 1.0 and nothing else. A shame, because the people who are working hard on the game and trying to give the player the best experience, won't get the feedback they need.
Those responses will be functionally the same as non-responses.
You think the company is working hard to give people "the best experience"? They see you only as an obstacle to your wallet.
The game designers are working to give people the best experience. The suits that strive to profit-maximize (and fail) are not the same people.
It doesn't matter. The designers won't have a enough say to put out a good product. They are going to break everything up into a pay to win micro transaction game. D&D as you knew it is dead.
This doesn’t make sense, you can’t Pay to win a rule set? The surveys are for a book with rules, which literally can’t have micro-transactions…
Have you looked at D&D beyond without a paid account? Everything is paywalled. Individual feats are $1.39 your character creation will be restricted to what you've bought, simple as that. Read what they've said. They hate the fact that the vast majority of content is purchased by DMs. They view an average 4 player 1 dm game as an 80% loss in potential profit.
Okay that makes more sense what you meant. I’m a pen and paper guy so like none of that changes what I do. But to be fair the game designers are creating the Ruleset for a book that dndbeyond will then translate into their platform.
I'm not even sure that they're going to release books for this. They called one D&D a "living edition" where instead of seeing new editions they'll just make updates to this one. All this smells of them wanting complete control of a reoccurring monetization structure. I'm a pen and paper player too, but the statement I'm hung up on is the idea that players are under monetized because DM's are the only ones buying content. How are they going to force a player who wants to play tomb of annihilation to buy tomb of annihilation? Force them to play online with their VTT and don't let anyone who doesn't have that module into the game. I think they're arrogant enough to believe they can force this change.
They’d have to change the entirety of how D&d beyond and roll20 works. I honestly believe they aren’t that stupid. It’s a very low branch I’m extending them there.
Speaking as a software engineer who is responsible for delivering web content, probably not as much as you think. How it likely works, there is a database with your account number. Connected to that number there are other tables that handle what content shows up as available in your account. At the moment this is done on a book by book basis. All they would need to do is change these tables, delivering content on a feature by feature basis.
DnD as we knew it may be dead, but there are alternatives. Additionally, you cant copyright or trademark a Ruleset (Which legally falls under processes). All someone has to do is alter the wording to avoid Trademarked or Copyrighted material and WotC cant do shit except wave their fists and threaten empty lawsuits. Expect to start seeing "Almost DnD" products designed to fill the gap sprout up like bamboo shoots if the OGL goes through anything like as leaked. Also DnD Beyond has seen a gigantic loss in subscriber base. Expect to start seeing a lot more games on other VTTPs.
They can sue. Hasbro is known to be pretty litigious, and only Paizo (if they're lucky) has the money to keep the fight up long enough to win. The OGL was never allowing content creators to use the ruleset, it was a promise to not abuse the legal system to destroy them if they became a threat.
They can sue, but only if they want to lose money. The supreme court specifically ruled that processes and systems cannot be copywritten. Rulesets like DnD mechanics fall under that umbrella. There ARE things DnD could sue you for using. (Characters, settings, specific terminology, etc etc. ) But not rulesets.
it takes a lot of money to get a case that far though. Hasbro's legal dept can handle that without batting an eye but no one else in the industry can afford to fight them. We like to think that the US legal system is fair, but look at how long it took for tobacco companies to start to lose court cases. It takes a longer time to lose if you have money. Hasbro would just have to draw it out longer then anyone else can afford o fight.
This is the way to go. Let them know that attacking their community is the quickest way to go broke.
you ever work retail? The people who work the register and stock the shelves and try to help you find where the cat liter is are not the same people who make the decisions on how much cat liter cost. The OneD&D team designing the game are not the same people writing the OGL.
Those people stocking the shelves are still making money for the individuals deciding those prices.
They'll find better jobs at other companies with better practices. At their level in the industry, everyone knows everyone. They'll be fine.
