WotC D&D Historian Ben Riggs says the OGL fiasco was Chris Cocks idea.

[Oofta]

You asked me where I was making "my point," though, and that's it.

Well, I do, so there we are.

This viewpoint seems to conflate the economic aspects of what's under discussion with the creative aspects, in that if something is good for the former then the latter doesn't really enter into things. "Business as usual" is often bad for artistry, innovation, and imagination. Which is really my point; if those other options end up distracting from the options which haven't (or cannot be) given bells and whistles, then it's not unthinkable to say that the creative aspects of the hobby as a whole suffer for it, even if there's more money to be made.

I'm still not clear as to why you think that means that there's no problem. Yes, engaging with standardization is something that the consumer has to voluntarily enter into as a consumer; that doesn't negate the potential for the constriction of imagination that I outlined, voluntary though it may be.

I question how significant that is, as well as the surety of your assertion that it will remain significant. We keep hearing how D&D's player base is getting younger all the time, even as more people play the game, while grognards and older players in general are a shrinking minority. To declare "a significant portion of the base will never use the VTT" strikes me as aspirational. I certainly hope you're right, of course (I don't use a VTT either), but I think that what we've glimpsed paints a different picture.

This is also something I'm less certain of. The entire point of creating so many bells and whistles is to encourage people to use their platform, which includes bringing in users of other platforms, and in this regard WotC has a much greater capacity to act than other VTTs. Integrating character sheets from DDB, for instance, as well as rulebooks and supplements, makes for an attractive package alongside interactive features and physical/digital bundling. WotC is, in other words, well-positioned to make themselves the market leader in this regard.

To be honest, this strikes me as an example of why using statistics in hypotheticals tends to be a bad idea. While it's one thing to discuss what may or may not happen, putting quantifiable metrics to areas that are necessarily uncertain (i.e. the future) encourages concrete thinking where I think abstractions work better. Obviously there are some areas where this is contextually routine, but this discussion isn't one of them.

And again, this draws a conclusion from numbers that are essentially pulled out of the ether. It might be half of the total D&D player base, it might be more or less, but we don't know. My concern is that if it's any sort of significant percentage (or grows into one over time), then the issues I articulated above could become more likely; none of this would happen instantaneously, after all, as it's a matter of inculcating a particular outlook, where the boundaries of play are implicitly accepted as being inviolable to the point of not being questioned (very much, since none of this is an absolute).

If the issue here is why people would use the VTT in the first place, that one's going to be up to every individual user, and so speculating as to the viability (or other areas of efficacy) in trying to lure people in likewise doesn't strike me as being a particularly germane way of saying the issues I'm concerned about won't happen. It's entirely possible that a large number of users won't particularly care about the VTT, but will sign up anyway simply because the rest of their group is, and they don't want to be left behind. Or perhaps because they're just that eager to play (i.e. "looking for group") and that's where the most potential players are. Or because they were gifted a physical/digital bundle for their birthday and are giving the VTT a try completely blind, etc. The point is that WotC is going to be bending over backwards to try and lure people in, and however they do it, there's a decent chance that they'll succeed in drawing in some non-negligible portion of the player base over time and retain them for a not-inconsiderable period, during which time the constraints of the digital medium, combined with how engaging it makes the areas where it functions best, serve to slowly discourage moving beyond what the VTT does well.

I'll certainly agree that WotC will never have 100% of the player base, if for no other reason than them not having you and me. But they can still capture a large enough portion of it to essentially sway how the hobby as a whole thinks about the course of play, specifically via what their VTT does well versus what it doesn't.

There's no "somehow" to it, as I outlined quite extensively the issues wherein players are encourages to stick to what the VTT does well simply because that's what it does well, and stay away from what it doesn't go out of its way to facilitate because those are areas that it doesn't go out of its way to facilitate. People who engage with a product tend to use it for what it's designed for, and don't use it for things which it isn't designed for (I'd say all the more so when it's a curated digital product, but that might just be because I'm not tech-savvy).

Again, this is a realm of speculation, so questions of evidence are misplaced here. We're essentially playing a guessing game, which isn't evidentiary.

Which might very well be a large portion of the player base, as that's what WotC is going to be striving for, using all of the muscle than an 800-pound gorilla can bring to bear.

