D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!

[Chaosmancer]

A blunder is a blunder. They made a huge one. Apparently everyone but you recognizes that fact. This attempt to minimize it isn't working.

I'm not attempting to minimize it, but it doesn't seem to have been a huge blunder. See this headline

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwie2tjrgPyAAxWgATQIHfbcBBkQFnoECC4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1995%2F04%2F11%2Fbusiness%2Fcompany-news-ten-years-later-coca-cola-laughs-at-new-coke.html&usg=AOvVaw0RI2AXkLfPIU0AkWly4dP8&opi=89978449

Ten years later, they were laughing about it and claiming that good things came from it. Sure, it cost the company a total of 34 MILLION dollars, and that's huge, right? Let's see their net worth in 1995 was... 3 BILLION. It was a blunder that cost them... 1% of their net worth. And now they are worth... 261.15 Billion. I didn't account for inflation, but they are almost 100 times more profitable now, and they claimed that the New Coke release actually helped them.

So, yeah. I'm not downplaying it at all. It was a big, short lived and fixed blunder that had no lasting impact on their profits.

The shareholders generally wouldn't know until after the fact. They might be able to sue later, depending on the nature of the decision.

I'm pretty sure the biggest ones get consulted, but whatever. The larger point still stands.

That's false. The CEO can decide the direction of the company without owning 51%. That's why he is CEO. If he steers badly, the board can toss him out.

Hasn't seemed to work with Musk, seems like if you are rich enough, they can't toss you out. And, again, this is all because you seemed to take offense at the fact that I recognize "Musk regularly makes terrible decisions" is different than "Big Businesses regularly make terrible decisions"

Yes, but you don't sign a contract blind. So when they signed the contract(assuming they didn't make it themselves) for that toy, THEY BLUNDERED.

Unless the contract was that they would buy toys from a specific designer, who had a good track record, and it was only later that this toy came, and despite being bad they were forced to sell it like all the other good toys. Because you never would make a contract with a prolific designer for a single toy, that's dumb.

Again. EVIDENCE!! You need that thing, called evidence, to make a claim. You can't just state something is true without knowing the situation and knowing the evidence.

Don’t Underestimate the Power of Luck When It Comes to Success in Business

Managers are very prone to both benchmarking and stereotyping. These practices lead them into underestimating the power of luck, so that they often attribute success to capabilities and failure to bad luck in people or organizations they see as having the attributes of greatness, while they...

hbr.org

"Management research and education often focus on prescriptive theories that address how to move from “good to great.” This is problematic because being “great” in business often cannot occur without luck."

Now show me the study where it says it can happen and be sustained for multiple years completely and totally without skill. I mean, I wonder what all those management research and education classes are teaching if the only factor that can possibly matter is luck? Fortune Telling? Tea Reading? Crystal Ball Cleaning?

Again, just like Mamba, you are treating this like a binary. Like I some how stated that Luck plays zero role in success, and therefore by showing me it happens you will get one over on me and embarrass me into admitting you are right. But what I ACTUALLY said was the luck ALONE does not account for sustained success. That to be a large company that lasts multiple years, you need more than luck. Just like I never claimed that all large corporations are utterly perfect and divine beings without fault, I simply claimed that once you reach a certain size, you end up rarely making the kind of fundamental mistakes like making a survey that provides useless data withoutrealizing it for a decade, and that you need evidence of the surveys failing to produce results to actually prove your point. Because "I think I found something" is not strong evidence when compared with "They likely considered that, considering it is a fundamental part of all survey taking and any college graduate would know to account for it."

 

[mamba]

Ah, I see. They aren't baseless accusations, they are SECRET accusations. How sneaky and clever of you, you can't seem like your accusations are baseless if you never tell people your reasons for making them.

If getting actual answers out of you were not like trying to nail pudding to the wall, I would not have to resort to this. As it stands I am tired of being the only one who answers questions directly.

