No. You don't.
This is where the logic train tragically derails and never makes it to understandable conclusion station. The plural of anecdotes is not "data." The plural of anecdotes is "more anecdotes."
Is Wotc Slipping?
- Thread starter Stormonu
- Start date
- Status
No. You don't.
This is where the logic train tragically derails and never makes it to understandable conclusion station. The plural of anecdotes is not "data." The plural of anecdotes is "more anecdotes."
ProfCirno, there was a long discussion between Pawsplay and Obryn (I think) about the anecdotes vs data thing on another of these recent "WotC and/or industry in crisis" threads.
Pawsplay was taking roughly the same line as Aberzanzorax. Obryn was taking roughly the same line as you.
I'm not trained as a statistician or natural scientist, but as a lawyer, philosopher and social theorist. So I'm not really qualified to have an opinion on how, if at all, one goes about generalising from these ad hoc, self-selected comments here and there.
But I do think that sometimes decisions have to be made on the basis of partial and incomplete information, and that sometimes such decisions can be more or less rational. A current example (which I'll try to state without falling foul of the "no politics" rule) - as far as I know no one has statistically significant data (eg of the Gallup poll variety) on the degree of popular support, among Libyans, either for the current government or the rebels who are fighting them. But nevertheless a number of governments, including mine (ie the Australian government) have formed a hypothesis about where popular support might best be seen to lie. And a lot of ordinary but thoughtful people have also similarly formed such hypotheses - and at least among the Australian intelligentsia I think they mostly lean the same way as does the government.
I'm not sure what, if anything, follows from this general point, to be applicable to the issue of support for game systems. I am surely one of the strongest proponents of the merits of 4e on these boards, but looking at WotC's apparent dithering and back-and-forth on its design, marketing and product release plans doesn't give me the impression of a well-oiled machine proceeding smoothly to it's desired destination. And all the other stuff I hear about Paizo and Pathfinder tends to push in the same direction.
I don't think that WotC is about to abandon D&D or anything like that - they're sinking a lot of effort into DDI, it seems, and presumably have Magic and other revenues to cross-subsidise if necessary in any transitional period. But I find it hard to believe that they're doing as well as they hoped they would be at the time of the 4e launch.
Pawsplay was taking roughly the same line as Aberzanzorax. Obryn was taking roughly the same line as you.
I'm not trained as a statistician or natural scientist, but as a lawyer, philosopher and social theorist. So I'm not really qualified to have an opinion on how, if at all, one goes about generalising from these ad hoc, self-selected comments here and there.
But I do think that sometimes decisions have to be made on the basis of partial and incomplete information, and that sometimes such decisions can be more or less rational. A current example (which I'll try to state without falling foul of the "no politics" rule) - as far as I know no one has statistically significant data (eg of the Gallup poll variety) on the degree of popular support, among Libyans, either for the current government or the rebels who are fighting them. But nevertheless a number of governments, including mine (ie the Australian government) have formed a hypothesis about where popular support might best be seen to lie. And a lot of ordinary but thoughtful people have also similarly formed such hypotheses - and at least among the Australian intelligentsia I think they mostly lean the same way as does the government.
I'm not sure what, if anything, follows from this general point, to be applicable to the issue of support for game systems. I am surely one of the strongest proponents of the merits of 4e on these boards, but looking at WotC's apparent dithering and back-and-forth on its design, marketing and product release plans doesn't give me the impression of a well-oiled machine proceeding smoothly to it's desired destination. And all the other stuff I hear about Paizo and Pathfinder tends to push in the same direction.
I don't think that WotC is about to abandon D&D or anything like that - they're sinking a lot of effort into DDI, it seems, and presumably have Magic and other revenues to cross-subsidise if necessary in any transitional period. But I find it hard to believe that they're doing as well as they hoped they would be at the time of the 4e launch.
Last edited:
TheAuldGrump
First Post
*Sigh* Anecdotal evidence is still data, especially in any situation where perception can influence reality.
It is not weighed as heavily as empirical evidence, but it is weighed. And given the lack of reliable statistics, and the tendency to disregard what little *cough* Amazon *cough, cough* statistical evidence that we do have....
Trying to say otherwise is whistling into the wind. Folks may feel better for the whisltlin' but it ain't gonna carry far.
The Auld Grump
It is not weighed as heavily as empirical evidence, but it is weighed. And given the lack of reliable statistics, and the tendency to disregard what little *cough* Amazon *cough, cough* statistical evidence that we do have....
Trying to say otherwise is whistling into the wind. Folks may feel better for the whisltlin' but it ain't gonna carry far.
The Auld Grump
Hussar
Legend
The problem comes, TheAuldGrump, when people start making conclusions based on anecdotes.
Can we say that Pathfinder and Paizo's doing pretty well? Sure, I don't think anyone would disagree here. Can we say that WOTC is probably not doing as well as it might? Again, indications in that direction seem strong.
But, beyond that, it's all hearsay and guesswork. How much has the player base split? The answer will depend an awful lot on how you feel about the game. And that applies equally to both sides of the divide. How much ground has WOTC lost? Again, we have no real idea, just gut feelings.
I look at it this way. The following questions cannot be answered right now:
1. How many current D&D (in any form) gamers are there?
2. How many of those are playing which edition?
3. How has this changed over time?
Since no one is forthcoming with answers to any of those, any opinions are about as accurate as a Magic 8 Ball. Without answers to the very basic questions, we can't even begin to make any sort of conclusions.
