IGDA Seattle presents: A D&D Post Mortem

[@goblinking1349]

Slides timeframe: 4:14 What worked: Clarity of Vision 16:25 What worked: Three pillars 24:25 What didn't: Old Habits 32:44 What didn't: Communication 38:52 What worked: Open Playtest 44:55 What worked: Polling for Data 48:42 Class Satisfaction (2013) 50:12 Class Complexity (Oct 2012) 52:17 Complexity vs Noncombat Satisfaction 53:10 Complexity vs Combat Satisfaction 55:40 Rogue Satisfaction (Oct 2012) 56:56 Rogue 59:37 Druid 1:00:50 What's Wrong with Wildshape? 1:02:26 Alpha Triage 1:04:35 What Didn't: Big Releases 1:05:24 What Worked: Diversity 1:08:10 Questions?

[@GaIlows]

!!!Volume Warning!!!: First speaker can't be heard, once Mike starts speaking at 2:54 you can hear everything fine. Don't blow your ears out by cranking the volume at the beginning.

[@aureliomanalo]

Thanks, I almost blew out an eardrum.

[@guyfawkes8873]

This explains why the DMG doesn't explain anything about how to actually run dnd... That was a bad idea btw x)

[@TheSaintMystic]

Starts at 2:54

[@youngtylerj]

If you are a one earbud user you will only hear one of the presenters. Each presenter is in one ear.

[@matpeery3900]

I see Wizards has just apparently never hired a good production company for these presentations, lol

[@ComradeOgilvy1984]

52:20 What they are saying is not wrong, but graphing things that way is silly, and looks at it in a more complicated way than is necessary. Clearly there are two buckets: "Sucks" and "Not Sucks". Fighter, Barbarian, Monk are in the Suck bucket. We can see that all the classes in the Not Suck bucket are either (1) well equipped to be important in non-combat challenges (Rogue, Bard, Paladin, Ranger), or (2) are powerful spell casters (Cleric, Mage, Druid) -- these are all pretty similar for Satisfaction. It is the Suck classes that have an obvious paucity of resources for non-combat challenges -- we can see this by inspection, and the Satisfaction ratings put them closely together. I think it is a useful to consider whether complexity is more tolerable outside of combat. However, Occam's Razor offers a simpler explanation for the data here.

[@ocwkuro]

Firstly they determined complexity as polled was largely rated by how many choices the class has rather than how complicated it is to actually play its mechanics at the table. Then they charted satisfaction against complexity to determine whether people were happy with 'complexity' and whether it made a difference in combat or out. You do raise a valid concern that the data in those particular graphs are not controlled for how well the mechanics of those classes perform in combat vs out. It is possible that most of the options that make the so-called 'complex' classes 'complex' are just geared better for noncombat, and they don't have enough combat options. Also bear in mind that this is data from playtests of the classes as they were in 2013, not as they are now.

[@ComradeOgilvy1984]

@@ocwkuro "the options that make the so-called 'complex' classes 'complex' are just geared better for noncombat, and they don't have enough combat options" My guess is a class where you have at least one (1) obvious, (2) easy to use (3) effective combat option is going to rate well. Having additional options is nice, but having a default action that is satisfying goes a long way. Rage is pretty satisfying, for example, and it requires little mental effort to use well. I think that is why the Druid rates poorly. It has a similarly higher number of choices to other primary spellcasters, but if you look at their low levels spells, they are just not as easy to use in combat, compared to other classes. Shillelagh and Thunderwave are useful spells, but fall short of being a solid nobrainer default choice when we are talking about someone running around in leather armor. (In contrast, a Tempest Cleric donning heavy armor will find a lot of easy joy from Thunderwave, even to the point of upcasting it and boosting with Channel.)

[@TheCBC1984]

D&D players love saving the (fictional) world. ask them to change 1 behavior to save the real world: different story.

[@iuravi]

It would seem the KZbin algorithm has found a new love for this video. Also, basic maths are hard 17:55

[@dragonfliesdance]

At 49:02 they present a table and say explicitly the column headings are incorrect, but then they draw conclusions from those incorrect headings. They even give an example: "Barbarian is a 'beat stick' class, players don't want them to 'talk purty'". Except if the headings ARE incorrect as they say they are, the barbarian is one of the MOST satisfying in combat and the LEAST satisfying out of combat (by a pretty damn large margin) - which to me implies barbarian needs much more non-combat love. People wanted the barbarian to talk more. That is the literal opposite conclusion, and one that matches my in-game experience with barbarians.

[@TennysonP348]

yes, Mearls' point is that it's okay for Barbarian to be less satisfying out of combat, because the types of players who play Barbarians tend to be the types who don't seek satisfaction in those situations in the first place.

[@matthewleahy6565]

I think you may be mistaken. The corrected columns are average-combat-noncombat with the barbarian scoring 3.68-4.02-3.33; if you check the later satisfaction vs complexity graphs you will see the presenters are correct

[@Warriormon87]

Anyone have the link to the video about Gearbox Borderlands playtesting they were talking about.

[@G_BLASTER]

45:37 - P R E A C H !

[@estebanrodriguez5409]

why the sound is in stereo?

[@RecklessFables]

49:47 Sad he thinks people who want to play barb don't want to RP well or have skills.

[@sppr9559]

And thats why we ended up with beastmaster ranger. Because of the "scientific" method.. You dont need a 100 000 pole but one person with brain to read through class description for 2 minutes

[@Prismatic_Rain]

A lot about this video makes me sad. As a D&D enthusiast who has been playing for 30 years my preferences run more with what the designers instincts told them rather than what the polling data was showing. So all the polls just ended up making the game worse for me while making it better for beginners I guess. yay?

[@aureliomanalo]

Their bottom line as a corporation is profit. Fan service was never their intent, it was to create growth in other areas. Hence, the "High Wall".

[@matthewleahy6565]

Whats wrong with using polling to determine how people are enjoying the game? It seems very clever to me. As they said, forums were very unreflective of the overall population's opinions

[@Snyperwolf91]

@@matthewleahy6565 How many of those people really played D&D enough to have a judgement about it ? Or better yet , how many of those people are truly fans of D&D ? If you got too many non-fans that are already not interested in D&D from the begin with , they wanna have definitly changes that are too drastic and destructive for the core values what makes D&D really D&D . Its not the question about the accesibility but rather "how can we change the core principles of the product to appease the lowest common consumer-base? " Its like changing D&D into a cheap chess knock-off but still holding the name D&D because of brand recognition . Its ugly , kills the franchise and makes more problems then solving them.

[@matthewleahy6565]

@@Snyperwolf91 "how many people have played d&d enough to have a judgement about it" I don't think this is a useful question as the answer is completely subjective. "How many of these people are true fans of D&D? Again not a useful question. When niche hobbies/interests/musicians broaden their appeal it can turn off the previous consumer base. It's happened to me too. That's the economic system we live in. I don't see the sense of hacking at the branches instead of the roots.

[@matthewleahy6565]

@@Snyperwolf91 Well then I have good news for you! There are lots of people who feel the same way. They play with the older rulesets. You can too!