I mean you try to weasel out of everything, even when being asked whether what happened with New Coke shows that there was a mistake made somewhere along that line, your literal answer was

I don't know

moving on…

Because you don't seem to have any understanding of what the various levels mean, despite having it explained to you. Because it has been explained to you MULTIPLE TIMES in this very threat, Crawford practically has a meme with them laid out in front of you mulitple times in this thread, but you are still acting like it is so confusing.

I am not acting like it is confusing, I am asking you about your opinion.

But fine, since we insist, lets explain it one more time.

80% -> this is good, it doesn't need improvement, we probably should keep it exactly as is or very very similar.
70% -> This is good, but we may be able to make it better, we might still keep it as is though
60% -> This isn't so good. We need to improve this. It is probably getting altered
50% -> This was a bad idea, we should drop this and move on to other ideas.

aha, nice, took long enough. Remember when we had this exchange?

Let's see if we can agree on something here...

1) What is WotC really interested in answering? To me it is A) do you like this idea better than what we have today (nevermind the balancing)? B) Do you like the execution enough for us to add it as is, or does it need improvement?

I disagree that that is what they seem to be looking for. They especially do not seem to be asking us if they should improve their ideas or not.

Please explain how your answer then is not contradicted by what you just posted now.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not attempting to minimize it, but it doesn't seem to have been a huge blunder. See this headline

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwie2tjrgPyAAxWgATQIHfbcBBkQFnoECC4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1995%2F04%2F11%2Fbusiness%2Fcompany-news-ten-years-later-coca-cola-laughs-at-new-coke.html&usg=AOvVaw0RI2AXkLfPIU0AkWly4dP8&opi=89978449

Ten years later, they were laughing about it and claiming that good things came from it. Sure, it cost the company a total of 34 MILLION dollars, and that's huge, right? Let's see their net worth in 1995 was... 3 BILLION. It was a blunder that cost them... 1% of their net worth. And now they are worth... 261.15 Billion. I didn't account for inflation, but they are almost 100 times more profitable now, and they claimed that the New Coke release actually helped them.

It makes all the top lists of blunders by corporations. It was a very large blunder.

As for their value, as you noted upthread, they've acquired and released many new products since then. That adds to value.

I'm pretty sure the biggest ones get consulted, but whatever. The larger point still stands.

Hasn't seemed to work with Musk, seems like if you are rich enough, they can't toss you out. And, again, this is all because you seemed to take offense at the fact that I recognize "Musk regularly makes terrible decisions" is different than "Big Businesses regularly make terrible decisions"

First, it's not offense. It's disagreement. Second, one man making decisions isn't different from one man making decisions(big business) and is not effectively different from 2-4 people making the decisions(CEO and a few other upper management folks).

Musk just makes the headlines because he's fairly crazy and puts himself in the limelight, not because he's doing things very differently than other companies.

Unless the contract was that they would buy toys from a specific designer, who had a good track record, and it was only later that this toy came, and despite being bad they were forced to sell it like all the other good toys. Because you never would make a contract with a prolific designer for a single toy, that's dumb.

Again. EVIDENCE!! You need that thing, called evidence, to make a claim. You can't just state something is true without knowing the situation and knowing the evidence.

Evidence? How about the fact that they instantly yanked them off of the shelves when the outcry went out? If they were contractually obligated to sell them they couldn't have done that. If they could pull them, they could have not put them out in the first place.

Now show me the study where it says it can happen and be sustained for multiple years completely and totally without skill.

No. You asked me what I thought contributed to Blockbuster's success and I said luck. They were in the right place at the right time to make the money. Without the luck they probably still would have done well, but not been "great."

 

[Chaosmancer]

If getting actual answers out of you were not like trying to nail pudding to the wall, I would not have to resort to this. As it stands I am tired of being the only one who answers questions directly.

