Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7667359" data-attributes="member: 996">I know you want to believe that, but there's no support for it.&nbsp; At all.Pathfinder offered an alternate path for 3.5 fans.&nbsp; It had little to offer anyone else.&nbsp; 5e, OTOH, has a lot to offer long-time players who appreciated classic D&amp;D, is the only available alternative for 4e fans, and shouldn't exactly be repugnant to 3.5 fans.&nbsp; It does offer quite a bit of what 3e did, but without the 15 years of bloat.&nbsp;A statement like that can easily be interpreted many ways.&nbsp; How many more books.&nbsp; 1 the first year, a million the next?&nbsp; 10,000 the first year, 10,100 the next?&nbsp; Which books?&nbsp; I know you want to draw very specific conclusions from that statement, but the support isn't there.&nbsp; To be fair, WotC has done the same kind of thing /plenty/.&nbsp; When they refer to the playtest, they never give enough data to draw valid conclusions, just enough to jump to the one they want.&nbsp; Was the playtest successful?&nbsp; Oh, the initial sign-up was huge.&nbsp; Is 5e what the fans really wanted?&nbsp; Oh, by the end of the playtest surveys were showing strong approval.&nbsp; WotC happily announced that 3e, 4e, and 5e all launched with sales that were even better than they'd hoped for.It's what companies do.&nbsp; You can't go around saying 'our product kinda sucks...'&nbsp;I'm not.&nbsp; It's the available data.&nbsp; Is it inadequate?&nbsp; Yes, that's the important point.&nbsp; Does that mean the opposite of what is says must be true?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Does it mean the scenario you want to believe in isn't well-supported by the available data?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; &nbsp; Does it mean that scenario can't be correct?&nbsp; No.Does any of that matter:&nbsp; only to the degree that you need validation of your choice of Team Pathfinder over Team D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7667359, member: 996"] I know you want to believe that, but there's no support for it. At all. Pathfinder offered an alternate path for 3.5 fans. It had little to offer anyone else. 5e, OTOH, has a lot to offer long-time players who appreciated classic D&D, is the only available alternative for 4e fans, and shouldn't exactly be repugnant to 3.5 fans. It does offer quite a bit of what 3e did, but without the 15 years of bloat. A statement like that can easily be interpreted many ways. How many more books. 1 the first year, a million the next? 10,000 the first year, 10,100 the next? Which books? I know you want to draw very specific conclusions from that statement, but the support isn't there. To be fair, WotC has done the same kind of thing /plenty/. When they refer to the playtest, they never give enough data to draw valid conclusions, just enough to jump to the one they want. Was the playtest successful? Oh, the initial sign-up was huge. Is 5e what the fans really wanted? Oh, by the end of the playtest surveys were showing strong approval. WotC happily announced that 3e, 4e, and 5e all launched with sales that were even better than they'd hoped for. It's what companies do. You can't go around saying 'our product kinda sucks...' I'm not. It's the available data. Is it inadequate? Yes, that's the important point. Does that mean the opposite of what is says must be true? No. Does it mean the scenario you want to believe in isn't well-supported by the available data? Yes. Does it mean that scenario can't be correct? No. Does any of that matter: only to the degree that you need validation of your choice of Team Pathfinder over Team D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification