So can you say the game wouldn't be more popular if magic had been handled in a different manner?
So can you say the game wouldn't be more popular if magic had been handled in a different manner?
You are just saying a tautology, that no factor stopped D&D (or made it more popular) from being as popular as it is, because D&D is as popular as it is.No I didn't, I actually said the opposite. I did not say it caused the popularity of the game, I said it did not hinder it.
To illustrate this for you between two things that are obviously not related - 5e coincided with the Apple release of IPhone 6. There is a temporal correlation between Apple releasing the IPhone 6 and the explosion in popularity off 5E. Even though there is a correlation, we can not show causation. We can't show through that correlation that the IPhone 6 caused the increase in popularity. However, through the correlation we can refute a hypothesis that release of IPhone 6 made the game less popular.
This example is similar. We know the explosion in popularity in 5E is correlated in time to the generalization of magic in the rules. We can not show this generalization of magic caused the increase in pupularity in the game, but it does refute the hypothesis that it made the game less popular.
We can only conclude that if the Iphone was a hindrance then it was not enough of a hindrance to stop the explosion of popularity from being as big as it was.
It could have been a huge hindrance, but was outweighed by other factors propelling D&D's popularity.
Absolutely it could have been huge, it just would have to be outweighed enough by other factors to get to where the popularity is. It could not have been net more huge than the popularity enhancing factors, but it could have been minor or huge.Not huge considering the explosion, it is conclusively not a significant factor because the explosion happened coincident with this change.
That's easy, those were just put out as assertions just like your original claim about it propelling D&D's popularity. Both sides were just opinions to be agreed with or not in an absence of data for which no real conclusion could be made. I had no interest in accepting or challenging either view.Further why isn't anyone asking those making claims about the game less popular do to the new magic generalization asked to defend that position at all? Why is that postion accepted without question when the data very clearly implies this is not the case?
I can't prove that it has sparked the popularity in the game, but I can certainly show it has not hindered it.
Absolutely it could have been huge, it just would have to be outweighed enough by other factors to get to where the popularity is. It could not have been net more huge than the popularity enhancing factors, but it could have been minor or huge.
That's easy, those were just put out as assertions just like your original claim about it propelling D&D's popularity.
Both sides were just opinions to be agreed with or not in an absence of data for which no real conclusion could be made.
Say 5e D&D's popularity generated a theoretical billion dollars net for Hasbro. If the zeitgeist would have generated ten billion dollars worth of popularity value for Hasbro but the Iphone 6 cost D&D nine billion of that value, then the Iphone would have been a huge hindrance and a significant factor, even though 5e D&D's popularity generated a billion dollars net.
Any single factor could potentially have been a hindrance, no impact, or a boost to D&D's existing popularity. We need more to make a conclusion about a specific factor.
So when you said this, to me you were saying "the change to magic made 5e great".I think it has made the game great and propelled 5E to heights never before seen.
That doesn't work, though. You can't actually show that lots of people buying IPhone 6s didn't keep them from being able to afford to buy into 5e and/or didn't play in their phone to the point where they didn't by 5e when they otherwise would have due to lack of time.No I didn't, I actually said the opposite. I did not say it caused the popularity of the game, I said it did not hinder it.
To illustrate this for you between two things that are obviously not related - 5e coincided with the Apple release of IPhone 6. There is a temporal correlation between Apple releasing the IPhone 6 and the explosion in popularity off 5E. Even though there is a correlation, we can not show causation. We can't show through that correlation that the IPhone 6 caused the increase in popularity. However, through the correlation we can refute a hypothesis that release of IPhone 6 made the game less popular.
This example is similar. We know the explosion in popularity in 5E is correlated in time to the generalization of magic in the rules. We can not show this generalization of magic caused the increase in pupularity in the game, but it does refute the hypothesis that it made the game less popular.
Again, your logic doesn't follow through. You can show that it didn't hinder D&D from being as popular as it is, but if the popularity explosion would have been twice as large had it not been for the IPhone 6, then the IPhone six was a major hinderance. You're conflating "not hindering D&D from reaching it's current popularity level" with "No hinderance to popularity." Those aren't the same.Not huge considering the explosion, it is conclusively not a significant factor because the explosion happened coincident with this change. Your argument here is that it might be some minor, minimal additional benefit if they had not changed that as well. You are now changing the entire premise of the statement.
Further why isn't anyone asking those making claims about the game less popular do to the new magic generalization asked to defend that position at all? Why is that postion accepted without question when the data very clearly implies this is not the case?