I mean you try to weasel out of everything, even when being asked whether what happened with New Coke shows that there was a mistake made somewhere along that line, your literal answer was

Yeah, turns out I'm not an expert on the history of Coca-Cola, and have not done in-depth research into their New Coke initiative. I'm sorry that intellectual honesty offends you, but I find it far better to admit when I have a gap in my knowledge than to blindly insist that I must know everything.

Also weird how I wrote three paragraphs on the subject, and you quoted three words. Does make someone wonder, since you haven't addressed anything since I initially said I didn't know everything about New Coke.

moving on…

I am not acting like it is confusing, I am asking you about your opinion.


aha, nice, took long enough. Remember when we had this exchange?


Please explain how your answer then is not contradicted by what you just posted now.

Because them asking us about how much we like someone isn't asking us if they should improve it?

For example, if I bake a cake and give it to someone and say "do you like this cake" and they say "it is pretty good, but a bit dry" I might take that response and decide to improve the cake. But I didn't ask them "Should I improve this cake I made?" Because.... that is a different question. Someone like me might always answer that question with "Yes, you should improve it" because you should always improve everything you do. Another person might interpret "should I improve this" as an acknowledgement that somehting is wrong with the piece they have been given, after all, why seek improvement if you are confident it is good?

Why are you conflating them using how much we like something to determine if they feel they need to work on improving it with them ASKING us if they should improve it? Would you seriously ever tell a company "No, never improve your product."? I wouldn't. I want every one to improve every product that exists. Improve beds. Improve cars. Improve computers. Why would I ever NOT want people to make better things? And yeah, WoTC, improve your game, improve the classes, improve the weapons, improve the feats, improve spellcasting, improve monster design, improve adventure design. Make every aspect of the game better. All the time, you should do that thing. Whether I like a class design or not, it should always strive to be a better version of itself.

But that isn't what WoTC is asking us, that isn't the question they present.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It makes all the top lists of blunders by corporations. It was a very large blunder.

As for their value, as you noted upthread, they've acquired and released many new products since then. That adds to value.

Okay, and they said it improved their company in the long run. So, it was a very worthy blunder to make.

Are we going to continue pretending like I ever claimed it is impossible for corporations to make a mistake? Or do you want to make a history of business course out of this?

First, it's not offense. It's disagreement. Second, one man making decisions isn't different from one man making decisions(big business) and is not effectively different from 2-4 people making the decisions(CEO and a few other upper management folks).

Musk just makes the headlines because he's fairly crazy and puts himself in the limelight, not because he's doing things very differently than other companies.

So... how are most companies handling losing 182 BILLION dollars in the last year? How are most companies handling changing their iconic brand names to something completely unrelated and wiping out 20 billion dollars in value? If Musk isn't doing anything different, then other companies have done these exact same things, right? So what was the name of the company currently known as Pepsico over, lets say the last five years. Did Wal-Mart spend billions buying another brand that they then ruined in the last few years?

Seems strange that I've heard a lot of business people talking about how Musk makes bad business decisions if he is doing the same things everyone else does.

Evidence? How about the fact that they instantly yanked them off of the shelves when the outcry went out? If they were contractually obligated to sell them they couldn't have done that. If they could pull them, they could have not put them out in the first place.

That would depend on the contract language, wouldn't it?

Also, it is odd to me that from your statement this was another situation that lasted only a few months at most. New Coke? Instantly taken off shelves. This Toys R Us thing? Instantly taken off shelves. Yet, you want to insist that WoTC has gone a full decade without realizing their mistake? How are these mistakes similiar if two of them lasted around three to four months, and the other has supposedly gone undetected for 120 months?

No. You asked me what I thought contributed to Blockbuster's success and I said luck. They were in the right place at the right time to make the money. Without the luck they probably still would have done well, but not been "great."

And yet I note you still will not admit that it takes skill to run a massive corporation. You will praise luck, but you are silent on everything else. Why is that?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, and they said it improved their company in the long run. So, it was a very worthy blunder to make.

