Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9133291" data-attributes="member: 6801228">They could use principles from Fermi. Or from the field of Sociology. Or from the Field of Survey Methodology. Again, you seem to want a degree of precision that simply is not needed from studying humans. They don't need to be within 1% of some imaginary objective truth.I would if they had made any of those other mistakes.What do you mean it can't be both? The two things are not mutually exclusive. You can listen and hear someone's opinion... and not follow it. They aren't ignoring the outliers just because they are following where the majority is pointing. They are listening to the outliers, just not allowing those outliers to dictate everything to their specifications. That isn't ignoring them.Like, I'm truly trying to understand this. Anything other than tyranny of the minority is ignoring that minority?! That doesn't make any logical sense.Or, you know, maybe since they allow their data to surprise them, instead of making it fit their preconcieved notions of what is popular, they aren't engaging in confirmation bias <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f914.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure    :unsure:"  data-smilie="24"data-shortname=":unsure:" />Since when is Crawford an Executive or a Lawyer? The DnD design team has nothing to do with those people. This is completely unrelated to the issue at hand.Why do they need to prove it to you? There is no possible logical reason for them to lie about it.Right.... Find me a politician who was running for major, federal office, who only makes 7 campaign stops. You can't compare time spent to time spent, the factor is what they spent that time doing. Most Political Campaigns have three to five people making two or three stops daily, for months. Even on the low end that is 180 events. We've had seven events.No, opinions refine. But I have been on the forums. No one's opinions on Weapon Mastery have really changed much since it was introduced. No one is talking about dwarven tremorsense anymore. We've not really discussed the issue with critical hits anymore. Things settled and became static. We all feel like we have a fairly strong image of what 2024 is going to look like. Which is nothing like a political campaign.And all it takes is to... just do some basic effort to show that difference you are talking about. Using my method from before. 700 / 100 / 100 / 100 --> I get ~90% approval100 / 700 / 100 / 100 ---> I get ~60% approval. And, exactly as you stated, the second set is far less satisfied than the first set. Now, I'm not saying my method is exactly the same as their method. I'm sure they are using a superior method. But the point is that all this stuff you are griping about is stuff that is known and can be solved. Scientists and mathematicians haven't just thrown their hands up in the air when it comes to studying human beings and declared "It is impossible! There is no objective standard!". They figured out how to get as close as possible.And yet you seem to think it is the question they should be asking, for some reason.Yeah, you clearly don't remember the polls, since they've released literally nothing based on those polls. And there has been very very little since the PHB that has been released without seeing a single public playtest. About the only things were the Green Ronin SCAG... which also did very poorly. Yet more evidence that, maybe, these surveys they've done for Tasha's, Xanathars, Volos, ect ect ect... have been good for the game and made good products.</blockquote>

Verification