Open Letter to WotC from Chris Dias

[renau1g]

Huh?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CPwOOK4nEM]YouTube - I Love Lamp![/ame]

 

[lrsach01]

As a contrary data point, I'll note that I've sold very little of WotBS at Paizo - so I'd guess their marketing is centered around their own brand. That's totally reasonable, though.

Is it possible that the reason you haven't sold many copies has nothing to do with marketing? Some other reasons:

1. WotBS is either D20 or 4e and not Pathfinder. Given a choice of adventure paths, one made with the Rathfinder rules and no need to convert will probably get the dollar.
2. WotBS is not a new product for d20 and the rush of d20 buyers has past.
3. EN Publishing is prominent in all WotBS material so prospective buyers go THERE rather than Paizo.

I certainly bought WotBS long ago through ENWorld and not Paizo MAINLY because I'm an ENWorld reader. I read about the product HERE and followed the supplied links HERE.

When I go to Paizo's site, I see whatever they are pushing that day... and it DOES change daily. I don't know how they choose what is on the front page but I do know that it's not always... maybe not even usually, their own products. Of course, the "PATHFINDER" banners mitigate that fact.

 

[czak]

I believe Lisa Stevens picks the front page products and the terrible puns for the headlines

 

[TheAuldGrump]

YouTube - I Love Lamp!

Heh, my brain was still stuck on Steampunk cookery - I was thinking that lamp stood for lamprey. (Which is actually pretty good - meatier tasting than many eels, a bit salmony when smoked.)

The Auld Grump

 

[billd91]

No, no matter how many anecdotes you compile, it's not data. It's just a collection of anecdotes.

Rigor and control in obtaining data is crucial. Anecdotes have neither, no matter how many of them you compile. Methodology is everything; without proper methodology, all of your data is suspect. An experiment is not an anecdote; it's a strictly controlled set of measurements and conditions.

Rigor and control are important in collecting data for statistical analysis, but let's not misuse the term anecdote (something this thread has already been doing). If a publisher reports that his PF version of product A is selling better than his 4e version of product A, presuming he actually knows his sales information, that's not an anecdote. That is data.
We can use this information in either an anecdotal fashion or treat them in a rigorous fashion through additional data handling and collection.

EDIT: Guess I should have read ahead more, I've largely been ninjaed - but reading through the thread the tossing around of anecdote was getting to me...

 

[pawsplay]

But it's also silly to argue that the best available information is sufficient simply because it's the best information we have.

So you are saying the best available information is insufficient. What do you mean by insufficient? You can wish it were anything you like, but if it's the best information you have, it's the best you have. This is not an arbitrary puzzle. Whether or not you are satisifed with data points being discussed, it is simply true that people are going to discuss and make decisions about the future of the industry based on the information at hand.

If you simply refuse to draw a conclusion, that itself is a significant decision.

This whole debate is because you argued that a collection of anecdotes is the same thing as data. It's not, and never is.

I'm sticking with the line: "The plural of anecdote is data." You can claim that no data can be drawn from a raw source of information that includes anecdotes, but it doesn't make sense to me, and until you can explain how that can possibly be true, rather than asserting it, you're going to sound crazy to me. It just doesn't make sense. Anything could be data, if looked at rigorously.

Research, surely, means analyzing data, not manufacturing it.

But there's also a range of options that adhere to more rigorous standards of evidence than collecting convenient stories from people you know. These standards of evidence are necessary precisely because of peoples' biases.

You are welcome to conjecture how so many sales sources have managed to produce the same "bias."

 

[Marius Delphus]

What seems to be missing from all this is something kind of basic, I think:

What is the hypothesis to be proved, and how strong is the evidence that the hypothesis is true or false?

For example, if the hypothesis is "extraterrestrials kidnapped me," no number of anecdotes from me or anyone else is going to suffice to prove that hypothesis to a reasonable degree of certainty. Something stronger would, and should, be required.

However, if the hypothesis is "I believe extraterrestrials kidnapped me," my word in the matter should be enough to prove the hypothesis. Of course, some may wonder why I believe such a thing, that corresponds to no known physical fact....

[EDIT: And it's okay to reserve judgment, to say that the jury's still out on a given hypothesis, when no evidence is strong enough to either confirm or deny the hypothesis. Really. If we don't know something, then we don't know it.]

 

[TheAuldGrump]

What seems to be missing from all this is something kind of basic, I think:

What is the hypothesis to be proved, and how strong is the evidence that the hypothesis is true or false?

For example, if the hypothesis is "extraterrestrials kidnapped me," no number of anecdotes from me or anyone else is going to suffice to prove that hypothesis to a reasonable degree of certainty. Something stronger would, and should, be required.

However, if the hypothesis is "I believe extraterrestrials kidnapped me," my word in the matter should be enough to prove the hypothesis. Of course, some may wonder why I believe such a thing, that corresponds to no known physical fact....

[EDIT: And it's okay to reserve judgment, to say that the jury's still out on a given hypothesis, when no evidence is strong enough to either confirm or deny the hypothesis. Really. If we don't know something, then we don't know it.]

That's okay, I believe aliens kidnapped you, even if nobody else does.



The Auld Grump, while it is true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I doubt that the claim that D&D is not making as much money as it could is in any way extraordinary....