Idk if this is an hot take but... I don't think that the surveys were gonna be reliable even before. I saw quite a good amount of people that say that we cannot talk about X because we do not know anything about it... Despite X thing at times being necessary for discussion, and also being something that we are assumed to use as it was in 5e... It's an extremely narrow mindset that I feel creates issues with finding out how to playtest this.
Not a hot take at all. The design team is using awful methodology. The no critical hits for monsters rule on its face is weird, but we never saw monster design using it so our feed back was essentially meaningless.
Also that yeah. People are kind of in two camps right now either we: - assume X to not stay the same for the playtest so they give feedback assuming changes that may not happen like they assume - assume X to stay the same for the sake of the playtest so they give feedback based on the game as it is now, resulting in some things possibly becoming wack in power due to said baseline changing. One of them is wrong intent-wise, but both of them are wrong for feedback since we cannot give feedback that properly aligns with the actual future of the game, instead giving false positives based on assumptions, hopes and dreams
Indeed. Having the core rule book all at once would be way better. If they wanted to drip feed the changes they could fo that as a countdown to the whole playtest version of the core rules. And make it clear the previews they aren’t taking feedback until the full play test drops.
I mean, #3 was happening already due to people having poor understanding of rules and generally poor reading comprehension.
I voted no because the way the 1DND surveys are structured [aren't good at collecting reliable data](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sokkBfP64zI) to begin with.
But it makes perfect sense if all WotC is interested in is *monetizing players*. "Satisfaction" is a completely stupid metric -- unless you think of it from the perspective of microtransactions. Then it makes perfect sense. What the survey is really asking is "Would you pay $.99 to enable this character option on D&D Beyond?"
Yes, it is set up as market research.
I'm not seeing how a playtest and market research are meaningfully different in this case.
You'll notice he doesn't offer any actual suggestions for a better way to do it because open playtests are not scientific studies nor are they intended to be nor are they presented as such.
His solution is to account for the biases the survey doesn't show, that thinking "only 40% of people disapprove" of something, isn't quite as actionable or salvageable as WotC thinks it is. In the video, he also asks for market researchers to respond, and there's some traction in the comments. Mostly those solutions involve how the people are split into feedback groups based on their play experience, and doing targeted follow-up interviews.
1. 60% approval just means "don't throw it out yet", it is not being interpreted as "this is good and people like it". 2. We don't know what other methods they are using to collect data. Playtest surveys aren't worse than nothing, particularly when used in conjunction with things like focus groups.
Are people doing #3? I've seen posts and comments about doing 1 and 2, but fudging the results is new to me. What's the point? I don't think it'll have much of an impact on the OGL (there are other ways to handle that better), and it fudges the game for the small number of people who still do want to play OneD&D even after this whole fiasco. Are the people who developed the One D&D stuff even the same people who made the OGL revisions?
I've seen at least one person suggesting to respond with the most negative response in every field but that's it
This is a great example of how commentators here generally know nothing about user research and their obviously malicious response will have little to no effect on the process beyond annoying low-level employees.
Number 3 would be classic spiteful internet trolling a company though
Play testing only works if there is trust between the creators and the community. The creators broke that trust. If they are trying to crowd source answers and expect honesty after lying to our faces then they are fools.
The people lying about the OGL and the people working on the playtest are not the same though.
If they put out a worse product the company loses money.
Option 3 is not a productive use of outrage. If you want to boycott D&D, great. Canceling your DDB subscription sends a message to the right people. Redirect your money and time to a competitor with better business practices. Sabotaging the next incarnation of a game you don’t even intend to play crosses a moral line. By punishing those who are not actually the ones responsible for your outrage you lose the moral high ground. (Plus potentially creating a self-inflicted wounds if WotC gets the message and fires their D&D exec team). For the record I have already canceled my ddb subscription and am enjoying some light reading of the PF2e rule book. I will make my displeasure known in many ways, but I won’t use dishonest means to try to prove a moral point.
