Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[TheAuldGrump]

Gently people, gently.

I find it interesting that a thread based on an open letter, a largely conciliatory letter, seems to have gotten so many knickers tied in knots, even the knickers of mods and admins.

While I don't think that the letter will accomplish anything I also don't think that there should be quite this much vitriol.

So, please folks, let us sit back and take a moment to calm our nerves.

I will admit that I completely lost interest in Zeitgeist when I saw that it was going to be 4e only, but then again, I only have the first adventure for WotBS, even though I am a supporter, and could theoretically get it for free. So Zeitgeist in Pathfinder would, by no means, ensure my getting the Path.

I am not saying that anything is bad about WotBS, just that it does not fit my cosmology, man. I know absolutely nothing about Zeitgeist, having left the page as soon as I saw the 4e logo. If it were released for Pathfinder I would at least take a look at it - the logo for Zeitgeist caught me more than that of WotBS did. It is a very nice logo.

If E N Publishing were to support Pathfinder I would much rather it do so in the form of supplements - I still brag up Steam & Steel on a regular basis. Heck, I use Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth every Saturday, and would love to see more of EoM for Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump, c'mon folks, I'm supposed to be the grumpy one!

 

[Jan van Leyden]

So I would totally differ to your experience on adapting adventures. I was only speaking from what I knew from Goodman Games; their first DCC volumes using 4th Edition had originally been 3.5 adventures that were converted. I have no idea how hard it was for them to do so.

Judging by the results (Sellswords of Punjar), it wasn't very hard. But it should have been. This example clearly shows that a good 4e adventure doesn't fit into the 3.5 design space.

 

[pawsplay]

A placebo, quite simply, is a sham treatment. It's generally going through the motions - taking a sugar pill, getting a harmless injection, and so on.

Placebos don't preclude the existence of other forms of treatment. A placebo is not, "ha-ha, die of cancer." It's "continue with whatever we're doing, or else start the standard treatment, and we're going to pretend to do something more to you, only you don't know that we're pretending."

If they continue to receive a treatment, then it's not a placebo. It should be obvious that two treatments might interact with each other.

If you're using a collection of stories from game shop owners you know, you know their opinions on the subject and little else.

I'm trying to imagine what would be more useful evidence. It's like, if it starts raining, and I wonder if I'm going to get wet, I might go outside and see if the rain makes me wet. Upon returning, I exclaim, "I checked, and the rain is wet." To which you reply, "Well, you didn't check all the rain."

No, I'm saying that you should at least apply some methodological rigor. "Convenience samples" and collections of anecdotes have none.

Unless you're using "none" in a sense with which I am unfamiliar, you're wrong. Convenience sampling does occur, sometimes has to occur, if that's the best you've got. Throwing your hands up and saying, "Gosh, I guess we don't know anything," is not scientific or rigorous in any sense.

Anecdotes aren't useless - they're a great starting point for actual research. They're not to be mistaken for research.

Again, this discussion was not launched by a question of how to do laboratory science. In this case, "actual research" would probably mean polling industry people, getting whatever numbers are available, and trying to develop a perspective on what is likely true. There is no perfect method. To be perfectly frank, even a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a truly random sample is not foolproof. First of all, any study , however tightly performed, is a betting game. If p=0.001, then you still have a very small chance of an error. Second, the entire scientific method has problems escaping from the illusion of causality: post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is actually no way to establish causality by performing a quantitative experiment. It can only be inferred.

As I said, evidence in this case does not involve some kind of bizarre experiement on two alternate universes. The best evidence is going to be inductive reasoning based on an accumulation of facts. One solitary fact is not much evidence, but many facts make it possible to step beyond.

I could very well be a mutant eggplant, depending on how skeptical you are willing to be.

When the belief in two alternative viewpoints seems to relate with unusual frequency to some personal interest, that should suggest to the philosophic mind that the question is a prism of our biases.

 

[enrious]

Some people should just get a room.

And Grump, I know how you feel. When Zeitgeist was announced for 4e exclusively, I never bothered to look at it.

With Morrus saying he'd consider Pathfinderizing it, I took a look and it does look neat. Hope it works out.

I bought a WotBS sub way back when, but doubt I've downloaded more than the first 3 or 4 adventures. Nothing wrong with it, but at the time I was deep into Ptolus.

And right, back on topic, the actual Open Letter that was written.

I think it admirably expressed the view of the writer.

What more is there?

 

[xechnao]

Not specifically. I think it's fair to say that the population of gamers who frequent hobby shops is different from (but likely at least partially overlapping with) the population of gamers who buy from RPG now and that is in turn different from the population of gamers who buy from B&N and that is also different from the population of gamers who shop at Amazon. There's overlap and interplay here, but I have no idea how much.
-O

Sure, but it is not likely that one product dominates anyone of these populations in expense of the other product. Both products can more or less equally reach these populations. They target the same market. There is really no evidence that some population should prefer one product over the other due to its population specific characteristics. I really do not think you are saying much here. That is, your point or rather your argument against Pawsplay's is weaker than his.

