Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 5278589" data-attributes="member: 4720">Right.And the question at hand remains.... who are those people?&nbsp; Is this a specific target audience?In the absence of their resources, I can only work from my experience as a gamer (D&amp;D and otherwise), and my experience in cognitive psychology.&nbsp; My experience tells me that the target audience for these rules changes are lapsed gamers with pre-existing ideas of how D&amp;D specifically works and a relative lack of familiarity with other avenues of gaming that work more like 4e pre-essentials.Again, the price point, the box, and so on.... that'll hit a broad demographic.&nbsp; But the rules?&nbsp; Of the people I know who are susceptible to the idea of playing D&amp;D in the first place but never have, the new rules feel less likely to hit than the old rules did.As I said, I'm always willing to be wrong.&nbsp; Heck, I like being wrong.&nbsp; That's when I learn things.&nbsp; But I'm not going to assume every one of my personal experiences with newbie D&amp;D players was a statistical outlier until I see some data. The reasoning that a corporation wouldn't put money on the line if it wasn't the best thing to do ignores a lot of history, you know.&nbsp; How many new products crash in a Hindenburg-like manner every year?&nbsp; They could be flat wrong.&nbsp; Or I could be 100% correct and they could simply have made the decision that lapsed players were a better target than new ones.&nbsp; That wouldn't obviate a single thing I've said.Heck, I could be 100% on target, and they could have misread their own data or constructed their surveys poorly.&nbsp; I spent almost a third of my life in psychology and neurobiology research.&nbsp; I've lost count of how many times I've seen cats with doctorates in cognitive and social psychology, including marketing gurus who sold millions of books on the subject, who didn't notice that their own survey construction was biased to give a specific answer until after the fact.&nbsp; It often takes a few iterations just to figure how badly they're screwing the pooch.&nbsp; I'm not going to have more faith in WotC's methods than I have in people who are in the top of their academic field.&nbsp; Human behavior and preferences are squirrelly to nail down with surveys and market data.As someone who has worked in the field, the tools available are crude.&nbsp; We're in a stone knives and bear skins stage of development there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 5278589, member: 4720"] Right. And the question at hand remains.... who are those people? Is this a specific target audience? In the absence of their resources, I can only work from my experience as a gamer (D&D and otherwise), and my experience in cognitive psychology. My experience tells me that the target audience for these rules changes are lapsed gamers with pre-existing ideas of how D&D specifically works and a relative lack of familiarity with other avenues of gaming that work more like 4e pre-essentials. Again, the price point, the box, and so on.... that'll hit a broad demographic. But the rules? Of the people I know who are susceptible to the idea of playing D&D in the first place but never have, the new rules feel less likely to hit than the old rules did. As I said, I'm always willing to be wrong. Heck, I like being wrong. That's when I learn things. But I'm not going to assume every one of my personal experiences with newbie D&D players was a statistical outlier until I see some data. The reasoning that a corporation wouldn't put money on the line if it wasn't the best thing to do ignores a lot of history, you know. How many new products crash in a Hindenburg-like manner every year? They could be flat wrong. Or I could be 100% correct and they could simply have made the decision that lapsed players were a better target than new ones. That wouldn't obviate a single thing I've said. Heck, I could be 100% on target, and they could have misread their own data or constructed their surveys poorly. I spent almost a third of my life in psychology and neurobiology research. I've lost count of how many times I've seen cats with doctorates in cognitive and social psychology, including marketing gurus who sold millions of books on the subject, who didn't notice that their own survey construction was biased to give a specific answer until after the fact. It often takes a few iterations just to figure how badly they're screwing the pooch. I'm not going to have more faith in WotC's methods than I have in people who are in the top of their academic field. Human behavior and preferences are squirrelly to nail down with surveys and market data. As someone who has worked in the field, the tools available are crude. We're in a stone knives and bear skins stage of development there. [/QUOTE]

Verification