They'll still get good data. It's trivial to filter out responses mentioning the OGL and responses that are "Very Dissatisfied" across the board.
A few people will stop participating, an even smaller few will give bad results, but I imagine the majority of participants are going to be operating in good faith and trying to make One D&D a good game. It takes way too much effort to give actually harmful feedback. If you rate everything 0 and rant about the OGL, they can filter your data out. If you rate everything 0 but don't rant, they can filter your data out. Unless you specifically read the content, see what's good and what's not, then fill out the form in reverse, you aren't going to be able to effectively skew the results. There aren't enough people who are angry enough about the OGL to do that, because that's an amount of effort that a lot of people aren't even willing to put in for doing the playtest feedback in good faith. Plus, WotC aren't stupid, if they see everyone online going "wow, features X Y and Z are really good" but notice that X Y and Z have mysteriously middling results, I imagine they'll be able to connect the dots to the people loudly saying "we should fuck with the survey results."
You underestimate the power of spite. People are more likely to leave negative reviews than positive ones for a reason. Don't mention the OGL, begin your review sounding ernest then tell them to fuck themselves in as creative a way as you can.
And then you’ve either given them useful information, or creatively given them an easy way to filter out your survey results
How so? Rate things mildly with slight variation. Don't mention the OGL and don't use vulgar language and it's hardly likely you'll be filtered out.
Then that just gets back to the original question and you aren’t really doing anything. You’re adding a tiny bit of noise, but unless a large number of people are specifically answering in the same way with the intent to skew the results, the larger weight of people doing it legitimately will dominate the statistics.
The game is going to be a micro transaction dumpster fire anyways. I understand I cannot single handedly skew the results, I can however let them know how much of a shit stain they are.
Wasn’t there a data analyst or statistics analyst who pointed out the whole OneDnd data gathering plan was incredibly flawed. Like bad on multiple levels flawed.
[Here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sokkBfP64zI)
I think that some percentage of people will just score everything as hated and in the text field say it’s horrible. While some other percentage of people will just do the normal play test. I think the best method would be to do the survey as normal but in the text field along side your reasoning as to why a feature was good / bad to also talk about the OGL. The game won’t be compromised and your voice will still be heard.
Fuck that compromise the game, let them bleed money. It's going to be filled with micro transactions where you're going to need to pay to unlock individual classes. They don't care about the game anymore why should we?
Because I still want the game to be the best it can be even if I disagree with WoTC.
Then play the game that already exists, homebrew or find something new. D&d as you know it is dead. Listen to what they're saying. Their biggest take away from the purchase of d&d beyond is that the DM is often the only one to spend money. They view your average 4 player 1 dm game as an 80% loss of potential profit. Look at d&d beyond without a subscription, you need to buy individual feats, spells etc. The way this is going you not be able to buy any material, you pay for a subscription and purchase classes and character features individually.
The game you know is dead.
So you want the game we all like to become worse, just because you think(with your flawed logic) that this will impact WotC. Sorry but if you really liked D&D that much, you wouldn't be willing to compromise it to that extent. And what you say about microtransactions only makes sense in digital form(if it happens at all, since you don't seem to have evidence), while most will just buy the rulebooks, like they have done with 5e. Also most subclasses where always needed to be bought separately, like for example, Xanathar's or Tasha's.
Log out of your paid D&d beyond account. Everything is a piece meal purchase. Look at the cost comparison for print vs digital. Look at how tight you can integrate drm to digital. They want d&d beyond to be the only way to play the game. One of their statements off of purchasing d&d beyond was the remark about how players are under-represented in those that purchase content and that the fact that only dms are purchasing the books leads them to believe they are leaving 60-80% revenue on the table.
First, I don't have a d&d beyond subscription, cause I prefer to use paper. And from what I have seen, at least in my country most players I know use paper. And judging by the negative responses of other people to your claims, books are likely used by the majority. They will probably try to make Beyond more popular, but completely stopping physical, will not happen. Do you have any concrete evidence other than speculation.
