Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 1369706" data-attributes="member: 2629">Scion: A valid question. Unfortuantely, I don't have a lot of time to discuss it today. I'll try to do it briefly.People look at threads on message boards and draw a conclusion about the subjects being discussed. That conclusion is based upon the analysis presented in the thread. Once that conclusion is in their brain, they have a tendency to stick to it. This is a natural tendency for people - draw a conclusion, internalize it and stick with it. Once a person has a belief stuck in their head, it is hard to get them to reconsider that belief - people are stubborn. If you don't belive me, just try to change my mind about people being stubborn. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The problem here (and in many places on the internet) is that the conslusions being drawn are flawed. In many instances, people draw very general conclusions (ie; 'barbarians are better than fighters') based upon a very small amount of the relevant information (ie; one battle scenario with one set of mock characters). In other instances, people draw faulty conclusions because they're drawing their conclusions by looking at the wrong information (ie; people thinking that 4 attacks that deal 30 damage each is 'better' than 8 attacks that deal 14 each, even though in many circumstances, the second option takes down more foes in less time because of the hit point total of the foes [Note: I'm saying that both options have strengths and weaknesses - I'm not saying that either is 'better'].)Once people have these flawed theories stuck in their brain, they tend to hold on to them very tightly. They use these conclusions in other discussions without analysing whether their analysis holds true under the circumstances of the new argument. They use their conclusions as a basis to demand (or, in rare instances, request) that WotC change a rule.People yelled and screamed about how the new 3.5 power attack was going to destroy all 3.5 games. They had numbers to back them up. Other people yelled and screamed about how Mystic Theurges would be the only spellcasters in D&D within 6 months of 3.5 being released. They had lots of mock examples to back them up. When 3.0 came out, people said that the 'new' strength modifiers to attack/damage would make the game unplayable. They had plenty of examples of how things were 'broken' because they changed the balance of power between PCs and monsters.In the end, these types of analysis result in confusion, misinformation and frustration. Those problems are reflected back into other threads and create more and more flawed statements. That is a lot of wasted time and effort.Why does it matter to me if people spend time doing this type of analysis? Why can't I just ignore those threads and read threads on the subjects where that analysis is not being used? Because people take their conclusions and apply them everywhere. In a thread on tactics that a melee fighter might use when attacking a creature with high movement, you'll start seeing people quote threads like this one with statements like, "Only an idiot players a fighter. Barbarians kick a fighter's butt, so nobody worth listening to plays a fighter. So stop wasting time talking about how to move fast in heavy armor!" *Sigh* So much for brevity.These types of analysis are misleading and incomplete because there are FAR too many things to consider. The only effective way to compare them is to put them in a game environment and see if they both work in that environment.</blockquote>

Verification