Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6206242" data-attributes="member: 2525">If it's reality, then you believe people would answer that they don't change fluff text for monster fluff they dislike.  That's a critical element to you thinking it's reality.  So, why your unwillingness to back up your belief about reality by betting that would be the result of a poll?The only logical explanation is, you don't believe it's reality.  Unless you can propose another logical explanation for you believing reality = X, but being unwilling to bet a test of that reality would result in X.It's an honest criticism because we have empirical data to draw on the question.  For 0D&D, BECIM, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, 3.0e, 3.5e, Pathfinder, 4e, and a playtest of 5e, we have a very large set of data.  And all of that data says that when people don't like the fluff text for a monster, they don't simply follow that fluff text by default, they change it.  Sometimes they change it with a houserule - and those instances directly refute your claim as your claim is that would almost never happen.  Other times they choose the fluff text from a different version of the game, which is no harm unless they actually switch to playing a game made by a competitor.  And other times they change the fluff text to that found in an alternate setting book or article that is part of the game as it expands with additional books - which again is no harm.  But one thing we know for certain, with all this empirical data, is that PEOPLE DON'T USUALLY JUST FOLLOW FLUFF TEXT THEY DON'T LIKE BY DEFAULT.  That is genuine real criticism of your contention.  And using empirical data to disprove a claim is....SCIENCE! So you see, I can't be wrong, because I am using science to refute your claim (and now you know how frigging annoying your prior comments about "it's science so it must be true" were, as if psych social science that applies to situation X equally applies to situations Y Z and every other letter of the alphabet, and nobody can challenge it because, "Science!"). Your theory is that, given the option to check a box, or not check a box, people don't default to selecting the option.  The whole idea that people would choose another option when presented flies in the face of your theory.  You think if people had three check boxes on their drivers license, one for donate organs, one for donate organs AND blood, and one for donate but only to a family member, that people would choose an option? No, they'd still not choose any option by default, because of the nature of the question being passive and not imminent and not a direct impact.  If your theory were true, people would still just default to whatever is in the book, even if there was another option somewhere else to choose.  But, your theory isn't true for D&D.Rejecting it is changing it.  If the theory were true, they'd almost all accept it.  That's the default option.  That's not a default, that's a change.  If your theory were true, they'd have accepted what was written in the book.  Why are we even debating this, you already know your theory doesn't hold up anymore.Whatever you put there is, by definition, the default according to your theory.  Even if you say "some are like this", your theory says people will almost always go with that anyway.  What is the point of saying every single time "this is just an option" when ALL of them are just an option and according to you people take what's written by default anyway?I say lets do this poll.  Lets all see you tell people they're wrong when they say they houserule fluff text for monster descriptions they don't like, because science says they can't be telling the truth.</blockquote>

Verification