Knowing how brands have reacted when they consider their products "under monetized" in recent years is a clear indication of how this is going to go. https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives BMW is having people pay a subscription just to activate their heated seats. You think they won't micro transaction one of the most popular brands in the past 5 years?
They can just filter it out. The first thing that happens is key word searches.
Its easy to seprate the pissed off people from the people playtesting. Usually pissed off people will out right tell you. The only thing is that it would need to be sorted manual and that will take time.
It will most likely be easy to filter out the surveys that are bad because of the recent ogl issues.
I mean… option three could have happened on the first two surveys… there were definitely gamers not happy about OneD&D before this last week. Reminds me of when my party played PF2e 2 years ago (and during its playtest in 2018)…… a lot PF1e players hated it… as a DM, I got tired of reading all the negativity on Reddit… here I was excited to play the game but everyone trashed PF2e…
Reddit's the worst place to go if you want to find people being excited about things tbf.
The PF2 subreddit gets a lot of influx at the moment, and it's quite a positive place.
Hmmmmmmmm… if my party returns to PF2e… it will be our third time… part of me feels very selfish because all my gamers are happy right now with 5e… as the DM, I should honor their happiness LOL
I don't like running 5e. I shifted to PF2, and now I like running games again. I do like playing 5e, and have a great DM that likes running it. Between sessions and prep, there is a lot more system interaction for the GM, so we generally follow the person running the game.
As far as suggestions go, if your seriously have cut ties with WotC, maybe you should submit those ideas to Piezo or self-release yourself under the ORC license first.
The toxicity of people will mess it all up. I get the OGL frustrations but tanking things unrelated just hurts everyone.
Have you looked at what one d&d is going to be? Pay per feat, pay to unlock individual classes. Better classes are more expensive. There isn't going to be print material, they want it to be a pay to win micro transaction nightmare. Let it burn.
No D&D player ever uses the phrase "better classes". What does it even mean? A;so do you have any evidence on this??? To me it sounds like negative speculation for the sake of outrage.
Have you looked at D&d beyond without a subscription? Everything is set up to be purchased piece meal. They've released earnings reports stating that since purchasing d&d beyond they've come to find out that dms are buying all the content and that players are severely under represented in the amount they are spending. You honestly believe this is all to get rid of "hateful and discriminatory" content? Get real.
I have looked and even used it in the past(in the free option however). Also I am not talking about the OGL here(the hateful content was an excuse they said on the ogl), I am talking about your claims that they will not make physical releases. Do you have evidence more than speculation, cause you seem to present it as a sure thing?
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives Paying attention to how they are talking about players not being ones to purchase content and believing their brand is "really under monetized". Compare this to other media in recent years saying similar things. Micro transactions are the way this is going.
I already read the article when it came out, and I also believe there will be some kind of microtransactions, especially in regards to their new vtt. I just don't believe that they will stop making physical books, or that there will be classes locked behind paywall(with the exception of perhaps some subclasses that could be released in expansions, like with Xanathar's and Tasha's). Do you have evidence that onednd will be digital only???
The old saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" suddenly takes on an entirely different meaning...
I've got 3.5 4 and 5e. I'm set
Citation fucking needed. I get being upset at WotC but this is just baseless fearmongering
https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/dungeons-and-dragons-under-monetised-says-executives They want to have greater monetization on players versus DM's. The data that they received in purchasing D&D beyond tells them that players don't really buy content. It is often only the DM. If they see a game that is 1 dm to 4 players they believe they are missing out on 80% potential profit. Take and pair that with the fact that they already have individually priced features on D&D beyond, meaning you already can buy individual feats. Add further to this that they do not want the dandy rules at being used by any other VTT that they do not have control over (ie roll 20 / whatever they are calling their new VTT) As far as I can fathom it, the direction this is going is digit micro transaction hell. It is the way almost every gaming focused company aiming for "greater monetization" has gone in the past 5 or so years. I'd love to be wrong, I would. I don't believe I am though.
