Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Paramount+ Will Not Proceed with Dungeons & Dragons Live-Action TV Show
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9377117" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>How so? Who have I said are the conspirators, and what have I said they're trying to accomplish?</p><p></p><p>Again, having a partisan interest in the conclusions they're presenting is not an accusation of lying. Just like with the difference between skepticism and mistrust, there are critical shades of difference which you're not acknowledging. (That's leaving aside that WotC is being presented as a singular entity in this context, and not as any sort of group.)</p><p></p><p>I'll point out that both of those things which you've posited, i.e. "'WotC has a vested interest in lying to us, so we should dismiss their numbers outright unless they release the full data" and "a conspiracy," are misrepresentations of my point. As I noted above, having a partisan interest in something is not the same as calling someone a liar; it can simply be that they're falling subject to confirmation bias, or are presenting the truth in a manner that's most favorable to them, or any number of other things that compromise the integrity of their conclusions to some degree without actually telling an untruth.</p><p></p><p>Nuance and distinctions aren't things to be glossed over; they're important.</p><p></p><p>No, they're a conclusion, and we're not being told how that conclusion was reached. As such, I'm not "dismissing" it, but am saying that I haven't been given sufficient reason not to be skeptical of it.</p><p></p><p>No, it's not. I'm saying that the conclusions we've been presented with haven't shown their work, and as such it can't be determined whether or not those conclusions are accurate. Calling that a "rejection" is a misnomer (let alone "wholesale").</p><p></p><p>Why 2 or 3, specifically? Are you saying you know for certain that it <em>can't</em> be 4 or 5? If so, how do you know that? Because if you <em>don't</em> know that for certain, then you have to entertain the possibility that it <em>could</em> be 4 or 5 points off. At which point you'd need to admit it could be 6 or 7 points off, or 9 or 10 points off, etc. That's skepticism in a nutshell, and is why we shouldn't take what we're being told at face value.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9377117, member: 8461"] How so? Who have I said are the conspirators, and what have I said they're trying to accomplish? Again, having a partisan interest in the conclusions they're presenting is not an accusation of lying. Just like with the difference between skepticism and mistrust, there are critical shades of difference which you're not acknowledging. (That's leaving aside that WotC is being presented as a singular entity in this context, and not as any sort of group.) I'll point out that both of those things which you've posited, i.e. "'WotC has a vested interest in lying to us, so we should dismiss their numbers outright unless they release the full data" and "a conspiracy," are misrepresentations of my point. As I noted above, having a partisan interest in something is not the same as calling someone a liar; it can simply be that they're falling subject to confirmation bias, or are presenting the truth in a manner that's most favorable to them, or any number of other things that compromise the integrity of their conclusions to some degree without actually telling an untruth. Nuance and distinctions aren't things to be glossed over; they're important. No, they're a conclusion, and we're not being told how that conclusion was reached. As such, I'm not "dismissing" it, but am saying that I haven't been given sufficient reason not to be skeptical of it. No, it's not. I'm saying that the conclusions we've been presented with haven't shown their work, and as such it can't be determined whether or not those conclusions are accurate. Calling that a "rejection" is a misnomer (let alone "wholesale"). Why 2 or 3, specifically? Are you saying you know for certain that it [I]can't[/I] be 4 or 5? If so, how do you know that? Because if you [I]don't[/I] know that for certain, then you have to entertain the possibility that it [I]could[/I] be 4 or 5 points off. At which point you'd need to admit it could be 6 or 7 points off, or 9 or 10 points off, etc. That's skepticism in a nutshell, and is why we shouldn't take what we're being told at face value. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Paramount+ Will Not Proceed with Dungeons & Dragons Live-Action TV Show
Top