Sure. Go take over a business and engage in blunders, arguing you're going to get lucky later on and see how long they keep you on as CEO.

So... how are most companies handling losing 182 BILLION dollars in the last year? How are most companies handling changing their iconic brand names to something completely unrelated and wiping out 20 billion dollars in value? If Musk isn't doing anything different, then other companies have done these exact same things, right? So what was the name of the company currently known as Pepsico over, lets say the last five years. Did Wal-Mart spend billions buying another brand that they then ruined in the last few years?

Seems strange that I've heard a lot of business people talking about how Musk makes bad business decisions if he is doing the same things everyone else does.

Blunders don't have to be identical in order to be blunders.

That would depend on the contract language, wouldn't it?

No. If language had been there forcing them to sell it and they pulled it, they would have been sued and no lawsuit happened.

Also, it is odd to me that from your statement this was another situation that lasted only a few months at most. New Coke? Instantly taken off shelves. This Toys R Us thing? Instantly taken off shelves. Yet, you want to insist that WoTC has gone a full decade without realizing their mistake? How are these mistakes similiar if two of them lasted around three to four months, and the other has supposedly gone undetected for 120 months?

Mistakes are mistakes. They don't have to be identical to one another.

And yet I note you still will not admit that it takes skill to run a massive corporation. You will praise luck, but you are silent on everything else. Why is that?

Because it's not relevant to this discussion about a mistake. Hell, luck isn't even relevant, but you brought us onto that topic.

 

[mamba]

Also weird how I wrote three paragraphs on the subject, and you quoted three words. Does make someone wonder

yeah, it makes you wonder. There is a simple answer, those three words were the entirety of your original answer (plus an ‘or care’). The whole thing is not really relevant / interesting to me outside of showing that big companies can make mistakes, so I am not pursuing it

Because them asking us about how much we like someone isn't asking us if they should improve it?

No, it is not, but my question was not what they are asking, it was what they want to learn by asking.

Do you disagree that WotC wants to learn whether something is good enough to add to 2024 as is, is close and should be improved, or is far away and should be abandoned?

If you disagree, then please explain why Crawford is telling us that our answers feed directly into the decision (see the thresholds you mentioned). Or do you think the 60%, 80% etc. he mentions are not the ones from the surveys?

But that isn't what WoTC is asking us, that isn't the question they present.

I agree that it isn't the question they present. I very much disagree that this is not what they try to determine from our answers, they are telling us that this is how they use our answers in that quote of yours.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure. Go take over a business and engage in blunders, arguing you're going to get lucky later on and see how long they keep you on as CEO.

Ah, so you are now going to claim that all Big Corporations are utterly perfect and without fault? Because that statement sounds oddly like my literal exact position, and you have spent the last few days attempting to prove to me that businesses can make mistakes.

Blunders don't have to be identical in order to be blunders.

Why yes, you can compare apples and fish. But generally when two things have obvious differences, they don't make for good comparisons.

No. If language had been there forcing them to sell it and they pulled it, they would have been sued and no lawsuit happened.

Unless the contract had a termination provision, dependent on the product not doing well, implemented to prevent them from being forced to continually sell a failing product.

Contracts are more complicated than A = 1

Mistakes are mistakes. They don't have to be identical to one another.

And yet, if I were to identify food poisoning in someone, I wouldn't say the person hit by a car is a good example. Differences MATTER. Many of these things you keep bringing up were detected and resolved in less than a year, yet you want to use them to help demonstrate a "mistake" that has lasted a decade. Those two time spans are VASTLY different.

Because it's not relevant to this discussion about a mistake. Hell, luck isn't even relevant, but you brought us onto that topic.

No, you did. I asked how you thought Blockbuster became a huge household name, you said "they were in the right place at the right time". I then asked if you thought all corps existed purely because of luck, and now you are trying to prove to me that corporations require skill to run.