 

[Obryn]

If they continue to receive a treatment, then it's not a placebo. It should be obvious that two treatments might interact with each other.

Indeed, they might. I'm not arguing that clinical trials are easy.

I'm trying to imagine what would be more useful evidence. It's like, if it starts raining, and I wonder if I'm going to get wet, I might go outside and see if the rain makes me wet. Upon returning, I exclaim, "I checked, and the rain is wet." To which you reply, "Well, you didn't check all the rain."

The primary difference here is that there's nobody arguing that it's not.

A more relevant example would be you taking your experience that it's raining outside to mean that it it's raining everywhere.

Unless you're using "none" in a sense with which I am unfamiliar, you're wrong. Convenience sampling does occur, sometimes has to occur, if that's the best you've got. Throwing your hands up and saying, "Gosh, I guess we don't know anything," is not scientific or rigorous in any sense.

I'm not saying it's completely worthless - I'm saying at best it suggests an avenue for future research if your only selection criteria was "well, some guys I know." Again, since you've started quoting wikipedia, I will direct you there again.

If you have a large enough convenient sample that you have reason to believe is randomized to some extent or that you have reason to believe the in-group variance is irrelevant, it's probably fine - like the example of using undergrads at a large university that I mentioned before.

Again, this discussion was not launched by a question of how to do laboratory science. In this case, "actual research" would probably mean polling industry people, getting whatever numbers are available, and trying to develop a perspective on what is likely true. There is no perfect method. To be perfectly frank, even a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a truly random sample is not foolproof. First of all, any study , however tightly performed, is a betting game. If p=0.001, then you still have a very small chance of an error. Second, the entire scientific method has problems escaping from the illusion of causality: post hoc ergo propter hoc. There is actually no way to establish causality by performing a quantitative experiment. It can only be inferred.

Now we're getting silly. That is why we replicate studies. Of course experiments can and will be wrong, but it's erroneous to imply they're still not the best available tool.

As I said, evidence in this case does not involve some kind of bizarre experiement on two alternate universes. The best evidence is going to be inductive reasoning based on an accumulation of facts. One solitary fact is not much evidence, but many facts make it possible to step beyond.

I could very well be a mutant eggplant, depending on how skeptical you are willing to be.

When the belief in two alternative viewpoints seems to relate with unusual frequency to some personal interest, that should suggest to the philosophic mind that the question is a prism of our biases.

I'll get to this later. Gotta work.

-O

 

[Morrus]

I've been searching round the Paizo site, but I can't find this list people are talking about of where they support/display 3PPs. Anyone got a link handy? Or are we just talking about the product category in their store?

 

[Wicht]

I've been searching round the Paizo site, but I can't find this list people are talking about of where they support/display 3PPs. Anyone got a link handy? Or are we just talking about the product category in their store?

I think this is what you are looking for.

There is also the Licensee Forum where ad and promo threads can be started.

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, but isn't "paizo" is a greek term that means "to play"?

Some of those google stats could be from people using the word genericly and not referring to the RPG publisher.

I believe you are right about the term, but I greatly doubt that people googling the generic term is having a big impact.

However, I do think that there are probably vastly more people looking for WotC rather than typing out "Wizards of the Coast", while there is no equivalent for Paizo.

 

[BryonD]

Not specifically. I think it's fair to say that the population of gamers who frequent hobby shops is different from (but likely at least partially overlapping with) the population of gamers who buy from RPG now and that is in turn different from the population of gamers who buy from B&N and that is also different from the population of gamers who shop at Amazon. There's overlap and interplay here, but I have no idea how much.

I think you are demonstrating my point here.

Well, I think it's reasonable to ask (1) How valid is the data you're looking at? (2) Have you shown that the data you're looking at is evidence for or against your argument? and (3) What pieces of the puzzle are you missing, and might those missing pieces of evidence serve to nullify your tentative conclusions?

I agree that there is some, even significant, uncertainty around the data we have. My point is not that there is proof beyond any hint of a doubt.

But no one is even identifying "missing pieces". We have a collection of pieces that consistently point in the same clear direction.

Your strict absolutist standard drives the discussion deeply into the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" territory. There comes a point when reasonable conclusions may be reached. It isn't even a question of "prove/nullify" but rather a matter of degree of accuracy. Trying to argue that we are not enough "in the ballpark" to have a reasonable conversation seriously misses the forest for the trees.

In this case, if you're arguing that DTRPG doesn't sell many 3pp 4e products, all available evidence shows you're right. If you're arguing that this means there's no market for 3pp 4e products and that nobody is interested in them, you simply don't have evidence to generalize to this level of abstraction.

No one has claimed "no market". Again, when you start substituting "nullification" and "no market" for the much more reasonable terms of the actual discussion, you are off the track.

Frankly, the item that best fits your standards is that ENWorld Publishing has its asociation with ENWorld making it clearly distinct form other 4E 3PPs. That *might* nullify that data as meaningful to the larger discussion. (Not that Morrus should in any way care about the larger discussion when making ENWorld choices....)

-O[/QUOTE]