When did WotC D&D "Jump the Shark"?

[Umbran]

In the mean time, reality will be over here.

Listen, folks, what has been set up here is, like it or not, an ego match - someone's rather mockingly made an assertion as if they know objective reality, and others don't, without recognized authority to make such an assertion. There is no way to defend such an assertion except by main force of will. And contests of wills tend to end in arguments.

Honestly, EN World does not exist for you to play out that kind of thing.

So, please folks, don't set up your arguments in this fashion. If your points of reason don't do the job, don't make it a point of wills instead. Thanks much.

 

[BryonD]

but you can't be surprised when others ask for evidence, or when they reject anecdotes provided in place of real evidence.

But I can be bemused when you pass off evidence as anecdotes.

And I'm not saying "no it isn't". I'm saying "there's no evidence that it is". That's quite different.

Unless you give a justification, which you have made a point of refusing to do, it is just a wordy way of saying exactly the same thing.

Part of my point is "there is evidence". Replying to that with "there's no evidence" and replying to that with "no it isn't" are precisely the same.

I don't know whether it is or it isn't. There's no evidence that it is, and no evidence that it's not. Which leaves us with speculation and opinion.

Well, we disagree and you have provided zero support for your side.
I've pointed that out numerous times and beating my head against the wall has done nothing but get me to the point that I get warned. (and fair enough for that)

But there is more here than pure anecdotes. You are not going to concede that. That is your right.

 

[MrGrenadine]

If there's some vast quantity of people that are 'divided' from me and won't play 4e with me you're going to have to come over here and show me those people, because they simply don't exist in my experience.

There can't possibly be any question as to whether there are folks who won't play 4e, so, just to make sure I understand you, the sticking point as far as you're concerned is whether or not there's a "vast" quantity of people who won't play 4e?

So we can agree on a split, but not a "vast" one, or in BryonD's words, a "deep" one.

I gotta say that the willingness of folks to dig their heels in over such a fine point makes BryonD's assertion all the more likely. But how about this for a litmus test: there's obviously a split at ENWorld, but that doesn't tell us how far the split runs. What if the same split exists in other online communities? Anyone have any evidence of that? What if the split exists amongst players in brick and mortar stores, too? Does that prove a "vast" or "deep" split? How about if there is evidence of a split in many or most online communities and brick and mortar stores?

Really, it sounds like the only way for some folks to be convinced that BryonD's assertion is true would be to have a worldwide census, but there must be some other way, besides hard numbers, to lean the fence-sitters one way or the other.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, we disagree and you have provided zero support for your side.

I've provided my own anecdote several times: every 4E player I know personally still also plays 3E and is interested or plays Pathfinder. That suggests there is not a deep split in the market, though I don't believe that small bit of evidence has any real meaning for the market as a whole.

As for my justification for rejecting your evidence, it's because you provide nothing but anecdotes as evidence for this deep split. I might concede there was more than just anecdotes if you provided something other than anecdotes. If you have done so, I have missed them.

 

[BryonD]

So, let me ask
is there a segment of player out there that has at some point, when they were on board with coastwizards and their products, bought every new book as it came out and tried to integrate it into their own game?

Pretty close.

I don't know how hard I "tried to integrate" stuff. I never really thought of it in those terms. Stuff was default "allowed" unless it was ruled out after reading it. And there was certainly stuff that was ruled out. But if it was cool AND it appealed to somebody, then there was a generally permissive approach. But it was very much a passive allowance and not a proactive effort to "integrate".

If something was perfectly fine from a balance point of view but just conflicted with the concept of a campaign or setting, it would be out on that count as well. But a future campaign may be completely different on that front, whereas bad design just stayed bad.

And, I never bought any Eberron stuff (beyond the first core book). I did not but MMIV and probably several other titles later in the cycle as the quality record became rather spotty.

So, in a strict sense, I guess my answer is "not me". But in the spirit of it, pretty much.

 

[Fifth Element]

So we can agree on a split, but not a "vast" one, or in BryonD's words, a "deep" one.

Absolutely. It seems a given to me that some 4E players don't play PF, and vice versa. But we have no idea what the proportion is.

Really, it sounds like the only way for some folks to be convinced that BryonD's assertion is true would be to have a worldwide census, but there must be some other way, besides hard numbers, to lean the fence-sitters one way or the other.

Not a worldwide census, surely. But something other than anecdotes would be nice. Something other than "people I know are split" or similar things, because anecdotes of a split are easily countered by anecdotes of no split.

 

[BryonD]

I've provided my own anecdote several times: every 4E player I know personally still also plays 3E and is interested or plays Pathfinder. That suggests there is not a deep split in the market, though I don't believe that small bit of evidence has any real meaning for the market as a whole.

We agree that anecdotes are just anecdotes.

As for my justification for rejecting your evidence, it's because you provide nothing but anecdotes as evidence for this deep split. I might concede there was more than just anecdotes if you provided something other than anecdotes. If you have done so, I have missed them.

You missed them.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, in a strict sense, I guess my answer is "not me". But in the spirit of it, pretty much.

I did this as well in the 3E days. I stopped about a year after 4E's release, basically as a financial decision in that I already had enough stuff to last a heck of a long time. I'll still allow pretty much anything in a game if a player wants it.

 

[BryonD]

Something other than "people I know are split" or similar things, because anecdotes of a split are easily countered by anecdotes of no split.

People I know have nothing to do with my conclusion. They happen to be consistent with my conclusion, but they provide zero evidence of it or for it.

 

[Fifth Element]

You missed them.

Link?