Which answers the question, finally. No, you don't believe corporations exist solely because of luck. There are factors of skilled management involved. Otherwise, to quote you

Go take over a business and engage in blunders, arguing you're going to get lucky later on and see how long they keep you on as CEO.

This wouldn't make sense.

 

[Chaosmancer]

yeah, it makes you wonder. There is a simple answer, those three words were the entirety of your original answer (plus an ‘or care’). The whole thing is not really relevant / interesting to me outside of showing that big companies can make mistakes, so I am not pursuing it

If you do not think I said anything relevant in a three paragraph explanation, I think that says everything that needs to be said about your ability to analyze the decisions of a multi-million dollar organization. It takes more than three words to capture something like that.

No, it is not, but my question was not what they are asking, it was what they want to learn by asking.

Do you disagree that WotC wants to learn whether something is good enough to add to 2024 as is, is close and should be improved, or is far away and should be abandoned?

If you disagree, then please explain why Crawford is telling us that our answers feed directly into the decision (see the thresholds you mentioned). Or do you think the 60%, 80% etc. he mentions are not the ones from the surveys?

They want to learn if we like it. Whether or not it is good enough doesn't matter. You are taking acceptance and popularity and equating that with skilled creation.

The survey isn't saying whether or not the Champion Fighter is actually well-designed, it is saying how much people like that design of the Champion fighter. You can claim that people would only like something that is well designed.... but people still seem to like the champion fighter, which is NOT well designed.

Stop making these logical leaps. Stop making assumptions. Stop trying to play gotcha games because someone isn't saying the key word that your entire argument hinges on. If more people like an inferior design, that inferior design is going to make it into the game. Because they are only asking "do you like this"

I agree that it isn't the question they present. I very much disagree that this is not what they try to determine from our answers, they are telling us that this is how they use our answers in that quote of yours.

No, that isn't what they are doing. You aren't understanding it at all.

 

[mamba]

If you do not think I said anything relevant in a three paragraph explanation, I think that says everything that needs to be said about your ability to analyze the decisions of a multi-million dollar organization. It takes more than three words to capture something like that.

relevant to the discussion about WotC. As I said, I am not interested in pursuing a discussion about Coke.

That you always jump to the wrong conclusions tells me something about your analytical abilities too…

They want to learn if we like it. Whether or not it is good enough doesn't matter.

that all they want to know is how much we like something is directly contradicted by them using the results to decide what to keep / improve / abandon. The very fact that we do not like it is what makes it ‘not good enough’.

What else do you think determines that (and it needs to be something else according to you…)?

The survey isn't saying whether or not the Champion Fighter is actually well-designed, it is saying how much people like that design of the Champion fighter.

that is basically the same thing, what makes the design good is that people like it.

Do you think they would say ‘85% of people like the design, but we determined by some metric that it is not well designed, so we will change it’?

The metric that determines this is how much it is being liked.

Stop making these logical leaps. Stop making assumptions. Stop trying to play gotcha games because someone isn't saying the key word that your entire argument hinges on.

I am not making a leap, I am drawing a logical conclusion. That you refuse to draw logical conclusions in order to not have to adjust your position is telling.

No, that isn't what they are doing. You aren't understanding it at all

then explain it, and do not say ‘they just wonder whether we like it’, because that is utter nonsense. They act based on how much we like it, this is not just idle curiosity.

You are basically saying ‘the questions are what they really are looking for, ignore Crawford’s ramblings, he is wrong’. You will need to reconcile the two in your explanation, not ignore one of them…

Right now I’d say you have shown me right. 1) you have not looked into this / do not understand it and 2) would agree that the questions are not good at getting the answers WotC is looking for, if it weren’t for 1).

You basically agreed with me that these questions are not suitable to get the answer to whether something should be improved or thrown out.

But that isn't what WoTC is asking us, that isn't the question they present.

they are looking for that answer, the question is just not good at getting it right. That is my point.