And you're right in that some people who use the VTT will push back against the restrictions that it necessarily entails. But as its functionality becomes more expansive and more integrated with DDB, I suspect that this will simply occur to fewer and fewer people as a matter of course. If you have to take three or four steps to accomplish a particular thing, and something judged to be roughly as good can be done in one step, then I foresee a lot of people choosing the latter over the former as a matter of course. (Recently a friend of mine, almost twenty years younger than me, laughingly told me that nobody bothers to text with their thumbs anymore; nowadays they apparently all use "swipe texting," which I'd never heard of.)

See above. I agree that such a thing isn't particularly onerous, but even mild inconveniences are quick to be abandoned when a less-burdensome alternative is presented, and I think that a lot of VTT users will fall into that mindset over time.

There will, but manual options strike me as being less popular than automatic ones (I still don't understand the appeal of video games which play themselves, for example, but my friends all have them on their phones). And this is just for minor things like substituting a given damaging effect for something else. If you want to create a custom spell, for instance, that's even more difficult, to say nothing of creating/using a new sub-system for some aspect of play that the VTT doesn't support.

Well, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Furthermore, I hope that you're right and I'm wrong; it's not a future I'd like to see. I just think it's a consequence of the future WotC wants to see, and which they're trying very hard to make happen.

I disagree; I think even minor changes can have unexpectedly large impacts on the nature of play with respect to the core game, at least in terms of how it'll function in a digital environment that's highly interactive in nature.

This is going nowhere and all I can say is that this is a really strange hill to die on. You say you are concerned. Fine. Sorry to hear that because I think there are far more important things to be concerned about, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that you keep predicting some gloomy future but when people ask for clarification of how it's going to happen there's just no there there. Meanwhile, any attempt at drawing logical conclusions that don't fit your scenario are dismissed out of hand without reason.

Are they going to have a VTT. Yes. Are they going to promote it? Yes. Are they going to charge for it? Of course. It's a profitable business for other companies, they're making a competing application they hope will be profitable. It doesn't mean anything other than that. There is no reason to believe a VTT will ever be used exclusively by an overwhelming majority of people that play D&D. We have decent VTTs now, the majority of people still play in person at least some of the time.

But you keep pushing this idea that VTT will somehow lead to this future downward spiral. You're making an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or explanation and you have nothing other than your fear. There's no reason to believe there will be a constriction of imagination as long as we are playing D&D with a DM running things. A VTT is no different from a DM that prints out every mini (having a 3D printer is making my storage area really crowded) and uses carefully constructed dwarven forge minis like Critical Role. You still have a DM filling in details, you still have players playing their character. A VTT is just a different way to visualize combat, it does not limit what people can attempt because that will always be up to the players and the DM. Combat has varying levels of importance to different groups, but it is not the sole focus of the game.

At some point we could have a truly immersive virtual reality VTT where you put on a headset and you are your character, you see what your character sees and so on. Maybe we have a person still running things with a voice modulator so whether it's the ghost of a 12 year old girl talking or a dragon, the voice will match the image. Maybe we'll have an AI DM. Maybe. But even if we did, there will still people that will sit around a table rolling, and I think it will always be a significant percentage, dice because D&D is about more than just the game. It's about connecting with others, whether it's friends, families, or complete strangers. That human connection simply can't be replaced for a lot of people, myself included. I like video games. I probably spend too much time playing them. I play D&D because of the creativity and human connection. Take those away and I might as well go back and replay BG3.

So what it comes down to is fairly simple. I don't see an issue with a VTT. No matter how pretty it is, it will never convince me to use it. It doesn't, and can't (at least with current technology) replace the DM. I doubt it will convince an overwhelming majority to use it, the face-to-face connection is important and even for people that play remotely there's plenty of competition. Some people may play strictly by the rules because that's what the VTT best supports but some people play strictly by the rules now. Nothing changes that and it's neither good nor bad because there's no one true way to play the game.

You feel like enough people will somehow be sucked into using the VTT and that D&D will become just another video game experience that stifles creativity. You just aren't making a very convincing argument that your fear will ever actually happen.

 

[mamba]

I'm not at all sure why you'd be wondering that

because all you are saying is you are unconvinced. You offer no alternative, you offer no better data or rationale as a reason, you offer nothing whatsoever.

