Question about how complainers are viewing the feedback process

If the playtest is not going your way what is the reason....?

1.  My views are in the minority and I'm getting out voted in the playtest packet.
2.  The designers own biases are causing them to ignore the playtest feedback.
3.  My own views are not core concepts by their nature and I expect something modular in the future.

Feel free to add your own comments if these suggestions don't fit.  I put them out to provoke thought.

One reason I asked is that if people feel something is a genuine vote they are normally less upset at a result that goes against them.  I won't say not upset at all though.  Whereas if they feel there is a vote and it is being ignored then that is a bigger thing.

I personally have no reason to believe that my own preferences are being ignored.  I assume either #1 or #3.   

Here is a great blog by themormegil that explains why we had an edition war. narrativism vs simulationism

 HoBby Award Winner metagame dissonance (plot coupon)

dissociative mechanics (same as my own metagame dissonance. A great article.)

The Five Minute Workday Fallacy

My view on hit points

I see it as mostly #2.

They made it pretty obvious from the beginning they were rejecting the 4E fans.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is a nice little self created divide here. Shame there can't be more acceptance instead. I feel that is where the future of the game should be.

All this vitriol, pushing away, retroactive retaliation, and preemptive striking needs to stop.

I keep trying but some won't let things go. Will you?

 

Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus. Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.

If the playtest is not going your way what is the reason....?

1.  My views are in the minority and I'm getting out voted in the playtest packet.
2.  The designers own biases are causing them to ignore the playtest feedback.
3.  My own views are not core concepts by their nature and I expect something modular in the future.

Feel free to add your own comments if these suggestions don't fit.  I put them out to provoke thought.

One reason I asked is that if people feel something is a genuine vote they are normally less upset at a result that goes against them.  I won't say not upset at all though.  Whereas if they feel there is a vote and it is being ignored then that is a bigger thing.

I personally have no reason to believe that my own preferences are being ignored.  I assume either #1 or #3.   



for me it would be a variation of number 2.

DnD had had a bad experiance with revolutonising design with 4th edition.
And the designers now seem to be to afraid of making big changes, instead resorting to just doing tweeks of things that we already seen in other editions.

So to me it seems the bias there is is not a bias that one of the older editions is better.
But more a fear of trying anything that might be considerd a radical change even if it would result in a better game. 
I have plenty of D&D games to choose from, I don't need another.  OTOH The designers have good reason (bias) to design another.  They need a new game of D&D, I don't.  So, my reason is #2.

Not being hateful, just honest.  I plan on picking up the game anyway.  It will have the benefit of being actively supported (and it should be easy to convert to earlier systems and vice versa).
/\ Art
Zappy it would only be true if they were not making the correct market decision in doing that.  I'm not saying they are rejecting 4e fans or that the market would indicate that if they did.  I'm just saying it wouldn't be true in every possible case.
Zappy it would only be true if they were not making the correct market decision in doing that.  I'm not saying they are rejecting 4e fans or that the market would indicate that if they did.  I'm just saying it wouldn't be true in every possible case.



You asked for an opinion and you got it.  IMHO it's bad form to argue about an opinion that you yourself have solicited.  For the record, I too feel the Devs (esp Mearls) are deep into Confirmation Bias (which amounts to #2).

-Polaris
My main issue with DnD Next is its actual design does not reflect its design goals.

You see, I actually liked the design goals of 5E. The idea of a simple core with plug-n-play modular options (including sliders for character complexity) greatly appeals to me. But that's not what we've gotten. We've had a year of open playtesting and are just now maybe in the near future about to finally get some options for modular character complexity ---- for noncasters anyway. Casters are of course forced into the Vancian schema which makes modular complexity for them pretty much a pipe dream (and Mearls has admitted as much on twitter, pointing out "simple casters" in Next are "hard to do").

Examples of modular class design would be the talent system from d20 Modern and Star Wars Saga. Examples of a modular healing system would be the recovery points idea I proposed in another thread. Examples of a simple-but-modular core rules would be something like the rules from 4E or Gamma World with skills removed and conditions stripped down.

Instead we have a mediocre d20-based retroclone (seriously, Castles and Crusades is better) with three different resolution systems, "modules" that completely invalidate core rules, a bunch of hidden complexity snuck in with stuff like minor actions that aren't really minor actions (because, you know, explaining what a swift action is in a spell description is muuuuuch better than explaining it in the core rules), and a complete lack of a mapless system (The DM Wings It is not a mapless system).

