I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.
Yes, yes, I can know. If you claim that "Most D&D players prefer..." then "an optimally provisioned statistical sample" can only come from a random sample of D&D players, including groups that are playing in home games. The only way to get that random sample is to get a random sample of people and survey the D&D players; otherwise, whatever source you have is going to be a biased sample. Unless WotC is using polling firms, there's no way they could possibly reach a random sample of D&D players.
Well we know some of it comes from DnD Beyond.That’s not knowing. That’s speculating. You have no information whatsoever about this data, or how it was gathered. You don’t even have a hint.
You don't need a huge pool to validate data is flawed if you get massively inconsistent data.
Look at it this way:
A new player sits down at your table to play D&D. You're having fun. But a bit into the game, one of the other players says, "Wow, Newbie. You're lucky. You've rolled a d20 only 8 times, and the results were all 11 or above. That is real lucky." You think about it and realize all 8 rolls have been 11 or above. There is a 1 in 250 chance (roughly) that would happen.
A lot of people would have worries that the player was cheating... likely with loaded die or faked results.
Is it a certainty? No. Do similar streaks happen where no funny business is going On? Yes... about 1 in 250 times it occurs and there arecca lot of opportunities for that to happen. However, that doesn't matter. I'm focused on my situation. I see something occuring that should be very unlikely. When does it become more likely there is cheating than that our situation was the oddity of 1 in 250.
When is it more likely their statistic is wrong than that my experiences were so uncommon.... especially when you complicate the matter by introducing the common expectation that a significant majority of players use human variants?
If all of their sampling and statistics are perfect, therevvwould still be a number of people with my experiences. However, the rational position for them to take, without additional information, is that I experienced either really unlikely results, or the stats are fun at. You could also challenge my underlying elements (we're the group's totally independent, etc...), but there are arguments both sides there.
My experiences are enough to say, "Those results look shady. Check yourself." Even with only 8 draws from the hat.
I encourage you to take a moment and rethink. Really look at what I'm saying rather than dismiss it instantly.Like I said, you don’t understand how statistical samples work.
That’s not knowing. That’s speculating. You have no information whatsoever about this data, or how it was gathered. You don’t even have a hint.
prosfilaes said:Unless WotC is using polling firms, there's no way they could possibly reach a random sample of D&D players.
You don't need a huge pool to validate data is flawed if you get massively inconsistent data.
Look at it this way:
A new player sits down at your table to play D&D. You're having fun. But a bit into the game, one of the other players says, "Wow, Newbie. You're lucky. You've rolled a d20 only 8 times, and the results were all 11 or above. That is real lucky." You think about it and realize all 8 rolls have been 11 or above. There is a 1 in 250 chance (roughly) that would happen.
A lot of people would have worries that the player was cheating... likely with loaded die or faked results.
Is it a certainty? No. Do similar streaks happen where no funny business is going On? Yes... about 1 in 250 times it occurs and there are a lot of opportunities for that to happen. However, that doesn't matter. I'm focused on my situation. I see something occuring that should be very unlikely. When does it become more likely there is cheating than that our situation was the oddity of 1 in 250.
When is it more likely their statistic is wrong than that my experiences were so uncommon.... especially when you complicate the matter by introducing the common expectation that a significant majority of players use human variants?
If all of their sampling and statistics are perfect, there would still be a number of people with my experiences. However, the rational position for them to take, without additional information, is that I experienced either really unlikely results, or the stats are funny. You could also challenge my underlying elements (we're the group's totally independent, etc...), but there are arguments both sides there.
My experiences are enough to say, "Those results look shady. Check yourself." Even with only 8 draws from the hat.
So, I hesitate to get embroiled in this-- But 8 non-independent samples would be considered a very, very small sample size from which to make inferences. Put another way, even if only 40% of groups didn't use feats, it would not be hard to find 8 such groups of the presumably thousands of existing groups.
Do you want to propose some other way they could have reached a random sample of D&D players? Or are you claiming they did use a polling firm, which I did not rule out, even if I consider it highly unlikely? For a random sample of D&D players, they need some way to reach the D&D player who does not interact with WotC online or through Adventure League. Since the PHB doesn't have a registration card, they have no way of knowing who might be playing D&D except by random polling.
I encourage you to take a moment and rethink. Really look at what I'm saying rather than dismiss it instantly.
And in the end, does it even matter?