I could not care less whether you are convinced. Either you have something more convincing to offer, or I am not interested in how stubbornly you cling to whatever with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

If you cannot make a case for whatever alternative you believe instead, then I am simply not interested in your unfounded opinion

 

[Alzrius]

This is going nowhere and all I can say is that this is a really strange hill to die on.

I agree, but it's your choice to die on it as you wish.

You say you are concerned. Fine.

And you say that you're not. Okay.

Sorry to hear that because I think there are far more important things to be concerned about, but that's not really the issue.

Likewise, the presence of more important things to be concerned about doesn't, unto itself, mean that there's no reason to be concerned about this, since concern is not a finite resource.

The issue is that you keep predicting some gloomy future but when people ask for clarification of how it's going to happen there's just no there there.

You're wrong on this one, as I've explained extensively why there is in fact a there there, as I've spent the previous responses to you outlining in notable detail.

Meanwhile, any attempt at drawing logical conclusions that don't fit your scenario are dismissed out of hand without reason.

Leaving aside that predicting the future is not, in this context, a question of logic (since it's essentially a guessing game about people's attitudes and choices), none of the points you've made have been dismissed, and all have had their reasons explained at great length. I'm not sure why you'd say otherwise, except to engage in the very same dismissal that you're decrying here.

Are they going to have a VTT. Yes.

I'm not sure why you'd reiterate something that was implicitly stipulated to from the get-go, but sure.

Are they going to promote it? Yes.

Again, this was part of the shared premise.

Are they going to charge for it? Of course. It's a profitable business for other companies, they're making a competing application they hope will be profitable.

Which, again, has all been agreed on by everyone involved in the discussion, and so doesn't really need to be repeated, again, here.

It doesn't mean anything other than that.

And that's your interpretation, which I disagree with. While I'm not sure what meaning you're assigning to "mean anything" here, I've been very clear in that I'm talking about the perceptions of players with regard to the expanse of imaginative play as it's shaped by the limitations (and areas of strength) of WotC's VTT.

There is no reason to believe a VTT will ever be used exclusively by an overwhelming majority of people that play D&D.

Putting aside the question of what constitutes an "overwhelming" majority in this context, I've previously noted that this line of discussion is necessarily one of guessing what might happen. So yes, the majority of the player base might not bother to use it at all. Or a majority of them might. Possibly even an overwhelming majority. This isn't an area that can be accurately forecasted ahead of time, particularly not by a loose application of heuristics.

We have decent VTTs now, the majority of people still play in person at least some of the time.

And WotC is aiming at something much more expansive than a "decent" VTT, between the DDB integration, the physical/digital bundling, the visual spectacle they're promoting, etc.

But you keep pushing this idea that VTT will somehow lead to this future downward spiral.

I think your choice of language here is mischaracterizing my point, as I'm not "pushing" the idea so much as saying that I find it to be distinctly possible as a consequence of what WotC is doing (though I'm not sure I'd call it a "downward spiral" per se).

You're making an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or explanation and you have nothing other than your fear.

The claim is in no way extraordinary, and I've already explained to you that this is not a question of burdens of proof, because no one is asserting that something is so or must be so or even definitely will be so. It's a possibility, one which I think has a not-inconsiderable chance of turning out to be true.

There's no reason to believe there will be a constriction of imagination as long as we are playing D&D with a DM running things.

See above, with regard to the VTT making certain things easier/more convenient than others, and this encouraging people to use those features while necessarily discouraging the use of things it doesn't do well (or at all).

A VTT is no different from a DM that prints out every mini (having a 3D printer is making my storage area really crowded) and uses carefully constructed dwarven forge minis like Critical Role.

No, I think a VTT is very different in that regard, to the point of finding this to be a very odd claim to make. A miniature set will not animate anything, and won't necessarily integrate a DDB account with only certain first-party content being available in said integration.

You still have a DM filling in details, you still have players playing their character.

Sure, that's not being debated, unless you mean that filling in details will be them electing to do things manually that the VTT doesn't go out of its way to make easier for them.

A VTT is just a different way to visualize combat,

I disagree, in that WotC seems to be doing their best to make it more than that, and touting that as the primary reason(s) to use their VTT.

it does not limit what people can attempt because that will always be up to the players and the DM.