Say what you want about 4E, but at least it adhered to its own design goals. 
The thread title is : Question about how complainers are viewing the feedback process, but the question is about the playtest not going our way. These are two different things.
My two answers would be : I don't care.

I consider that I'm here to react to each packet, not the playtest feedback process.
We don't know if what we have in the packets is close to the real things they work on, or if it's just some tools to determine a creative direction.
We don't even know how are treated the results, how they are organized, how they are filtered and how much these filters (some must be human readers) are able to translate the playtesters opinions.

For what we know, some die hard fans of an edition may be advocating for the edition they hate the most without realizing it in the playtest feedback, as we can see how some zealots can attack other editions without knowing most of it.

If the playtest is not going my way, it may be to provoke reactions.
So, I really don't care.

I have no idea how 5E will eventually ship.  I am part of the playtest.  I play the packets and I give feedback.    In my mind, that is a rare priviledge.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

I started as a complainer. Subsequent packets have moved me to ambivalence.

The only thing that REALLY tweaks me is this: Would it really kill WOTC to have a distinct warlord class? Throw us a frickin bone, here.

That's my only serious complaint. Everything else is now "fine, not great, but ok."
What I don't understand is the people that stay active on these forums, yet say they'll never buy D&D again and they're so disappointed, they hate WotC, etc. Why? lol

It's like being on an empty bus. There's a couple people on the bus, they go sit next to the guy who smells like farts and piss, then complain about him smelling like farts and piss the entire 3 hour bus ride.

D. My views are being purposely ignored because my preferred game/play style will not win back the grognards. Unfortunately I do not see a game with a large potential to win back any player base or attract new players.
For me, it is what Edwin and Heretic said.

I stay active on the boards in the hopes that the designers will come to appreciate our position and make modifications to the game that will make it more like something I want to play. For example: please keep the Warlord as a class. It is one of the great successes of 4e, but seems on the verge of being sacrificed on the altar of grognardism... I say this as someone who has played and enjoyed every edition of DnD since basic.  

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

#1 and #3. I see no evidence of #2.
But then again, as vocal as some of my feedback is, I think the playtest process is working well.
I would definitely vote for #2. I see design decisions that go against the developer's own stated design goals. At that point, subjective bias being the cause seems the logical conclusion.
D. My views are being purposely ignored because my preferred game/play style will not win back the grognards. Unfortunately I do not see a game with a large potential to win back any player base or attract new players.

I think pretty much this. Having 4e as my favorite edition seems to make most of what I enjoy badwrongfun for 5e. Our group started with high hopes but all the playtests so far have kind of beaten the optimism out of us. It's feeling more like a chore than something fun. IMO every time you get something good, it seems two things I liked get taken away. Frown

Now the latest Legends & Lore sounds pretty good. *dances on the grave of skill dice*. Lets just hope it isn't an excuse to remove more stuff I like.

As to me buying 5e/ staying on forum, as of now I'm not likely to buy unless some major overhauls happen. I'm on the forums on the slim chance that 5e can be pushed towards a game I wouldn't mind playing if/when someone pulls it out and wants to play. My standards are WAY lower of playing over BUYING. 

The surveys, themselves, often seem a bit biased.  This last one was much better, though, so that's a positive indication.

Ultimately, though, if they just use the 5e playtest results as a simple majority-rules process, they'll fail in their professed goal of a "one D&D for everybody."  In fact, it could be a lot worse, since the de-facto 'votes' are issue-by-issue, and not everyone is voting a 'party line.'  So a majority might like Vancian and a majority might like Advantage, but those who like both might be distinctly in the minority....

5e's promise still has to be in the 'modularity' aspect, by which people will be able to choose the things they do like, and ignore the things the don't.  We've yet to see how that's going to be accomplished, though....
 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I see it as a mix of all three reasons, and also #5 - Some of my concerns are actually addressed. I thought the first playtest fighter was a steaming pile, and I said so. The fighter has changed a lot since then and may change some more, but it's dramatically better than it was back then. In the early days, I wasn't optimistic about DDN. Now I'm more optimistic. (And also my expectations for Next and my standards for its design have plummeted through the floor, so I'm less disappointed and more resigned, but that's a separate issue.) I do sometimes feel as though a lot of the major hard turns they've made clearly in response to community feedback are things that they should really have just known (actual humans actually playing the game don't want a one-button fighter, for example), but I'm willing to forgive experimentation.

Next feedback feels kind of like blowing on a hamster ball with a hamster inside of it to get it to go where you want. A lot of times the ball's motion feels like it's really just dictated by the hamster, with the hamster just kind of running in random directions, motivated by who knows what, but when there's clearly a lot of people blowing in the same direction, then at least some of the time that appears to have at least some impact on where the hamster ball goes.