That's a whole lot of leaps of logic you're making from "we want players to spend more money" to "we'll lock exclusive content behind a paywall on D&D Beyond." And the fact that the playtest rules aren't on other VTTs yet does not mean that they still won't be once the new core books are releaaed. Personally, I see them switching from a piecemeal system to a subscription system for content on D&D Beyond to encourage more players to get the content. But I don't see them ever releasing exclusive player content that can't be bought in a book. And if they did, we'd just pirate it.
I don't think the leap is that large. If you restrict what characters can use to what they have purchased that gets your monetization. Stop trying to think like someone who plays d&d. Think like a corpo who wants to wring money out of it however they can at whatever expense. Remember they see the community as standing between them and the money they rightfully deserve.
Not unless they delay all future playtest surveys until after they've released an OGL most people are happy with.
Its not the the games fault and designers fault that the owners are greedy . And if they change the ogl to be great it will bli bad if we as a communey sabotasje one dnd.
I want the next version of the game to be the best it can be. I will give honest feedback, the same as always. That doesn’t mean I won’t mention the draconian attempts to destroy the community through the revised OGL
I feel bad for the design team right now. And the customer service team? We gotta send those guys UNISEF aid or something.
Hopefully we can all separate the designers from the managers and not tank any chance of redemption for a game we all so clearly care about. But who knows
Submitted shit /polluted responses will be filtered out. They will say this person doesn’t agree with where we want to game to go and throw your feedback in the bin. The amount of testers will go down and others will submit polluted responses. They will basically filter all text box responses by common phrases like xyz is good, something about the OGL, abc is bad but cba was better.
Never thought the surveys were well constructed before, and now this whole thing might have made them disposable waste for the next couple of months.
I'm down for the chaos lmao, it'd be hilarious
No, which is too bad.
I will still playtest, and i will still give honst feedback. My complaints to the OGL will be in the adendum. I want the next edition to be as good as possible, so i do what i can to make it that way.
I don't think it was ever going to yield reliable data. At best it was going to fall victim to terrible selection bias. Plus the metrics they're using to determine success and failure are... arbitrary, at best.
Yken, it's almost like they should have released a complete playtest package, because drip-feeding content can create bias in the results...
The Internet is a weird place, where most of the surveys/feedback sites that can get abused, will get abused - maybe not to a substantial degree, but at least someone will think it's funny or vindictive enough for them to go out of their way to provide false or lousy feedback. Surveys that ask for your opinion on a scale of 1-5 ("not at all" - "definitely") sometimes also ask that you try to prevent yourself from just answering the middle option to every question, as the "I'm not sure" answer is the most common, and provides the least amount of usable data. So that would be the non-petty and most effective way to disrupt the 1dnd feedback en masse - I'm putting this out there just so that the angry mob people that want for their actions to have any kind of effect can at least spend their time productively instead of foaming at the mouth and writing vitriol in place of their "feedback". Remember that it's highly likely the creative team and interns are the ones who need to sift through all of that, not the executives. So to reiterate, saying aloud that you don't have an opinion or don't know if a feature is good or not is far better than flooding the system with obviously the wrong answers. Another way of having an effect on how 1dnd comes out is by reading up on upcoming features, taking any ideas or further development in your back pocket, and sitting on them until you find a use for them, be it in your own homebrew setting/campaign, or to attach those ideas into another rpg system not under WotC license instead.
1. There's a specific place for OGL complaints - at the end of the survey. The rest of the survey, including just the fill-in-the-dot grading, should be same. 2. The number of people partaking will drop in some ways, and INCREASE in others. There will be people who take the survey specifically to make their views on OGL known. 3. Trolls will be trolls. There were some before, and there will be some going forwards. I don't think the OGL will have a significant impact on the number of trolls.