"Soft" limits are a thing, insofar as making something less easy/convenient can discourage use, particularly when a given alternative is much simpler and more impressive in its result (even if only visually).

Combat has varying levels of importance to different groups, but it is not the sole focus of the game.

I agree, which is why I brought up the issue of things such as custom spell creation; the idea that this was always about combat was never something which I put forward.

At some point we could have a truly immersive virtual reality VTT where you put on a headset and you are your character, you see what your character sees and so on. Maybe we have a person still running things with a voice modulator so whether it's the ghost of a 12 year old girl talking or a dragon, the voice will match the image. Maybe we'll have an AI DM. Maybe.

I'm not sure why that's an issue, but I think that we'd be better off in general sticking to the subject at hand, since at this point we're just discussing a VTT based on what WotC has said/demonstrated, and comparisons between it and the sort of "full-dive" state of play that you're talking about seems to be lacking in justification.

But even if we did, there will still people that will sit around a table rolling, and I think it will always be a significant percentage, dice because D&D is about more than just the game.

I agree, though again this leaves aside what constitutes a "significant" percentage. There will always be some holdouts, but it might be like finding someone who doesn't use iPhones (a decent number of Android users) or it might be like finding someone who doesn't use a cell phone at all (a much smaller number). We'll see how it turns out in due time.

It's about connecting with others, whether it's friends, families, or complete strangers.

Sure, no one is saying otherwise. But the discussion we're having is in the context of imaginative play in and of itself, i.e. what makes D&D different from other such pastimes that involve a person-to-person connection.

That human connection simply can't be replaced for a lot of people, myself included.

I'm not sure why you're talking about replication of that human element, since I'm not saying that the VTT will remove other people from the equation entirely; just that it will discourage interaction with the central premise of what makes TTRPGs different from other games.

I like video games. I probably spend too much time playing them. I play D&D because of the creativity and human connection. Take those away and I might as well go back and replay BG3.

And while that's certainly a good thing, it's not really an aspect of what we're discussing here. People will still be interacting over the VTT (though I personally think face-to-face interaction, in terms of being in the same physical place at the same time, as opposed to video calls or anything like that, is better than connecting virtually; while it's entirely possible to make lasting personal connections over a virtual space, physical proximity tends to abet that better, to my mind), that's not being debated, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning this.

So what it comes down to is fairly simple. I don't see an issue with a VTT.

Which seems to say that your position is that you're not concerned because you won't be using it, and because so long as people are having fun together then everything else is immaterial. Creativity, which you cited as being something you're looking for, can be affected by the medium in which one creates, which means that a digital environment cannot be judged by the same metrics as the tabletop for how it abets or hinders imaginative play. My concern is that I think it does the latter more than the former.

No matter how pretty it is, it will never convince me to use it.

Which is fine for you. I'm speaking with regard to the state of the wider hobby. If the VTT becomes the point of entry for a new generation of players, then the benefits of the tabletop mode of engagement potentially run the risk of being minimized, perhaps even to the point of being forgotten.

It doesn't, and can't (at least with current technology) replace the DM.

No one is saying that it will. The DM is just as vulnerable to the issues I've raised as the players are (which I suppose goes back to the perennial question of "is the DM a player or not?").

I doubt it will convince an overwhelming majority to use it, the face-to-face connection is important and even for people that play remotely there's plenty of competition.

And I truly hope that you're correct, but as I said, we're being told that D&D's audience is repeatedly skewing younger and younger, and it's a truism that the younger generation is more "plugged in" than their predecessors, seemingly to the point of treating that as the expected default state for a lot of game-play.

Some people may play strictly by the rules because that's what the VTT best supports but some people play strictly by the rules now.

The difference being that the digital medium, in my opinion, lends itself to further supporting this mode of engagement to a greater degree than the tabletop one does.

Nothing changes that and it's neither good nor bad because there's no one true way to play the game.

I disagree that "nothing changes that," insofar as the VTT is a different medium with different strengths and weaknesses to it, which necessarily introduce elements of change.

You feel like enough people will somehow be sucked into using the VTT and that D&D will become just another video game experience that stifles creativity.

Again, I'd take issue with the wording here, but I suppose this basically gets the gist of it correct.

because all you are saying is you are unconvinced. You offer no alternative, you offer no better data or rationale as a reason, you offer nothing whatsoever.

