Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9069147" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Sure it does. From this thread alone:Read: Because it is popular, it should not be changed (or, at least, Scribe surmises that is what WotC thinks.)Explicit: Because it is played frequently, players like it, and thus the classes should not be rewritten.Explicit: Because it is frequently played, it is enjoyed. Further implies that nothing whatsoever about this should change (e.g., no possibility of opt-in complexity.)And I intentionally left out several quotes that were varying degrees of borderline.Which is precisely why I say people should not claim more than what the data supports: Fighters are commonly-used. We cannot, from this data, determine one iota of the intent behind that selection. We certainly cannot say anything, for or against, about whether it is liked.Did you play past the single-digit levels?And, again, you are making a causal argument from something that doesn't support that. You don't have the data to make a causal argument: &quot;Because it is simple, it is frequently played.&quot; All we know is that it is frequently played. Hence why I separated frequency-of-play from any attachment to specific implementation. We would need a very different set (and kind) of data to make arguments like that--a data set WotC is not interested in collecting, because it would require that they hire actual consultants to do their surveys.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9069147, member: 6790260"] Sure it does. From this thread alone: Read: Because it is popular, it should not be changed (or, at least, Scribe surmises that is what WotC thinks.) Explicit: Because it is played frequently, players like it, and thus the classes should not be rewritten. Explicit: Because it is frequently played, it is enjoyed. Further implies that nothing whatsoever about this should change (e.g., no possibility of opt-in complexity.) And I intentionally left out several quotes that were varying degrees of borderline. Which is precisely why I say people should not claim more than what the data supports: Fighters are commonly-used. We cannot, from this data, determine one iota of the [I]intent[/I] behind that selection. We [I]certainly[/I] cannot say anything, for or against, about whether it is [I]liked[/I]. Did you play past the single-digit levels? And, again, you are making a causal argument from something that doesn't support that. You don't have the data to make a causal argument: "[I]Because[/I] it is simple, it is frequently played." All we know is [I]that[/I] it is frequently played. Hence why I separated frequency-of-play from any attachment to specific implementation. We would need a very different set (and kind) of data to make arguments like that--a data set WotC is not interested in collecting, because it would require that they hire actual consultants to do their surveys. [/QUOTE]

Verification