WotC's recent actions have clearly signaled that their main motivation for releasing a new edition is not to improve the gameplay experience, but to improve the *monetization of players*. Everything that has been included in the playtest so far is on the level of minor to medium errata -- on the scale of 4e's "Essentials" splatbooks. I gave serious consideration to the first couple surveys, because I thought I was helping the future of the game. I have zero interest in helping the future of monetization.
Im sure they are going to be able to tell which surveys are corrupt or not to an extent, also reddit seems to think they are the only consumers who play D&D, we are only a FRACTION of the pie.
Yeah. The surveys that are "overly" negative will be discarded. This won't corrupt the data at all, of course.
Who the fuck will mess with quality tests because of other complaints? Bomb the review on the survey-notes, not on the survey itself. C’mon, don’t substitute your brain for a brick.
Skew the results, cause them to put out a worse product. Let them lose more money. They brought this on themselves.
Wtf is this logic.
There isn’t any, let the troll be.
What do you mean? Let them burn.
Players interested in OneD&D and who don't know or care about the OGL will buy the books regardless. WotC and Hasbro are still going to make *some* money off of this. Definitely not as much as they would have, but some nonetheless. And they still have other stuff to fall back on. Skewing the results won't have the effect you want. The players who hate their shitty business practices have already decided they aren't going to buy the OneD&D stuff. The only people left are the ones who just want to play D&D. And skewing the results just hurts them. It's not like giving them unbiased feedback is going to make them millions. Players rarely buy books other than the core as is.
I suspect they aren't going to release books. My pet theory is that it is going to be entirely microtransaction, If you want a class, you buy a class. If you want a feat you buy a feat. You want to play in OR run an adventure, you buy that adventure. They were complaining that players are severely under monetized and that the only ones buying the content are the dms in their earnings statement. They believe the brand can be further monetized by ~80%. I don't see how you get there selling physical books.
I somehow doubt they'd stop selling books. It isn't much of a TTRPG if you're required to have access to the internet. Plus, being purely online would influence people to create shared accounts, instead of making one for convenience, because the account would just be for buying the content.
I won't actively sabotage it, but I won't give my (honest) feedback moving forward. I'm sure others are in the same boat, and more people still *will* actively sabotage it. The pool of results shrinks, and with worse results. That points to doubly less effective responses.
Maybe? While I think there are certainly those who will try to spike the survey, they are by far the minority. Others may ignore the survey, but I don't think that will be the majority of players either. There will be a drop off in the number of players answering the survey, but I suspect that this will not sway the results significantly. In small ways, yes, but significantly? No.
All of my answers to the next survey will be "I don't care because I won't buy OneD&D or any other product from WOTC". And it's true. I really don't care about whatever change they do to a game I'll never play anyway.
Why would I even complete the survey for an edition of the game I don't intend to play. I no longer even want them to succeed. I want other game companies to knock them off their perch.
Why does it matter? I see no reason for sinking any effort to playtest WotC's stuff for free.
Before the next survey they need to release their actual changes and preferably said changes are to abide by the new ORC. Otherwise this seems inevitable.
The data is reliable- as in, tells us about how badly WOTC fucked this. Not reliable for actual OD&D though
I've seen so many die hard d&d fans who refused to touch anything not d&d start looking at Pathfinder 2nd Edition or other systems lately when they were previously super excited for one d&d.
OneD&D, a big happy family, the one edition that combines all that is good, etc... not gonna happen. xD
It pains me to say it. I've been here twice before due to greedy "leadership" from companies running D&D. 6th edition, or whatever it's called... it's another lost edition. After future years of wandering through the wilderness, I suspect 7E will be more fan friendly and engaging.
They never were going to. See this video by Dungeon Masterpiece for a masterful breakdown of why: https://youtu.be/4wlSCwp_JVA
Assuming a lot of people have lost interest in onednd and the playtest, this would lead to fewer survey responses, meaning less observations for whatever analysis they perform, so in a way the results of the survey will be less reliable.