Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder sales

[prosfilaes]

Also means, "Lately, the conduct of the Pathfinder fans has been more conductive of civil discussion. Sadly, none has stepped up to this."

So yeah, exactly what I was complaining about, lumping all Pathfinder fans in a separate group as the other, instead of dealing with it personally, or lumping all roleplayers together.

That doesn't mean a person should take responsibility for any possible interpretation, especially if they're willing to clarify on what they meant.

"Good faith" means assuming that if someone is misinterpreting what you're saying, you probably weren't clear enough. "Good faith" means instead of replying with sarcasm or a non-apology apology, you say, maybe, "I guess I wasn't clear enough", or "I didn't write that right" or even "This is what I meant."

 

[Pentius]

So yeah, exactly what I was complaining about, lumping all Pathfinder fans in a separate group as the other, instead of dealing with it personally, or lumping all roleplayers together.

Except that Dannager and I have already explained why pathfinder fans are in a better position to handle this, in a way that has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with being honestly able to say "I don't like 4e either, but that was out of line." Lumping pathfinder fans in a group called "pathfinder fans" is not inflammatory, especially if one is not critical of liking pathfinder.

"Good faith" means assuming that if someone is misinterpreting what you're saying, you probably weren't clear enough. "Good faith" means instead of replying with sarcasm or a non-apology apology, you say, maybe, "I guess I wasn't clear enough", or "I didn't write that right" or even "This is what I meant."

Or it could mean clarifying when you've been misunderstood.
It definitely doesn't encompass lashing out based on your perceived interpretation, when you've been told that the statement meant something else.

 

[prosfilaes]

you're begging the question here,

I don't think so. I'm making an assertion without evidence to back it up, but that's different.

the assumption that tabletop D&D is the trunk of the D&D tree is a genetic fallacy.

? Then what is the trunk?

Looking at the products, everything is based off the RPG. The settings came first as RPG material, and then the other material was based off it, in same cases straight forward translations (like the video game The Template of Elemental Evil.)

Except for the first movie (and possible the second; I haven't seen it.) And one of the big complaints, brand-wise, about the first movie is that it wasn't connected to any of the other stuff that is D&D, which tends to hurt the value of a brand.

Yeah, I don't think so. I've never read an X-Men or a Spider-Man or a Batman comic in my life. You have to realize that hundreds of millions of people watch these movies, yet a really popular comic won't even move 100,000 units.

Were comics once the core? Absolutely. They created the initial awareness on which later products have capitalized. Will that awareness magically disappear if the comics cease to exist? Nope. It's there, and as long as it continues to be cultivated in some form, it's not going anywhere.

Two things. Maybe X-Men can move from comics to movies, but they haven't; the movies are still built off of the events in the comic books. Even so, D&D hasn't come close. If you ask random people about D&D, they'll talk about roleplayers. There's nothing to tie the D&D brand together except the RPG.

Secondly, I don't think the numbers matter that much. What matters is where your creative people are working and where your hardcore fans are. The new ideas for the X-Men are coming out of the comics into the movies and other licensed products, and all the hardcore X-Men fans consider them the base line. Those fans light the fires for the movies.

If the RPG goes under, the D&D brand will have all the respect of Atari; it'll be a name people stick on stuff that has nothing to do with the real Atari back in the day. Maybe if they can fire up the MMORPG, they can make it the new creative base and the new hard-core fan base. Otherwise, it'll mean nothing (just like it did in the first movie) and will quickly die out.

 

[Dannager]

That's the classic form of a non-apology apology. Some people consider that ruder then saying nothing at all.

It was far kinder than many of the other things I considered saying. But, again, I do like to keep things civil.

"Huh, it had been a few days since I'd heard a Pathfinder fan celebrating the imagined failure of a game they don't play."

You're free to demonstrate how that blames all Pathfinder fans for anything.

Here's an exercise for you: Replace "Pathfinder fan" with "person" in the passage you quoted above, and the ask yourself if the resultant sentence ("Huh, it had been a few days since I'd heard a person celebrating the imagined failure of a game they don't play,") blames all persons for anything.

No, provided you say it once and step out. But sitting there nitpicking the other people's evidence and repeatedly asserting your own position evidenceless is uncivil.

I'm "nitpicking" other people's evidence because there are problems with them using that evidence to draw the conclusions they are drawing. I am asserting my own position "evidenceless" because I don't really care about proving my stance's truth value to others.

Dannager, please consider that your words may not come across to others as you want to them to,

I believe that my words come across the way I intend when approached with a reasonable mindset, as evidenced by the fact that Pentius both understood exactly what I was saying and was able to reiterate it. If you come into any reading of my words with a mindset of "Dannager is wrong and everything he says is extreme," then you will certainly end up misunderstanding what I am saying to you.

but ultimately you're responsible for the words you wrote.

