D&D 4E Paizo and 4e - Vive le Revolution!

[GVDammerung]

I'm seeing a lot of completely useless results from self-selecting groups comprising terrible sample sizes and answering questions that may or may not bias the responses. I vote in polls here, but all they tell us is how the few people who vote in ENWorld polls on subjects they are personally interested in feel about the subject. The error term on any conclusion you draw would be big enough to have its own gravity well, with unwary statisticians trapped in orbit around it.

All data is useful. Some is simply better. But that doesn't make less than ideal samplings worthless. ENWorld can be said to represent _a_ hardcore group of gamers. A such, even if the sampling is far from perfect, it still has relevance. It should just should not be read as more than what it is. At the same time, it is not worthless when so read.

 

[Nellisir]

All data is useful. Some is simply better. But that doesn't make less than ideal samplings worthless. ENWorld can be said to represent _a_ hardcore group of gamers. A such, even if the sampling is far from perfect, it still has relevance. It should just should not be read as more than what it is. At the same time, it is not worthless when so read.

Couldn't we just have one thread on polling, and how it's good/bad/worthless/invaluable and we're a representative/nonrepresentative sample of the gaming population, and link to that thread every time it comes up in other discussions? We'd have saved at least a page in this thread alone.

Think of the digital trees!

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I'm inclined to believe EN World is, if anything, inclined towards grognardism, though.

I find it amusing how often the term "grognard" is being thrown around EN World since the announcement of 4e.

Heh heh.

Liking 3.5 and not wanting 4e doesn't really make you a "grognard", folks. Just sayin'.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

All data is useful.

Imagine the wonderful thread derailing debate we could have over just this little statement alone!!!

 

[Celebrim]

Liking 3.5 and not wanting 4e doesn't really make you a "grognard", folks. Just sayin'.

Well, I've got salt in my beard, copies of the 1st edition rule books with split spines and illustrations done over with colored pencil, and a tendency to mutter to myself. Just sayin'.

 

[tensen]

I won't quibble over what percentage constitutes a "split" but I will say this -

IF 1/3rd OF D&D PLAYERS DON'T SWITCH TO 4E THEN:

1) 4e IS TOAST; and
2) THERE IS A VIABLE 3X MARKET AFTER 4e IS RELEASED.

I don't believe either of that is a guarenteed.
1) If 2/3 of the current D&D players switch... that means a heck of a lot of Player's Handbooks get purchased right off the bat. Numerically they'd probably have designed their sales figures to account for a very small percentage of the overall total to switch in the first year. Since the growth over time is what is generally expected.
2) If 1/3 of the market stayed at 3x and continued to buy products, then yes there is a market. However a great many of the people that are staying are doing so because they enjoy the system AND have more than enough products to last them for a good long time. Many of the folks staying won't buy enough products to make it a sustainable market for large companies. Of course that all depends on what become viable numbers for the companies that continue to produce for it.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Well, I've got salt in my beard, copies of the 1st edition rule books with split spines and illustrations done over with colored pencil, and a tendency to mutter to myself. Just sayin'.

Okay, YOU are a grognard, sir.

 

[Sunderstone]

I find it amusing how often the term "grognard" is being thrown around EN World since the announcement of 4e.

Aye, the in-crowd wants to make us feel old and outdated, then we see words like "evolve" and the "progression bus" cutesy terms.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Aye, the in-crowd wants to make us feel old and outdated, then we see words like "evolve" and the "progression bus" cutesy terms.

You know, that is one thing that has irritated me for years (long before 4e), how every time a company releases a new product that may or may not be an improvement, they describe it as "evolution", implying that all change is good and all new editions of a game are part of a natural progress curve moving steadily up towards utopia.

It's amazing how often this "evolve" nonsense is thrown out by defenders of new editions.

ME: Why do we need a 3.5? I just bought 3.0 three years ago!
THEM: Dude, the game evolves.

[huge, massive, disgusted eyeroll]

 

[Reynard]

It's amazing how often this "evolve" nonsense is thrown out by defenders of new editions.

Just remind them that evolution is an uncertain progress and sometimes a seemingly advanced species dies off when its particular, short lived ecological niche dries up and the species that originally spawned it, far older in geological terms, continues on only slightly the worse for wear from the short term upset.