Again, no alternative is necessary when it comes to pointing out the flaws in a conclusion that is being put forward. I'm still not sure why you think it would be.

I could not care less whether you are convinced.

The number of posts spent on this suggests otherwise.

Either you have something more convincing to offer, or I am not interested in how stubbornly you cling to whatever with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Again, I'm not "clinging" to anything with regard to the topic you brought up, as I explicitly stated (in response to your repeatedly asking) that I'm simply saying that your conclusion has problems, rather than suggesting an alternative of my own.

If you cannot make a case for whatever alternative you believe instead, then I am simply not interested in your unfounded opinion

This idea is still predicated on the idea that you can't find fault with someone else's conclusion without necessarily offering one of your own, which we know isn't the case.

 

[Oofta]

I agree, but it's your choice to die on it as you wish.

And you say that you're not. Okay.

Likewise, the presence of more important things to be concerned about doesn't, unto itself, mean that there's no reason to be concerned about this, since concern is not a finite resource.

You're wrong on this one, as I've explained extensively why there is in fact a there there, as I've spent the previous responses to you outlining in notable detail.

Leaving aside that predicting the future is not, in this context, a question of logic (since it's essentially a guessing game about people's attitudes and choices), none of the points you've made have been dismissed, and all have had their reasons explained at great length. I'm not sure why you'd say otherwise, except to engage in the very same dismissal that you're decrying here.

I'm not sure why you'd reiterate something that was implicitly stipulated to from the get-go, but sure.

Again, this was part of the shared premise.

Which, again, has all been agreed on by everyone involved in the discussion, and so doesn't really need to be repeated, again, here.

And that's your interpretation, which I disagree with. While I'm not sure what meaning you're assigning to "mean anything" here, I've been very clear in that I'm talking about the perceptions of players with regard to the expanse of imaginative play as it's shaped by the limitations (and areas of strength) of WotC's VTT.

Putting aside the question of what constitutes an "overwhelming" majority in this context, I've previously noted that this line of discussion is necessarily one of guessing what might happen. So yes, the majority of the player base might not bother to use it at all. Or a majority of them might. Possibly even an overwhelming majority. This isn't an area that can be accurately forecasted ahead of time, particularly not by a loose application of heuristics.

And WotC is aiming at something much more expansive than a "decent" VTT, between the DDB integration, the physical/digital bundling, the visual spectacle they're promoting, etc.

I think your choice of language here is mischaracterizing my point, as I'm not "pushing" the idea so much as saying that I find it to be distinctly possible as a consequence of what WotC is doing (though I'm not sure I'd call it a "downward spiral" per se).

The claim is in no way extraordinary, and I've already explained to you that this is not a question of burdens of proof, because no one is asserting that something is so or must be so or even definitely will be so. It's a possibility, one which I think has a not-inconsiderable chance of turning out to be true.

See above, with regard to the VTT making certain things easier/more convenient than others, and this encouraging people to use those features while necessarily discouraging the use of things it doesn't do well (or at all).

No, I think a VTT is very different in that regard, to the point of finding this to be a very odd claim to make. A miniature set will not animate anything, and won't necessarily integrate a DDB account with only certain first-party content being available in said integration.

Sure, that's not being debated, unless you mean that filling in details will be them electing to do things manually that the VTT doesn't go out of its way to make easier for them.

I disagree, in that WotC seems to be doing their best to make it more than that, and touting that as the primary reason(s) to use their VTT.

"Soft" limits are a thing, insofar as making something less easy/convenient can discourage use, particularly when a given alternative is much simpler and more impressive in its result (even if only visually).

I agree, which is why I brought up the issue of things such as custom spell creation; the idea that this was always about combat was never something which I put forward.

I'm not sure why that's an issue, but I think that we'd be better off in general sticking to the subject at hand, since at this point we're just discussing a VTT based on what WotC has said/demonstrated, and comparisons between it and the sort of "full-dive" state of play that you're talking about seems to be lacking in justification.

I agree, though again this leaves aside what constitutes a "significant" percentage. There will always be some holdouts, but it might be like finding someone who doesn't use iPhones (a decent number of Android users) or it might be like finding someone who doesn't use a cell phone at all (a much smaller number). We'll see how it turns out in due time.