For all I know, Paizo could control 99% of the market. I don't know. I doubt it, but, I certainly couldn't prove it one way or another. It could be that WOTC is pulling in massive amounts of cash with DDI that we're just not seeing because it's totally internal. Again, I have no idea and neither does anyone else in this thread.
Can we say that Pathfinder and Paizo's doing pretty well? Sure, I don't think anyone would disagree here. Can we say that WOTC is probably not doing as well as it might? Again, indications in that direction seem strong.
But, beyond that, it's all hearsay and guesswork. How much has the player base split? The answer will depend an awful lot on how you feel about the game. And that applies equally to both sides of the divide. How much ground has WOTC lost? Again, we have no real idea, just gut feelings.
I look at it this way. The following questions cannot be answered right now:
1. How many current D&D (in any form) gamers are there?
2. How many of those are playing which edition?
3. How has this changed over time?
Since no one is forthcoming with answers to any of those, any opinions are about as accurate as a Magic 8 Ball. Without answers to the very basic questions, we can't even begin to make any sort of conclusions.
For all I know, Paizo could control 99% of the market. I don't know. I doubt it, but, I certainly couldn't prove it one way or another. It could be that WOTC is pulling in massive amounts of cash with DDI that we're just not seeing because it's totally internal. Again, I have no idea and neither does anyone else in this thread.
I think this is a different question from the one about how the different firms are doing commercially (although obviously it is related in various ways). That is because the player base is about playing, whereas the commercial prospects of the firm depends upon purchasing (including completism, as someone - Erik Mona? - noted upthread).
Because of the comparative ease of monster building in 4e, and also the fact that spell casters can't benefit from ever-longer lists of spells, and also the fact that multi-classing does not involve actually taking a level of another class, it seems at least conceivable that 4e would generate less demand for supplements that essentially add to the lists - be they lists of monsters, or of classes, or of spells - than does 3E or even AD&D.
It therefore seems conceivable that 4e, moreso perhaps than 3E, would be more likely to enjoy a non-purchasing player base.
Anyway, in general terms I agree with you that anything beyond picking fairly obvious trends is highly speculative. My only point is that speculating about player bases is even more speculative than speculating about commercial trends.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
I disagree, but only to degree - while folks are making guesses some are making informed guesses.
My problem, however, is with folks who completely disregard anecdotal evidence, which for sales is generally a bad idea, or even go so far as to dismiss sales figures that disagree with their perceptions (Amazon being a case in point).
It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la, I can't hear you!' It is robbing yourself of a data point, no matter how small.
A related problem, and one that I have been guilty of, is to either overly regard or disregard local sales. Neither is good, and I have done both.
When I noticed that the local Borders was selling more Pathfinder than 4e I assumed that it was a local phenomenon only. (I did confirm that it was at least a local occurrence however, not just my perception.) So I disregarded it, or mentioned it only as a local detail.
Then came similar reports from a widely spread area, contemporary to my own observations - meaning my assumption that local gamers were unusual was somewhat flawed to say the least. (I actually had taken some small amount of pride that my area was unusually discriminating in their tastes for RPGs.)
Later I forgot to allow for the fact that I have likely been skewing the local market in favor of PFRPG - I have been directing folks to the game, and have run games to introduce folks to the game. Enough so that when folks approached the manager at Borders about PFRPG he directed them, in turn, to me.
A given area's pool of gamers is likely small enough that a few outspoken enthusiasts can tilt the local buying habits one way or another, and I had forgotten that.
At this point there is no local store that is supporting Encounters, so there is no real counter to the folks that I have been pushing towards PFRPG and/or away from 4e.
If there is a widely held perception that WotC has dropped the ball then it is likely that they have, anecdotal evidence or not. The real question is 'to what degree does this affect the game?'
Personally, I suspect that those shouting 'endgame!' are just as wrong as those folks yelling ''tain't so!'. While WotC may have dropped there is still plenty of time on the clock.
Me, I'd like to know why Essentials did not do as well as I expected, what piece of evidence I missed.
The Auld Grump
Stacie GmrGrl
Adventurer
Everyweek the FLGS where I live gets a shipment of at least 2 or 3 PF core books, ditto for APG, 1 to 2 Beastiaries, lately 3 to 4o Beasitary 2s, and they ALL sell out in four days and repeat. They have NOT sold a D&D4e book beyond Tiles in two months. The owner and manager have told me this. I go there often. 
I'm not saying this is the same across the country, just noting how its going here in my local Oregon area.
I'm not saying this is the same across the country, just noting how its going here in my local Oregon area.
Last edited:
Erudite Frog
First Post
I guess threads like these show people really care about Wizards, yes? I see so many people replying and posting. And, you cant say it is just caring about D&D, because D&D and Wizards are the same. We even have a Pathfinder big-wig replying!
Dannager
First Post
Everyweek the FLGS where I live gets a shipment of at least 2 or 3 PF core books, ditto for APG, 1 to 2 Beastiaries, lately 3 to 4o Beasitary 2s, and they ALL sell out in four days and repeat. They have NOT sold a D&D4e book beyond Tiles in two months. The owner and manager have told me this. I go there often.
I'm not saying this is the same across the country, just noting how its going here in my local Oregon area.
This sounds very, very odd to me.
Your FLGS is selling through the same dozen or so Pathfinder books every single week, and not selling any 4e books? I'm having a really hard time imagining how this could be the case, unless your local Pathfinder community is tremendous (like, amazingly, hugely huge) or your owner/manager are feeding you false info.
Erudite Frog
First Post
Same here, this sounds very odd.
- Status