I think that the playtest packets tell a more encouraging story about the game's direction than any number of L&L columns, tweets or podcasts, provided that you understand that some things are to be implemented modularly down the line. On their own, the playtest packets read as a slow (sometimes excruciatingly slow) amble from preposterous and terrible to reasonable-in-the-aggragate and even sometimes kind of cool, with an expected number of false starts and experiments mixed in. It's when you're exposed to the frequently questoinable surrounding material that doubt starts to creep in.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Funny seeing the votes for 2 from the 4th ed crowd. They spent so long telling each other it was wonderful they kind of forgot about everyone else.

 AD&D killed off BECM, 3rd ed more or less ate 2nd ed. I just assume my views are in a minority and D&DN probably will not be for me but the family may like it. Wait and see what happens. Still waiting for a proper 3rd edition.  
What I don't understand is the people that stay active on these forums, yet say they'll never buy D&D again and they're so disappointed, they hate WotC, etc. Why? lol

It's like being on an empty bus. There's a couple people on the bus, they go sit next to the guy who smells like farts and piss, then complain about him smelling like farts and piss the entire 3 hour bus ride.



yeah if you are talking about me,  i love d&d  i just don't like WotC or their business practices. i love fourth edition i dont love fiftth editiion...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Each version of D&D I played had it's shortcomings. I hope that given enough good feedback, DnDN can be better than all of them.

This is the first time that we can also actively participate before the books are on the shelves, which I think is a great thing. It means that the hamster ball might indeed go in the right direction sometimes (I liked that analogy).

I'm not sure if the developers care for the things like liked in the previous editions though, so I'm not to confident that we're actually going to get a game that I consider better. But just like a democracy, I think that to complain you need to have at least participated.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

 

I once asked the question (in D&D 3.5) "Does a Druid4/Wizard3/ArcaneHierophant1 have Wildshape?". Jesse Decker and Andy Collins: Yes and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Rich Redman and Ed Stark: No and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Skip Williams: Lol, it's worded ambiguously and entirely not how I intended it. (Cust. Serv. Reference# 050815-000323)

What I don't understand is the people that stay active on these forums, yet say they'll never buy D&D again and they're so disappointed, they hate WotC, etc. Why? lol



Because it's standard forum operations. If you don't like something, no matter how little you've played it (or at all) and think that it's wrongbadfun, then complain until your blue in the face at every single opportunity on multiple platforms and messageboards and reviews to get the company to change it. That's been the buisness norm for years now.  
Funny seeing the votes for 2 from the 4th ed crowd. They spent so long telling each other it was wonderful they kind of forgot about everyone else.

 AD&D killed off BECM, 3rd ed more or less ate 2nd ed. I just assume my views are in a minority and D&DN probably will not be for me but the family may like it. Wait and see what happens. Still waiting for a proper 3rd edition.  



wel personaly I do feal a bit of duble standard.

Warlord can't be a class becouse it would be mecanical and feal wise  to close to the fighter/bard.
Ok i can get onboard with that.

Then we get a ranger that is very close to fighter/druid in mecanics and feal
And a paladin that is basivly a nice example of a fighter/cleric.

so either :
A : class overlap is not problem and there is no reason why the warlord should not be a class.
or
B : class overlap is a problem and the curent ranger and paladin need to be re designed to adress this problem.


At this point the warlord is to simular to the fighter/bard argument seems somthing just made up to bar the warlord of being a class.
As other classes are not held to the same standard to see if they can be their own class. 
For me it's mostly option #3. I know that some things i would like to see have 0 chance to be core because they weren't core in previous edition also. Will i buy 5e? Probably yes. There are some things my group likes so we will take what we like and mash it with 3/3.5/PF and be happy playing our little bastard system.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

While I do give them the feedback via their surveys, I don't actually presume that it means anything....
Because I firmly believe that they've had a good idea of what 5e will look like since (before) they began this so-called playtest.
This?  This is mostly just an illusion.  It's to keep the game talked about while it's effectively off the market.

Will 5e be a game I buy?  That I play?  I don't know.
If it is?  +
If it isn't?  Well, I'll still be a D&D player.  I'll just be using BECM/AD&D1&2/3x - same as I've been doing for decades....
So if 5e turns out to be not to my liking?  That's WoTCs problem, not mine.
I think D&D is being ruined by its fans. They're making some ridiculous attempt to make a game that doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities of grognards and knee-jerk reactionaries. Every time they try something even a little bit out of the box, I see an explosion of wailing from the retrogressive community. I like to imagine them as southern belles swooning and fainting because they simply can't handle the shock of a fighter who actually does things.