Darn right I am.

One of the things I'm getting annoyed at is your way of never taking responsibility for what you wrote.

When you're in a discussion with someone and they misunderstand what you say, the way you take responsibility for what you have said is to willingly clarify your words until the other person understands them. I believe I've made every reasonable effort (and beyond) to do just that for you, so I don't think that you have any room to accuse me of not taking responsibility for my own words. You will kindly refrain from that sort of accusation, here.

 

[Dannager]

Two things. Maybe X-Men can move from comics to movies, but they haven't; the movies are still built off of the events in the comic books.

That's because penning the movie based on a comic storyline is simply good business. It's a ready-made storyline that has already been tested on an audience (via its comic publication) in such a way that the guys in charge know the story is solid (they know which of their comics was most popular and can use that information to determine which stories get told in movie form). It's also a way of catering to your hardcore fanbase without losing mass-market appeal; the mass-market doesn't care about the comic book story lines one way or the other, but the hardcore enjoy seeing something they've read about recreated on the big screen.

The source of your inspiration doesn't necessarily define your business model.

 

[Shemeska]

The problem is we don't know how many of the DDi subscribers are hidden from us by not signing up for a forum account.

Cheers!

I was pretty sure that the system now automatically creates an account for the forums when you create a DDI membership, and that account is automatically added into the DDI member group's statistics. Thus the figure of Insider group members on the forums isn't so much a lower bound of the actual subscriber number, but an upper bound since it doesn't wholly reflect people who cancel their accounts (in that there's a short amount of lag time before they're removed).

 

[Pentius]

If all the D&D players in the world vanished, D&D wouldn't be all that valuable at all. The ancillary material grows off the trunk; no matter how little of the tree is trunk, you can't cut off the trunk.

You're probably right, except that the original quote wasn't about players, it was about BOOKS. I'd still be a D&D4e fan even if all my books were taken away. In fact, I know that to be true, because when I broke up with an ex some years ago, she took my books(this is the problem with dating other gamers), and it was simply too much trouble to get them back as opposed to rebuying them. I remained a D&D4e fan.

 

[Pentius]

I was pretty sure that the system now automatically creates an account for the forums when you create a DDI membership, and that account is automatically added into the DDI member group's statistics. Thus the figure of Insider group members on the forums isn't so much a lower bound of the actual subscriber number, but an upper bound since it doesn't wholly reflect people who cancel their accounts (in that there's a short amount of lag time before they're removed).

I'd love to test this sometime, sadly my DDi account is already connected to a WotC forums account.

 

[prosfilaes]

It was far kinder than many of the other things I considered saying. But, again, I do like to keep things civil.

So a tacit insult and some self boosting.

You're free to demonstrate how that blames all Pathfinder fans for anything.

Here's an exercise for you: Replace "Pathfinder fan" with "person" in the passage you quoted above, and the ask yourself if the resultant sentence ("Huh, it had been a few days since I'd heard a person celebrating the imagined failure of a game they don't play,") blames all persons for anything.

"Huh, it had been a few days since I'd heard a Pathfinder fan celebrating the imagined failure of a game they don't play.

I'd been starting to think that maybe they'd cleaned up their act."

That clearly implies that Pathfinder fans need to clean up their act. It clearly assigns group blame to Pathfinder fans.

Here's an exercise for you: replace "Pathfinder fan" with "black person" or "woman".

I am asserting my own position "evidenceless" because I don't really care about proving my stance's truth value to others.

Then don't assert it. If you really don't care, then don't mention it. Claiming in a thread about whether or not Pathfinder had better sales that D&D obviously won is obnoxious.

the way you take responsibility for what you have said is to willingly clarify your words until the other person understands them.

That frequently doesn't work. Many politicians have found out that no matter how much you clarify "segregation forever!", your anti-segregation voters still don't get that you didn't really mean anything by it. When you've said something offensive, you can "clarify" it as much as you want, it still won't mollify the other people. Sometimes the way you take responsibility is to accept that you said what you said.

You will kindly refrain from that sort of accusation, here.

And here's Dannager ordering people around; no doubt he'll claim that the form of the words negates the meaning of them.

 

[Dannager]

So a tacit insult and some self boosting.

If you say so.

"Huh, it had been a few days since I'd heard a Pathfinder fan celebrating the imagined failure of a game they don't play.

I'd been starting to think that maybe they'd cleaned up their act."

That clearly implies that Pathfinder fans need to clean up their act.

It clearly assigns group blame to Pathfinder fans.

I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. It's clear that other people understood exactly what I was saying. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince a brick wall it's red.