Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1690796" data-attributes="member: 177">Okay, first off, as I understand it, Dancey and Gygax aren't part of this.  I thought we were discussing:andDancey and Gygax have yet to be mentioned in regards to this factoid.The double standard is that you accept one side's hearsay as basis for an assumption, but require the other side to provide "compelling evidence". The different sides are required to meet different standards of evidence.  That's not solid logical ground.Ah, yes.  But for anything we "know", there's a level of confidence in the fact.  We "know" that the force of gravity will cause an object to fall, and we've got a pretty high confidence in that fact.  We assume it holds and rely on it.  We generally don't question it at all.The hordes of folks leaving TSR for WW, however, is something we "know" with very little (I'd say almost zero, personally) confidence.  You yourself have little enough confidence that you mention it is an assumption.  If we have so little confidence in it, should we use it, even if it seems to us to be most likelyWhen trying to create a model of how the world actually works, including beliefs for which we have little evidence is usually unwise.  It leads to faulty models. Mearls here is talking about how the gaming market has historically worked.  He's at least got some evidence from which he can infer his beliefs.  You've got "common knowledge".  Should we combine those, or should we hold your assumption to the standard Mearls is setting?</blockquote>

Verification