So I guess #1, but in a more sort of disappointed/condescending way.
"So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been." - Manwë, High King of the Valar
If the playtest is not going your way what is the reason....?

1.  My views are in the minority and I'm getting out voted in the playtest packet.
2.  The designers own biases are causing them to ignore the playtest feedback.
3.  My own views are not core concepts by their nature and I expect something modular in the future.

Feel free to add your own comments if these suggestions don't fit.  I put them out to provoke thought.

One reason I asked is that if people feel something is a genuine vote they are normally less upset at a result that goes against them.  I won't say not upset at all though.  Whereas if they feel there is a vote and it is being ignored then that is a bigger thing.

I personally have no reason to believe that my own preferences are being ignored.  I assume either #1 or #3.   

1 and 3. Not 2. 

The designers are significantly less bias than many of the posters on this forum, for example. 

 
Mostly #2 but I'm not blind to my own desires so probably some of #3 as well. I freely admit that I want D&D:Next to be different and new. I want D&D: Next to fulfill a concept that can't easily be done by the last 4.5 editions or else I'd just play them. Right now, it just doesn't seem to have the wow factor going for it. I can do low numbers style game with v3.5 E6. I can do high fantasy D&D with mid- to high-level v3.5 or any level 4E. I can do no-magic / low-healing D&D with modified 4E. I can do gritty D&D with pre-3E. Next just seems, to me, to be devoid of anything new or exciting. Its like they're trying to make a revision of 3E that appeals to pre-3E fans and still rope in 4E fans by screaming modules (which I have some serious doubts about).
I think D&D is being ruined by its fans. They're making some ridiculous attempt to make a game that doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities of grognards and knee-jerk reactionaries. Every time they try something even a little bit out of the box, I see an explosion of wailing from the retrogressive community. I like to imagine them as southern belles swooning and fainting because they simply can't handle the shock of a fighter who actually does things. So I guess #1, but in a more sort of disappointed/condescending way.



 Finding out what your fanbase actually wants seems a strange concept I know!!

I think D&D is being ruined by its fans. They're making some ridiculous attempt to make a game that doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities of grognards and knee-jerk reactionaries. Every time they try something even a little bit out of the box, I see an explosion of wailing from the retrogressive community. I like to imagine them as southern belles swooning and fainting because they simply can't handle the shock of a fighter who actually does things. So I guess #1, but in a more sort of disappointed/condescending way.



 Finding out what your fanbase actually wants seems a strange concept I know!!




And there is the problem that somtimes what fans say they want turns out not to be what they realy wanted when the edition comes out.

4th adition adressed most peoplems people expressed about 3.x on these boards.
but that it adresed the problems they mentioned did not mean they wanted to play the end result.

 


 
 Fixed in the wrong way perhaps. 
If the playtest is not going your way what is the reason....?

1.  My views are in the minority and I'm getting out voted in the playtest packet.
2.  The designers own biases are causing them to ignore the playtest feedback.
3.  My own views are not core concepts by their nature and I expect something modular in the future.

Feel free to add your own comments if these suggestions don't fit.  I put them out to provoke thought.

One reason I asked is that if people feel something is a genuine vote they are normally less upset at a result that goes against them.  I won't say not upset at all though.  Whereas if they feel there is a vote and it is being ignored then that is a bigger thing.

I personally have no reason to believe that my own preferences are being ignored.  I assume either #1 or #3.   

1 and 3. Not 2. 

The designers are significantly less bias than many of the posters on this forum, for example. 

 



Wait, you did read the early development articles where Mearls basically says he loves 2E and hates how 4E turned out right? I'd call that pretty biased...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Wait, you did read the early development articles where Mearls basically says he loves 2E and hates how 4E turned out right? I'd call that pretty biased...



Wait, have you read every other post on this forum at least infering that [x Edition] is vastly superior to [x edition], and that all design features of the next edition should be based off it? Anecdotes about what the game designers may have said in whatever context is of limited concern when they are professionally obliged towards a doing a specific job with clearly understood success criteria. I'd also cite Gareth Hanrahan who designed, in my view, a pretty good iteration of the Traveller rules for Mongoose. He was quoted, early on, that he hated the space sci-fi genre, but he still did a decent professional job. 

When people complain about the bias of people doing the type of job Mearls is trying to do, they are mearly showing the world what their own bias is. 