 

[Obryn]

Rigor and control are important in collecting data for statistical analysis, but let's not misuse the term anecdote (something this thread has already been doing). If a publisher reports that his PF version of product A is selling better than his 4e version of product A, presuming he actually knows his sales information, that's not an anecdote. That is data.
We can use this information in either an anecdotal fashion or treat them in a rigorous fashion through additional data handling and collection.

EDIT: Guess I should have read ahead more, I've largely been ninjaed - but reading through the thread the tossing around of anecdote was getting to me...

No, I agree 100% that sales figures can be a great data point.

However, I think it's important to get a good sample of those sales figures - simple spontaneous volunteering of information from publishers on websites poses some population bias concerns - but sales figures can be great data.

So you are saying the best available information is insufficient. What do you mean by insufficient? You can wish it were anything you like, but if it's the best information you have, it's the best you have. This is not an arbitrary puzzle. Whether or not you are satisifed with data points being discussed, it is simply true that people are going to discuss and make decisions about the future of the industry based on the information at hand.

If you simply refuse to draw a conclusion, that itself is a significant decision.

Right, it will be discussed, and if it doesn't meet any standards of evidence, that will likely be discussed, too.

I'm sticking with the line: "The plural of anecdote is data." You can claim that no data can be drawn from a raw source of information that includes anecdotes, but it doesn't make sense to me, and until you can explain how that can possibly be true, rather than asserting it, you're going to sound crazy to me. It just doesn't make sense. Anything could be data, if looked at rigorously.

Research, surely, means analyzing data, not manufacturing it.

Again, it's not whether or not your data "includes anecdotes." It's how that information is collected. The methodology is what's important, not whether or not your methodology picked up data in the form of narratives or what you'd colloquially call anecdotes. I think you're missing this critical distinction, and I don't know if I can explain it any other way.

You are welcome to conjecture how so many sales sources have managed to produce the same "bias."

No, I actually have little doubt about this specific case that most publishers show low sales of 4e 3rd party products.

Conjectures as to why this is happening are what's generally unsupported. I also think it's an open question whether or not a thriving 3pp community would help WotC's sales.

You could do a survey of gamers and try and find out - but a survey of gamers who visit game stores or gamers who visit various forum sites is going to display population bias almost by default.

It's your generalized statement that "anecdotes in quantity = data" that I am objecting to.

-O

 

[pawsplay]

Again, it's not whether or not your data "includes anecdotes." It's how that information is collected. The methodology is what's important, not whether or not your methodology picked up data in the form of narratives or what you'd colloquially call anecdotes. I think you're missing this critical distinction, and I don't know if I can explain it any other way.

I think you're clear enough, I just can't a discern a point, other than, "I hate what you are saying."

No, I actually have little doubt about this specific case that most publishers show low sales of 4e 3rd party products.

So ... are you saying that in this case anecodates = data, or are you saying you're making a decision based on no data? And what would Karl Popper say?

Conjectures as to why this is happening are what's generally unsupported.

Not sure what this has to be do with our discussion, but you could be right.

I also think it's an open question whether or not a thriving 3pp community would help WotC's sales.

It is. Of course, it's probably going to be difficult to answer that question if you throw out any evidence you don't like.

You could do a survey of gamers and try and find out - but a survey of gamers who visit game stores or gamers who visit various forum sites is going to display population bias almost by default.

They probably don't know what they want anyway.

It's your generalized statement that "anecdotes in quantity = data" that I am objecting to.

-O

Object away. I have William James on my side. Also, as has been pointed out, you're equivocating on the term "anecdote." An anecdote can be a short account of something. It can also be an unsubstantiated story. It's true, unsubstantiated stories are poor evidence, and hence "anecdotal evidence" is not considered a good source of data. However, it is not true that short accounts of things are inherently poor evidence. I have no reason to doubt the answers I was given.

Did I make the argument that all anecdotes in quantity = quality data? No, I did not. I simply indicated that in some informal surveys, the data I received suggested something. You seem to agree, funnily enough.

What do you want, Obryn? If you're waiting for me to retract my philosophical position, you're going to be waiting a long time. I've had several classes on advanced research, and I briefly minored in Philosophy. If my professors couldn't cure me of my ignorance, I doubt you can. Are you trying to convince me that I shouldn't believe what I've heard? That seems odd, since you seem to believe it provisionally yourself. Are you trying to argue on behalf of the scientific method? I am myself a scientist, but we are not discussing a clinical study. If you just don't like the sentence, "The plural of anecdote is data," you are not alone: the opposite is almost equally as popular a quotation. However, I reject the reactionary viewpoint.

Without our histories, that is, without our personal, subjective anecdotes, we have nothing at all. I think I think, therefore I think I am.

Less broadly, there is no reason I can discern to suspect the information under discussion means anything other than what it seems to: Pathfinder dominates 4e in the 3pp market. You may quibble with my approach to this conclusion, but if you agree with the conclusion, I am disinclined to join the quibble. If you say I am right, then I will say you are right, too. But if you say I am right, but for the wrong reasons, I am not going to justify my reasoning to you, because neither you nor I have much to gain from that. It is acceptable to me to be disunited in mind. My whole purpose in my remarks was to persuade someone, perhaps several people, to consider the case. Since you have now stated you agree with my original argument, my motivation to speak with you on etiology, at this time, at this place, has evaporated. I do not need to persuade you, and I do not care to be persuaded by you.