Sure, no one is saying otherwise. But the discussion we're having is in the context of imaginative play in and of itself, i.e. what makes D&D different from other such pastimes that involve a person-to-person connection.

I'm not sure why you're talking about replication of that human element, since I'm not saying that the VTT will remove other people from the equation entirely; just that it will discourage interaction with the central premise of what makes TTRPGs different from other games.

And while that's certainly a good thing, it's not really an aspect of what we're discussing here. People will still be interacting over the VTT (though I personally think face-to-face interaction, in terms of being in the same physical place at the same time, as opposed to video calls or anything like that, is better than connecting virtually; while it's entirely possible to make lasting personal connections over a virtual space, physical proximity tends to abet that better, to my mind), that's not being debated, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning this.

Which seems to say that your position is that you're not concerned because you won't be using it, and because so long as people are having fun together then everything else is immaterial. Creativity, which you cited as being something you're looking for, can be affected by the medium in which one creates, which means that a digital environment cannot be judged by the same metrics as the tabletop for how it abets or hinders imaginative play. My concern is that I think it does the latter more than the former.

Which is fine for you. I'm speaking with regard to the state of the wider hobby. If the VTT becomes the point of entry for a new generation of players, then the benefits of the tabletop mode of engagement potentially run the risk of being minimized, perhaps even to the point of being forgotten.

No one is saying that it will. The DM is just as vulnerable to the issues I've raised as the players are (which I suppose goes back to the perennial question of "is the DM a player or not?").

And I truly hope that you're correct, but as I said, we're being told that D&D's audience is repeatedly skewing younger and younger, and it's a truism that the younger generation is more "plugged in" than their predecessors, seemingly to the point of treating that as the expected default state for a lot of game-play.

The difference being that the digital medium, in my opinion, lends itself to further supporting this mode of engagement to a greater degree than the tabletop one does.

I disagree that "nothing changes that," insofar as the VTT is a different medium with different strengths and weaknesses to it, which necessarily introduce elements of change.

Again, I'd take issue with the wording here, but I suppose this basically gets the gist of it correct.

Again, no alternative is necessary when it comes to pointing out the flaws in a conclusion that is being put forward. I'm still not sure why you think it would be.

The number of posts spent on this suggests otherwise.

Again, I'm not "clinging" to anything with regard to the topic you brought up, as I explicitly stated (in response to your repeatedly asking) that I'm simply saying that your conclusion has problems, rather than suggesting an alternative of my own.

This idea is still predicated on the idea that you can't find fault with someone else's conclusion without necessarily offering one of your own, which we know isn't the case.

Simply claiming that you've justified your concern does not make it so. There's nothing new here. No convincing argument, no logical proof, nothing that explains why anyone else should be concerned. Could something happen? Sure. A zombie apocalypse could happen. Both are just highly unlikely.

Have a good one.

 

[Alzrius]

Simply claiming that you've justified your concern does not make it so.

Simply claiming that I've not done so likewise doesn't mean that I've not do so.

There's nothing new here.

I disagree, unless we're talking about your own post, in which case I do agree.

No convincing argument,

Stating a personal opinion as a declarative doesn't strengthen your position (quite the opposite, really).

no logical proof,

Previously addressed, as this was already noted as not being an area of using logic to prove things (i.e. you can't logically prove what the future will be).

nothing that explains why anyone else should be concerned.

See above with regard to the state of imaginative play in a digital venue.

Could something happen? Sure. A zombie apocalypse could happen.

Has WotC openly announced their intent to create a zombie apocalypse? Because otherwise this seems like a false equivalency.

Both are just highly unlikely.

See above with regards to putting both of those on the same level.

Have a good one.

Thanks, you too.

 

[Oofta]

...
Has WotC openly announced their intent to create a zombie apocalypse? Because otherwise this seems like a false equivalency.
...

They have not announced the zombie apocalypse yet.

 

[Alzrius]

They have not announced the zombie apocalypse yet.

Hm, good point.

 

[mamba]

This idea is still predicated on the idea that you can't find fault with someone else's conclusion without necessarily offering one of your own, which we know isn't the case.

no, you can, but if you cannot make a better case of your own, you are not going to convince anyone with that.

