Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder sales

[Dannager]

but the counter-argument seems to presume that in absence of evidence, we must accept that D&D 4 is number one.

The counter-argument is, more accurately, that we know quite well that D&D has been the best-selling tabletop RPG on the market for most (if not all) of the last decade, and that only recently has a game risen to possibly challenge it. The counter-argument then posits that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must continue to operate under the assumption that things are as they have been for the last decade.

Now, this says nothing about what happens if we do come across credible evidence, but I think a lot of people are making the argument that what he have in terms of evidence does not amount to what is sufficient to change our assumptions.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, but scientists rock.

And rock scientists rock the most!

 

[prosfilaes]

The counter-argument is, more accurately, that we know quite well that D&D has been the best-selling tabletop RPG on the market for most (if not all) of the last decade, and that only recently has a game risen to possibly challenge it. The counter-argument then posits that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must continue to operate under the assumption that things are as they have been for the last decade.

1: D&D 4 has not been around most of the last decade. As a major edition change, I don't think we can blindly combine the ongoing numbers for the two.

2: "We know quite well"? Why? Is there data to back up that claim, or are you pulling it out of your butt? If you can present data, then we can compare to the data we're offering. If not, then "we know quite well" versus data should only get the first one laughed at.

3: "in the absence of evidence to the contrary"? We have evidence to the contrary. If you want to ignore it, show me some stronger evidence. If you dismiss this evidence, I don't think you can find any evidence that D&D 4e was ever number 1.

 

[Dannager]

1: D&D 4 has not been around most of the last decade. As a major edition change, I don't think we can blindly combine the ongoing numbers for the two.

No one's combining numbers blindly. 4e continued 3e and 3.5's pattern of earning bestselling RPG status.

2: "We know quite well"? Why? Is there data to back up that claim

Yes.

3: "in the absence of evidence to the contrary"? We have evidence to the contrary.

Did you miss the second half of my post, where I explicitly acknowledged this and then pointed out the fact that it is not considered sufficient?

If you want to ignore it, show me some stronger evidence.

Why?

If someone comes in here and says "Pathfinder sells better than D&D because I just bought a copy of Pathfinder but not of D&D!" no one should have to trot out market research to debunk that claim. Evidence has a bar of sufficiency that varies from person to person, and for many of us the evidence you present do not meet that bar. That's all there is to it.

If you dismiss this evidence, I don't think you can find any evidence that D&D 4e was ever number 1.

Sure I can.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yes.

Here's a hint; when someone asks if there is evidence, yes is not an answer. An appropriate answer is to bring out your evidence.

Evidence has a bar of sufficiency that varies from person to person, and for many of us the evidence you present do not meet that bar.

If you missed it, I'm asserting that's not true. I'm claiming that you are rejecting evidence for something while accepting weaker evidence against it. If you want to dispute that, logically you have to bring out your evidence.

 

[Dannager]

Here's a hint; when someone asks if there is evidence, yes is not an answer. An appropriate answer is to bring out your evidence.

The fact that you choose to challenge a claim as solid as "D&D is the best-selling tabletop RPG of the last decade" doesn't mean that I will leap at the opportunity to hunt down evidence for you.

If you missed it, I'm asserting that's not true.

That's cool, feel free to disagree with me about my own personal standards of evidence. That's an argument you're going to win.

I'm claiming that you are rejecting evidence for something while accepting weaker evidence against it. If you want to dispute that, logically you have to bring out your evidence.

Or I could simply not bother challenging it, since no one really has any need to justify their personal standards of evidence to you.

You can accept the evidence for Pathfinder beating D&D that you've got. Go for it. Some of us don't, because we think it's too weak to begin reevaluating the market with any seriousness. You're going to have to live with that.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Or I could simply not bother challenging it, since no one really has any need to justify their personal standards of evidence to you.

EDIT: Never mind.

Self evident is self evident.

 

[Beginning of the End]

There's a 50-50 chance that Nobilis is beating D&D 4e in the market, and about 1% that D&D 4e is the market leader. It's simple statistics; if you don't have any data, then you end up having to ascribe equal odds to each of the contenders. If you don't agree with that, then obviously you're finding some source of data not CRAP, and I don't know of anything better than the ICv2 RPG and Amazon data.

You eventually get used to Umbran and Dannager claiming in these threads that (a) there's no actual evidence for RPG sales, but (b) 4E is definitely still the bestselling game.

Irrationality is their second favorite hobby.

Piratecat here. do not insult other members.

Eventually you just start tuning them out.

 

[Umbran]

(b) 4E is definitely still the bestselling game.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find me saying that. If you do, I'd publicly admit to such a claim being misguided. I'm big enough to admit being wrong. I do try to be consistent - lack of evidence of sales is lack of evidence on sales.

 

[IronWolf]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find me saying that. If you do, I'd publicly admit to such a claim being misguided. I'm big enough to admit being wrong. I do try to be consistent - lack of evidence of sales is lack of evidence on sales.

Yeah, not sure I would lump Umbran into huge 4e supporter based on weak, statistical evidence. While I may not always agree with his posts - he tends go have a good mind for what makes sound research/statistics.