Do you feel Wizards has been listening to us?

Considering the end of the playtest is just around the corner, this seems as good a time as any to ask.

Do you feel that WotC has been listening to our feedback?

BONUS ROUND: Do you feel that WotC has been listening to the feedback that we actually want them to listen to?
Too much.  They are trying to please everyone and having a tough time.  I am of the business perspective that customers don't know what they want.
I feel WotC has been remarkably tolerant of some outlandish behavior and demands by some fringe elements to whom they owe nothing.
confirmation bias. I do not think they even browse here. Maybe in threads about their podcasts.
Too many flame wars.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
I think they look at their survey feedback. They may look at the trending topics on the boards just for grins.
I think yes and no.  Mike has made comments that people largely liked advantage/disadvatage, and expertise dice with fighters.  So those are things they kept.  With the most recent packet, you could see the "basic" fighter (warrior) and more advanced fighter "gladiator" who kept the ED.  In this next feedback, I will mention that I really like the options like warning shout and such, and wished they would put those back in.

Also, I think they largely abandoned the "edition for all edition players" because of feedback, even if the indirect feedback of the forums.  Certain groups of people will never be happy unless Next is just like their current favorite edition, so WoTC just said, "The hell with it, we'll just put out the game we're designing and no longer go with the module route that emulates every prior edition."

I don't blame them.  There are aspects from every edition in Next, and I think they did the best they could without being directly opposed to another edition.

I've been houseruling RPGs since day one, and haven't seen a published game that was perfect for me.  In fact, that's a core aspect of the identity that makes D&D D&D: make it your own.  So if Next allows me to play the way I want (which may mean ignoring certain rules) and still have fun?  Success.
I think they have been collecting data and using it to throw out some concepts that they wanted to test.  I think they are pretty sure they know what most people want the game to be like.    I think from now until it is finished, they will be finishing the designs and testing internally using the large playtest data to keep them from straying too far from what the aggregate data suggests they should include in the game.

As human beings, when they do their design work, and their testing internally, I don't think it is possible for them to ignore what they have learned from the playtest process.   I'm actually quite suprised and appreciative that Mike Mearls has been answering so many tweets.  If I were him, the constant questioning would drive me insane.  

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I honestly think they listen to the community a lot.  It seemed for this last while every Legends & Lore article by Mike Mearls was addressing hot issues/topics being heavily discussed on the forums.   

Also, just because one thing is a popular opion the the forums doesn't mean it's a popular opion of the majority.  I'm sure a lot of playtester don't use the forums and only use the surveys to voice what they like and dislike.

I think they look at their survey feedback. They may look at the trending topics on the boards just for grins.



I hope they stay far away from these boards and only focus on feedback given from modules that were run with the packets that were distributed.
They may have been using feedback from the surveys, but I feel like the surveys sucked so badly, they weren't very good for getting feedback.

I don't really feel they read the forums or care what we're saying here.
Forums tend to be focused groups working as a vocal group and taken with a grain of salt.  Forums provide feedback, insight, and possibly ideas but they don't represent a true sampling of the playerbase.  I do think WotC has been listening to feedback and making adjustments.

I think most of the feedback is handled specifically through the survey data and and adjusted based on that.  I know they have answered other questions that have appeared on the forums, twitter, and in chat Q&A after live playtests they broadcast.

As far as listening to the feedback we want them to listen to, well, that's a rather loaded question.  We don't all agree on what feedback we want them to listen to, listening to the feedback and making a different choice for specific reasons is not the same as not listening (it's not doing what we want sometimes, but not necessarily not listening), and the forums are still a vocal group that demonstrates a lot on contradictory desires in the game.

Generally, a person feels validated that he or she has been listened to by seeing the individually stated opinion incorporated into the product, which is nice when it happens but lack of that change doesn't actually mean the person was not heard.  Ways to make us feel heard would be with announcements or specifically addressing the why's and why not's in forums, or even direct responses.  The issue with that is time management and, quite honestly, if there is a forum rep in a position to make such statements we tend to keep him or her rather busy with moderation duties.  ;)

Players who want replicas of their favorite editions are not going to get what they want -- true story.  5E is a new edition trying to please a lot of players but if any individual wants to have AD&D again, 2E, 3.x, or 4E that individual's expectations will fall short because that's an unrealistic expectation.  The general idea is a new product that incorporates content value appealing enough to a wide audience.
I honestly think with the way they framed the playtest as inviting massive feedback, as well as the "edition to unite all editions" mantle that they chose, they made a big error.  Even if(and it's a big 'if') their heart was in the right place, the end result is, to me, the sense that some edition fans won and some edition fans lost.  The net effect of an unattainable goal(a unifying edition) and a public playtest(everyone tell us what you want/like) is that we get an end product that can't possibly please everyone.


The "Thank You, WotC" and "5th Edition Warriors" threads here are little more than football-spiking, where one side won and another side lost. To be fair, the "goodbye" type threads speak to the sense of having lost the fight on the other end of the spectrum.   This is the climate that the expressed overarching goal of Next, and the open beta, encouraged.  


I would rather they had developed Next entirely behind closed doors...as it stands there are people who felt that their feedback and desires that they expressed in the open playtest were ignored.  It would have been better if Mearls & Co. had gone with their vision and threw it at us upon release...a lot of people wouldn't have felt like their input/wish lists were ignored.


They didn't achive the "unifying edition" goal...they'll never say it, nor will the most hardcore 5e fans, but it is a reality.  Let's be honest, there aren't droves of 4e-lovers feeling that there is a lot in this system for them.  Had they never framed it as they did, the 4e-lovers would be far less dissapointed(having thought they had real input through the playtest).
If someone still think that WotC "listened" to something else than the surveys and other sources of statistics, there's a big problem of egocentrism

Sometimes, I wonder if some people have gone as far as opening several accounts to be able to complete a huge number of surveys…
I'm joking ! When I see the extremists on rpg boards, I'm sure a lot of people did this ! 

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

I doubt they're reading the forums but they're certainly reading the surveys.

They're just bad at talking to us, let alone with us. They're poor at explaining, let alone responding.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Forums tend to be focused groups working as a vocal group and taken with a grain of salt.  Forums provide feedback, insight, and possibly ideas but they don't represent a true sampling of the playerbase.  I do think WotC has been listening to feedback and making adjustments.



Surveys are best for getting information about game type preference. Forums are best for balance arguments, mathmatics and other objective or semi-objective analysis.

I feel WotC has been listening to the surveys, yes. But I think they have been missing an important part of the feedback process.

In order to ascertain what playstyles they need to emulate using modularity in order to best serve the fanbase, WotC needs to listen to what the fanbase wants. Just using survey feedback limits the data to responses based on presented rules. It doesn't help to frame the desires of D&D players. That leaves critical gaps in giving the players what they want, because it doesn't really ask what the players want.
How about, "Yes, when it suits them."Frown

I think they must have, because some of the changes between packets were so incredibly huge they had to have been taking something into account. What I feel right now is thah they're being rushed to push the thing out the door before its ready, and I think Hasbro is the problem.
You will know they are listening when the product is finally released and you vote with your wallet.
Sign In to post comments