Basically we have the case where I say ‘I believe this, and this is why’ and you say ‘but your data is not perfect and directly from WotC, it just is the best data available, and it is not enough to convince me while at the same time I have nothing better to offer and do not even attempt it’.

So since you offer nothing of value, I will just dismiss your claim without even giving it a second thought, the way it deserves to.

I know I have no WotC internal figures, you are not telling me anything new here. I use the best available data I am aware of to make my case. You have zero data to back you up (or at least do not even mention it) and half the time you do not even try to offer an alternative, not just one you can support with evidence, any alternative.

If you cannot offer a plausible alternative that is backed up by better data or reasoning, then I simply do not care what you have to say, it is literally meaningless

The number of posts spent on this suggests otherwise.

I wouldn’t read too much into that, these posts are not meant for you only.

Unless you can make a positive claim and back it up, we are done here. So far all you did is show that you can stubbornly cling to an alternative explanation you cannot even defend

 

[Umbran]

I think what both Alzrius and TiQuinn miss is that, "I fear a thing will happen," is not a substantiated argument that the thing will, or is even likely to, happen.

For the rest of us, I think the thing we are missing is the point of bringing up the unsubstantiated argument. Like, what did these folks want out of this interaction?

 

[Alzrius]

no, you can, but if you cannot make a better case of your own, you are not going to convince anyone with that.

I disagree. Demonstrating why a particular assertion being put forward doesn't stand up to scrutiny doesn't necessitate putting forward any sort of alternative assertion, as I've mentioned before.

Basically we have the case where I say ‘I believe this, and this is why’ and you say ‘but your data is not perfect and directly from WotC, it just is the best data available, and it is not enough to convince me while at the same time I have nothing better to offer and do not even attempt it’.

Which brings up the question as to why you think it's necessary to offer up "something better" as a corollary to pointing out how imperfect data (even if it's all the data you have) can lead to imperfect conclusions. There's no impetus to offer "something better."

So since you offer nothing of value, I will just dismiss your claim without even giving it a second thought, the way it deserves to.

So because an alternative isn't being presented, you feel that constitutes grounds to disregard flaws being pointed out in your own conclusions? Because that doesn't really speak to the issues that were raised with regard to your own points.

I know I have no WotC internal figures, you are not telling me anything new here.

I wasn't under the impression that I was; rather I was simply citing the issues of relying on something that we know to be (at best) incomplete. Something is not always better than nothing.

I use the best available data I an aware of to make my case.

See above. Using an incomplete map to try and navigate a space runs the risk of making you more vulnerable to pitfalls than if you had no map at all.

You have zero data to back you up and half the time you do not even try to offer an alternative, not just one you can support with evidence, any alternative.

Again, pointing out the flaws in your existing data is orthogonal to the issue of having "zero data" of my own, since I'm not (as you acknowledged) putting forward a point and so have no need to demonstrate something (beyond the faults in yours).

If you cannot offer a plausible alternative that is backed up by better data or reasoning, then I simply do not care what you have to say, it is literally meaningless

I disagree. Pointing out the flaws in an idea being put forward has meaning, even if no alternative is being presented alongside that.

I wouldn’t read too much into that, these posts are not meant for you only.

But they nevertheless suggest a level of investment on your part, regardless of who they're for.

Unless you can make a positive claim and back it up, we are done here.

I mean, at this point that issue is asked-and-answered, insofar as your own point goes.

So far all you did is show that you can stubbornly cling to an opinion you cannot even defend,

Actually, pointing out the flaws in your opinion doesn't involve me asserting an opinion of my own, and so no defense is required.

at most you can find the argument for it unconvincing,

Correctly so, with regards to the conclusions being drawn.

but that is not enough to establish a superior alternative

Which is because there's no need to put forward an alternative with regard to showing why something else has issues with the conclusions drawn.

I think what both Alzrius and TiQuinn miss is that, "I fear a thing will happen," is not a substantiated argument that the thing will, or is even likely to, happen.

You do realize that I've said that, almost word for word, multiple times, right?

For the rest of us, I think the thing we are missing is the point of bringing up the unsubstantiated argument. Like, what did these folks want out of this interaction?

I'd say the same thing that anyone wants out of an interaction on a messageboard in general (or at least this one in particular), as I don't see this thread as being particularly unusual in any regard.