 Fixed in the wrong way perhaps. 



well there is this ted talk about spagety sauce.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y

When they asked  people what they wanted in a spagety sause the things that where mentioned was spicy or mild.

But when they mixed up 50 batches of spagget sause and let people rate them it turned out 1/3 rated sauses with a more chunky consistancy higer no mater if they where mild or spicy. 
But the consistany of the sause was never mentioned when they asked people what they wanted.

And there could be such cases in DnD too.

Take for example spellcasting when I ask people about spelcasting in DnD many say they love Vancian casting.
But when the talk progresses about what it is about vancian they like so much often it turnes out they like the more open nature of the spells.
but never it never occured to them that you could have such spells in another system then vancian.





Wait, you did read the early development articles where Mearls basically says he loves 2E and hates how 4E turned out right? I'd call that pretty biased...



Wait, have you read every other post on this forum at least infering that [x Edition] is vastly superior to [x edition], and that all design features of the next edition should be based off it? Anecdotes about what the game designers may have said in whatever context is of limited concern when they are professionally obliged towards a doing a specific job with clearly understood success criteria. I'd also cite Gareth Hanrahan who designed, in my view, a pretty good iteration of the Traveller rules for Mongoose. He was quoted, early on, that he hated the space sci-fi genre, but he still did a decent professional job. 

When people complain about the bias of people doing the type of job Mearls is trying to do, they are mearly showing the world what their own bias is. 




They are supposedly obligated. Your post here only works if you believe that they will do what they said, which they've proved over and over they don't do. When you view it from the angle that they may not do what they said. Then what I posted is very accurate...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 Fixed in the wrong way perhaps. 



well there is this ted talk about spagety sauce.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y

When they asked  people what they wanted in a spagety sause the things that where mentioned was spicy or mild.

But when they mixed up 50 batches of spagget sause and let people rate them it turned out 1/3 rated sauses with a more chunky consistancy higer no mater if they where mild or spicy. 
But the consistany of the sause was never mentioned when they asked people what they wanted.

And there could be such cases in DnD too.

Take for example spellcasting when I ask people about spelcasting in DnD many say they love Vancian casting.
But when the talk progresses about what it is about vancian they like so much often it turnes out they like the more open nature of the spells.
but never it never occured to them that you could have such spells in another system then vancian.








Exactly. Unfortunately the surveys are formatted in such a way that they can't get the proper information to make those kinds of intuitive leaps. Instead what they get is people like or don't like vancian casting...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Comment boxes are free-form.

I don't think the surveys are particularly biased - I'd just like to see the results.
I see it as a mix of all three reasons, and also #5 - Some of my concerns are actually addressed. I thought the first playtest fighter was a steaming pile, and I said so. The fighter has changed a lot since then and may change some more, but it's dramatically better than it was back then.



The irony in this post is that for all of the Fighter's iterations, the latest playtest packet is the one that is the closest to the original packet, just instead of having an always on +2, it gets x/encounter +1d6.
 Fixed in the wrong way perhaps. 



well there is this ted talk about spagety sauce.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y

When they asked  people what they wanted in a spagety sause the things that where mentioned was spicy or mild.

But when they mixed up 50 batches of spagget sause and let people rate them it turned out 1/3 rated sauses with a more chunky consistancy higer no mater if they where mild or spicy. 
But the consistany of the sause was never mentioned when they asked people what they wanted.

And there could be such cases in DnD too.

Take for example spellcasting when I ask people about spelcasting in DnD many say they love Vancian casting.
But when the talk progresses about what it is about vancian they like so much often it turnes out they like the more open nature of the spells.
but never it never occured to them that you could have such spells in another system then vancian.




  A very good point.  if I may add...

 The majority of posters here started with D&D, and compared all other RPGs to it.  It's the one they know the most.  For a not-so-insignificant minority, it's the only RPG they've ever played. 

  I think a lot of feedback one gets, like "I like Vancian Casting" would be totally inverted if a player's first exposure to fantasy RPGs wasn't vancian casting, if vancian casting hadn't inspired spells with cooldowns in other fantasy games, and if vancian casting were the "new and different" idea compared to something like free-form at-will, spell points, or a fatigue system.
  And to answer the OP, I believe the reasons are a combination of all 3.  I don't plan on forcing people (fellow posters or devs) into agreeing with me though.

    My interest actually lies in the large number of visitors to this board who read threads but never actually post or engage in discussion. I hope to in some way broaden their conceptions about what D&D is and what D&D can be compared to simply what it has been.